Category: Politics

Searching for Light

The succession of terrible events has hit me hard. The shooting at Brown University, the attack on Jews celebrating Hanukkah in Sydney, Australia, and the murder of Rob and Michelle Reiner combined to drive the cold, dark winter into my soul. As I lay in bed, I thought about the individuals who carried out these monstrous acts. I imagined peering into their hearts and minds, and what I saw frightened me. How does a person get to a place where they feel that this is their only alternative? How angry, aggrieved, hopeless must the person be? If it is mental illness, how does it get to that point? Is a person who commits any one of these acts, by definition, mentally ill? I don’t know how to process this.

I am always looking for solutions. I want to understand the problem and come up with a plan of action. I don’t know where to start.

I do have one idea, and that is more restrictive gun laws. As I wrote before, I would be more than willing to repeal the Second Amendment, though, despite the accumulation of mass shootings, Americans are not willing to go there. Obviously, restricting guns doesn’t address how the Reiners were murdered, but it might help limit mass shootings and suicides.

It also appears that we need to pay more attention to the intersection of mental illness and addiction. We have not successfully addressed, from either a medical or a policy perspective, how to help those who suffer from both. It appears that they feed each other and create a complex set of problems that are not easily solved despite the best efforts of parents, spouses, friends, or therapists. We need to commit resources to find answers; it is unlikely under the current administration.

None of this is helped by having a president so ill-equipped to empathize, so deficient in humanity. Every decision he and his administration make sends us in the wrong direction. In his offensive social media statement after the death of the Reiners, which struck the wrong note in every respect, he characterized someone who was murdered as having ‘passed away,’ which is just wrong. This may be a small point, especially relative to the larger issue, but using ‘passed away’ to describe what happened to Rob and Michelle Reiner is absurd. They didn’t pass away. People pass away from old age. I can accept the term in the context of illness, but when someone is violently killed and has their life abruptly cut short, they didn’t pass away. My mother passed away. She was in her 90’s, was in hospice care, and was ready.  But what would one expect from our President? He is devoid of decency or insight.

I watched the movie The Apprentice. It was about Trump’s ascension in New York City’s real estate scene. It came out in 2024 and starred Sebastian Stan and Jeremy Strong; both were nominated for Academy Awards for their performances. I’m not sure what motivated me to watch it – probably boredom – but given my disdain for Trump, it was an odd choice. I started watching, thinking I would probably turn it off after a few minutes, but I was surprised to find it very compelling. The apprentice in the title refers to Trump himself, not his television show. Trump was an acolyte of Roy Cohn, and the film follows Trump being taken under Cohn’s wing. If you don’t know who Roy Cohn is, all you need to know is that he was the attorney who supported Joe McCarthy’s witch hunt for communists in the 1950s. Cohn subscribed to a philosophy of gathering power at all costs – he didn’t believe in right and wrong. He pursued his own or his clients’ interests relentlessly without regard for ethics or morality.

In the movie, Trump is young, still unformed – he’s stumbling, trying to make deals and impress his difficult father. He is attracted to Cohn’s power. Over time, he adopts Cohn’s approach, perhaps more ruthlessly than Cohn could even imagine. I think the movie offers insight, which may or may not be accurate, into how Trump became the monster he is now. The movie ends long before he becomes president, but you see hints of what the future will bring.

It is challenging to integrate the terrible things that are happening in our world with the love and beauty I see and feel. This holiday season, I am trying not to let the dark overwhelm the light. It felt especially important to light our menorah in the window each night of Hanukkah. I want to be a light. I can’t ignore the dark – I can’t completely turn off the news or stay off social media. To me, that feels irresponsible, but I understand that some may need to do that for their mental health.

Despite the challenges we face, I hope folks can feel the love of family and friends, see the beauty in a sunset, enjoy a good meal, smile when they see a child giggle, and hold hope for the new year—wishing everyone a brighter, more joyful 2026.

Celebrating the light
or appreciating the beauty of snow on trees.

Reflections on Life in America: A Call to Action

We are driving south on the Thruway once again. Heading to New York City for the weekend. Gary will be going to see a Met game with our son on Saturday. I will find ways to amuse myself – not a difficult assignment in the City (in my heart the one and only city :)).

I am struck by the disconnect between my life and the world at large. It is a beautiful day. The green hills of the Catskills are showing hints of color as we approach fall, they still look green and lush. The air is clear, the is sky a cloudless, azure, and the sun is beaming. If I only look at the world right in front of me, it is lovely. But, I know better. If I cast a wider look I think of the tragedies around the world  (in Gaza, Israel, Ukraine, etc.), the crackdown on free speech, the unrelenting gun violence in our country, the degradation of our environment that leads to more and more natural disasters, the fear that immigrant families live with, the extraordinary corruption and lack of integrity of Donald Trump. Most of those realities don’t touch me directly. Not yet, anyway. I am fortunate. I can afford higher prices in the supermarket and at the gas pump. I already own a home. Gary and I have savings – hopefully enough to ensure a comfortable retirement. We are able to make these pleasant plans for the weekend.

I look at the cars streaming down the highway, wondering about the inhabitants. Are they like me, heading off to pleasant destinations? If they aren’t faced with serious illness or job loss/uncertainty, are they just taking things at face value, telling themselves, “It’s all good.”

I worry that people like me, who are in my economic situation more or less, can delude themselves that everything is okay. If your immediate family is okay – they are gainfully employed, aren’t married to immigrants, perhaps own homes, if their children are healthy – you can put your head down and ignore everything that is going in the wrong direction. They may not be paying attention to the larger picture. Maybe they don’t need Medicaid, maybe their employment isn’t impacted by federal budget cuts, maybe the confusion around vaccinations isn’t concerning if they aren’t immunocompromised, maybe they assume that since they have resources, their children and grandchildren will be protected.

