Easy Sunday: Complications in the delivery room

A baby born in Oregon is a U.S. citizen. Simple.

A baby born in Texas may not be. For them, it is complicated.

This was meant to be an "easy Sunday" post, so let's start with the easy ones. Twenty-two states, plus the District of Columbia, joined in the lawsuit to protest Trump's executive order declaring that the U.S. government would not recognize U.S. citizenship of children born after February 19, 2025, unless they met certain conditions. Those are: Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin, and D.C.  For babies born in these states, it's same-old, same-old. Easy.

The Supreme Court's decision this week wasn't about citizenship by birth in the U.S., at least not directly. It was about whether a judge blocking an unconstitutional order by the executive applied nationwide, or only to the parties to the lawsuit in front of the judge. They decided that only the parties would benefit from a judge's injunction. So, in this week's case, the injunction left out the citizens of the 28 states that were not parties to the lawsuit. 

In the other 28 states Trump's order denies citizenship to people born under these conditions:

-- At the time of birth, the baby’s biological mother is “unlawfully present” (with no legal status) in the U.S. and the biological father was not a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident.

-- At the time of birth, the baby’s biological mother was in the U.S. with a temporary visa or permit, and the biological father was not a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident.

This means that the legal status of the mother needs proving up, which would be easy if the mother has a U.S. passport. Only about half of Americans have one. She needs to prove her legal status some other way.

If her status is unproved, the father's status needs proving up. It is further complicated because paternity might be assumed or claimed, but that, too, needs proving up.

Proving one's legal status is complicated by the fact that conditions of amnesty or asylum have been in transition.

Immigration of large numbers of people from Latin America and Asia triggered a familiar response in U.S. history -- anti-immigrant nativism. Trump promised to reverse everything: deport everyone and end birthright citizenship. "Anchor baby," and "birth tourism" stories generated support for Trump's policy -- at least on principle.

I expect ending birthright citizenship to be a net-negative in practice. It will be complicated and contentious. Administering the new procedures will be slow and expensive. There will be facts to determine. There will be appeals. It will be chaotic or it will be bureaucratic, two bad outcomes.

The current Supreme Court acts primarily like an unelected political body, carrying out a Republican agenda. I expect them to save Trump from himself by deciding the Constitution says what it says, and go back to the prior status quo of birthright citizenship for all. This is a sacrifice play. Trump will rail against the Supreme Court, which will benefit both Trump and the Court. It will inoculate the Court from the claim that they are in the tank for Trump. That will give them better credibility to keep deciding cases in Trump's favor on other issues of greater importance to Trump and Republicans, especially on race, voting rights, gerrymandering, and presidential power to govern without interference from the Congress or courts, and immunity for Trump on any crimes he commits or has committed.

I predict this split in the states won't last long.

[Note: To get daily delivery of this blog to your email go to: https://petersage.substack.com/ Subscribe. Don't pay. The blog is free and always will be.]

 

The power of articulate passion in politics

Zohran Mamdani.

Who? What the heck is going on in New York City?

We see a spark of articulate passion on the political stage. We can learn something.

I began writing this blog almost 10 years ago, back in August, 2015, after my wife and I attended a fundraising event for Hillary Clinton. We each paid $2,600 for the privilege, and we needed to drive to Portland to see her. I stood six feet from her in the lovely garden of a wealthy person's house, on a lovely day. I heard her speak for an hour. She listed her plans and policies, which sounded reasonable to me: sensible, practical, center-left policies. She was a notch or two more liberal than her husband, Bill. 

My takeaway, though, wasn't policy. It was about her presence. Her presentation. I noticed that she wore slipper-like shoes, that she stood having her photo taken with guests and speaking for two hours and 15 minutes without touching a nearby stool. She had stamina, something that Trump tried to make an issue a year later. But most important, I noticed that I was somewhat bored by her speech.  

I reflected on my reaction. I tried to adjust the scale to account for my own position in the spectrum of voters. I was a fan -- fan enough to have attended a maximum-gift fundraiser. I have attended events headlined by Bill Clinton. 

For goodness sake, I had actually paid an artist to paint a portrait of the Clintons back in 1994, a painting that I have had in my living room for 30 years. If I wasn't thrilled by her, who would be, I wondered? There was no excitement or pizzazz in her talk. She was missing something. That convinced me to go to New Hampshire and other early-primary states to watch political speeches by other candidates and to write about them. And so this blog.

I was up close to watch Trump, Rubio, Cruz, Huckabee and over a dozen other Republicans.

