Hockey

 I admit I'm not very interested in sports. 

Basketball is predictable. Baseball is boring. Football is violent. Soccer (or international football) is too skilled. Volleyball, tennis, and golf are not entertaining to watch. So many other sports and I have little interest in any of them.

But hockey...there's some entertainment. For me, hockey is THE sport; the only sport I may actually watch beginning to end.

So I was very excited to watch the Gold Medal game in this past Olympics where the US Men's Hockey Team performed another miracle. An OT win to skate past Canada to the Gold Medal slots. So wonderful, so proud, so...huh?

I didn't end up feeling elated for very long. See, I watched the medal ceremony and the look on those Canadians faces as they got the silver medals was heart-breaking. You would have thought they were in a line-up for the Epstein Files or something. They looked like the world had just come to an end. They looked so disappointed, so sad, so confused, like everything they knew about life had just been flipped upside down. They didn't seem very comfortable in the new reality. I felt so bad for them. 

Now, I don't watch much of the Olympics (see above where I don't really like sports), but I do understand that there are winners and losers. Not everybody goes home with a medal. There's no point to that. But I have never viewed the silver and bronze medal as a loser's medal. When countries brag about Olympic performance, they always drag out the Medal Count, and every medal counts equally for this number.

The Men's Canadian Hockey Team didn't seem to see it that way. From the looks on their faces, you would have thought they were going home to a firing squad. 

Why do I make mention of this? Because it really broke my heart. They trained hard, they played hard, they were skilled and made their opponents look clumsy at times, even desperate. And they lost. They lost the game and the gold. It breaks my heart because they couldn't see anything beyond that. They couldn't see the beauty of silver or even find a bit of joy with the US players who hadn't seen a gold medal in 46 years. 

I guess what I'm saying is that maybe part of the problem with the world today is that human beings get too caught up in the moment, in the hype of life. We forget the bigger picture and the expansiveness of living. The Canadians lost a game but still won silver medals. There were other teams going home with nothing. But you didn't see that on those young men's faces, you saw only their deep disappointment with themselves. They should have stood proud and content in the effort, a true, excellent effort, to reach for gold. Instead, they mourned the loss unable to find anything but failure within it. So much so that they couldn't even find a small joy in the fact that the US finally had a gold and they had helped them to achieve that. 

I'll also say that I think it's a bit harsh to award those medals directly after the game. It's tough to lose like that and it's an emotional roller coaster for winners and losers. Couldn't you at least give them a chance to hit the locker room, take a breath, towel off, or just sit and stare for a half-hour? Give them a chance to pull it all together without having cameras in their faces. Bring them back out to the ice when you're all set up and they have had a chance to process the emotions. Seriously, I've never seen more disappointment upon receiving a Silver Medal at the Olympics. 

Maybe I'm just too sensitive. I'm not saying the US shouldn't have celebrated, I mean, that's what you do when you win a big game like that. When you reach the pinnacle of your sport. They deserve that moment! All of them! I keep hearing that the goalie was the true MVP there and kept them in the game. Agreed. But also, it was a lot of luck. There were two very close calls that in a different reality would have been in the net, and no goalie would have stopped it. (Maybe a hot take, but the Canadians didn't have Lady Luck on the ice with them.)

I will also simply mention that while I'm very happy for the men of the US Hockey Team on their success, I'm also very happy for the US Women's Hockey team for bringing it EVERY OLYMPICS!  

I think it's a tragedy that politics had to be injected into both of these successful team wins. I also think it's a shame that either one (or any athlete or team) should be dragged out for political gain. Invite them to the White House, treat them to lunch, talk to them about a sport you know nothing about but don't drag them out into a politically charged State of the Union address. Their country is proud of them, no matter their politics, but don't use their success to gain grace with your voter base. So much winning! 

US Men's Hockey: Be proud of your accomplishment. Party hearty, boys!

US Women's Hockey: Be proud of your accomplishment. We see you. 

Canadian Men's Hockey: Be proud of your accomplishment. You medaled. You played a great game. You'll get 'em next time.

The White House: WTF is your problem? When the women's team shows up for lunch, make sure the President keeps his hands to himself.

-Wy

BTW: Did Kash Patel make it home ok? Oh, right, his jet was his DD. Or is that OUR jet? Hope he didn't throw up on the carpet. Just sayin.

NIMBY

 Not in my backyard.

I heard this a lot as a kid. It applied to landfills, homeless shelters, and abortion clinics. Oh, and nuclear reactors. Especially nuclear reactors.

But that was back in the 80s. Back when we didn't even wear helmets. Nuclear energy must have changed since then, right? I mean, right?

*crickets*

To the Honorable Governor of New York

Governor Kathy Hochul

To Representatives:

Assemblyman Ken Blankenbush (District 117)

Senator Daniel Stec (District 45)

Assemblyman Scott Gray (District 116)

Dear Madam and Sirs:

I have a real problem with the talk of nuclear reactors becoming a mainstay of this state's energy plan. I know that there have been some educational forums held near my area, but these seemed very pro-nuclear with very few of the risks outlined. Many comments I heard from attendees was that they were still confused and unsure whether this was a good prospect for our area. 

Northern NY is already a powerhouse. The Raquette River is one of the most damned rivers in this state producing 181 megawatts of power. Northern NY is prime real estate for wind farms with the largest in the State at Maple Ridge Wind Farms in Lewis County producing 321 megawatts of power.

New York was supposed to be heading toward renewable energy sources and wind, solar, and hydropower are these sources. Nuclear energy is not a renewable source. It may not be carbon producing but the waste products are just as nasty and I would say, more dangerous to the health of humans.

Nuclear energy at its simplest seems unchanged since the 80's. It still requires uranium. It still requires a huge amount of water for cooling tanks. It still produces radioactive waste which must be contained. The United States STILL has no repository for radioactive waste that is still being produced by the many reactors we currently have. Radioactive waste is stored on the same property as the reactors that produced it. It goes nowhere. Radioactive waste is sunk into cooling tanks for 5 years before being removed and even after this time, they are still Hot. The steel canisters are then buried in concrete under the reactors or close by. Northern New York is not immune to earthquakes, and I wonder how safe these bunkers are made. Some of these canisters have been known to leak. Bury them deep enough and I suppose that won't really be an issue but if we decided that fracking wasn't a great idea, how is drilling down deep into bedrock to slip in canisters of radioactive waste any better?

New York demands energy. We rely too much on out-of-state sources for our energy. I understand this. But why sink money into infrastructure that produces no more energy than solar or wind farms? Why not put the money into these renewable sources? The 3 nuclear reactors in NY generate 3.3 Gigawatts of power per year. All the solar farms in NY generate 6 gigawatts of power per year. The wind farms produce 2.1 gigawatts per year. Hydropower generates 8.8 gigawatts per year. Why invest in a non-renewable, dangerous energy source when renewable power produces just as much energy? Is it not more prudent to spend the money on systems that do not require a finite source to produce said energy? Can't we invest in new technologies that will make these renewable forms of energy production more efficient?