But life is fragile, and things can change on a dime.

A mass shooting and/or random violence can strike anyone. A natural disaster can unmoor a whole family. Illness can change everything. We don’t have control over these things, for the most part, but when they happen, we hope to have support to get through it. Some things could help minimize the occurrences – gun control (or see my last essay on repealing the second amendment), more mental health services, steps to slow down climate change could help. But even if we can’t stop these things from happening, we can build supports to help us cope and knowing that support is there, can lessen the anxiety. The current attitude, though, is in the opposite direction. Our social safety net is being decimated. Cutting FEMA, loosening environmental regulations, reducing funding for mental health and pulling government resources from medical research are all disastrous policy choices.

More than that, though, the attitude that is allowing all this to happen flows from our president, his callousness, his thirst for revenge, his selfishness. We, the American people, are being led by someone who is a terrible role model, and we are worse for it. We cannot allow his character flaws to become part of our national character.

The danger is that if our lives are largely blessed, or if our vision is narrow, we can pretend all of this is not happening.

I hope your eyes are open. I hope, as we approach the midterm elections, you pick your head up and use a wide lens to look around and then vote accordingly. It’s not all good and if we continue on this road, we will no longer be the United State of America that I grew up believing in, its values established in the Declaration of Independence: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men* are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

*I note the archaic use of the term men and understand it to mean all humans.

Lady Liberty still stands in the harbor of New York City, as viewed from Governor’s Island on a recent visit.

Repeal the Second Amendment

Repeal the second amendment! I know that is an inflammatory statement, and maybe unpopular, too, but I need to put it out there.

It would be the ultimate irony if we made progress on gun control after Charlie Kirk’s assassination. My heart does go out to his family, and all those affected by gun violence. Charlie Kirk, though, does not deserve martyrdom. He did a great deal of damage, bringing a message of intolerance and divisiveness to young people on college campuses. I watched a number of videos of him espousing his beliefs. In some instances, I actually agreed with his point (I don’t think Cardi B is a great role model). However, even in those instances, he did it in a disrespectful, one-sided way. I don’t think Britney Spears or Madonna were great role models for little girls either – and for the same reason. We shouldn’t be sexualizing young girls. Why focus only on a Black star? But that isn’t my point, it is just illustrative of the problem with how Kirk approached things. His racism ran deep, and he was oblivious to his privilege. He shouldn’t be lionized in death.

Now back to my main point: we should repeal the second amendment. I welcome arguments to the contrary, but please don’t bother explaining the meaning of the second amendment to me – whether it was intended only for militias or individuals. I don’t care what our forefathers intended, just as I wouldn’t accept the argument that because our forefathers tolerated (supported? profited from? believed in? were indifferent to? – pick your verb) slavery, holds no water today. We know better. We should know better about guns.

For those who require guns to hunt, to protect livestock, to protect us, we can make provisions in law; we can set up mechanisms to allow for that. But, we have to let go of the notion that owning a gun is a God-given right. Some of us don’t believe in God, for one thing, but that aside, even if we can all agree in a common morality –  like ‘thou shall not kill’ – I don’t understand how that morality includes gun ownership.

The Bill of Rights protects our freedom. How do guns protect our freedom? I could more effectively argue that owning a car is more connected to being free in this country than having a gun. We don’t believe that owning a car is a God-given right. Someone explain to me, in the context of the world we live in now, how possessing a gun enhances your freedom, or is essential to your freedom.

Somewhere along the line we got things twisted in this country. There may have been a time when settling the ‘wild west’ or living a pioneer life, folks needed guns for their survival. That time has passed. As time went on, though, the gun became symbolic of something else (of rugged individualism, of strength, of masculinity…) – not just a tool to hunt or even to protect oneself. If we have gotten to the point where every man, woman and child needs a gun to protect themselves, we are lost.  

Most Democrats are not willing to say that the second amendment should be repealed. The attachment to guns is too strong, the gun lobby is too powerful (still! – despite the fact that the NRA has been discredited). I believe we need to be bolder. If we start from the presumption that we don’t have a God-given or forefather-given right to have a gun, so much becomes possible. We can still have shooting ranges. People can still hunt, though unless you hunt for food, I don’t understand the pleasure in that – but that is just me. Police and other security-related people can be armed. But it can all be regulated. And, it moves the question of regular folks having automatic weapons off the table – we wouldn’t need a special law to prohibit it. Think how much simpler it would be – we wouldn’t have to argue about what the second amendment actually means! We’d save millions of dollars in litigation costs.

I understand how freedom of speech, assembly, press and religion relate to freedom. It is a direct connection to the way we live our lives. I get why we have the Bill of Rights. Those activities are central, crucial to our liberty. It is not a slippery slope if we were to remove the second amendment. The right to bear arms has not made us more free and won’t make us more free. Hasn’t that point been made again and again over the last 25 years!?

I believe the exact opposite of what Charlie Kirk espoused. The second amendment is not worth the loss of life we as a country have endured. The rate of gun violence is too high a price to pay for the right to bear arms.

Will It Make Difference? It Is Up to Us

I watched chunks of Senator Cory Booker’s 25-hour speech in the Senate. I did not see or listen to the whole thing. I saw enough and read enough about it to offer some observations.

First, I was impressed with his stamina. My voice isn’t strong enough to talk for an hour, much less a full day. Yes, he had some breaks where other senators spoke, under the guise of asking questions, but he stood for all of that time and spoke with passion and emotion. It was quite a feat. It is not surprising that he was an athlete in college and continues to work on his fitness. As an amusing aside, my husband was impressed with his bladder. He needed control of both to get through that ordeal.