I was up close to watch Hillary, Biden, Sanders, Harris, Warren, and over a dozen other Democrats.

I wrote frankly that Joe Biden could read an OK speech from a teleprompter with a weak voice, but that he could not "sell" anything. He sucked the energy out of whatever he talked about.

I don't vote in New York City, and I don't have a feel for the issues of wealth, cost of living, crime, transportation, and livability of the city, so I won't judge Zohran Mamdani as a candidate. He has said things about Israel, Hamas, police, rent freezes, and wealth taxes that I disagree with, and I don't think he is a successful model for Democrats hoping to win majorities in the two houses of Congress or the White House. 

But he has something Democrats should observe. He has the spark. He is fast, articulate, and interesting. He looks confident. He can sell. On that scale of political presentation, he is the opposite of Biden. Here is a very short clip of him:

Click: 36 seconds

I recognize that governing is not show business. But it is a little bit show business, and Donald Trump is the proof of that. Governing in a democracy is about the will of the people, and that makes the politician's job one of salesmanship and persuasion. We aren't electing a package of policies. We are electing a person who can get us to believe he or she should lead us. A political leader is a salesperson. 

Democrats will be on the losing side of elections until they wake up to the necessity of having a candidate that voters find interesting and personally appealing. Again, I don't think Mamdani is the guy. But he has the spark and confidence Democrats should demand in a leader. He demolished poor Andrew Cuomo. New Yorkers overlooked a lot of policy disagreement in order to vote for Mamdani.

[Note: To get daily delivery of this blog to your email go to: https://petersage.substack.com/ Subscribe. Don't pay. The blog is free and always will be.]

Just deserts

"I don't feel sorry for them if they get sick and then go bankrupt because their Medicaid got cut. It is what they voted for. Let them experience it."

Comment from a Portland, Oregon bleeding-heart liberal

Trump told us what he would do: Lower taxes for the wealthiest. Reduce the Medicaid population.

We asked for it, and we are going to get it. Like it or not.

My Republican congressman is a go-along guy within the Republican House caucus. Cliff Bentz is unexceptional. He is a normal, reliable Republican voter, in the Reagan, Bush, Dole, McCain, Cheney, Romney, and now Trump tradition. Going with that flow got him elected to Congress in a district that votes Republian.

He publicly endorsed Donald Trump for president back when Nikki Haley was still in the running. He said he did it to preserve his credibility and influence in the GOP.  He said his GOP colleagues appreciated seeing he was on the team. Republicans win Oregon's 2nd Congressional District about 60-40 against Democrats. His only real electoral risk is in a Republican primary, if Bentz were to disappoint Trump in some way and Trump were to endorse a Republican opponent.

The district is mostly rural. The main industries are agriculture and forest products. It is the poorest district in Oregon. Oregon is blue, with Democratic governors and a Democratic majority in the legislature because of votes in the more prosperous and urban Portland metropolitan area. Blue Oregon fully embraced the Medicaid expansion under the Affordable Care Act, i.e. Obamacare.

Medicaid by Congressional District

Bentz's district is unusual in the large number of residents who make use of the popular Oregon Health Plan, the mechanism that Oregon uses to implement Medicaid under the ACA. 

   --224,601 people in this district voted for Cliff Bentz.

   --227,986 peope in this district are on Medicaid

Many of those people are going to lose their health coverage. I expect that Oregon, being Oregon, will attempt to use state money to fill the worst of the gaps created by the federal cuts. I expect it to be thankless work for the Democratic legislature. Many Eastern Oregon counties publicly supported succession from Oregon so they can join Idaho. They want the money, sure, but not the government that provides it.

The comment from my bleeding-heart Portland correspondent is instructive. Frustration with MAGA politics may trump compassion. Damned if she wants to reduce other Oregon services to protect Eastern Oregon conservatives from their own folly. If their rural hospitals close because they go broke with un-reimbursed emergency care to people who had -- but lost -- Medicaid, then let them close. Let people drive 150 miles to a hospital. Ask Idaho for the money. Or since Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg and Peter Theil are getting even richer thanks to their vote, ask billionaires for the charity care they need.

Cliff Bentz will pay no political price for going along with the GOP consensus, even if it means tens of thousands of his constituents discover that they lost health coverage. Republicans vote for Republicans. Bentz's political peril would come from speaking out to protect Medicaid from cuts and becoming a conspicuous GOP defector. So he won't.