Other countries do use nuclear power, but they also have national underground repositories for the waste and we don't. Until the US builds the Yucca Mountain complex to store this radioactive waste, nuclear energy is no more viable than fossil fuels and natural gas.

Can this radioactive waste be recycled? Sure. But it doesn't eliminate the waste, only reduces it. It does allow for less uranium to be mined but it also harvests plutonium. The hardest and most difficult part of building a nuclear weapon is to source the raw materials, namely plutonium. Is NY State prepared to invest in the security required to protect this dangerous element? Will any corporation be willing to invest the money to properly supervise the handling of this material without some sort of compensation from the State?

Overall, these questions have not been answered by the State. Nuclear energy is the most complex solution to this problem that can be suggested. Renewable energy sources are far simpler, have already been implemented across the state (with more wind turbines offshore to come on-line), and have fewer environmental impacts than new nuclear reactors. 

The three nuclear plants we already have in this state is more than sufficient. These reactors should be shut down but because energy is so essential at this time, it is not practical. However, I truly believe that they have outlived their usefulness.

New York State is a proud leader in renewable energies. Our state has a mandate to increase renewable power. Is NYPA dragging its feet? How about some state refunds or tax breaks for homeowners who add solar panels to homes? How about incentives for individuals to transition to renewable power sources OFF-GRID? If residents produce their own power, less strain is placed on the overall grid which means more power is available for larger industries and manufacturing.

Whatever needs to happen to meet our growing energy appetite, building more nuclear reactors, no matter how evolved they have become, are not the answer.

I will never support new nuclear energy unless a firm plan is in place for a national repository for radioactive material. With the world the way it is, even thinking about having plutonium more readily available is irresponsible.

I am open to hearing the opposition to this. I am willing to hear why you think nuclear power seems to be the answer here. 

Thank you for your attention to this matter and to your hard work of public service. I have always been proud of our state's accomplishments and that is in large part due to the integrity of our elected officials. 

-Wy

Blah, blah, blah. Will they listen?

Truth and Consequence

 Sometimes you just don't have the words.

A friend of mine had just messaged me about "Truth". She always poses deep thinking questions, and I love to reflect on them. Her initial message included a video of a guy who was rethinking the accusations that Trump is a racist. I didn't quite get the point at first, but she was pointing out the fact that what seemed to be true also seemed NOT to be true. That people needed to dig deep into information to mine out the Truth. She believed in a Real Truth that was apart and different from an individual's perceptions or experiences. It dwelled outside of us but was very real. 

I get that. In fact, I'm not so sure she isn't right. However, how are we to determine this Truth, if we are clouded by our own perceptions of it? 

I am more of the belief that Truth is how we perceive it. That Truth is not Universal, not set in stone. Truth is like the present time. It isn't hard and fast. Truth is not even Fact or Evidence though I would say that both support what Truth is defined as. Time only lasts for the moments you're in it. Time is relative so perhaps is Truth. 

Nothing has convinced me more of this that what happened in Minnesota this past week. A woman driving an SUV was shot three times by an ICE agent who was standing/moving around her vehicle. Video was recorded of the incident on several different cell phones by several witnesses. Phone footage even emerged from the ICE agent who shot her. One would think that video footage of an incident, something that can be replayed, slowed down, pictures isolated, zoomed into, would be Truth. That camera has no perceptions, no previous experiences, no personal bias; it records what it is pointed at. However, this is not the case.

The same video footage is interpreted in very different ways by different people. Some say the driver was trying to flee the scene and may have clipped the agent with her vehicle, causing him to fire out of defense. Some say the driver was trying to get out of the way and the agent shot her because she refused to comply. Some say the agent was just frustrated and trying to look for an excuse to become violent. Some call it self-defense, and some call it murder. Some say the agent is to blame and needs to be jailed. Some say the driver should have just obeyed the agents. 

In any case, the Truth (with a capital T) is lost. Even with video footage from different angles, different people believe the Truth to be what they make it. If there is a Universal Truth here, I submit, that we will never see it. This incident of the killing of Renee Good has become so political (in just a few short hours, actually) that Truth has already been compromised. This does not mean that there is no Evidence of wrongdoing or Facts pertaining to motive.

Our Justice system, ideally, deals with getting to the Truth. But is Justice based on Truth or on Evidence? Evidence can be brought before Justice and be determined not to be Factual or Truthful. Facts can be submitted but they do not make up the whole picture that makes up Truth. 

If anything could even be close to Truth, it would be Fact and yet Facts can be manipulated and taken out of context. They aren't everything. 

Herein lies the rub, I think. We want to know everything. We want the whys and the what-fors. We want to know the details. If we didn't, we wouldn't gossip or make up stories or lie. But we CAN'T know everything. We can't say what goes on in another person's mind. Even cameras can't tell the Truth. That "ghost/paranormal" photo? Light in the lens. A distortion of windows or water or light. The lens sees it even if we don't. 

We are creatures of 5 senses and that tells us what we need to know but our minds demand more. So, we tell stories, we suppose evidence to fill in gaps, we create gods or devils. We explain the unexplainable with these tales and we believe them because they cannot be "proven" wrong. We can all see the exact same thing and call it something different.

Here's the one thing I do know about the killing of Renee Nicole Good: her final words. She didn't sound like she was getting ready to run over an ICE agent. Did she exit her vehicle when asked? No. But she had her driver's side window down. She wasn't hiding from them or trying to escape them. She was talking to them like people do. She was moving her vehicle as asked. Why was there an agent in front of her vehicle? Why would he draw his weapon? Some are saying "self-defense". How does killing the driver of a car that is already heading at you (which I don't believe) going to save you from that car? It isn't. Shouldn't the agent be jumping out of the way? Shouldn't he aim for the tires if he thought she was fleeing? Why fire into the windshield or through the driver's window to the driver? That isn't going to stop the vehicle. The vehicle will continue forward until it hits something heavy enough to stop it. People are saying that it all happens so fast that no one can think it through, they just react. Aren't officers and all law enforcement agents TRAINED for these situations? Isn't that part of their job? Isn't that why NOT ALL PEOPLE can be in law enforcement?

Do I know what the Truth is here? Hell no. I don't think anyone except that officer and that widow know the truth. But Justice doesn't require Truth only Evidence. And unfortunately, the evidence is subject to interpretation and manipulation.

Will there be consequences? For somebody, somewhere, yes. 

I don't know what's true here. 

I do know that a woman is dead. I do know that a man with authority called her a "fuckin bitch" after her shot her. Those are facts and they are part of the Truth.

-Wy

Please Welcome the 51st State: Venezuela!

