Image: Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation/Sunset Boulevard/Corbis, via Getty Images
[ed. Time marches on, and friendships... what you make of them. See also: Robert Redford and the Perils of Perfection (New Yorker).]
Wednesday, September 17, 2025
Decades of Public-Lands Planning, Overturned in a Day
On the sagebrush plains of eastern Montana, cattle graze alongside mule deer, and pumpjacks rise from coal seams. For nearly a decade, the future of this landscape was hammered out in the Miles City Resource Management Plan, a compromise shaped by ranchers, tribes, hunters, energy companies and conservationists. Now, with one vote in Washington, Congress has thrown that bargain into doubt, and with it, decades of public-lands decisions across the West.
Finalized in November 2024 after years of debate and litigation, the Miles City plan is one of the nation’s largest, governing 12 million acres of BLM land and 55 million acres of federal mineral estate across eastern Montana.
Finalized in November 2024 after years of debate and litigation, the Miles City plan is one of the nation’s largest, governing 12 million acres of BLM land and 55 million acres of federal mineral estate across eastern Montana.
But on Sept. 3, the U.S. House of Representatives voted to overturn three Bureau of Land Management plans, including Miles City, under the Congressional Review Act, the first time the law has ever been applied to land-use planning. Legal experts and conservation groups warn that the consequences could be far-reaching, enabling Congress to unravel decades of environmental protections and management decisions on public lands.
Resource management plans serve as guidelines for how the BLM manages the public lands it oversees. The plans are developed through a lengthy process that combines local and tribal input with environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act. The goal is to create a blueprint for “multiple use” management, balancing economic activities such as grazing and oil and gas development with other concerns, including wildlife habitat, outdoor recreation and conservation.
In Montana, the disappearance of that blueprint will have immediate consequences. Ranchers face uncertainty on how many cattle they can run, when their permits will be renewed, and what will happen during a serious drought. Tribal cultural sites are likely to be left unprotected and years of tribal consultation overridden. Conservation groups warn that congressional vetoes could sideline science-based safeguards for vulnerable habitats. In Miles City, the resource management plan would have reformed coal seam leases near the Powder River Basin; without those reforms, habitat for elk, mule deer, sharp-tailed grouse and pheasants could be fragmented by new energy development.
The Miles City plan drew input from ranchers, tribes, energy companies, hunters, outdoor recreation groups and conservation groups, and its supporters argue that undoing it sets a dangerous precedent.
“It’s disregarding all the conversations that have happened on the ground,” said Land Tawney of American Hunters and Anglers. “That balance sometimes isn’t perfect for anybody, but it’s a path forward for all.” (...)
The 1996 Congressional Review Act allows Congress to overturn agency rules within a 60-day window using only a simple majority, bypassing the filibuster. This is the first time resource management plans have ever been treated as “rules.”
“That’s why we’re at an inflection point,” said Chris Winter, director of the Getches-Wilkinson Center at the University of Colorado Law School. (Disclosure: Winter serves on High Country News’ board of directors.) Resource management plans, he said, have never been submitted to Congress for review. “Applying it now could unravel decades of land-use planning practice,” he said.
The CRA was employed only once before 2017, but the first Trump administration dramatically expanded its use. If this resolution stands, it would subject all RMPs to possible congressional approval, throwing every element of the planning process into doubt. According to Michael Blumm, a professor at Lewis & Clark Law School, this reinterpretation “calls into question the legitimacy” of the more than 100 plans finalized since the Congressional Review Act became law.
by Zoë Rom, High Country News | Read more:
Image: Luna Anna Archey
Resource management plans serve as guidelines for how the BLM manages the public lands it oversees. The plans are developed through a lengthy process that combines local and tribal input with environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act. The goal is to create a blueprint for “multiple use” management, balancing economic activities such as grazing and oil and gas development with other concerns, including wildlife habitat, outdoor recreation and conservation.
In Montana, the disappearance of that blueprint will have immediate consequences. Ranchers face uncertainty on how many cattle they can run, when their permits will be renewed, and what will happen during a serious drought. Tribal cultural sites are likely to be left unprotected and years of tribal consultation overridden. Conservation groups warn that congressional vetoes could sideline science-based safeguards for vulnerable habitats. In Miles City, the resource management plan would have reformed coal seam leases near the Powder River Basin; without those reforms, habitat for elk, mule deer, sharp-tailed grouse and pheasants could be fragmented by new energy development.
The Miles City plan drew input from ranchers, tribes, energy companies, hunters, outdoor recreation groups and conservation groups, and its supporters argue that undoing it sets a dangerous precedent.
“It’s disregarding all the conversations that have happened on the ground,” said Land Tawney of American Hunters and Anglers. “That balance sometimes isn’t perfect for anybody, but it’s a path forward for all.” (...)
The 1996 Congressional Review Act allows Congress to overturn agency rules within a 60-day window using only a simple majority, bypassing the filibuster. This is the first time resource management plans have ever been treated as “rules.”
“That’s why we’re at an inflection point,” said Chris Winter, director of the Getches-Wilkinson Center at the University of Colorado Law School. (Disclosure: Winter serves on High Country News’ board of directors.) Resource management plans, he said, have never been submitted to Congress for review. “Applying it now could unravel decades of land-use planning practice,” he said.
The CRA was employed only once before 2017, but the first Trump administration dramatically expanded its use. If this resolution stands, it would subject all RMPs to possible congressional approval, throwing every element of the planning process into doubt. According to Michael Blumm, a professor at Lewis & Clark Law School, this reinterpretation “calls into question the legitimacy” of the more than 100 plans finalized since the Congressional Review Act became law.
by Zoë Rom, High Country News | Read more:
Image: Luna Anna Archey
[ed. See also: Trump looks to suffocate public lands; and, How to comment on the planned roadless rule rollback (HCN).]
Tuesday, September 16, 2025
Hot Dog University
A man in a Vienna Beef apron is lecturing into a speakerphone. Somewhere, someone scribbles notes in the margins of a Costco receipt. Elsewhere, a woman slices onions with the precision of a surgeon. A teenager in Chicago buffs his stainless steel hot dog cart until it gleams like a spaceship. A former landscape mogul-turned-cannabis-entrepreneur serves 20 custom hot dogs from a hand-built stand nestled between a ski mountain in Vermont and his dispensary. In Washington State, a Silicon Valley escapee helps his social media manager capture the perfect shot of his stand. A retired math professor counts out buns in Texas. In North Carolina, a man unfurls a 14-foot banner that reads BIG SEXY DAWGS, then opens a folding chair and waits for customers outside a rowdy college bar.
Different zip codes, different lives, but somehow, they all trace the same strange road back to a place called Hot Dog University.Yes, that’s a real place — tucked into the back of the Vienna Beef factory on Chicago’s North Side. Part classroom, part test kitchen, part pilgrimage for anyone who’s ever dreamed of slinging sausages for a living.
Every graduate of Hot Dog U knows the drill. They've studied the sacred script. They know the snap of the casing is non-negotiable. They've practiced the topping order like it’s a choreography: yellow mustard, neon green relish, chopped onions, tomato wedges, a pickle spear, sport peppers, and just a dash of celery salt.
And they all know the cardinal rule, taught by their P.H.D. (that’s Professor of Hot Dogs): no ketchup. Unless you still ride a tricycle (and can prove it), you're pregnant (we don’t argue with cravings), or it’s your wedding day (and we’d better see the dress).
It’s easy to laugh, until it isn’t.
This is serious business and the students at Hot Dog U are gearing up. Not just for summer, but for something bigger — independence, reinvention, the hope that if they can just get the cart to the right corner, maybe, just maybe, everything might work out.
It’s a little Ted Lasso, a little Abbott Elementary — big-hearted, scrappy, and, unexpectedly, profound. Our story begins in a classroom where the lessons are about hot dogs, sure. But this is also a story about failure and second chances, hustle and hope, and the deeply American belief that a sidewalk, a spatula, and a dream might still be enough.
In my family, hot dogs were never just food. They were in-between moments: passed across bleacher seats at ballgames, devoured at gas station stops, slightly charred at backyard cookouts. Hot dogs became shorthand for time spent together.