I saw some of the comments on social media during the event. Most lauded him. Of course, I live in a Democratic echo chamber, so I didn’t see much right-wing commentary. They may have been critical or sarcastic or who knows what – perhaps they mostly ignored it. Some, even in the progressive corner, were critical – saying it was a stunt or asking what good was it doing. I think there is a legitimate point there. It was a stunt. The question is: did it do any good?

It is true that Senator Booker wasn’t fillerbustering a proposed bill or administrative appointment. But, I think there was still merit to what he did. We need people to get motivated. We need people to be informed. To Booker’s credit, he didn’t read the phonebook like some in the past who have fillerbustered. He spoke substantively. Yes, some of it may have been repetitive, but there was a logic to that. After all, who would be watching the whole thing? Plus, people need the central messages to be repeated so they grasp them. It remains to be seen whether he was able to get folks energized.

Sadly, there are limits to what the Democrats can do to stymie Trump, especially given the aggressive, outside-the-norm, methods of slashing and burning government agencies that the administration is pursing. The Dems simply don’t have the numbers in Congress to stop legislation or prevent appointments. They are taking him to court, but that is slow and, in some cases, appears to be ineffective because rulings have been ignored. Plus, in many instances the damage has already been done. If someone is fired, or an office is closed, it isn’t so simple to just put it back in place even if there is a court order. There is likely mass confusion as to what happens next when an action has been countermanded.

For folks who are angry at the Dems, I ask: what would you have them do? It is easy to criticize. I criticize when they aren’t at least raising their voices. I was profoundly disappointed in Schumer’s capitulation on the budget. Perhaps he thought it was necessary to avoid a government shut down, and that may be so, but he should have put up more of a fight first. At least make some gestures at resistance – push them a little further, see if there is even some concession.

Aside from noting Booker’s stamina, I was impressed with his intelligence and passion. Some of his colleagues in the Senate showed themselves to be articulate and knowledgeable. We make fun of politicians for many reasons, accusing them of being self-serving or corrupt. Some may be that. But Tim Kaine, Senator from Viriginia, Chris Coons, Senator from Delaware, and Chris Murphy, Senator from Connecticut, were among the speakers who displayed deep knowledge and commitment. They deserve to be recognized and respected for their efforts. Unfortunately, the realities of power in our country require that elected officials raise crazy amounts of money to run for office, which leads them to have to practically sell their souls (or be ungodly rich themselves), and that, in turn, makes us suspicious. Add to that the idea that many of our fellow citizens don’t respect academic achievement, or value people who are intellectuals and you end up with someone like Marjorie Taylor Greene being more well-known and popular, instead of well-educated, widely-read public servants like the aforementioned senators.

I know many say that all politicians and all government workers are corrupt. I am not that cynical. I look at some of the individuals who spoke yesterday, most especially Cory Booker himself, and I believe their sincerity. I believe he is a man of genuine faith – not the false piety of Trump and many of his followers. You can disagree with Booker’s philosophy of government or his approach to the economy, but he speaks from his heart. He wants government to improve the lives of Americans. I can’t say the same about our president.

Will what Cory Booker did make a difference? Time will tell. I plan to attend the protest in Albany on April 5th. I plan to continue to express my opinions, on my blog and by writing to Senators and Representatives. I will support candidates whose platforms offer a better way forward. I hope others are similarly motivated. I hope the tide can turn. I have to believe that most Americans are unhappy with the approach to budget cutting that has been taken – the cumulative impacts will take time to register, but they will be real. They are not cutting waste, fraud and abuse. For all their talk about that, they haven’t taken the time to find it! Musk wants to cut and ask questions later. Sadly, the damage is already being done, we are beginning to suffer a brain drain where researchers and academics leave to more hospitable countries/institutions, among a myriad of other negative effects.

I applaud Senator Booker. I believe history will be kind to him. I just hope we can look back and see it as a turning point – not even so much a turning point in policy, but a turning point in our national dialogue, to put the focus on substantive issues and to place value on our democratic processes instead of the politics of divisiveness. I hope the Senator is proven right when he said that the power of the people is greater than the people in power. I hope we choose to wield it, rather than ceding it to Trump, Musk and DOGE. I hope enough of us are willing to make “good trouble.”

Democracy Hangs in the Balance

So much to say. I hope I can express it coherently.

I want to follow up on my last blog post which explored the role of the civil service. In that essay I mentioned that we all had a general understanding of the separation of powers. Now I’m thinking maybe we don’t. Given what has transpired in the last week, I think it is important we take a deeper look at the roles of the different branches of government. I have seen it at work up close and personal throughout my career. I believe it is an essential concept, a foundational construct, of our Constitutional democracy and it is being dismantled day by day.

Elon Musk, empowered by President Trump, is upending a structure that has existed for centuries, and he is doing it without a transparent plan for what replaces it. This is a critical issue. It isn’t simply reducing the size of the federal workforce that is underway here; it is the gutting of its ability to function. Some may think that there is so much fat in government that if you cut the staff you would still have an operating agency. That might have been true if cuts were planned, surgical reductions. Across the board cuts or offering all employees a buyout without regard to who is critical, eviscerates programs. In some instances, whole programs have been shuttered. Many of the cuts target either Trump’s perceived enemies or his and his billionaire friends’ interests – not the interests of the majority of Americans.

There are two problems with how things are proceeding. First is one of process – the way thing sare being done – they demonstrate a total disregard for laws and regulations in implementing these changes. The second is one of policy – what will be the consequences of these changes for the American people? Is this what we signed up for? These processes and policies have hurt people already and we have not even begun to feel the full impact.