 If it isn't apparent by now that I use this blog to vent my anger and frustration at the current state of the country, this will seal the deal.

Venezuela.

It's a South American country that the majority of Americans can't spell. It's been the subject the last month or so of small boats being bombed for drug trafficking. The official story, anyway. 

Today, America woke up to news that our country had kidnapped its dictator and his wife to bring to NYC to stand trial. Apparently, for drug and weapon violations? I'm not exactly sure of the charges. More than likely that's because it's all BS anyway. Look, am I pleased that this tin-pot dictator has been displaced? Yes. However, I also think that Venezuela should have done it for themselves. Or maybe I'm just SO Gen X that I think these kinds of things are what your government does on the down-low by providing secret weapons to "rebel" groups that then overthrow the government to instate a new dictator. Isn't that how we do things? I guess, times really have changed.  

Did Congress need to know? Nah. Presidents do this stuff all the time. Just about EVERY President throws bombs at some country at some point. Is this concerning? SURE IS.

See, if this really was a "Law enforcement" activity as Rubio claims, then Trump sure as hell didn't make that very clear in his press conference. He pretty much summed up the whole thing as a kidnapping, bring the bad guy to justice, we run Venezuela because, obviously, they don't know anything about government. Since when, BTW, does the US enforce international law unilaterally like that? I mean, we didn't even talk to the UN or European allies, or anybody to back us up on this? Even Russia is saying this was BS. REALLY? RUSSIA!! This can't be good.

I could write pages on how stupid this whole affair is to me BUT I will sum up my anger on a sliding scale according to the many variables of this situation. On a scale of 1 to 10 with low meaning I don't see it that way and high meaning I whole-heartedly agree with this assessment. The more I agree, the angrier I am about it.

Congress should have approved said mission: 2

We, the US, had no right to invade Venezuela. 5 (I'm still not clear on if the US was "asked" by certain "rebel" forces to help the cause.)

The US has no legal leg to stand on by trying Maduro in NYC. 7 (What the hell kind of evidence are they going to bring? The wreckage of a bunch of little "drug" boats?)

Trump wants the oil and wants to reward BIG OIL in the US for their support of him. 10 (Its always the oil.)

Should Maduro be allowed to go back to his country because all of this is just US colonialism? 4  

Will Maduro go back to his country after he strikes a deal with Trump and Trump "pardons" him? 8 (I'm going out on a limb here because the only support Trump really has for this strike is the fact that Maduro is considered a criminal. If Trump does pardon him (however the hell that is supposed to work), it won't look good for Trump. But he's pardoned other drug traffickers and traitors soooo...)

Trump did this because he's the peace President. 10 

Trump did this for national security. 10

Trump is a liar at best or a dementia patient at worst. 10

OK.

Let's just talk about one last thing: social media posts. 

I'm seeing some troubling posts from government offices and officials on their socials. Trump standing with a bat over the Western Hemisphere, one foot on Canada and one on Mexico. An American flag covering the entirety of Greenland. OFFICIAL GOVERNMENT pages are posting stuff like this. Marco Rubio insinuating that Cuba and other Central and South American countries could be next. Trump making flat out threats against same countries if they follow Venezuela's lead. 

These posts lead me to believe that this is now official foreign policy. That we are now the Police of the Western Hemisphere and will enforce the "law" as we see fit. That we will just declare an emergency, call another country a narco-terrorist, and send in the navy. WTF? These posts to social media are just bragging about shady policies. 

Is this what MAGA voted for? I thought it was all about America First and keeping immigrants out of the country? This upset in Venezuela may just cause more people to leave that country and head elsewhere. Are we going to take them? Hell, no. Cause that's not our policy either. 

In conclusion, I find it hysterical (in a maddening kind of way) that Trump thinks we can "run" Venezuela when his administration can't even run THIS country. People here aren't happy and think life is in the shitter. Why would Venezuela be happy that the US is taking over? It might make perfect sense that they'd want Maduro back after seeing how Trump has run the greatest country into the ground. Poor Venezuela has just traded one dictator for another. They just had the advantage of everyone agreeing with that fact. Which one do you want, V, the dictator you know or the oligarch you don't? He's coming with Big Oil in his back pocket because he sees the dollar signs. (I wonder how much the stock of Big Oil companies will rise on Monday?)

In conclusion; did Trump step outside the bounds of an American President? No. 

Was this a smart move? No.

It's time to start really asking what exactly we want from our government and what lengths were willing to accept to attain them.

-Wy

"My constituents call me Elise"

UPDATE: 12/21/25

It was reported over the weekend that Congresswoman Elise Stefanik will not run for governor, nor will she seek re-election to her Congressional seat. She wants more time as a mom. Or President Trump just dumped her. So, I guess you can skip reading the rest of this rant. Happy Holidays!

 Not so happy or proud to be one of Elise Stefanik's constituents.

District 21 of New York State. Let's talk.

First off, I follow Elise's Facebook page and realize that she, personally, does not write the stuff on there. I mean, who's got time for that? She's a busy Congresswoman that has to pass bills, hob-nob, suck up lies from lobbyists, capitulate to an oligarchy of billionaires, deal with the media at Fox News and other cable outlets, and squeeze campaign money out of every card-carrying Republican to run for Governor. She hasn't got time to write Facebook posts and chit-chat on X.

Hell, she ain't even got time for a quick town hall in her own District. She can stop by for a quick award presentation or for the local Republican dinners, but don't invite anyone out. I can drag out how much I think she lacks for doing her job, but I'll just hit a couple highlights.

1. She has never asked for the input of her constituents. Unless they're Republican. Otherwise, your opinion doesn't really matter. She is out of touch with 21 and she has shown NO desire to reconnect.

2. She adheres strictly to party lines. She will do what the Party asks. And, sorry, but I read 1984 and I don't like to vote for candidates that just tow the party line and repeat the party talking points. I want a representative that is capable of using his own common sense and good judgement.

3. She supported the Big Lie: that the 2020 Presidential Election was rigged, stolen, and fraudulent. Despite every court decision to the contrary. She refused to certify the Election results.

4. She, through her social media presence, uses aggressive, untruthful, and fear-mongering rhetoric against political opponents or those viewed with differing political viewpoints. She calls NY Governor Kathy Hochul "the worst governor in America" all the time in her posts and refers to Zohran Mamdani, the Mayor-elect of NYC a communist and a jihadist. These labels, with no evidence to support them, are dangerous rhetoric in a time when political violence seems to be expanding. 

5. Before being boo-ed out of Plattsburgh, NY, I can't remember the last time she ventured further north than Fort Drum. I hate to tell you, Elise, but you've got constituents a full 2-hour drive north of there. (And they still vote for you!) Around Thanksgiving, Senator Chuck Schumer, who represents the entire state of NY, visited this area and many of its pillars. I don't like everything he votes for but at least, he seems to be aware that New York has a North Country.