So when I set out to report this story, it wasn’t because I had a grand theory about encased meats. It was something more subtle: a soft spot for a food that always felt like home. And I didn’t expect to find much more than nostalgia.
But what I found at Hot Dog U wasn’t just a quirky trade school with a great logo. People arrive from burned-out careers and unexpected life turns, from family kitchens and military mess halls, carrying stories as varied as their menus. They leave with a cart, a diploma, and — if it works — a shot at something better.
There’s something quietly radical about that. In a country where “entrepreneur” has become a buzzword for tech bros and hustlers, the students at Hot Dog U are a different breed. They're working-class dreamers. Retired couples. First-generation families. People who don’t want to disrupt the industry. They just want a patch of sidewalk, a roll of napkins, and a line of hungry customers.
by Celia Aniskovich, Switchboard | Read more:
Image: Hot Dog University poster
[ed. From things I've heard it can be a pretty cutthroat business. Mostly about getting the right spot.]
Different zip codes, different lives, but somehow, they all trace the same strange road back to a place called Hot Dog University.Yes, that’s a real place — tucked into the back of the Vienna Beef factory on Chicago’s North Side. Part classroom, part test kitchen, part pilgrimage for anyone who’s ever dreamed of slinging sausages for a living.
And they all know the cardinal rule, taught by their P.H.D. (that’s Professor of Hot Dogs): no ketchup. Unless you still ride a tricycle (and can prove it), you're pregnant (we don’t argue with cravings), or it’s your wedding day (and we’d better see the dress).
It’s easy to laugh, until it isn’t.
This is serious business and the students at Hot Dog U are gearing up. Not just for summer, but for something bigger — independence, reinvention, the hope that if they can just get the cart to the right corner, maybe, just maybe, everything might work out.
It’s a little Ted Lasso, a little Abbott Elementary — big-hearted, scrappy, and, unexpectedly, profound. Our story begins in a classroom where the lessons are about hot dogs, sure. But this is also a story about failure and second chances, hustle and hope, and the deeply American belief that a sidewalk, a spatula, and a dream might still be enough.
In my family, hot dogs were never just food. They were in-between moments: passed across bleacher seats at ballgames, devoured at gas station stops, slightly charred at backyard cookouts. Hot dogs became shorthand for time spent together.
So when I set out to report this story, it wasn’t because I had a grand theory about encased meats. It was something more subtle: a soft spot for a food that always felt like home. And I didn’t expect to find much more than nostalgia.
But what I found at Hot Dog U wasn’t just a quirky trade school with a great logo. People arrive from burned-out careers and unexpected life turns, from family kitchens and military mess halls, carrying stories as varied as their menus. They leave with a cart, a diploma, and — if it works — a shot at something better.
There’s something quietly radical about that. In a country where “entrepreneur” has become a buzzword for tech bros and hustlers, the students at Hot Dog U are a different breed. They're working-class dreamers. Retired couples. First-generation families. People who don’t want to disrupt the industry. They just want a patch of sidewalk, a roll of napkins, and a line of hungry customers.
by Celia Aniskovich, Switchboard | Read more:
Image: Hot Dog University poster
[ed. From things I've heard it can be a pretty cutthroat business. Mostly about getting the right spot.]
Monday, September 15, 2025
DSA Political Platform
Preamble
The Democratic Socialists of America are fighting to win a world organized and governed by and for the vast majority, the working class. We are socialist because we share a vision of a humane social order based on popular control of resources and production, economic planning, equitable distribution, feminism, racial equality and non-oppressive relationships. We are democratic because we know that this transformation cannot be won from the top down, by a small group of elites who claim to have all the answers, or by even well-meaning politicians. This transformation can only come from the bottom up, when millions of working-class people stand together. DSA organizes to realize our working-class collective power, which stems from the reliance of the capitalist economy on our labor. Democracy is necessary to win a socialist society. Socialism is the complete realization of democracy.
Our fight to end capitalist exploitation is inextricably tied to our fight to end oppression. A democratic socialist society must end all systemic domination, whether it’s based on race, religion, ethnic origin, sexual orientation, disability, or gender. The historical development of U.S. capitalism was heavily reliant on the theft of people’s lives and land, through the enslavement of Black people and genocide of Indigenous people. Our legal, economic, and social institutions continue to perpetuate racialized oppression. We will never be able to unify a multi-racial working class without confronting structural racism.
Likewise, a democratic socialist society must end the economic subjugation of women in the workplace, violence and harassement affecting women and non-binary people, and the entire system of unpaid, gendered work. We strive for the emancipation of all people by forging the multiracial working class into an organized, fighting force on the terms of its most oppressed members. In overcoming the old, barbaric order of capitalism, the working class will not only liberate itself from its own shackles, but all of humanity from the parasitic death-drive of capitalism. As capitalism’s climate crisis ravages the whole Earth, the well-being of the working class is ultimately aligned with the survival of the whole planet.
In 2021, the U.S. socialist movement is on the rise for the first time in most of our members’ lifetimes. Millions of people have been inspired to seek out alternatives to the existing political regime, owing to Bernie Sanders’ two democratic socialist presidential campaigns,
working-class electoral victories at all levels of government, massive popular protests and organizing for racial justice, an influential upsurge in militant labor activity, and strategic campaigns to build popular support for key issues, such as healthcare and climate change. In the four years of the Trump administration, DSA membership exploded and is currently approaching our goal of 100,000 members.
But this growth of the socialist movement is not nearly enough to overcome the devastating impact of four decades of neoliberal capitalism, let alone bring about a transition to socialism. Neoliberalism is the political project of lowering taxes for the rich and corporations, eviscerating democratic decision-making both in the workplace and at the ballot box, slashing spending on essential social services such as education and social security, deregulating industries across the economy, and opening up flows of capital across national borders. The success of neoliberalism has enforced a culture of hyper-individualism and alienation from the kinds of collective, democratic organizations necessary to challenge the power of the capitalist class.
This challenge highlights the insufficiency of “progressivism” as well as the critical task of DSA. Transformational change in society does not come from moral righteousness or a checklist of policy positions, but from growing and wielding power. It is therefore imperative that we organize the largest possible number of people to join DSA and work together with broader coalitions united around common goals. It is to these ends that we are setting out the platform that follows. We have a world to win.
The Democratic Socialists of America are fighting to win a world organized and governed by and for the vast majority, the working class. We are socialist because we share a vision of a humane social order based on popular control of resources and production, economic planning, equitable distribution, feminism, racial equality and non-oppressive relationships. We are democratic because we know that this transformation cannot be won from the top down, by a small group of elites who claim to have all the answers, or by even well-meaning politicians. This transformation can only come from the bottom up, when millions of working-class people stand together. DSA organizes to realize our working-class collective power, which stems from the reliance of the capitalist economy on our labor. Democracy is necessary to win a socialist society. Socialism is the complete realization of democracy.
Our fight to end capitalist exploitation is inextricably tied to our fight to end oppression. A democratic socialist society must end all systemic domination, whether it’s based on race, religion, ethnic origin, sexual orientation, disability, or gender. The historical development of U.S. capitalism was heavily reliant on the theft of people’s lives and land, through the enslavement of Black people and genocide of Indigenous people. Our legal, economic, and social institutions continue to perpetuate racialized oppression. We will never be able to unify a multi-racial working class without confronting structural racism.
Likewise, a democratic socialist society must end the economic subjugation of women in the workplace, violence and harassement affecting women and non-binary people, and the entire system of unpaid, gendered work. We strive for the emancipation of all people by forging the multiracial working class into an organized, fighting force on the terms of its most oppressed members. In overcoming the old, barbaric order of capitalism, the working class will not only liberate itself from its own shackles, but all of humanity from the parasitic death-drive of capitalism. As capitalism’s climate crisis ravages the whole Earth, the well-being of the working class is ultimately aligned with the survival of the whole planet.
In 2021, the U.S. socialist movement is on the rise for the first time in most of our members’ lifetimes. Millions of people have been inspired to seek out alternatives to the existing political regime, owing to Bernie Sanders’ two democratic socialist presidential campaigns,
working-class electoral victories at all levels of government, massive popular protests and organizing for racial justice, an influential upsurge in militant labor activity, and strategic campaigns to build popular support for key issues, such as healthcare and climate change. In the four years of the Trump administration, DSA membership exploded and is currently approaching our goal of 100,000 members.