Our Constitution does not empower an autocrat or an oligarchy. There is an executive, but that executive does not function as a legislature or judiciary. There can be some argument about where the line between making the laws and executing the laws is drawn – and the courts mediate that – but there IS A LINE. Let’s take a look at the line.

I worked years ago for the Legislative Commission on Expenditure Review in New York State. This entity was a bipartisan committee that had staff charged with reviewing programs to see if they were complying with legislative intent. In other words, we would look at the language of the legislation that authorized a given program, for example purchasing by the Office of General Services, to see if the program was operating in accordance with the law. To understand the purpose of the program, we looked beyond the plain language of the statute. We looked at the history of the bill (the bill jacket) and then we reviewed the operations in practice. The purpose of our review was not a traditional financial audit, that was the responsibility of the Office of the State Comptroller (OSC). We audited the performance of the program. Was it effective? Was it efficient? Was it accomplishing its mission? Was it being done in compliance with the law? We made recommendations when there were areas that were falling short.

So, that is how it is supposed to work: The Legislature, with input from the Governor’s office and the public, enacts a bill; the Governor signs the bill and it becomes law. Funding, negotiated by the Governor and Legislature in the budget process, is allocated. An Executive branch agency, as directed by the Governor, creates that program. The Executive branch implements and administers it, enacting regulations through administrative procedures (which the public can comment on) to flesh things out. The Legislature periodically oversees the program by having staff review it. A separate entity, OSC, reviews the financial operation. In sum, power and accountability is shared.

This balance of powers, this separation of responsibilities, plays out at the federal level, too. The names of the entities are different, but the functions are performed by separate entities.  Power is not concentrated in any one branch. Is there potential for leakage? Are there instances where the system doesn’t work? Absolutely. Especially when Congress fails to act by not fulfilling its responsibilities.

Legislation can be vague. The Executive is left to interpret things and in that process a program can go sideways or it may overreach. Oversight can be inadequate. Oversight activities, within an agency and by the legislature can be underfunded and understaffed given the breadth and scope of the work of government. Agencies themselves have a role in preventing corruption by having internal controls and systems set up to prevent and/or detect malfeasance or other inappropriate actions. Inspector generals (IGs) and internal auditors within departments help to oversee this, in addition to the separate entities I described above. Removing those internal checks and balances threatens the integrity of the agency. We have seen the removal of IGs already. At the federal level the Government Accountability Office (GAO) performs a similar role as the state’s OSC. Congressional committees are responsible for oversight. All of this might be clumsy and time consuming, but it serves a purpose. Private sector entities can afford to be more streamlined, though they have some of the same concerns and limitations.

As is always the case there is a balance. Oversight is costly and you don’t want to create a whole other bureaucracy parallel to the one that is performing the service. But, some checks are necessary and pay for themselves by preventing or recovering losses. Finding the balance is difficult, but ridding the system of the whole process is certainly not the answer!

What happens when all of that is stripped away – both the separation of powers and the oversight – as is happening with the Trump administration? What will replace it? The judgement of one man, or a committee of men? Why should we trust them? What are their interests? What happens when Congress forfeits its authority and responsibility to oversee activities, as the Republicans appear to be doing? The system, carefully calibrated to prevent concentration of power and corruption, is rendered impotent. Is that what the American people want?

As I argued in my last blog post, we need to improve the system. We need to address the paralysis that plagues our Congress so that it can function as intended. But, we should not throw the baby out with the bathwater. The checks and balances, the division of responsibilities must be preserved. We can’t allow Trump and Musk to ransack our democracy. Please write and/or call your representatives!

In Defense of American Government

For a while, after the election, I put my head firmly in the sand. I could not follow the news. It was all too overwhelming. But, there was only so long I could maintain that approach. I have looked up and I am frightened by what I see of the actions taken by the Trump administration. I cannot be silent.

I started this essay about a week ago and I keep having to change it, add to it, amend it. I can’t keep up with the transgressions. It is also hard to prioritize which of his moves are the scariest. Right now, I am leaning toward Elon Musk hooking up private servers to the Office of Personnel Management to communicate with all federal employees (and have access to all of their information). No one elected Elon Musk, and that is just the first problem with this scenario.

Perhaps in second place is the attack on DEI, especially blaming it for the tragic collision between the jet and the army helicopter resulting in the loss of 67 lives. Again, there are so many things wrong with the Trump Administration’s reaction to that calamity that it is hard to know where to start. One can assume that whenever things go wrong the playbook will call for blaming previous administrations and DEI.

It seems like the Trump administration strategy as they start their new term is the equivalent of a military blitz. Send everything in all at once so we are caught off guard and don’t know what to respond to first. Before you know it, the whole system will be upended. Some may have voted for him for that, but I don’t think the majority did. In fact, when you look at the numbers, Trump didn’t even win a clear majority of the vote. He has no mandate. Upending the system will have many unintended consequences (or if they were intended, they will be damaging in ways most Americans did not sign up for).

I have a master’s degree in public administration and policy from Columbia University. I completed my comprehensive exam to earn a PhD in public administration and policy at the University at Albany, but I did not write a dissertation – that means that I took all the coursework for that advanced degree but didn’t do the final piece. I share this because I have some background, some credentials, with which to evaluate what the Trump administration is doing. Most people do not want to get bogged down in the weeds of policy or administration. I understand that, and I am not going to go that far in this essay, but we do need to take look behind the rhetoric.

Most of us learned, at some point, about the separation of powers which characterize our government structure. You don’t need to go to graduate school to understand that. At a fundamental level, Trump was violating that by trying to freeze federal funds already approved by Congress. He offered no rationale or plan for going forward. Fortunately, his power grab was stopped, but it will not be the last attempt. We will face similar challenges in the future and these questions will need to be faced:  Should federal agencies even comply with those orders? Are they constitutional? If they are unconstitutional, can they be disobeyed? Do they have to be obeyed until the courts decide? Meanwhile, how much damage will be done? Which brings us to a subject that is not sexy but may be increasingly important in this current environment: the role of the civil servant.