So before I get myself too deep into the weeds, let me now explain why I think we've had such poor representation, and it has little to do with the people we elect.

1. District 21 is HUGE. This District encompasses the entire northern portion of the state. It lumps places like Saratoga in with Plattsburgh in with Massena, in with Fort Drum. It is THE LARGEST District in the EASTERN US in area. It extends south into Cobleskill but not Cooperstown. It extends west to Fort Drum but not Watertown. It hugs the entire Vermont border from Canada just until the Capital District. It contains PARTS of Jefferson, Montgomery, Saratoga, and Oneida Counties. PARTS?!!

(I was going to insert a hot take here but I'm reconsidering. I'm not sure if I know enough about the other voting districts of NY to make an educated rant. So I'm going to do a little more research before I yell about redistricting.)

My point is: any representative of District 21 is going to have a tough time pleasing everyone. The needs of the voters of this District are too diverse to clump them all together under a single voice. It doesn't make sense to me that the City of Watertown and Fort Drum are in two different districts. Watertown is like 10 miles from Fort Drum and depends on those soldiers and their families to spend their paychecks in their stores, restaurants, and entertainment venues. If defies my logic, that counties are split up into different districts. If District 21 needs to be so large from a population standpoint then divvy it up closer to county lines.

2. Since District 21 became what it is today, it has voted RED, Republican. Yet every major election for Governor or President, we watch NY swing BLUE and send it's votes to the Democratic Party. How are we supposed to have our voices heard, if our votes don't seem to offset NY City? Granted, it's a population density kind of thing. But see, I thought that's what the Electoral College was supposed to fix. Why do all our Electoral College "votes" get lumped together and go to the "winner" of the state? Why aren't they divided up like a percentage? The winner gets the percent they won by and the loser gets the rest. Or something. (I admit, it's been a while since high school when I learned about how our government works. Maybe we should all have a refresher in civics.) My point is: there's gotta be a way to have these votes count more than they apparently do. Why should I bother to vote in these major elections when the state simply goes the way of NY City? Whatever The City voters decide is how the state seems to go. THIS fact makes the District representation even MORE important because its the only voice we really have.

I would just like to point out that I think the Republican Party is missing a damn fine opportunity here. States across the country used to split their Electoral votes which made for closer and more unpredictable elections because a candidate couldn't just "win a state". They had to work hard for every elector. Every voice in every corner of the country needed to be heard because every vote had power. Now that states just throw all those votes at the winner, candidates just need to focus on population centers and "battleground" states. So what's the incentive for candidates to listen to ALL our voices? What's the incentive for rural areas to get out to vote? 

New York Counties 2024 Presidental Election Map

That link goes to the map of how each county voted in the 2024 Presidential Election. I don't see a lot of strong blue counties but because that's where the population density is, our 28 electoral votes went to the winner. So, all those red and pink counties virtually wasted a vote. Look I get it, there are winners and losers but, in all fairness, shouldn't SOME of those electoral votes have gone to Trump? I mean, wouldn't that be the fairest way to be sure everyone's vote counted in some way. Am I looking at this the wrong way? 

3. Dare I even open up the can of worms that is a 2 Party system? If states are going to vote as a block, then wouldn't the population benefit from more than 2 choices? Wouldn't more political parties with different candidates allow more diverse voices to be heard? I'm going to leave this hanging as I really don't know a lot about any advantages to a two-party system. So, this will just be a chin scratcher.

Point being, rural America is losing its voice and that's why Trump got elected. He said he'd speak for those voters. Turns out, he doesn't care about the voters, only the votes. America needs to stop voting for people just because they are affiliated with a particular party. America needs to vote with their conscience and with their hearts. That being said, Representatives, great and small, need to use their judgement, too. They need to break party lines, speak their minds, and REPRESENT the people who entrusted them with their voice. 

In short, they need to do their jobs.

And as for Elise Stefanik, she's leaving Congress to run for NY Governor. And since Mamdani visited Trump in the White House and the President seemed pretty kosher with the guy, her rhetoric against him has disappeared. She even signed a discharge petition (the nature of which I forget, stock trading, I think. She refused to sign the one about the Epstein Files.) which basically bypasses the Speaker of the House's power to bring bills to the floor. Has she grown a set? Has the fact that she doesn't need to be re-elected to her Congress seat allowed her a certain "independent eye" for the remainder of her term? Is she now just trying to suck up to the Democratic voters of NY who think she's vile and MAGA? Hard to say. Time will tell. 

I won't vote for her. For anything. See my reasons at the top of the post. (Mostly the Big Lie.) But I do have one thing to say to her.

Do your damn job.

-Wy

A Golden Idol, I mean, Ballroom

 I have to stop listening to politics as it just deepens my already negative state of mind. I'm a negative person by nature, always thinking things are more difficult than they are, always finding a reason NOT to do something. So, the aura of negativity that surrounds politics in America right now seems too much.

However, there are some things that cannot be overlooked. Like ICE and the National Guard walking our city streets like stormtroopers. Like healthcare costs and the government shutdown. But the one thing that would almost seem trivial is what I'll brooch: the Ballroom.

Sure, the White House can be renovated, modernized, redecorated, and even reconstructed within reason but a fucking Ballroom? For a President that can't even dance? Huh? I thought the Rose Garden was going to be the maddening thing but a Ballroom? What is this; fucking Clue? (I buttle, sir.)

And he lied about it. He said it wouldn't touch the East Wing, he said it wasn't going to be as big as it was. Yeah, blah blah, blah. He didn't even have a plan when the walls started coming down. How horrifying it is to see that massive deconstruction of part of a building known as the People's House. How maddening. How sickening. It shows the lack of respect Trump holds for history, for anyone that came before him. How wonderful it must be for Trump to be Trump because he's never wrong, never bad, never ugly, never crude or vile. He won't allow those thoughts in his head despite everyone else seeing it like a supernova. 

Not only is this a demolition of the People's House without the People's consent (through their representatives in Congress) but it's also without regard to our History as a nation. Wasn't Trump against all those statues coming down in the South that were Confederate generals and slave-owners? Didn't he think it was wrong to remove them? How is this different?

I really think my head will explode when I try to think about next year; the 250th birthday of the United States of America. It's a tremendous milestone. It's a swelling of patriotism that all of us can feel and share. It should be a unifying moment that brings this nation together. Wouldn't that be great? Feeling that kind of kindred spirit for a good thing rather than a tragedy. Like 9/11 or a devasting Hurricane. We can unify as Americans and celebrate what the Declaration of Independence and US Constitution have established.

We hold these truths to be self-evident; that all men are created equal. That they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.