But this growth of the socialist movement is not nearly enough to overcome the devastating impact of four decades of neoliberal capitalism, let alone bring about a transition to socialism. Neoliberalism is the political project of lowering taxes for the rich and corporations, eviscerating democratic decision-making both in the workplace and at the ballot box, slashing spending on essential social services such as education and social security, deregulating industries across the economy, and opening up flows of capital across national borders. The success of neoliberalism has enforced a culture of hyper-individualism and alienation from the kinds of collective, democratic organizations necessary to challenge the power of the capitalist class.
This challenge highlights the insufficiency of “progressivism” as well as the critical task of DSA. Transformational change in society does not come from moral righteousness or a checklist of policy positions, but from growing and wielding power. It is therefore imperative that we organize the largest possible number of people to join DSA and work together with broader coalitions united around common goals. It is to these ends that we are setting out the platform that follows. We have a world to win.
by Democratic Socialists of America | Read more:
[ed. Some good ideas here, but some really nuts ones too (though not as bad as Project 2025). This is from 2021, so given all that's happened since hopefully they've revised or discarded a bunch of the really crazy stuff (defunding police to zero?) and are focused more on restoring important programs and backing common sense solutions that won't alienate half the country (and that are practically achievable).]
Sunday, September 14, 2025
Shared Custody Laws Are Changing Divorce Forever
Our society today is legally and normatively gender egalitarian. Women are empowered to pursue high-powered careers or anything else in life. Men are expected to help out with the housework and child-rearing. Now, many men don’t do that, but there’s an expectation that they should.
It was second wave feminism that brought about this revolution. But it also laid the groundwork for cultural changes that some feminists don’t like, such as in the area of divorce law.
Traditionally, divorce courts were very favorable to women. In the event of divorce, sole custody almost always went to the mother, with fathers relegated to limited visitation and hit with child support obligations. The “deadbeat dad” who failed to pay up was the target of even conservative ire. Women could even get alimony, which is financial support intended for the ex-wife herself, not the children. The logic here was that since women didn’t have careers, they couldn’t support themselves and so needed to continue to be provided for by their ex-husbands.
Men basically didn’t stand much of a chance in divorce court in this regime. The father’s rights movement publicized a litany of horrors such as men forced to pay child support for kids that were genetically proven not to be theirs, fathers being forced to pay for graduate school for kids who are well into adulthood, fathers denied access to their children at all, poor black men jailed for being too broke to pay child support, and men who can never retire because they are forced to pay lifetime alimony to their ex-wife (who may actually be shacked up with another guy).
But in this egalitarian world, where women have careers and men are spending more time with the kids, this old regime became increasingly unsustainable.
The most logical and fair divorce system in this egalitarian world would have a strong presumption of joint equal-time custody with no child support payments.
The divorce regime in general has been trending this direction, and some states have actually begun to enshrine this system in law. One of them is Kentucky, whose system was the subject of a lengthy article in the Wall Street Journal.
But there is some evidence that custody laws do influence this. There’s an oft-cited study by Brinig and Allen called, “These boots are made for walking': why most divorce filers are women.” The authors note the many financial and power benefits to women under the traditional divorce regime:
The Brinig and Allen study suggests that a presumption of equal custody might reduce divorce rates.
However, this might not always lead to fewer divorces. Among upper middle class families, joint custody divorces might actually incentivize divorce in some cases.
Still, these arrangements are undoubtedly more beneficial to fathers than the previous regime. Naturally many feminist advocates hate it. There’s basically no compelling moral or fairness argument against it within the framework of our contemporary egalitarian culture, so they have to raise the specter of abuse. Back to the Journal article:
In short, the danger to children from being with a particular divorced parent includes being with their mother as well as their father. (...)
A presumption of equal time joint custody is the obviously fair approach in cases of divorce. This is a powerful reason why the world has been moving in this direction.
It was second wave feminism that brought about this revolution. But it also laid the groundwork for cultural changes that some feminists don’t like, such as in the area of divorce law.
Men basically didn’t stand much of a chance in divorce court in this regime. The father’s rights movement publicized a litany of horrors such as men forced to pay child support for kids that were genetically proven not to be theirs, fathers being forced to pay for graduate school for kids who are well into adulthood, fathers denied access to their children at all, poor black men jailed for being too broke to pay child support, and men who can never retire because they are forced to pay lifetime alimony to their ex-wife (who may actually be shacked up with another guy).
But in this egalitarian world, where women have careers and men are spending more time with the kids, this old regime became increasingly unsustainable.
The most logical and fair divorce system in this egalitarian world would have a strong presumption of joint equal-time custody with no child support payments.
The divorce regime in general has been trending this direction, and some states have actually begun to enshrine this system in law. One of them is Kentucky, whose system was the subject of a lengthy article in the Wall Street Journal.
It was 2017, and across Kentucky, divorced fathers were coming together against a common enemy: a custody system they felt favored their ex-wives.The law has become a model for other states, not least because Kentucky’s divorce rate has plummeted. Between 2016 and 2023 it fell 25%, compared with a nationwide decline of 18%, according to an analysis by the National Center for Family & Marriage Research at Bowling Green State University.
Although custody laws in Kentucky and elsewhere granted judges discretion to decide what split was in a child’s best interest, aggrieved fathers claimed that this typically meant relegating them to the role of every-other-weekend “Disneyland dads,” forced to cram two days of fun into what mothers had two weeks to create.
…
Around the country, the fathers’ rights movement was gaining momentum. Dividing time and decision-making equally between parents, advocates argued, reduced children’s feelings of abandonment, promoted gender equality and lowered tensions between feuding couples
…
In 2018, Kentucky became the first state to pass a law making equally shared custody the default arrangement in divorces and separations. Four other states—Arkansas, West Virginia, Florida and Missouri—have since passed their own versions of Kentucky’s custody bill. Around 20 more are considering or close to passing similar laws, according to an analysis by the National Parents Organization.
The article notes that one effect of this law was a steep decline in the number of divorces in Kentucky.
I don’t know that we have enough evidence to say that this law is what produced these outsized declines in the divorce rate. Divorce is very complex. People who are getting divorced tend to be extremely emotional and often irrational.But I think there are reasons to believe this would discourage divorce in some cases. It’s extremely well-established that women initiate the vast majority of divorces - about 70% of them. But I’ve never really seen completely compelling findings on the reasons why they are filing for divorce.
But there is some evidence that custody laws do influence this. There’s an oft-cited study by Brinig and Allen called, “These boots are made for walking': why most divorce filers are women.” The authors note the many financial and power benefits to women under the traditional divorce regime:
Divorce, despite its many shortcomings, allows the woman to exercise control over household spending when she is awarded custody. If the court names her primary custodian, she makes most, if not all, of the major decisions regarding the child. As custodial parent, she will be able to spend the money the husband pays in child support exactly as she pleases—something she may not do during marriage. Finally, although the court will usually have ordered visitation, she can exert some control over her former husband by regulating many, although not all, aspects of the time he spends with the child.After doing a lot of quantitative analysis, the authors conclude:
Our results are consistent with our hypothesis that filing behavior is driven by self-interest at the time of divorce. Individuals file for divorce when there are marital assets that may be appropriated through divorce, as in the case of leaving when they have received the benefit of educational investments such as advanced degrees. However, individuals may also file when they are being exploited within the marriage, as when the other party commits a major violation of the marriage contract, such as cruelty. Interestingly, though, cruelty amounts to only 6% of all divorce filings in Virginia. We have found that who gets the children is by far the most important component in deciding who files for divorce, particularly when there is little quarrel about property, as when the separation is long. [emphasis added]This would be consistent with an interesting study I saw some years ago out of Stanford which found that although women are more likely to initiate divorce, men and women are equally likely to initiate breakups in non-marital relationships.
The Brinig and Allen study suggests that a presumption of equal custody might reduce divorce rates.