The only question is whether blue Oregon will step up. The greatest concentration of people on Medicaid are in the 2nd Congressional District, but people on Medicaid are everywhere in Oregon, so every Oregon legislator has an interest in doing something. If the legislature bails out Medicaid, it would be another iteration of the net transfer of funds from the "donor" areas of Oregon  -- Greater Portland -- to the ungrateful "recipient" areas, i.e. the 2nd Congressional District. Liberal  legislators may not be able to -- or want to -- save Eastern Oregon Medicaid recipients from themselves. 

I sense a growing attitude among Democrats, whether it be the loss of Medicaid or deportation of an essential workforce for people in red states. Republicans are running the show. Let the people experience exactly what they voted for.

[Note: To get daily delivery of this blog to your email go to: https://petersage.substack.com/ Subscribe. Don't pay. The blog is free and always will be.]

Panic over women with careers.

Republicans are rethinking feminism.

Some are speaking out, worried that American men aren't really the "head of household" anymore, and that White American women aren't having babies.

Women are choosing school and a career instead of home-making.  Yikes!

Father Knows Best: Six seasons, 1954-1960

 The overpopulation problem apparently solved itself in the rich, developed world. In modern prosperous countries, women got an education and entered the workforce. Contraception became reliable, available, and inexpensive. Educated women thought of themselves as citizens and full partners in their country's economic life, not primarily as child-bearers and homemakers for a male head-of-the family. Women got liberated.

Jennifer Angelo retired after a long career as an attorney for the U.S. Postal Service. She was surprised to encounter a blunt presentation of a sentiment that is growing quietly within the GOP. JD Vance had voiced it. Christian supporters of Trump are voicing it. Charlie Kirk said it bluntly: women should find a husband. Leadership is for men -- and he said it at a leadership conference for young women. Say, what!?  Jennifer Angelo sent me her reaction.

Angelo: student days

Angelo: recent

Guest Post by Jennifer Angelo.

At the Young Women’s Leadership Summit hosted by conservative group Turning Point USA last week, Turning Point President Charlie Kirk said college was a “scam,” evidently because it costs too much and doesn’t prepare students for employment. During the subsequent Q & A, a fourteen-year-old high school freshman told him she wanted to go to college to become a political journalist and asked him to talk more about the pros and cons of college. Kirk’s response was astonishing. First, he asked how many of the young women there had the “top priority” of getting married and having children. Some number of them raised their hands. Then he said:

Interestingly, I think there is an argument to bring back the MRS. degree. Just be clear that’s why you’re going to college. Don’t lie to yourself like don’t say “I’m studying Sociology or whatever,” we know why you’re there, and that’s OK, that’s a really good reason to go to college, especially an SEC school. You will find a husband if you have the intent to find a husband at Ole Miss, or at University of Alabama or whatever.

And by the way, we should bring back the celebration of the MRS. degree. You think about it, I say college is a scam, but that is a really good reason to go to college. You have a bunch of people that are single, they’re at the prime of, let’s just say, their attractiveness, the dating pool is as robust as you’re going to find, and they all live together over a four year period. You don’t get much better than that, it doesn’t get better after college, and so yeah you could go learn some stuff that’s fine I guess or whatever, just don’t listen to your professors, but that actually was the reason a lot of women went to college in the 70’s, 80’s and 90’s, and worked, and marriage rates have plummeted since then.

This was Kirk’s answer to a fourteen-year-old at a Women’s Leadership Summit who asked him how college might help her become a political journalist. Think about that. Go to college, pay the massive tuition, and spend the whole time looking around for Mr. Right. Kirk later told the audience that if they weren’t married by 30, their prospects would be grim.

Admittedly, this was a meeting of young women who wanted to talk about living their lives as cultural conservatives, which starts with the premise that a woman is incomplete until she is a wife and mother. But it was also a LEADERSHIP summit. Another participant later challenged Kirk about his views on women and college, arguing that many women meet their husbands through their careers. Kirk finally backed down and admitted that the mission of the summit was “any takeaway you want to have,” a renewed sense of patriotism of “traditional norms and roles,” of “true femininity – not this toxic type.”

Why was Charlie Kirk even a speaker at this conference? He dropped out of community college after a short stay. His only qualification for leading an organization of young conservatives is that he has successfully marketed himself as a spokesman for conservative values. None of his ideas are original, in fact they are retrograde and geared toward recreating 1950s America. And yet, he was condescending and arrogant enough to stand up in front of 3,000 young women at a leadership conference and mansplain that the best reason for them to go to college is to find a husband. Today’s conservative men are so shameless, they aren’t embarrassed to say this stuff. And by the way, his claim that the “MRS” degree was common in the 70s, 80s and 90s is hogwash. It hasn’t been a thing since the 1950s and early 1960s. I went to college in the 70s and finding a husband was the last thing on my mind.