We the People in order to form a more perfect Union

I suppose Trump will want his Ballroom done by July 4th. I mean, where else would such a momentous occasion take place but a golden Ballroom. Our beautiful red, white, and blue hanging limply from golden flagpoles as glamorous billionaires step down a red carpet to greet the greatest President in the history of our country. Does anyone else remember a July 4th in Trump's first term when he gave a hours long "history of our country" speech? I mean, he recited history like it was a 3rd grade textbook. First the pilgrims landed then we had a tea party and fought for our freedom then we saved the UK from the Germans...sigh. Hell, he couldn't even put on a good military parade. There was nothing sadder than that military birthday parade. snicker.

But 250 years of anything shouldn't end up like Trump's parade. It just can't. I don't want to think about how he'll ruin it. How he just doesn't get it. He claims to love this country, but he doesn't. He doesn't even understand the principles of this country. That the laws apply to all people and the people are afforded rights that are not his to give or take. We the People are not bound by his Word, not forced to bend a knee to his Will. We are the People. That is the People's House you live in temporarily. We've allowed you it but it is not yours. Just as this country is not yours, it's ours. It's what we want it to be.

If July 4, 2026 ends up being a large ceremony in a golden Ballroom with Lee Greenwood singing "Proud to be an American" at one end, I'm going to puke. In fact, I might just consider that the lowest of low points in American History. But sitting at Trump's Presidential table will be a handful of billionaires and corporate CEOs who donated money to have this place built. How fitting that they will celebrate our Nation in a golden idol ballroom: a ballroom where those wealthy elite will come to worship. Perhaps they will bring golden gifts or fake promises or jets or golf clubs or a peace prize. The President will celebrate a country that is nothing more than a real estate deal to him. He won't sit in the People's House; he will shake hands and dance badly in the house his gold built. In the Ballroom of Gold, a new symbol of America that defines our new reality, the wealth gap. 

I hope my vision doesn't come true. 

Be careful, Mr. President, the God of Abraham warned about the worship of golden idols. A (People's) House divided cannot stand.

-Wy

Working for a Living

 My older brother and I were talking recently about how he's ready to retire. He's still a few years away but he's thinking about it with a welcome relief. Who could blame him? He worked long hours all his life after he left the Army and deserves a nice retirement.  But even as he tells me about the difficulties of retiring early, of how he needs to have some banker look over his numbers, I interrupt him.

"Wanna know my retirement plan? I work till I die."

He didn't even laugh, he knew it wasn't a joke. He knows plenty of people like me. People who live paycheck to paycheck and have no retirement fund, pension, no 401K, nothing but scraping together enough money for the bills and the groceries.

And last week? Last week I filed for unemployment. The small business I was working for finally shut down. The year has been rough, and my hours had been reduced for most of it. I usually could count on take home pay of $200 per week and I know that isn't much as it is. But I was only working 16 to 20 hours. This past year I was hard pressed to work even that. And part of it is the business itself; the prices for ingredients went up, sales went down and then tariffs hit and unpredictability became normal. 

So now I find myself on the unemployment line. Reality has set in. That reality is that 

1. I'm 55 years old.

2. I haven't been in the job market in ten years.

3. The education I list on a resume goes back to the 80's.

4. I have only one or two job references.

5. I live in a rural area where the largest employer is a hospital.

6. The longest jobs I've held involved retail sales which I don't really want to go back to.

7. I feel like I have no marketable strengths for the kind of job I would like.

What kind of job would I like? Jeez, I feel like I'm back at my Junior year in High School where I was expected to plan out my whole life, year by fucking year, so my guidance counselor could shoot me down a path I didn't like. What they don't tell you in High School or even College for that matter is that money makes the world go round. We don't want to admit it but that's reality.

For all the "find your happy place" drivel that the internet spouts or the "pursue your passions" BS that memes encourage, the fact of the matter; the bottom line, is that you can't do shit without money. That usually means a job. That job is probably one you don't really like. How often have you heard this: Live like you were dying. Guess what? You can't do that without a paycheck.

Am I being cynical? Sure. 

But where is the safety net? Where is the fall-back? Where is the support network for people who don't have one? For many folks, the philosophy has been, "pull yourself up by your bootstraps". What happens if you ain't got no boots?

Here's the dire situation of the poor in America: we work paycheck to paycheck and burn ourselves out on work that brings us no joy. It also brings us very little money, at least, as compared to the price of everything. So we have very little money saved. That means that THE JOB becomes our life because if we lose it, we're starting at ground zero for another one. That stress and anxiety leads to health issues, which we can't afford. See, you're thinking that shouldn't be an issue if we have a job that offers health insurance, right? Wrong. We, if we have the option, take the plan that takes the least amount out of our paycheck. See, we need the money now and can take our chances on the illnesses. If we do that, it means that the deductible for the health insurance is more than we can really afford. So just paying that puts us into credit card debt which just sinks us deeper and deeper into the hole. We are basically one accident away from being bankrupt and homeless.

Nowadays I think "Go Fund Me" is the poor man's healthcare. Church groups, charities, non-profit organizations, and community groups also step in and try to help out. Family and friends can step up. Care for your own, I guess.

Or maybe, just maybe, employers of large companies and corporations could pay their workers more. Maybe we could have a living wage rather than a minimum one. Maybe corporations could pay some taxes into the general fund and allow the poor to afford a pair of boots. Then, next time there's an accident, they can pull on those bootstraps. 

-Wy

PS:  I edited this post a million times! It started out very political and my title was "I lost my Job! Thanks, Republican Party!" but decided to just vent. The entire story is horribly long for a blog post. I've been unemployed for almost a month now and have received ONE unemployment check so far. My main source of income at the moment is Ebay. 

Who the Hell is Charlie Kirk?

 I'd never heard of him.

Was he in some cult film from the 70's? A part-time second banana on a late show? A minor league baseball pitcher? Maybe he was a NASA scientist?

None of it.

The guy was a podcaster and YouTube influencer who started Turning Point USA, the organization that brings right-wing politics to college campus' while downplaying the importance of a college education.

I think. See I had to google the guy. I admit that I found a lot of stuff that called him a man of faith and a great debater. That he was polite and intellectual. That his Prove Me Wrong TikToks were super popular and probably helped to make him a millionaire. Hey, no shade, that's the Capitalism and Free Markets he apparently loved to brag about as the thing that Made America Great. He was a loving husband and the father of 2 young children. Why would anyone want to shoot this guy?

And then...I saw he was MAGA. I read where he disparaged black Americans as being inferior. I began to watch some of his YouTube videos; cleverly edited on his own channel to show off "his debating skills". I saw videos where he said women needed to just get married and have babies. He didn't think most people felt safe on a plane flown by a black pilot. He thinks Trump's election was "stolen" and that the people of Gaza deserve to be starved to death because Isreal can't negotiate a hostage release. I read a professor's account of how she was placed on some "list" of his that made her the target of trolling on social media.