If it is custody outcomes that most influence divorce filings, changes in custody rules (or their likely outcomes) rather than in divorce grounds should most shape the patterns of both marriage and divorce. In particular, this could take the form of a presumption of joint custody or a rule that made post-divorce patterns mirror preseparation time shares as closely as possible, with sole custody only in cases where one party can show the other parent unfit. An appropriate custody rule mitigates the incentive for one-party filing for the purpose of gaining unilateral control over the children and, to the extent both parents remain involved through visitation or child support, the other spouse.Again, we can’t draw too many conclusions from just one or a couple of studies out of the vast literature out there. But it’s intuitive from an economics perspective that a presumption of joint custody would significantly change the incentive structures around divorce.
However, this might not always lead to fewer divorces. Among upper middle class families, joint custody divorces might actually incentivize divorce in some cases.
It’s no secret that having kids dramatically constrains your lifestyle, particularly when the kids are younger. A joint custody divorce in which the father and mother alternate weeks with the kids allows them to have “the best of both worlds.” They can still be very involved in their children’s lives and be in parent mode on the weeks they have children, but they can live the single life of fun with friends, concerts, etc. on the other weeks. This might be more appealing to a would-be wife than a situation where she more or less has to have the child full time.So I think the dynamics might be more complex than we expect here.
Still, these arrangements are undoubtedly more beneficial to fathers than the previous regime. Naturally many feminist advocates hate it. There’s basically no compelling moral or fairness argument against it within the framework of our contemporary egalitarian culture, so they have to raise the specter of abuse. Back to the Journal article:
Some people are staying married to abusive partners, critics of the law say, because they are terrified of leaving their children alone with a parent with a history of violence. “They know their kids are safer if they stay,” said Elizabeth Martin, chief executive of the Louisville-based Center for Women and Family, which provides services to victims of domestic violence (most but not all of whom are women). “Even if it means taking some beatings.”What the article does not state is that it’s well established that one of the leading threats to children is mom’s new boyfriend. As sociologist Brad Wilcox writes:
… (...)
This new federal study indicates that these cases are simply the tip of the abuse iceberg in American life. According to the report, children living with their mother and her boyfriend are about 11 times more likely to be sexually, physically, or emotionally abused than children living with their married biological parents. Likewise, children living with their mother and her boyfriend are six times more likely to be physically, emotionally, or educationally neglected than children living with their married biological parents. In other words, one of the most dangerous places for a child in America to find himself in is a home that includes an unrelated male boyfriend—especially when that boyfriend is left to care for a child by himself.Also, many mothers themselves have a variety of their own problems that endanger their children, such as substance abuse. But I doubt these advocates want mothers with a drug problem to automatically get stripped of custody of their children.
In short, the danger to children from being with a particular divorced parent includes being with their mother as well as their father. (...)
A presumption of equal time joint custody is the obviously fair approach in cases of divorce. This is a powerful reason why the world has been moving in this direction.
by Aaron Renn | Read more:
Image: Jennifer Pahlka/Wikimedia, CC BY-SA 2.0
[ed. Some residual bitterness over this issue, so I'll just say: it's about time. Way past time.]
[ed. Some residual bitterness over this issue, so I'll just say: it's about time. Way past time.]
Enlly Blue & Royal Blues Club
[ed. More here, and if you like this check out Etta James' catalog, too.]
Saturday, September 13, 2025
Calvinball
In the comic strip Calvin and Hobbes, there's a game called Calvinball. The only rule is that the person with the ball makes up new rules as they go. Whatever helps them win becomes the rule. That's American politics now. Democrats follow the rules. Republicans change them whenever they want. And Democrats keep losing because they're playing a game that no longer exists.
Let's start with the Supreme Court. When Justice Scalia died on February 13, 2016, President Obama picked Merrick Garland on March 16. That was 237 days before the election. Mitch McConnell said no. His reason was "The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice" (Hulse, 2020). He claimed there was a rule: no Supreme Court picks in an election year. Republicans refused to even hold a hearing. For 293 days.
Four years later, Justice Ginsburg died on September 18, 2020. That was 46 days before the election. McConnell rushed through Amy Coney Barrett in eight days before the election (Fandos, 2020). Suddenly the "rule" vanished. Remember Lindsey Graham. In 2016, he literally said "use my words against me" if Republicans ever did this. Then he voted for Barrett anyway (Montanaro, 2020).
Wisconsin, 2018. Democrats won every statewide race. Before the new governor took office, Republicans called a lame duck session. In 22 hours, they stripped the incoming Democratic governor of his powers (Stern, 2019). The Assembly Speaker admitted it plainly: "We are going to have a very liberal governor who is going to enact policies that are in direct contrast to what many of us believe in" (Stern, 2019). Translation: Democrats won, so we're changing the rules.
Money tells the same story. During Obama's presidency, McConnell called the deficit "the transcendent issue of our era" (Bolton, 2013). Obama inherited a $1.4 trillion deficit. He cut it to $665 billion (Treasury Department, 2013). Then Republicans took over in 2017. First thing they did was pass a tax cut that added $1.9 trillion to the debt (Tax Policy Center, 2024). Trump added $7.8 trillion to the debt in just four years (CRFB, 2024). When Biden was president the deficits mattered again.
Impeachment standards shift the same way. Republicans impeached Clinton for lying about sex. Lindsey Graham said using your office "in a way that hurts people" was enough to remove a president (Evon, 2019). Then Trump pressured Ukraine to investigate Biden. He incited January 6th. Graham called both impeachments a "sad, ridiculous sham" (Williams, 2019). Lying about sex was impeachable. Trying to overthrow an election was presidential privilege.
Mail voting might be the most brazen flip. Florida Republicans invented modern mail voting. In 1988, Connie Mack won a Senate race because absentee ballots went 3-to-1 for him (Gardner & Dawsey, 2021). For thirty years, Republicans made mail voting easier. Then Trump lost. Suddenly: "Republicans: BAN MAIL-IN VOTING!!!" (Rodriguez, 2025). Since 2020, 21 states have passed 33 laws making it harder to vote by mail (Brennan Center for Justice, 2024).
Texas showed us how creative they can get. Their 2021 abortion law lets any random person sue anyone who helps with an abortion for $10,000 plus legal fees (Texas Legislature, 2021). This structure meant courts couldn't block the law since there's no officials to stop it. Even when judges said it was unconstitutional, clinics stayed closed. The law says if you provide abortions while fighting in court and lose later, you owe money for every procedure (Whole Woman's Health v. Jackson, 2021). Oklahoma and Idaho copied this trick.
Republicans have a significant advantage: it's easier to destroy existing structures than build new ones.
by Christopher Armitage, The Existential Republic | Read more:
Image: Drew Angerer/Getty Images/Politico
[ed. Sorry for another political post. Everything's going to hell so fast, sometimes it's hard to connect the dots (especially when you don't pay much attention or get most of your news from tv - especially Fox). When history gets written and we finally know how this all goes down I hope those complicit are forever remembered and shamed for their role in destroying this country's potential (and looting its riches). But if history is any guide, they won't be.]
Fascism is a cancer of the body politic. The ideas that form its foundation as a philosophy are there in every society, and each culture manages them the way most bodies contain pre-cancerous cells that will never metastasize because the body is healthy enough to maintain itself despite its underlying flaws. The far more interesting question than “who”, for me, is “what”? What are the conditions and triggers that cause the cancer of fascism to overwhelm the counterbalancing philosophies. To fester, grow, and ultimately become terminal to a healthy society.
Four years later, Justice Ginsburg died on September 18, 2020. That was 46 days before the election. McConnell rushed through Amy Coney Barrett in eight days before the election (Fandos, 2020). Suddenly the "rule" vanished. Remember Lindsey Graham. In 2016, he literally said "use my words against me" if Republicans ever did this. Then he voted for Barrett anyway (Montanaro, 2020).
Wisconsin, 2018. Democrats won every statewide race. Before the new governor took office, Republicans called a lame duck session. In 22 hours, they stripped the incoming Democratic governor of his powers (Stern, 2019). The Assembly Speaker admitted it plainly: "We are going to have a very liberal governor who is going to enact policies that are in direct contrast to what many of us believe in" (Stern, 2019). Translation: Democrats won, so we're changing the rules.