One of the first things you learn when you go to graduate school in public administration is the history of the civil service. I will not bore you with the details. It is important, though, to know why, in a general sense, we have that system. It was installed as a response to rampant corruption and a belief that the government was not being responsive to the people who fund it. Before the civil service existed, government hiring was through the spoils system – where family members and loyalists were rewarded by elected officials with positions in government without regard to their competence. It was called the spoils system from President Andrew Jackson’s quote ‘to the victor goes the spoils.’

This led to two major problems – ineffective policy and a culture of bribery. The needs of the people were not a priority. This was how things were run from 1828 (before 1828 it was also a system of patronage, but positions were awarded to elites; Andrew Jackson broadened it to include the ‘common man’ in 1828) until 1893 when the Pendleton Act was passed and created the federal civil service. Most states followed suit and created their own versions. It is important to note that the civil service does not cover the highest positions in federal or state agencies. It was understood that it was appropriate that the leadership reflect the will of the President. Secretaries/commissioners of departments and layers below that are political appointees. There was also recognition that under those policy-making positions it was important to have a class of employee who was not beholden to politics or parties, who could maintain stability and provide service when administrations changed – thus the creation of the civil service.

An essential element of the civil service was to provide a pathway to jobs with the government that was open to all, as opposed to through connections or bribery, and that would test for competency. Over the years the system has evolved with more specialized testing especially as government work required more expertise (lawyers, doctors, engineers, etc.).  There have also been measures to make the workforce more reflective of the demographics of the country, ensuring that barriers to women and minorities were removed.

The civil service system has its flaws. For one thing, tests are never perfect. There is also no question that it is too difficult to fire employees who are lazy or inept or worse. But that does not mean we should throw the baby out with the bath water. We need to improve the system. President Trump appears to be trying to circumvent the whole structure. It suits his agenda to have everyone beholden to him and the MAGA universe. This would be a case of history repeating itself if we don’t learn from what happened before.

There is another aspect of this changing perspective on civil servants that deserves attention. Starting in about 1980, with the candidacy and election of Ronald Reagan, there has been a steady stream of insults hurled at government employees. Some of that may be a result of those flaws in the civil service system mentioned above. I think of the negative experiences many had with the Department of Motor Vehicles back in the 1970s when a trip to apply for or renew a driver’s license was an all-day affair in Brooklyn. The public facing clerks could be surly and seemingly inefficient. But, that was not an indictment of government as a whole. It was a failure of management and some aspects of the system, but it does not follow that we don’t need a Department of Motor Vehicles or the civil service. In fact, today, I believe, the DMV functions pretty effectively. We renew our licenses (for the most part) and registration online. When we go to the office, it is set up to process customers efficiently. Vehicles do need to be registered, and they need to be inspected. We need commercial trucks to be regulated for the safety of everyone on the roads.

We can argue about how much government is necessary; how much regulation is needed when balanced with the red tape created. That is fair game, and we can agree to disagree. But, disparaging the public workforce is counterproductive. Who wants to go into public service when it is so disrespected? So devalued? Government needs the best and brightest. I will never understand politicians who degrade the folks who implement their policies.

I went into public service because I wanted to help people. I wanted to make a difference in the quality of life of my community, to contribute what I could to improving services. Sometimes I felt frustrated because the work I did was far removed from that goal, so I looked for other opportunities. But even when I was buried in the bureaucracy of the department of tax and finance, I still believed I was doing something worthy. Collecting taxes in a fair and efficient manner is necessary. No one likes paying taxes, but without them essential services can’t be delivered.

The take-aways I offer are four-fold:

  1. Know our history – let’s not repeat the errors we have made in the past.
  2. Don’t throw the baby out with the bath water. Change structures, improve efficiency, but we should not dismantle whole systems impulsively and without planning for what replaces it and understanding why it was established in the first place.
  3. Stop demeaning public service. Even if you are a libertarian, you need to value the essential work of the government and the people who do it. Insulting people is unhelpful to say the least.
  4. Recognize that public and private management are different in important ways. The model of private business, where profit is the motive, is often not appropriate for the provision of public goods. Sometimes it may fit, and it may make sense to move certain functions to the private sector or adopt their systems, but many services don’t lend themselves to that approach.

We can’t sit back and allow the dismantling of our government without proper checks and balances. We need to make sure Congress hears us. We need to support organizations that are bringing lawsuits that raise legitimate questions about whether constitutional lines are being crossed. Please pay attention. Though it is tempting to put my head back in the sand, none of us can afford to do that.

a few of the books in my library

A Trip to Pittsburgh in the Aftermath

A view of downtown from the top of Mount Washington after riding the Duquesne Incline

I could write a book about our trip to Pittsburgh. We were traveling there for a mini medical school reunion.