My head was spinning. So who was this guy, really? I mean, I saw so much outpouring of dismay and grief, and mourning. I hadn't seen this much crying over someone you'd never met since Betty White passed away. Surely, this guy hadn't really said all these horrible things written in these memes. This guy surely was taken out of context or something.

Nope.

I watched YouTube videos from this own account. He said that a certain number of deaths by gun violence was just an acceptable side-effect of the Second Amendment. Huh? I began to wonder where all the videos were of this "good guy". Was he polite when he debated? Pretty much. Until someone got under his skin or wouldn't be tripped up in his "whataboutism". Then, the guy could get downright rude. 

President Trump called for flags to go to half-staff. He said he's gonna give him the Medal of Freedom or something. Half of the country called him a white supremist and the other half is crying over the senseless violence of his death.

I NEVER heard of the guy. What am I supposed to believe? Where is the truth, the evidence?

Then, I reminded myself; he documented his beliefs on TikTok and YouTube. Those debates on his channel are curated to be what he wants his followers to believe. He is an Influencer. And his Turning Point USA is on college campuses to Influence the youth vote. When that kind of thing shows up from Russia or any Muslim, I believe we call it radicalization. I guess, if you're a Christian Nationalist, it's the American Way.

I don't need Memes or Democrats or Republicans to explain this guy to me. He's right there; on Youtube and his Podcast. In any number of videos from his Prove Me Wrong debates. So here's where the truth resides. I'll share my conclusions with you. But just a disclaimer: I don't think anybody should be murdered for expressing their opinion. Freedom of Speech is a coveted right around the world and there are plenty of places without it and they'd give anything to have it. Charlie Kirk had the RIGHT to express his opinion without fear of retribution or violence. 

Here's what I can conclude:

1. Charlie Kirk was a polite, even friendly, debater with people who weren't entirely sure of what they were debating or couldn't make a point. He debated well with those who really disliked him or really admired him. Those who admired him just asked for advice and seemed just happy to be in his presence while those who disliked him got tripped up on many of his "statistics" and "if you believe that then you HAVE to believe this, or you're full of BS". In both cases, he remained polite, calm, and even friendly. HOWEVER, I watched several videos out of the UK where he went to debate some college students over there and he was totally out of his element. Those students gouged him out. They stood their ground and called out his BS stats. They were well informed about the topic they brought to the table, so much so that Kirk just plain got frustrated at certain points and his voice would rise, he became a bit rude and seemed to be just another MAGA talking out of his ass. I have concluded that when up against educated individuals who are well informed of the news of the day, he basically pissed in the wind BECAUSE he only knows how to SOUND intellectual.

2. Charlie Kirk seemed to be a right-wing extremist, and a racist. All his basic and repeated viewpoints went back to the 1950's. Apparently to him, everything was better in the 50's. I mean, there wasn't any civil rights movement, feminism, or any of that DEI or CRT bullshit. I got the impression that that timeframe was his ultimate goal; that's when America was truly great. When white men could hold the power and everyone else could accept it. His arguments that African Americans and women were happier back then were grounded in the fact that they said they were. Or because the crime and suicide rates weren't as high back then as they are now. His argument was literally because there's more crime now, African Americans are less happy because they are the ones committing the crime and they wouldn't commit crimes if they were happy. Seriously? That's the most racist thing I've ever heard! And the fact that women are less happy these days because they're not having families, not having babies?! Say what? You have no idea how women feel and married women in the "old days" weren't always happy. They were trapped. It was too much of a stigma to get a divorce, no way to have her own money, and made to feel like a failure if you couldn't handle your own children. Women STILL make less money than men in the workplace despite Kirk saying exactly the opposite in one video I watched. The nation wasn't better in the 50's, it's just that all the little shadowy things that many people talk about on social media these days wasn't discussed in polite company back then. 

3. Charlie Kirk was a Christian Nationalist. Now here's where the fine line starts. Every religion is welcomed in the US. The Constitution and Declaration of Independence states it. America is built on it. To conclude that Christianity is the sole belief system of every American is UN-American. We have to be tolerant of all beliefs. The separation of Church and State is an important part of that. ALL peoples of all faiths should feel that they are equally represented or at the very minimum there is no partisanship for one faith over another. Kirk was very anti-Islam and vehemently defended the state of Israel against Gaza, in a very heated discussion he had posted to YouTube only 3 months ago. He would often use the choice of picking between the Bible and the Quran and only one being the "good" or "Truth" choice. Guess which one? See this zealousness of the Chirstian faith has no place in politics or the government. Church and State are separate things. The Christian Nationalist is an extreme end of the Christian faith and I do not frown upon Christians because of its existence. Nor should Muslims be judged by the actions of a few extremist groups. Nor should all Jewish peoples be lumped into the Zionist movement. The world is polarizing into extreme groups and if the strict "my way or the highway" mentality of these groups continue, this nation will never agree on anything ever again. Kirk fed these extremist views without apology. You are allowed to believe what you believe, you are allowed to practice it in public, you are allowed to speak about it in public, you are allowed. However, you are NOT allowed to bring it into governments or to foist it upon others and weaponize it against others. It's called Tolerance.

In conclusion, I cannot find any reason to cry over Charlie Kirk. His family will miss him, but the world will be better off without him spouting his extremist views. Should he have been murdered? Hell, no. All you had to do was "Prove Him Wrong" and he would have revealed his true nature. Do I understand why people are crying over him? Still, no. Perhaps I am missing something in my Google searches. 

All I can think to say is that a gun can't argue your point and it certainly won't make anything better. Charlie Kirk will be turned into some kind of martyr for the right, now. His name is now known to even those like me who didn't know who the f* he was. A gun has made him immortal.

He died I suppose with his beliefs proving his point. 

If you don't want gun reform because you believe it's an infringement of your Constitutional rights, you better remember that the Second Amendment ain't bulletproof when you hide behind it. 

-Wy

BTW: RELEASE THE EPSTEIN FILES!!!

Craft Industry Titanic

 I watched a video today from Spellbinders. Spellbinders is a small business that designs and sells craft supplies, mostly focused on paper crafts like scrapbooking, card making, and rubber stamping. They were discussing tariffs and the state of the industry in our recent US economic climate. It was very enlightening, not very surprising, and the comments were amazing. 

So here's what I got from it and thoughts that ran through my head as the video rolled on.

1. Tariffs aren't bad in and of themselves. Tariffs protect US production, supposedly, by raising the price on imported goods. Higher priced imported goods will therefore not be purchased as the consumer will buy the lower priced US goods. This is the theory. In reality, I don't know if it works so easily. Most things made in the US have components that are made in other countries and if those goods have an import tax (tariff) then the US can't produce the same item for less. And corporate greed won't allow said "comparable goods" to be sold for less. FICTIOUS EXAMPLE: If a die cutting machine is made overseas and imported, it would sell here for $200. A die cutting machine made here and not suffering the tariffs could be sold here for $140. However, the manufacturing companies that make the US die cutting machine may realize that NOW that the competition has a higher price, they can increase their price and still undersell them. So they can raise the price of the US die cutting machine to $180. SO, the consumer still deals with higher prices.