Money tells the same story. During Obama's presidency, McConnell called the deficit "the transcendent issue of our era" (Bolton, 2013). Obama inherited a $1.4 trillion deficit. He cut it to $665 billion (Treasury Department, 2013). Then Republicans took over in 2017. First thing they did was pass a tax cut that added $1.9 trillion to the debt (Tax Policy Center, 2024). Trump added $7.8 trillion to the debt in just four years (CRFB, 2024). When Biden was president the deficits mattered again.
Impeachment standards shift the same way. Republicans impeached Clinton for lying about sex. Lindsey Graham said using your office "in a way that hurts people" was enough to remove a president (Evon, 2019). Then Trump pressured Ukraine to investigate Biden. He incited January 6th. Graham called both impeachments a "sad, ridiculous sham" (Williams, 2019). Lying about sex was impeachable. Trying to overthrow an election was presidential privilege.
Mail voting might be the most brazen flip. Florida Republicans invented modern mail voting. In 1988, Connie Mack won a Senate race because absentee ballots went 3-to-1 for him (Gardner & Dawsey, 2021). For thirty years, Republicans made mail voting easier. Then Trump lost. Suddenly: "Republicans: BAN MAIL-IN VOTING!!!" (Rodriguez, 2025). Since 2020, 21 states have passed 33 laws making it harder to vote by mail (Brennan Center for Justice, 2024).
Texas showed us how creative they can get. Their 2021 abortion law lets any random person sue anyone who helps with an abortion for $10,000 plus legal fees (Texas Legislature, 2021). This structure meant courts couldn't block the law since there's no officials to stop it. Even when judges said it was unconstitutional, clinics stayed closed. The law says if you provide abortions while fighting in court and lose later, you owe money for every procedure (Whole Woman's Health v. Jackson, 2021). Oklahoma and Idaho copied this trick.
Republicans have a significant advantage: it's easier to destroy existing structures than build new ones.
by Christopher Armitage, The Existential Republic | Read more:
Image: Drew Angerer/Getty Images/Politico
[ed. Sorry for another political post. Everything's going to hell so fast, sometimes it's hard to connect the dots (especially when you don't pay much attention or get most of your news from tv - especially Fox). When history gets written and we finally know how this all goes down I hope those complicit are forever remembered and shamed for their role in destroying this country's potential (and looting its riches). But if history is any guide, they won't be.]
Fascism is a cancer of the body politic. The ideas that form its foundation as a philosophy are there in every society, and each culture manages them the way most bodies contain pre-cancerous cells that will never metastasize because the body is healthy enough to maintain itself despite its underlying flaws. The far more interesting question than “who”, for me, is “what”? What are the conditions and triggers that cause the cancer of fascism to overwhelm the counterbalancing philosophies. To fester, grow, and ultimately become terminal to a healthy society.
The Oligarchs’ Dinner Party and Zuckerberg’s Hot Mic Reveal
On September 4, Trump summoned more than thirty of the most powerful figures in Silicon Valley to the State Dining Room. At the table: Mark Zuckerberg (Meta), Tim Cook (Apple), Satya Nadella (Microsoft), Bill Gates, Sergey Brin and Sundar Pichai (Google), Sam Altman and Greg Brockman (OpenAI), Safra Catz (Oracle), Alex Karp (Palantir), Jensen Huang (NVIDIA), Jeff Bezos (Blue Origin/Amazon), and a procession of other AI and chip executives.
The optics were unmistakable. A long table, microphones set before each oligarch, gold-rimmed plates. The ritual was familiar: like a Trump cabinet meeting, each guest took a turn praising the Leader, pledging billions in “investment,” extolling his “visionary leadership.”
The quotes read like scripted devotionals:
If it felt choreographed, that’s because it was. This was not a negotiation, not even a strategy session. It was performance—the oligarchs lining up to kiss the ring.
A Little Context, Please
To understand what this performance really means, it helps to step back and look at what these oligarchs have already done to America. For that, I turn to Mike Brock—ex-tech exec turned reluctant Cassandra—whose writing at Notes from the Circus cuts with unusual moral clarity.
Here’s Brock, in his essay The Oligarchs’ Dinner Party: How Silicon Valley Toasted American Fascism:
The Hot Mic Reveal
And then came the moment that crystallized everything.
As Zuckerberg delivered his carefully prepared pledge of a $600 billion U.S. investment, a hot mic caught him whispering to Trump.
Here was the supposed master of the algorithm, the man who built a trillion-dollar empire on predictive precision, fumbling to figure out what number would please Trump. This wasn’t a CEO making a business decision. It was a courtier checking with the king.
Mike Brock nailed the significance in his companion essay The Hot Mic and the Monsters:
Conclusion
What we saw in the State Dining Room was not business as usual. It wasn’t “innovation,” it wasn’t “visionary leadership,” and it sure as hell wasn’t patriotism. It was a court of oligarchs kneeling before an aspiring autocrat, pledging riches and obedience in exchange for protection and privilege.
The spectacle was obscene: billionaires who’ve built fortunes by monetizing despair now rushing to sanctify the man who has turned constitutional vandalism into performance art. Zuckerberg’s hot mic didn’t just reveal stage fright — it exposed the truth of the whole evening: this was theater, not policy; flattery, not leadership; a ritual of submission masquerading as a summit of visionaries.
Mike Brock captured it with precision:
Every once in a while, a moment cuts through the fog and shows us the rot for what it is. The Oligarchs’ Dinner Party was one of those moments — a gaudy, gold-plated warning flare. We should not look away, and we should not forget who stood at that table and kissed the ring.
The quotes read like scripted devotionals:
- Sam Altman (OpenAI): “Thank you for being such a pro-business, pro-innovation President. It’s a very refreshing change.”
- Tim Cook (Apple): “Thank you for setting the tone such that we can make a major investment in the United States.”
- Sergey Brin (Google): “It’s an incredible inflection point… that your Administration is supporting our companies instead of fighting with them.”
If it felt choreographed, that’s because it was. This was not a negotiation, not even a strategy session. It was performance—the oligarchs lining up to kiss the ring.
A Little Context, Please
To understand what this performance really means, it helps to step back and look at what these oligarchs have already done to America. For that, I turn to Mike Brock—ex-tech exec turned reluctant Cassandra—whose writing at Notes from the Circus cuts with unusual moral clarity.
Here’s Brock, in his essay The Oligarchs’ Dinner Party: How Silicon Valley Toasted American Fascism:
“To understand what these oligarchs have done to America, start with Mark Zuckerberg’s Instagram. His company’s internal research showed the platform was systematically destroying teenage girls’ mental health—creating unprecedented levels of depression, self-harm, and suicide among the most vulnerable users. The data was clear, the causation documented, the human cost undeniable.I can’t say it any better than that. These men and women didn’t walk into the White House as neutral technologists. They walked in as the architects of an extraction economy that commodifies our attention, monetizes our despair, and treats human vulnerability as an opportunity for profit. Yes, I know that’s very cynical, but when histories of this era are written a couple of centuries from now —assuming humanity survives and histories are still being written—I believe Brock has identified the central key feature of this era. The only question is whether humanity fully collapses because of it—or some counterforce emerges to defeat or at least mitigate it.
Zuckerberg buried the research and continued the optimization.
This isn’t business negligence—it’s systematic cruelty disguised as innovation. Instagram was designed to extract maximum engagement from teenage minds through carefully engineered addiction, turning the most vulnerable period of human development into a profit center for algorithmic manipulation. The teenage suicide epidemic wasn’t an unfortunate side effect; it was the predictable result of systems optimized for engagement over human welfare.
But Instagram represents something larger: the entire Silicon Valley model of turning human consciousness into commodity. Every platform, every algorithm, every “connection” technology follows the same logic—fragment attention, replace authentic relationship with algorithmic substitutes, optimize human behavior for extraction rather than flourishing.
Tim Cook’s Apple markets privacy protection while building surveillance infrastructure for authoritarian regimes. Satya Nadella’s Microsoft promises AI enhancement while developing predictive policing systems that target communities for algorithmic enforcement. Each oligarch represents a variation on the same theme: technological sophistication serving moral barbarism, innovation rhetoric disguising systematic dehumanization.”