So many thoughts flood my mind:

  • The choices we make in our lives, being reminded of a turning point and what might have been. We could have settled in Pittsburgh but wanted to be closer to family. The road not taken is hard to resist imagining.
  • The side trip that took us at least 90 minutes out of our way, not to mention the time spent at the stop itself, a museum to see an exhibit of Andrew Wyeth’s paintings. When I suggested the detour, Gary initially didn’t want to take the time knowing what a long drive it was already from Albany to Pittsburgh. Then when we got in the car to start what should be a seven- or eight-hour trip, he said, “What the heck. We aren’t in any rush. Let’s go to the museum.”  I think he took pity on me, knowing my spirits were low from the results of the election and imagining a stop to look at art might help. He was right – it worked…for a while anyway.
  • The juxtaposition of gleaming office buildings, the beauty of the confluence of the three rivers and the unhoused, hurting people on the streets of that same downtown area. It is painful to see folks strung out, young people panhandling, wondering what’s worse: to walk by with a shake of the head and a murmured “sorry,” or to give some money? Our society must do better taking care of its own. The wealth suggested by elaborate skyscrapers, high-end stores and fancy hotels, side-by-side with people whose possessions are held in a bunch of plastic bags begs for a more humane economy. Below is evidence of the issue in Pittsburgh.
  • Gathering with friends from 40 years ago, some we did see eight years ago but others we had not, in the aftermath of an election that broke my heart but likely brought joy to some of theirs, was daunting. I was worried about how it would go.

It turned out that our reunion was warm, and we avoided politics, but I did have some interesting discussions with the woman I knew best all those years ago. We sat next to each other during the Pitt-Virginia football game that neither one of us was interested in. I knew she was a Trumper, and she knows I’m a bleeding-heart liberal. We would not change each other’s minds about anything. I come away as mystified by how I feel about folks who voted for Trump as I was before. Maybe I understand a bit more about her thought process – she sees the world differently than I do. One part of our conversation I will share because I think it is revealing.

I explained that I could not forgive Trump for, among other things, his reaction to the unite the right event in Charlottesville where the marchers chanted, “Jews will not replace us” and carried tiki torches. Trump responded saying there were good people on both sides. My friend explained that Trump was referring to the people who were trying to prevent the removal of confederate monuments – that he was sympathetic to their cause –  not to the chant. I said that I didn’t understand his statement that way and if that was the case he needed to make it clearer. She told me that it was obvious to her that’s what he meant. I said that even if that was what he meant, those monuments needed to come down. She disagreed. She asked me if knew anything about Abraham Lincoln. I said yes. She went on to explain that Lincoln supported monuments and naming forts after confederate generals to allow the South to save face. I responded by saying that may well be, and may have made sense in 1865, but it is now 2024, and the country needs to understand that the South lost the war. Those statutes and stories can be displayed and explained in museums and history books. Monuments in public squares should help us to remember and celebrate our better selves – the people honored don’t have to be perfect, but they do have to be on the right side of history. She just shook her head saying history should be preserved. I said, let’s change the subject and we did.

The game took almost three hours. There was a lot of conversation. Most of it was ordinary stuff about family, travel, health, but we couldn’t help but return to politics every so often, after all some of those subjects involve policy. Every time we did, we had to agree to disagree. At one point she said, amused, “You’re just too woke.” I smiled and said, “Exactly – that’s no insult to me. I work at being woke.” We both laughed.

I was proud of myself. I didn’t pretend that I didn’t disagree with her, but we didn’t get heated.  I was able to hold on to the good times we shared, aware of the pain she’s had in her life, the disappointments and struggles. I assume she could do the same for me. We hugged when we said our good-byes.

Gary was sitting next to his friend and former classmate, her husband, who shares her politics. After we left, Gary and I compared notes about our experience of the game. Interestingly, they had not discussed politics at all. Not surprisingly they were more focused on the game, but they talked about other subjects too – work, memories, family, being grandpas. No politics, though. I wondered how they managed that.

I am still processing the entirety of the trip. It was only 4 days, including all that driving, but it represented so much. I am also still processing the election results. It is going to take a long time to digest it all.

The best part of the game that Pitt lost – the half time show. The band was terrific.

My Closing Argument

I can’t wait for this election to be over. The relentless ads on tv, the frequent text and email solicitations for money, the anxiety about the country’s future are all hard to put aside. No matter what happens, it will be a relief when it’s over.

That’s not true, exactly. I will not be relieved if Trump wins and/or if there is a red wave. I will be devastated, as I was in 2016 when I didn’t want to get out of bed for days after. But, I will try to take heart in the surprising closing message of Jon Stewart at his performance at the Palace Theater in Albany, which I enjoyed very much. He pointed out that democracy is work that doesn’t end. Regardless of the result on election day, we need to soldier on, doing our part every day to work for the ideas we believe in, not just on a single election day. He reminded us how shattered we were after 9/11. We thought the world would never be ‘normal’ again, and in some ways, it was forever changed. But we couldn’t give up, we needed to continue to participate in our civic life. We can’t give up hope, hard as that might be. So, I am promising myself, if I need to mourn for a bit, I will, but then I will pick myself back up and keep trying to make this country a better place in whatever ways I can.

But, before I turn the page on this presidential campaign, I have some thoughts to share. I doubt many of my readers are Trump supporters, though there may be a few. I have always tried to be respectful. I don’t like the crude remarks or snarky takes that insult folks who view things differently than I do and I don’t plan to start now. I do need to ask a few serious questions for those who are planning to vote for him:

After Trump’s behavior these past few weeks, do you believe he is fit for office? For those who believed in him in 2016 or even in 2020, do you not see the changes? He is more impulsive and less coherent. Those are not qualities a president should have.

So many of those who served under him have abandoned him. Are they all part of some vast conspiracy? The generals? The cabinet members? His vice president? His daughter? No one is continuing to stand by him. Doesn’t that say something important about what they know about him?

For those who say ‘policy’ is the reason for voting for him, what policy? Is it about prices in the grocery store? If so, there are many factors that led to inflation (pandemic and supply chain issues to name two) that would have happened even if there had been a different president. Our rate of inflation, aside from the fact that it has been brought under control without a recession, is far less than other countries. Also, just as the health of our economy is more than the Dow Jones Industrial Average, it is more than the price of eggs.