2. No country can make everything they need. The video was about the crafting industry which is a "non-essential" market. No one NEEDS to buy craft supplies to survive. But we live in a global market and if we don't manufacture things from the ground up, then we have to get raw materials from somewhere outside our borders. That means importing. I understand tariffs on finished goods but tariffs on raw materials are strange. Why make the manufacturers you want to succeed pay more for the raw materials they need to make goods?

3. We lack the infrastructure for manufacturing as well as skilled labor. There was one manufacturing facility in the US to make steel dies for die cutting machines used in many paper crafts. It closed up abruptly. For lack of business? Hell no. For a lack of skilled labor. It's all well and good to say "make it in the US", "invest in the US", "bring back manufacturing jobs", but the reality is that most people don't want to work those kinds of jobs. It's a tedious assembly line in sometimes hazardous conditions. And let's not forget, that corporations don't really want to pay their workers what they are worth. There are no guarantees that manufacturing jobs would pay any more than McDonalds. It would take tens of millions of dollars to construct new manufacturing infrastructure and tens of years to get it up and running. If the craft industry isn't making money (due to having to pay large tariffs and charging higher prices), where is this investment money going to come from?

4.  The Craft Industry is made up of mainly small businesses. Most of the "big names" in the crafting industry have less than a hundred workers. Spellbinders, which recently bought up Hero Arts, has about 60 employees. Many craft industry businesses are family owned and operated. Most source their designs to be manufactured elsewhere. Small businesses across the board are hurting due to economic uncertainty. It's not all about tariffs; its about the bouncing ball that makes predicting prices impossible. The craft industry is much like the chocolate business (that I know a little bit about). Chocolate products need to be thought out and manufactured BEFORE a season hits. Easter candy needs to be made at Christmas so that there is enough to meet demand (and turn a nice profit because no one wants Easter candy in July). Same with seasonal craft supplies. No one is thinking of making Christmas cards in February. Mostly. But designs need to be created and products thought out so there is time to have them made before consumers want them. And consumers of craft or DIY items want them earlier than most because they then have to make the said item themselves. EXAMPLE: If I'm making my Christmas cards, I need to start making them in November at the latest, so I have time to get them in the mail to people for Christmas. If those supplies don't become available until late October, I may not have time to make the cards at all. You crafting people know what I mean.

5. The Industry will raise prices or go under. Unfortunately, this is the reality of many small businesses. However, as bad as I feel about it, I also feel that the industry has a chance to shift. It may not be as profitable and it may cause a downsizing but it might be better than closing down for good. The craft industry is a bit to blame for the situation. Most companies release new products ALL the TIME. Gina K Designs puts out a new release of stamps, dies, stencils, and what all EVERY MONTH. Spellbinders has subscriptions that get sent EVERY MONTH of supplies. Tim Holtz and Ranger Ink release new products from 4 different designers at least 4 times a year. Other companies release items at least for every holiday or season. As consumers and crafters, we feel the compulsion to buy what's trending, what's new, what everybody else is using. We long-time crafters have rooms of hoarded supplies, some still unopened in our craft rooms, waiting to be used. We haven't used them because before we get the time to, the industry has shifted onto the next big thing. 

Maybe it's not about new items. Maybe for a little while, when times are tough, the industry could cut back a bit on the new stuff and invest in TEACHING. I certainly feel that learning new skills is more valuable than increasing my supplies. I would pay for knowledge as I wouldn't pay for "stuff". Maybe instead of a subscription box filled with things I won't ever use, I could buy a subscription to monthly learning live videos. Show us how to use the OLD stuff that we still have! And if we don't have the exact thing, show us how to adapt what we do have! Reassure us that we just need to sit down and make things, that they don't have to be perfect, they don't even have to be shared; they just need to bring joy in the making of it. 

See, the industry itself has been so product based that it has devalued the heart of the hobby. We papercraft to release stress, to find and share joy, to brighten someone's day with a card, to preserve memories with scrapbook pages. We have stashes of things like papers, and stamps, and dies, and inks. Produce content that encourages us to use it. 

In the comments section of this video, I saw many content creators voice that they were getting concerned over their jobs. If the companies didn't have money to make products, they wouldn't have any money to pay them or provide free products to them and their jobs would be cut. My gut feeling is that this is NOT the way to go. If you cut content creators at this point, you really will sink. Most crafters at this point watch their favorite creators via YouTube or FB for ideas and tips and tricks. I would say that their jobs are the most secure. Teaching how to use what you have is WHAT the CONSUMER wants. I can't tell you how many times I see that pop up in comments of videos. Show us some old, well loved stamp sets and tell us why you still use them or why not?

The industry has conditioned its consumers to want the newest things and only the newest things. The industry has been retiring items after a single production run, and you never see the item again. Especially in paper. So, if we consumers DON'T buy the newest thing, it's gone. We have become conditioned to buy it now, even if we don't have a plan for it because we may not be able to get it again. Now this industry is feeling the pinch of this anxiety inducing form of consumerism. 

Now obviously, I'm not an industry insider. I'm not an expert in the craft industry. Maybe only new items sell well. Maybe those many commenters I see in so many YouTube livestreams are the minority. Maybe we don't buy enough stuff to impact the bottom line. But we have been asking for the craft industry to SLOW DOWN for years now and no one has listened. We've wondered when you were going to notice the many of us who went on "no buy" weeks, months, and even years. We've begun to shift our focus from the newest thing to the most versatile things, to the "fill the gap in the collection" things. I am often left feeling guilty when I'm on my No Buy year because I hear that I should support these small businesses. I follow their socials and try to like their posts etc. But sometimes that is hard, too, because the posts are aimed at selling you something. 

Look, I. GET. IT.

I don't want these businesses to go under. I hope a happy medium can be found. I REALLY want to buy the new Spellbinders Cardstock in 12 X 12. It's hard to find thick cardstock in that size BUT I also need to pay my bills. My fear is that it will be gone or discontinued before I even get a chance to try it. THAT fear is built on years of the craft industry clearing out the old and making way for the new. The industry conditioned me to feel this anxiety (called FOMO, fear of missing out) and it takes a while to realize that when one thing goes away, something else will come in to replace it. 

I. GET. IT. 

I just don't think the industry gets it. 

I feel unheard and unseen by this industry. We, who have been hoarding craft supplies, who have inherited our mother's craft supplies, who are drowning in craft supplies, just want the industry to acknowledge that they once made THIS and here's an idea of how to use it NOW. We just want the industry to keep things around for longer than a season. Stop retiring things and let's not pretend like these old things don't exist.

Ok. I need to stop. I'm just going off on tangents of griping, now.