The Hot Mic Reveal
And then came the moment that crystallized everything.
As Zuckerberg delivered his carefully prepared pledge of a $600 billion U.S. investment, a hot mic caught him whispering to Trump.
“Sorry, I wasn’t ready… I wasn’t sure what number you wanted to go with.”It was awkward. But more than awkward, it was revealing.
Here was the supposed master of the algorithm, the man who built a trillion-dollar empire on predictive precision, fumbling to figure out what number would please Trump. This wasn’t a CEO making a business decision. It was a courtier checking with the king.
Mike Brock nailed the significance in his companion essay The Hot Mic and the Monsters:
“This isn’t business negotiation. This is a courtier asking his king what lies he’d prefer to hear, then delivering them with practiced servility to a public they view as sheep requiring management rather than citizens deserving truth.”The hot mic stripped away the theater. It revealed the truth: the oligarchs weren’t there to shape policy. They were there to play their part in legitimizing authoritarianism through performance.
Conclusion
What we saw in the State Dining Room was not business as usual. It wasn’t “innovation,” it wasn’t “visionary leadership,” and it sure as hell wasn’t patriotism. It was a court of oligarchs kneeling before an aspiring autocrat, pledging riches and obedience in exchange for protection and privilege.
The spectacle was obscene: billionaires who’ve built fortunes by monetizing despair now rushing to sanctify the man who has turned constitutional vandalism into performance art. Zuckerberg’s hot mic didn’t just reveal stage fright — it exposed the truth of the whole evening: this was theater, not policy; flattery, not leadership; a ritual of submission masquerading as a summit of visionaries.
Mike Brock captured it with precision:
“What the hot mic moment exposes is the elaborate theater that authoritarian consolidation requires to maintain legitimacy while systematic plunder proceeds.”That’s the point. These men aren’t independent actors shaping the future. They are props in a reality show where Trump plays Dear Leader and the oligarchs play sycophants, helping to launder authoritarianism through the language of “innovation” and “investment.”
Every once in a while, a moment cuts through the fog and shows us the rot for what it is. The Oligarchs’ Dinner Party was one of those moments — a gaudy, gold-plated warning flare. We should not look away, and we should not forget who stood at that table and kissed the ring.
by Michael D. Sellers, Deeper Look | Read more:
Image: uncredited
[ed. Be sure to visit Mike Brock's site for the original posts (and more): The Oligarchs’ Dinner Party; and, The Hot Mic and the Monsters (NFtC). See also: The art of the fawn: pouring praise on Trump is latest political phenomenon (Guardian).]
10 Questions to Answer Before You Die
There are endless questions you could ask, but these are the ones (split into 5 questions to ask and 5 actions to take before you die) I’ve seen make the biggest difference for the person dying, and for the people left to live without them. And none of which require a lawyer or a ton of money—just a little intention.
5 questions to ask:
1. What method of body disposition feels right for me?
Most people haven’t given much thought to what they’d like to happen to their body after they die—but it’s one of the most important end-of-life decisions you’ll make, both for yourself and for your loved ones. The options include, but aren’t limited to:
There are more options than you might think, and we’re working on building something to help you explore them in an approachable, easy way.
Choosing ahead of time saves your people from having to make a big financial and emotional decision while in shock and grief. Without your guidance, they’re left to guess about what you “would’ve wanted” or how much money is “meaningful enough” or appropriate to spend. Your choice gives them relief, confidence, and one less decision to make during an overwhelming time that can be akin to experiencing a traumatic brain injury.
2. What kind of goodbye would feel meaningful for me and for the people who love me?
Before you say, “I don’t want a funeral” or “I don’t care,” remember: your funeral isn’t just for you—it’s also for the people you love the most in this world.
Ceremony and ritual—big or small—is hugely important for helping people process loss. Denying them that moment could lead to delayed or complicated grief. It doesn’t need to be traditional, elaborate, or expensive, but it does need to be intentional. Encourage your loved ones to have a ceremony or gathering in your honor, and if you’re worried about it being “too much of a fuss,” leave instructions for something simple, and start saving money (the average funeral costs $8,000) to pay for it or contribute. Don’t know where to start? Book a conversation with me.
3. Who should be notified if I die tomorrow?
Consider right now: If you were to get in a lethal accident tomorrow, who would you want to be notified first? And if you already have a list, are these contacts still accurate? Divorce, estrangement, death, or the passing of time can all shift who belongs on this list.
Make sure the person you’d want handling your affairs (going through your phone and your things) has access to the information they will need, and you’ve had a conversation with them about the two questions above. This is one of the most overlooked—and most practical—pieces of end-of-life planning.
4. Who do I trust to make medical decisions if I can’t?
Imagine you're in a car accident and end up unconscious, kept alive by machines. The hospital calls your emergency contact—maybe it’s your mom, who lives out of state and wants to keep you alive at all costs (can you blame her?). Meanwhile, your partner or best friend, whom you’ve had this conversation with, is in the waiting room, desperate to advocate for you, but they can’t, because you never named them as your Medical Power of Attorney (MPA). So doctors default to “next of kin,” and suddenly a medical crisis becomes a conflict. One person wants to “do everything,” another insists you wouldn’t want to live like this...Grief turns into blame, and families are torn apart. Everyone thinks this stuff only happens to other people, but it happens every day. Do yourself and your family a favor, and get it sorted in advance.
The person you name as your MPA does not necessarily have to be your spouse or even related to you, but whoever it is, they need to be informed of your wishes. So, if you become unconscious or unable to speak, they’re the ones the doctors will ask to make the hard decisions.
5. Is there anything I’ve left unsaid? Who do I need to say it to?
This one is personal: If you had a year left to live, what truths would you speak? Who would you thank? Apologize to? Forgive?
Regret is one of the heaviest things we leave behind. Don’t wait for the “right” moment. Say what needs to be said—now.
5 Things you can do right now that will make your inevitable death easier:
6. Set up your iPhone Legacy Contact & Gmail Inactive Account Manager.
This is one of the easiest (and most overlooked) things you can do. It ensures that when you die, someone you appoint and trust can access your phone or email (without it, your loved ones might get locked out of everything), which is crucial for closing accounts, alerting contacts, and sorting through photos. Think of it as naming your digital next of kin. And choose wisely—this is also the person who’ll have access to all your stuff, so make sure it’s someone you trust to delete anything you wouldn’t want to see the light of day.
You can set this up in under 5 minutes in your Apple ID settings or Gmail account settings. And some social media platforms, like Facebook and Instagram, also let you assign a “legacy contact” to manage or memorialize your profile. It’s a small step that can prevent a lot of stress for the people you love.
7. Set up a password manager—and share the master password.
Your entire digital life is locked behind passwords—almost everything you own or use is tied to one: your bank details, subscriptions, social media, phone, and computer, etc. A password manager (like 1Password) helps you organize and secure them all in one place.
When you die, the people left behind will need these passwords to access, manage, and close your accounts. Giving one trusted person access to your master password ensures they can do all of that without jumping through legal hoops, or getting locked out because they had to guess your password and they guessed wrong too many times. It’s a small act of preparation that prevents a whole lot of chaos.
8. Name a guardian for your kids or pets.
If something happened to you tomorrow, who would care for your children? Who would take in your dog? Who would clean out your apartment? Don’t assume they’ll say yes, or that they know.
The first step and time to have these conversations is before a crisis. Not after. For pets, it’s not legally required, but for kids, this designation should be followed up with a legal document (typically your will) to make it official. Without it, a court could decide who gets custody, and that may not align with your wishes.
9. Make a bank account “payable on death” (POD).
You don’t need a will to do this. You can go to your bank (some might even let you do it online) and add a beneficiary to your account with a single form. This allows the people you trust to access funds immediately—for emergency flights, funeral costs, food, and childcare.
10. Write down what matters most.
Inspired by the letters my mom wrote me on her deathbed to open for future milestones (one of which I have coming up very soon—my wedding), I do something similar on every flight. I review notes I’ve made in my phone for the people I love, just in case. Because if the plane does go down, and I die (or when I eventually die), I want them to know: how much they meant to me, and what sign I will try to use to communicate with them after I’m gone.