Is it about the border? Do you really believe immigrants are ruining this country? Where is the evidence of that? How has your life deteriorated as a result of the influx of immigrants? Is crime that much worse and if it is, is it because of immigrants? I don’t believe the data supports that crime is worse, much less that the crimes that are committed are by illegal immigrants (other than sensationalized, or in some cases fabricated, stories on social media). My experience here in Albany and in NYC doesn’t back up those claims either. All of which isn’t to say that illegal immigration isn’t an issue that needs to be addressed. The demands on social services and housing, among other things, are challenging, especially to our cities. We can’t simply have open borders, but exaggerating the problem doesn’t help to solve it (neither did tanking the border bill). And blaming Kamala Harris for it is absurd.

Trump supporters like to ask if you are better off today than you were four years ago. By what measure? Four years ago, we were in the midst of the pandemic. Before vaccines, before treatments. Well over a million Americans died of Covid. Other than the divisiveness stoked by Trump, I do believe we are better off today.

Is Israel your reason for supporting Trump? Trump is an opportunist who will support whoever or whatever is in his self-interest at the time – the Saudis, Putin, possibly Netanyahu (maybe not, if he thinks Bibi doesn’t like him anymore). The incidence of antisemitism has soared since Trump came on the scene. How do you square those things? And, in order to support Israel, we need to be a functioning democracy not an oligarchy or monarchy.

Do you think children are going to school as one sex and coming home another, as Trump claims? Schools can’t apply sunscreen without parental permission. Not to mention that it takes more than a day to transition. Having worked in education policy for many years, I am well aware of the complicated questions posed by students who are trans, especially in regard to the role of parents. But, making trans students, or trans citizens in general, some kind of crisis (it can be a crisis for those individuals and families) that threatens our nation is ridiculous. I urge everyone to watch the movie Will and Harper (it’s on Netflix) to get some perspective on this. These are human beings who face challenges, not freaks who endanger our way of life.

Do you believe Kamala Harris is ‘dumb as a rock,’ to quote Trump? Really? I hear an articulate, intelligent woman. I see and hear people surrounding her who are competent and educated, not the racist, misogynist venom that spewed at the Trump rally at Madison Square Garden (and not just from that vile comedian).

Bottom line, for me, isn’t policy, though anyone who knows me, knows policy is near and dear to my heart. The bottom line is that Donald Trump is a despicable human being. He has normalized lying and cheating. I do not want my grandchildren to watch him or hear him. Our president, even if I disagree with their policies, should be someone children can watch without worrying that they will hear or see lewdness or vulgarity. And, I have granddaughters!!!! – I haven’t even mentioned reproductive rights. Or January 6th! I won’t get started on those or I will be writing another thousand words.

I will get off my soap box now. Honestly, after all of this, if you are still voting for Trump, please, please don’t tell me.

Turning the Page…I Hope

On July 8, 2024 I posted a blog asking Joe Biden and Donald Trump to step aside. One of them did. On July 21st, President Biden stopped his campaign and endorsed Kamala Harris. Before I published that blog, I sent an email to the White House thanking President Biden for his excellent service but suggesting that it was time to end his candidacy in favor of a younger person. Do you think I can take credit for his decision? Have I become an influencer? I’d like to take credit. I’m kidding, of course, I am not delusional. Without taking undue responsibility, I will admit to being relieved and energized by the turn of events.

Now if only the Republicans would take heed of the Democrats’ success and dump Trump and offer America a good alternative, then we could have a real, substantive contest. We have a close race now, but for many of us the possibility of another Trump presidency is horrifying. He is not a serious person, he is a cartoon character who doesn’t have values or policies; and, more than that, he is dangerous because he is impulsive and ill-informed. It would be better for our country if we could choose between two respectable, intelligent people who simply represent different visions of how the country can achieve success.

I did not watch a lot of the Democratic Convention. I saw snippets and caught up with some of the speeches after the fact. The most meaningful scene that I did watch live was Tim Walz’s speech when his son leapt up in enthusiasm and love and shouted, “That’s my Dad!” How could you not get chills and/or cry seeing that? This moved me on many levels. First, I am thrilled that the Walz family and the campaign saw no need to hide Gus (I don’t know what went on behind the scenes, hopefully campaign advisors had either no say in how this was handled or were supportive of his visibility). Not that long ago, I can imagine that a candidate might make a different choice.  Gus may have an observable disability, but that should not be a bar to participating in his family’s moment of pride. He should be there to celebrate and express himself (as long as it was a healthy, positive choice for him). It is important for us as a society to see the full range of humanity.

Then there is the freedom with which Gus showed his emotion. Good for him! Many of us, including women, are much more constrained. We can all learn from that and get comfortable with tears of joy and sorrow. Though it may be more socially acceptable for women to cry, at least in some contexts, it can still be judged negatively. I find it ironic that Trump’s histrionics are ignored, and even celebrated, but Gus’ s tears have been mocked on right wing social media. For folks who make those kinds of comments, the world is upside down. Cruelty is celebrated, signs of strength are seen as signs of weakness, wrong is right…that is Trump World.

It was also heartening to see such a raw, genuine expression of love for his father. It says something important about Tim Walz and his character. After his selection as the nominee, I did some reading about him. Before I knew next to nothing beyond that he is governor of Minnesota and I might not have even known that! The articles I read revealed that he was an exemplary teacher (in my view, excellent teachers share many of the qualities of wonderful parents). Former students have said glowing things about him. If you haven’t read this article, which recounts how his class predicted the Rwandan genocide, I urge you to. It is an example of what fine teachers can do: provide students with an opportunity to think, to analyze and to understand. They participated in an exercise that went beyond learning important dates and names and gave them skills and ideas that will make them better citizens of the world. Here is the link to that article: https://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/23/education/23education.html

This type of teaching makes me think of my dad, who was also a high school social studies teacher who wrote curriculum on the Holocaust, and that is a high compliment. Dad was a great teacher and father.