As a feminist – i.e. someone who believes in the equality of men and women – and a retired lawyer who is married and child free by choice, I obviously bristled at Kirk’s advice, which completely dismissed women’s value in the workforce. But from what I have read, the thrust of the summit, even from female presenters, was to sell these young women on marriage and motherhood as the first priority for conservative women. Career comes later, if at all. They expressed pity for single women who were “trying for the corner office.” They threatened a lonely, unfulfilled life for any woman who put her career first during her reproductive years. Yikes!

Sisterhood is powerful, and I do not judge other women’s choices. Nor do I want them to judge mine. No doubt it is hard in 2025 for a woman to choose the right path, when there is so much opportunity. When you add so-called conservative values to the mix, it’s natural that a lot of these young women would choose the “Godly” path and make marriage and motherhood their priority. Many of them don’t want to work outside the home, and I respect that. Really. But I worry about them, just as they worry about the women pursuing successful careers who may miss out on marriage. So I would ask them: Is it possible to live comfortably on one income where you want to live? Are you a natural at homemaking, or all thumbs in the kitchen? Are you confident that at 18 or 20 years old, you will choose the life partner who will truly be for life? Will you be ready to settle down at 23? If you were suddenly single, would you be able to support yourself? If, in the process of getting your MRS. degree, you excelled in your classes, do you have a plan to use your talents outside the home later in life? I hope they’re thinking about these things, and not just about putting dinner on the table for the Charlie Kirks of the world.

[Note: To get daily delivery of this blog to your email go to: https://petersage.substack.com/ Subscribe. Don't pay. The blog is free and always will be.]

What do Millennials want?

"Don't you understand what I'm tryin' to say?

And can't you feel the fears I'm feelin' today. . . 

And you tell me over and over and over again, my friend

Ah, you don't believe we're on the eve of destruction."

      P. F. Sloan, songwriter, sung by Barry McGuire, "Eve of Destruction," 1965

Boomers had their chance. We were warned.

We heard that song in our youths. The laments of the young are the same or worse now. The Eastern world is still explodin'. We can stay for more than four days in space,  but when people return it's the same old place and the same human race, and now its Trump who hates his neighbor but when evangelical Christians and TV cameras are looking on, doesn't forget to say grace.

Rick Millward is a boomer. Most of the people holding political and economic power in this country are boomers, but that is ending. It will be the Millennials' turn to hold the seats of power, but in the meantime their votes were decisive. Millward tells us that they didn't vote for Trump. They voted NO.

Millward is a songwriter, musician, and music producer. He left Nashville and moved to Southern Oregon. He performs primarily in local wine venues.

Millward

Guest Post by Rick Millward 

                            A Millennial’s View.
Botched Election. Israeli Genocide. Inflation. Student Loans. Climate.

I’m in conversation with a 30-something student, a Ph.D. candidate, self-described Progressive, a Millennial who feels, like many younger Americans, deeply disillusioned with Democrats and outright furious at Boomers. While some Democrats default to finger-pointing and blame-shifting, these younger voters reject policy nuance and strategic justifications that led to the rise of Trump and the GOP. To them, it’s not just a tactical failure—it’s a moral one. The Biden nomination was, they say, a betrayal; only Harris’s presence kept them engaged at all.

As we talk, I struggle to respond. My detailed explanations of geopolitical realities sound empty. Pointing out that Republicans are worse isn’t persuasive; they already know, but find the difference negligible. This isn’t youthful idealism. These voters came of age during 9/11, two recessions, COVID, inflation, and now see a system rigged for the wealthy.

They view Republicans as an unstoppable machine wrecking their future, and Democrats as ineffectual, if not complicit. The American Dream feels dead. Issues they care about, especially climate, are met with delay and denial. They see GOP cultural pandering around gender, performative patriotism, and religious posturing as absurd distractions, and they reject the idea that systemic racism is overblown. Their universities are compromised by investments that betray their values, all while trapping them in decades of debt. Many are incensed by U.S. support for Israel, which they equate with endorsing genocide.

Is it any wonder some are voting “against” their own interests? The shift of younger voters, especially Latino and Black men, toward the GOP may be less about alignment and more a protest vote, which in turn makes things worse. Republicans have the money; Progressives have the numbers. But numbers are powerless if disinformation overwhelms them. And conservative efforts to discredit media fuel a toxic online landscape where truth, lies, and fantasy blur.