A few sentences can change everything for the people you love. It doesn’t have to be long, and it can look however you want it to:
[ed. Good advice for future reference.]
5 questions to ask:
1. What method of body disposition feels right for me?
Most people haven’t given much thought to what they’d like to happen to their body after they die—but it’s one of the most important end-of-life decisions you’ll make, both for yourself and for your loved ones. The options include, but aren’t limited to:
- Cremation (flame or water)
- Natural or conventional burial
- Human composting
- Donation to science
- Launch your cremains (yes, the correct term is “cremains,” not ashes, because cremated remains are actually the decedents' pulverized bones) into space
- Turn your cremains into a diamond
Choosing ahead of time saves your people from having to make a big financial and emotional decision while in shock and grief. Without your guidance, they’re left to guess about what you “would’ve wanted” or how much money is “meaningful enough” or appropriate to spend. Your choice gives them relief, confidence, and one less decision to make during an overwhelming time that can be akin to experiencing a traumatic brain injury.
2. What kind of goodbye would feel meaningful for me and for the people who love me?
Before you say, “I don’t want a funeral” or “I don’t care,” remember: your funeral isn’t just for you—it’s also for the people you love the most in this world.
Ceremony and ritual—big or small—is hugely important for helping people process loss. Denying them that moment could lead to delayed or complicated grief. It doesn’t need to be traditional, elaborate, or expensive, but it does need to be intentional. Encourage your loved ones to have a ceremony or gathering in your honor, and if you’re worried about it being “too much of a fuss,” leave instructions for something simple, and start saving money (the average funeral costs $8,000) to pay for it or contribute. Don’t know where to start? Book a conversation with me.
3. Who should be notified if I die tomorrow?
Consider right now: If you were to get in a lethal accident tomorrow, who would you want to be notified first? And if you already have a list, are these contacts still accurate? Divorce, estrangement, death, or the passing of time can all shift who belongs on this list.
Make sure the person you’d want handling your affairs (going through your phone and your things) has access to the information they will need, and you’ve had a conversation with them about the two questions above. This is one of the most overlooked—and most practical—pieces of end-of-life planning.
4. Who do I trust to make medical decisions if I can’t?
Imagine you're in a car accident and end up unconscious, kept alive by machines. The hospital calls your emergency contact—maybe it’s your mom, who lives out of state and wants to keep you alive at all costs (can you blame her?). Meanwhile, your partner or best friend, whom you’ve had this conversation with, is in the waiting room, desperate to advocate for you, but they can’t, because you never named them as your Medical Power of Attorney (MPA). So doctors default to “next of kin,” and suddenly a medical crisis becomes a conflict. One person wants to “do everything,” another insists you wouldn’t want to live like this...Grief turns into blame, and families are torn apart. Everyone thinks this stuff only happens to other people, but it happens every day. Do yourself and your family a favor, and get it sorted in advance.
The person you name as your MPA does not necessarily have to be your spouse or even related to you, but whoever it is, they need to be informed of your wishes. So, if you become unconscious or unable to speak, they’re the ones the doctors will ask to make the hard decisions.
5. Is there anything I’ve left unsaid? Who do I need to say it to?
This one is personal: If you had a year left to live, what truths would you speak? Who would you thank? Apologize to? Forgive?
Regret is one of the heaviest things we leave behind. Don’t wait for the “right” moment. Say what needs to be said—now.
5 Things you can do right now that will make your inevitable death easier:
6. Set up your iPhone Legacy Contact & Gmail Inactive Account Manager.
This is one of the easiest (and most overlooked) things you can do. It ensures that when you die, someone you appoint and trust can access your phone or email (without it, your loved ones might get locked out of everything), which is crucial for closing accounts, alerting contacts, and sorting through photos. Think of it as naming your digital next of kin. And choose wisely—this is also the person who’ll have access to all your stuff, so make sure it’s someone you trust to delete anything you wouldn’t want to see the light of day.
You can set this up in under 5 minutes in your Apple ID settings or Gmail account settings. And some social media platforms, like Facebook and Instagram, also let you assign a “legacy contact” to manage or memorialize your profile. It’s a small step that can prevent a lot of stress for the people you love.
7. Set up a password manager—and share the master password.
Your entire digital life is locked behind passwords—almost everything you own or use is tied to one: your bank details, subscriptions, social media, phone, and computer, etc. A password manager (like 1Password) helps you organize and secure them all in one place.
When you die, the people left behind will need these passwords to access, manage, and close your accounts. Giving one trusted person access to your master password ensures they can do all of that without jumping through legal hoops, or getting locked out because they had to guess your password and they guessed wrong too many times. It’s a small act of preparation that prevents a whole lot of chaos.
8. Name a guardian for your kids or pets.
If something happened to you tomorrow, who would care for your children? Who would take in your dog? Who would clean out your apartment? Don’t assume they’ll say yes, or that they know.
The first step and time to have these conversations is before a crisis. Not after. For pets, it’s not legally required, but for kids, this designation should be followed up with a legal document (typically your will) to make it official. Without it, a court could decide who gets custody, and that may not align with your wishes.
9. Make a bank account “payable on death” (POD).
You don’t need a will to do this. You can go to your bank (some might even let you do it online) and add a beneficiary to your account with a single form. This allows the people you trust to access funds immediately—for emergency flights, funeral costs, food, and childcare.
10. Write down what matters most.
Inspired by the letters my mom wrote me on her deathbed to open for future milestones (one of which I have coming up very soon—my wedding), I do something similar on every flight. I review notes I’ve made in my phone for the people I love, just in case. Because if the plane does go down, and I die (or when I eventually die), I want them to know: how much they meant to me, and what sign I will try to use to communicate with them after I’m gone.
A few sentences can change everything for the people you love. It doesn’t have to be long, and it can look however you want it to:
- A memoir or series of stories about your life
- A simple love note
- A list of your favorite things (songs, movies, books, vacations, etc)
Image: uncredited
The Gaslighting Spectacular
There's something breathtakingly audacious about Donald Trump—yet unsurprising—going on Fox & Friends to justify right-wing extremism while blaming "radicals on the left" for political violence.
“The radicals on the right oftentimes are radical because they don't want to see crime,” Trump explained, as if systematic constitutional destruction and threats to militarize American cities represent merely vigorous opposition to petty theft. “They don't want you burning our shopping centers; they don't want you shooting our people in the middle of the street.” One can only admire the exquisite inversion: the man who posts AI-generated memes threatening military assault on Chicago now positions himself as the voice of peaceful law and order.
Meanwhile, Utah Governor Spencer Cox—clearly suffering from the unfortunate delusion that adults should act like adults during national crises—made an emotional appeal for Americans to “lower the political temperature” and declared social media “a cancer in our society.” The irony of delivering this message while flanked by Kash Patel, whose own social media obsession has turned federal law enforcement into click-bait content creation, apparently escaped no one except Patel himself.
The cognitive dissonance required to maintain Trump's position would be impressive if it weren't so dangerous. The same movement that spent months minimizing January 6th as a minor disturbance, dismissing Charlottesville as isolated extremism, and spreading conspiracy theories about the assassination of Democratic legislators in Minnesota now presents itself as the victim of dangerous left-wing rhetoric following Charlie Kirk's murder.
But here's what makes the gaslighting particularly spectacular: Kirk himself spent years engaging in exactly the kind of rhetoric that Trump now claims is exclusively a left-wing problem. Kirk mocked the attack on Paul Pelosi, promoted conspiracy theories about the Minnesota legislative assassinations being false flag operations, and built his entire brand around the kind of eliminationist rhetoric that treats political opponents as existential enemies requiring destruction rather than fellow citizens requiring persuasion.
The man who made light of an elderly man being attacked with a hammer in his own home is now being martyred as a victim of the very political toxicity he helped create and amplify. The irony would be delicious if it weren't soaked in blood.
Trump's justification of right-wing extremism—"they're radical because they don't want to see crime"—represents the classic authoritarian move of treating systematic constitutional destruction as law enforcement, military deployment against cities as crime prevention, and elimination of democratic constraints as necessary security measures. When your definition of "crime" includes democratic opposition to authoritarian rule, then opposing crime becomes indistinguishable from supporting authoritarianism.