The more I read, the more I see of them, the more impressed I am with the Harris/Walz team. Maybe, just maybe, we are beginning to turn the corner. I am hopeful that the fever has broken and Trump’s hold on the Republican party and a good portion of America is breaking. There is plenty of room in America for different views of policy without the vitriol, without the ugly threats and negativity, without the fear of devolving into violence. Let’s do our part to turn the page.

The Beauty Business

“Are you doing your eyebrows again?” Sue asked.

My college roommate opened the door to find me sitting at my desk, a magnifying mirror propped in front of me, the lamp on, poised to pluck another hair.

“Yes.”

“Do you do that every day?” she asked incredulously.

“Not EVERY day, no, but if I don’t do it regularly, they get out of control.” I replied self-consciously. I didn’t much appreciate her question. I made a mental note to try to do it more discreetly in the future, but there were limited opportunities given that I was tripled and privacy was hard to come by.

This was part of my war against a unibrow that had been ongoing since puberty. My brows were thick and dark and threatened to meet in the middle if I didn’t tame them. It was 1977, long before the popularity of Frida Kahlo made dark brows that edged toward the middle a chic choice a woman could make. In 1977 it was totally unacceptable, totally unfeminine.

I remembered that exchange during a recent phone call with my daughter. Leah called to vent about standards of beauty for women and the mental space, time, effort and money required to meet them. She objected to the fact we still labored under the onus of unreasonable expectations. “Who decides what is acceptable?,” she asked rhetorically. “And then we judge ourselves against that standard! Do men worry about that? Do men ask themselves if an outfit flatters them? Maybe there are men that do, but the average guy is probably asking themselves whether the shirt is appropriate to the occasion – are they going to work, a concert, to exercise? And that’s it. Maybe they think about the weather – should they wear long sleeves or short. They might think about whether the shirt matches their pants – maybe. We worry about so much more. I resent the whole enterprise! Ben has never asked me if a shirt he chose to wear makes him look fat!” Leah conceded that she doesn’t ask Ben that question either, but not so much because she wasn’t concerned about it, more because if the thought occurs to her, she rejects it because she recognizes that it is absurd, and she knows Ben is too smart (and kind) to answer with anything other than a positive comment about how she looks.

I agreed that it isn’t fair, women spend much more time tending to their appearance than most men. We both thought that women (and men, too) who enjoy the process and results of taking care of their skin, hair (the hair we want and the hair we don’t), nails, choosing outfits and accessories should feel good about their efforts – we would not stand in judgment. We should not think of them as shallow.  People should be free to play with their appearance and have fun with it. But those of us who don’t enjoy that, shouldn’t be burdened with the expectations of others. Right now, that is nearly impossible given the messages we have internalized about what women should look like. Sadly, at least for me, I would like the results: no stray hairs where they aren’t supposed to be, soft skin without blemishes, manicured nails, a fit, shapely body that can wear the latest fashions, feet that can wear cute shoes without pain, without putting in the time. I want to magically look put together and attractive. I think my daughter, and many women, want the same thing.

Leah railed against the mental energy being spent on all of this. “If half the mental energy and resources spent on the beauty and wellness market were spent on the world’s problems, think about where we would be,” she pointed out. “If the effort that went into that, went into problem solving how much better off would the world be? And who is profiting from this?”

I had no answer for her. It did bring to mind another conversation I had – this one with my very good friend, Merle. I shared my memory with Leah who commented, “Merle knows what’s up!”

Merle and I were in the San Francisco airport at the conclusion of our visit with her brother after our sophomore year of college. It had been an eventful, eye-opening experience being in the Bay City in 1978. We were tired and waiting for our flight, our nerves frayed when we got into a disagreement on the very topic that Leah and I were discussing 46 years later.

Merle made the case that “they” were forcing beauty products on us. “Who are ‘they’?” I asked. “Corporations – the ones selling the products, the magazines, the ad agencies, the clothing companies,” she explained. I wasn’t buying it. “But we are part of ‘they’,” I argued. After going back and forth, somehow I was taking it personally, we decided to take a break. We each took a walk in the opposite direction in the airport. We met up at the gate and didn’t discuss it further.

I had trouble accepting the idea that anyone was controlling me. I wanted to believe in my own agency – and not just in my own, everyone’s. Merle was being exposed to other ideas; she was taking Women’s Studies classes. The notion that there was a patriarchy and financial powers heavily influencing our choices resonated with her. I was not ready to believe that.

It isn’t that I haven’t thought about these issues in the intervening years. I have, and I have moved a lot closer to believing Merle’s argument. I had not, though, come as close to revisiting the topic in the same way until Leah called to vent.

So, have things changed? In some ways, they have not. Leah feels as oppressed by unrealistic standards of beauty as I did and do. It is still big business selling products and services that promise youth and attractiveness to women (now we’re supposed to use whole body deodorant!), lots of money, influence and power are associated with the industry. There have been some changes: perhaps there is more room for variation in body types – we do see chunkier women and more women of color in advertisements. Perhaps the market has broadened in that now men are targeted too, though I’m not sure that is a good thing. Women hold more positions of power today than they did in 1978. Today women hold 29% of the seats in Congress; in 1978 we held 4%. But we are 50% of the population! It remains to be seen whether a woman can be elected president, we haven’t been yet.

Given the persistent disparity in wages between the genders, the difference in the way female political candidates are treated, the continued violence against women, we have not made as much progress as I wanted. I only hope Leah will have a different conversation with her daughter when she is an adult.