-Wy

Can Gen X Go Nuclear?

There's been something on my mind. I heard our Governor say something that I thought was insane and I'm wondering if it's because I'm Gen X. Let's review a bit about how Gen X was educated.

We grew up with Reaganomics, the Cold War, Acid Rain, and riding our bikes without helmets. There was nary a concern that kids were outside, by themselves, without an adult supervising because no one knew about child abductions until kids' faces started showing up on milk cartons. Yes, we even drank milk...real dairy stuff from cows. (Because you can't get milk from an almond, ok!)

We were taught about preserving our environment, and the need to use a condom. AIDS was a real thing, and it wasn't just a gay thing which led to us learning about homosexuality. We learned home economics and how to use a table saw in public school. We had 9 planets in our star system. A home computer was a luxury and used for playing games no matter how much you told your parents it was a valuable school necessity. 

We didn't put a man on the moon, but we did launch a space shuttle that returned to Earth to be used again. D&D was still scary to most people and was thought to lead to Satanic rituals. Nuclear anything was bad news always. Even our Saturday morning cartoons didn't use nuclear weapons, just those ACME bombs that never seemed to be able to hit a roadrunner. 

Here's where my dilemma starts: nuclear power.

See Gen X learned that nuclear power wasn't a great option for the future of energy because of one thing: radiation. I learned that uranium that fueled these reactors became highly radioactive. The rods and "waste" that nuclear power plants produced were radioactive and had half-lives of tens of thousands of years. So, what do you do with the nuclear waste? Bury it. See, that doesn't seem to be a smart idea to me. What happens to a landfill that has too much garbage? They plow over it and start a new one. How does that work with radioactive material? Do we just dig more caves under mountains to throw the stuff in? What happens if there's an earthquake, a volcano erupts, some dipshit thinks he can be a terrorist by holding the nuclear waste "hostage" and threaten to release it unless we comply with demands? 

Gen X was taught to fear nuclear catastrophe. And not just a nuclear bomb. There was Chernobyl. In 1986, we all heard about Chernobyl and to any Gen Xer, that's all that needs to be said. In the same way, you just say "pandemic" and everyone knows what you're talking about. Radiation poisoning is a horrible way to die, and the danger doesn't just lie in a disaster like Chernobyl. There's all that radioactive waste that we're sealing up in concrete BENEATH the power plants. Are you kidding me? That has been the safety solution after all these years for nuclear reactors?! Congress said we were going to build a huge storage facility out in the desert somewhere and truck all that radioactivity out of people's "backyards". Guess what? We never built it. We never approved the money for it. Say WHAT?

Let's not even factor in nuclear submarines. Really? Are these still a thing? We're not still building nuclear subs, are we? God DAMN!

I bring it up because I have heard that NY is now looking into building a new nuclear facility to help supply power needs for the state. HUH? WHY? Nuclear reactors are not "clean" "green" energy. They produce radioactive waste that takes THOUSANDS of years to decay and become non-lethal. It's like putting venomous snakes in the petting zoo because they'll only kill you if you don't have anti-venom. What the F is wrong with this?!

Why can't we build windmills? They kill birds and whales. BS. Non reflective buildings kill more birds. Whales are not affected by turbines in the ocean. Not one whale has died because of a wind turbine.

Why can't we build solar panels? They take up nutrient rich soil that could be used for farming. They don't have to be built there. They can be placed on the roofs of houses and buildings. They can be placed over parking lots. They can shade rivers or ponds. Have you seen the size of the parking lots at Disney World? Just build solar panels over them and they provide shade to the cars below and soak up the sun for energy production.

We have enough radioactive waste with the reactors the world already has and it's not just that. Radioactive waste is produced from medical tests, too. Can we please do something that won't lead us into the plot of a Godzilla movie?

Gen X has always figured that they're on their own. Safety wasn't a concern when we were kids. If you fell off your bike onto asphalt, no one raised the alarm that all bikes should be banned. But enough of us fell to make folks feel that maybe, just maybe, we needed helmets. Then, everything required a helmet; construction work, football, motorcycles, hockey. So maybe nuclear energy has improved its safety record. Maybe we learned something from Chernobyl. 

You're gonna have to prove that to Gen X. 

And until you can, we'll vote against it always. See, we're all grown up and our vote COUNTS now.

So stick that in your reactor and smoke it.

-Wy

The "Supreme" Court

 I'm confused about this recent Supreme Court ruling concerning birthright citizenship.

I kinda understand the ruling. The Supreme Court is basically dodging the question and saying that the lower courts need to just stay in their lane. That a federal court, other than the Supreme Court, doesn't have the authority to set a nationwide injunction, only a "local" one. Or one that pertains only to the plaintiffs that brought forward the case. Is this more or less what I'm reading?

So, a Federal Court cannot reverse or nullify an Executive Order for the nation. And if several states sue the government, then that ruling would only apply in those states because other states didn't jump in? It doesn't seem to make a lot of sense. I can't be understanding this correctly. Do I have to be a lawyer to understand what the Supreme Court has decided?

I ask because IT SEEMS LIKE THE SUPRREME COURT IS SIMPLY STALLING. 

Look, do I think a lower court should be able to set a nationwide injunction? I don't know, honestly. If a FEDERAL court couldn't, it seems like it would undermine the authority of the court. It also means that the only way the Judicial branch of government can "check" the Legislative or Executive branches is via the Supreme Court. If lower federal courts can't rule for the Nation, why have them? Don't they help with separating out less important cases for the Supreme Court? I mean, the Supreme Court can't work all the time. Geez, give the Justices a break, eh? Sitting around in a robe all day listening to lawyers expound on the interpretations of the Constitution can be horribly draining. They need some time off. 

Maybe I don't understand our Judicial system. Does anyone really, though?

What pisses me off is that this particular EO is so against the Constitution. It's obviously unconstitutional and in violation of the 14th Amendment that anyone that can READ understands. No EO can counter-act that. The Congress would have to repeal the 14th Amendment. The Supreme Court says that one federal judge shouldn't have the power to determine nationwide policy...yet they afford one man, a President, that very deference. If the Supreme Court is saying that one person can't make policy for the nation even if he is a judge, then Presidential Executive Orders shouldn't be legal either. And both of these interpretations weaken both the Judicial and Executive branches while strengthening the Legislative.

Maybe the problem is that the President is an elected position and Judges are appointed? So, theoretically, the President is a voice of the majority? Because that doesn't fly if a President doesn't require a majority of the Popular vote to be President. If he wins the Electoral College, it doesn't matter how many individual votes he got. 

Ugh, I'm giving myself a headache. 

I guess, I'll just give up on this and wait for the Supreme Court to rule on the actual EO. EVERYONE who reads the Constitution knows how this should turn out. 

I still feel the need to be prepared for a plot twist. 

Blah, blah, blah.

-Wy