This is how authoritarians eliminate moral categories: by redefining violence as peace, oppression as liberation, and systematic criminality as law enforcement. When Trump claims unlimited authority to execute suspected drug traffickers without trial, that's not crime prevention. It's state-sponsored murder. When he deploys military forces against American cities, he's not fighting crime—he's committing constitutional violations that would make the Founders reach for their muskets.
But the most insidious aspect of the gaslighting is how it weaponizes Kirk's assassination to silence criticism of the very authoritarianism that creates conditions where political violence becomes inevitable. They want his death to function as proof that accurately describing Trump's systematic constitutional destruction somehow causes violence against conservatives.
This is precisely backwards: political violence becomes more likely when democratic alternatives get systematically eliminated, when constitutional constraints disappear, when peaceful opposition gets criminalized through immunity doctrines and weaponized federal agencies. Trump's destruction of democratic institutions doesn't prevent political violence—it makes political violence the only remaining form of political expression for people desperate enough to use it.
The same authoritarian consolidation that threatens democratic governance also creates the instability that makes assassination attempts against political figures from all directions more likely. When you eliminate legal accountability, democratic oversight, and constitutional constraints, you create exactly the kind of chaos where desperate actors turn to violence because systematic alternatives have been destroyed.
Trump's response to Kirk's assassination—justifying right-wing extremism while blaming left-wing rhetoric—reveals the complete moral bankruptcy of the MAGA movement. They want to use Kirk's death to silence their critics while ramping up the very authoritarian behavior that makes more political violence inevitable.
That basic requirement is now broken. (...)
When someone claims Trump reduced the deficit, they're not just wrong about economic policy. They're wrong about reality. He added $7.8 trillion to it. When they claim crime is at record highs, they're denying FBI statistics showing violent crime near its lowest levels since the early 1970s. When they believe a billionaire who gold-plates his toilets actually cares about working families, they're living in a fantasy where a man who stiffed his own contractors for decades is somehow their champion.
This isn't a difference of perspective. It's a rejection of reality itself.
They believe a man who wouldn't rent to Black families genuinely cares about them. A man who mocked a disabled reporter is their champion. A casino owner who bankrupted casinos is their business genius. They donate their last dollars to defend a billionaire who wouldn't let them set foot in Mar-a-Lago. It's like believing in Santa Claus, except Santa Claus at least gives presents to children instead of taking their parents' Social Security.
The comfortable liberal assumption is that this is an information problem. If we just fact-check harder, teach media literacy, or find the right messenger, people will come around to reality.
This is delusional.
“The radicals on the right oftentimes are radical because they don't want to see crime,” Trump explained, as if systematic constitutional destruction and threats to militarize American cities represent merely vigorous opposition to petty theft. “They don't want you burning our shopping centers; they don't want you shooting our people in the middle of the street.” One can only admire the exquisite inversion: the man who posts AI-generated memes threatening military assault on Chicago now positions himself as the voice of peaceful law and order.
The cognitive dissonance required to maintain Trump's position would be impressive if it weren't so dangerous. The same movement that spent months minimizing January 6th as a minor disturbance, dismissing Charlottesville as isolated extremism, and spreading conspiracy theories about the assassination of Democratic legislators in Minnesota now presents itself as the victim of dangerous left-wing rhetoric following Charlie Kirk's murder.
But here's what makes the gaslighting particularly spectacular: Kirk himself spent years engaging in exactly the kind of rhetoric that Trump now claims is exclusively a left-wing problem. Kirk mocked the attack on Paul Pelosi, promoted conspiracy theories about the Minnesota legislative assassinations being false flag operations, and built his entire brand around the kind of eliminationist rhetoric that treats political opponents as existential enemies requiring destruction rather than fellow citizens requiring persuasion.
The man who made light of an elderly man being attacked with a hammer in his own home is now being martyred as a victim of the very political toxicity he helped create and amplify. The irony would be delicious if it weren't soaked in blood.
Trump's justification of right-wing extremism—"they're radical because they don't want to see crime"—represents the classic authoritarian move of treating systematic constitutional destruction as law enforcement, military deployment against cities as crime prevention, and elimination of democratic constraints as necessary security measures. When your definition of "crime" includes democratic opposition to authoritarian rule, then opposing crime becomes indistinguishable from supporting authoritarianism.
This is how authoritarians eliminate moral categories: by redefining violence as peace, oppression as liberation, and systematic criminality as law enforcement. When Trump claims unlimited authority to execute suspected drug traffickers without trial, that's not crime prevention. It's state-sponsored murder. When he deploys military forces against American cities, he's not fighting crime—he's committing constitutional violations that would make the Founders reach for their muskets.
But the most insidious aspect of the gaslighting is how it weaponizes Kirk's assassination to silence criticism of the very authoritarianism that creates conditions where political violence becomes inevitable. They want his death to function as proof that accurately describing Trump's systematic constitutional destruction somehow causes violence against conservatives.
This is precisely backwards: political violence becomes more likely when democratic alternatives get systematically eliminated, when constitutional constraints disappear, when peaceful opposition gets criminalized through immunity doctrines and weaponized federal agencies. Trump's destruction of democratic institutions doesn't prevent political violence—it makes political violence the only remaining form of political expression for people desperate enough to use it.
The same authoritarian consolidation that threatens democratic governance also creates the instability that makes assassination attempts against political figures from all directions more likely. When you eliminate legal accountability, democratic oversight, and constitutional constraints, you create exactly the kind of chaos where desperate actors turn to violence because systematic alternatives have been destroyed.
Trump's response to Kirk's assassination—justifying right-wing extremism while blaming left-wing rhetoric—reveals the complete moral bankruptcy of the MAGA movement. They want to use Kirk's death to silence their critics while ramping up the very authoritarian behavior that makes more political violence inevitable.
by Mike Brock, Notes From the Circus | Read more:
Image: uncredited
[ed. See also: The 35% Answer:What to do when a Third of Your Country Lives in a Weird Fantasy (TER):]***
Democracy only works if we can agree on what happened. Not what it means, just what actually happened. We can debate whether a war was justified. We can't debate whether it occurred.That basic requirement is now broken. (...)
When someone claims Trump reduced the deficit, they're not just wrong about economic policy. They're wrong about reality. He added $7.8 trillion to it. When they claim crime is at record highs, they're denying FBI statistics showing violent crime near its lowest levels since the early 1970s. When they believe a billionaire who gold-plates his toilets actually cares about working families, they're living in a fantasy where a man who stiffed his own contractors for decades is somehow their champion.
This isn't a difference of perspective. It's a rejection of reality itself.
For democracy to function, people need to share basic facts even when they disagree about everything else. We need to agree that unemployment is either 4% or it isn't. That a hurricane either hit Florida or it didn't. That elections are valid when people you don't like win, not just when your team wins.Through a combination of social media algorithms, deliberate propaganda, and partisan news ecosystems, roughly a third of the country has moved to a different dimension. In their dimension, some argue that dragons are real but dinosaurs are fake. Climate change is a hoax but weather control machines exist. The moon landing was staged but JFK Jr. is coming back. And at the center of it all, a man who cheated on all three wives and called American war heroes "losers" is actually a noble patriot who loves his country and is just misunderstood by everyone who's mean to him.
That agreement no longer exists.
They believe a man who wouldn't rent to Black families genuinely cares about them. A man who mocked a disabled reporter is their champion. A casino owner who bankrupted casinos is their business genius. They donate their last dollars to defend a billionaire who wouldn't let them set foot in Mar-a-Lago. It's like believing in Santa Claus, except Santa Claus at least gives presents to children instead of taking their parents' Social Security.
The comfortable liberal assumption is that this is an information problem. If we just fact-check harder, teach media literacy, or find the right messenger, people will come around to reality.
This is delusional.
These Americans aren't confused. They've chosen a story that feels true over facts that don't. Everyone has access to the same internet. The FBI crime statistics, deficit numbers, vote counts, death rates, Trump's actual business history, his documented lies, it's all right there. But millions have decided that all of this is fake while anonymous posts about microchips in your flu shot and Trump's secret genius reveal hidden truths.You can't educate people out of beliefs they didn't reason themselves into.
Friday, September 12, 2025
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)