The best arguments I muster aren’t convincing:
(1) GOP rhetoric aims to demoralize. Resisting it is essential.
(2) Being Progressive, by definition, requires optimism.

We do agree Democrats need a strategy to counter misinformation with facts, loudly and transparently. To win back youth and minority voters, they must stop taking them for granted and fully embrace issues like climate, justice, and inequality.

As we part, I’m left feeling unable to defend Democrats or my generation. The world is complex, and the torrent of disinformation favors simplicity. Still, that same difficult hope, though grim, requires that we try.

Update: Since writing this, youth support for Republicans is dropping. They’re paying attention.

[Note: To get daily delivery of this blog to your email go to: https://petersage.substack.com/ Subscribe. Don't pay. The blog is free and always will be.]

Trump and King Cyrus

Sometimes bad people do things that work out to be good.

Peace talks may begin between Iran, Israel, and the U.S.

I said may.

Religious medal: Trump and Persian King Cyrus

Let's review the bidding.

1. Israel bombed Iran. Iran bombed Israel. War.

2. The USA was helping Israel with weapons and intelligence, but was theoretically simply a supporter, not a belligerent.

3. The USA threatened Iran and gave it a deadline to negotiate an end to their nuclear program. The deadline passed.

4. President Trump authorized a massive bombardment of three nuclear material processing sites, which took place this weekend Note that these were not civilian targets, notwithstanding Trump's warning to Tehran residents to abandon the city. Trump gave lots of warning that he was considering bombing the sites the U.S. bombed.

5. Iran was furious, of course. They said they needed to retaliate. It was a matter of national pride. Iran told the U.S. that they would retaliate by bombing U.S. military sites in the region. They gave notice. American personnel left. They bombed and noted that they used only as many bombs as the U.S. used.  

In the manner of body-language diplomacy, this was a signal that Iran did not want escalation. This is a minuet: formal, structured communication. They made a face-saving, pre-announced, proportional attack designed not to injure American lives. No Americans died.

6. Trump went on Truth Social to announce a tremendous success:

Maybe things will work out. I am inured to bad news and disappointment, but I am not committed to being unhappy. Quite the opposite. I welcome pleasant surprises.  All wars eventually end, and maybe this is the beginning of the end. We have been fighting Iran for almost 50 years.

Democrats who perceive Trump as a dangerous, disgusting, racist, dishonest, felonious, Constitution-destroying autocrat will find it hard to acknowledge that Trump could possibly do something useful for the world. It would seem especially unlikely that a person so belligerent and bullying could possibly be an agent of peace. I share that opinion of Trump, but I am open to the idea that Trump could be a peacemaker. I have read the history. Theodore Roosevelt -- a president who reveled in war-making and empire -- helped negotiate an end to the Russo-Japanese War in 1906 and won a Nobel Peace Prize for doing so.

Trump's character flaws are a tool. He is a narcissist who craves glory and adoration. Barack Obama received a Nobel Peace Prize. Trump has not. Trump has been open about wanting the prize. Trump would sacrifice other interests and would endure some criticism from Israel if leads toward a peace settlement in the region. It would be an achievement. He would be recognized as the hero he considers himself to be. 

Some Trump-supporting Christians acknowledge that Trump represents the opposite of Christian virtues and behaviors. They support him anyway. They cite the Persian King Cyrus, who ruled the area of modern Iran, as a Godless man who nevertheless was anointed by God to serve His purposes. They ignore Trump's dishonest grift, his adultery, his bearing false witness, his selfishness, belligerence, vanity, cruelty, and hostility to the migrant. But he supports Christian triumph. He holds up the Bible in the public square. That is what counts. 

Democrats need to be open to good news. If this works out, Democrats may need to exercise the same mental gymnastics that Trump-supporting Christians do. Democratxs may need to acknowledge he did something good. It could happen. Trump is a profound danger to our republic, but it is not impossible that his unpredictable and bellicose foreign policy bullies everyone toward a peace settlement. Very bad people, in the midst of doing very bad things, can take actions that have good results. Germany has good freeways.

Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

[Note: To get daily delivery of this blog to your email go to: https://petersage.substack.com/ Subscribe. Don't pay. The blog is free and always will be.]

 

Thrill and dread

Yesterday was the moment of maximum thrill: 

We did it! We solved the Iran problem! We totally demolished the Iran nuclear threat! Trump is decisive and successful! 

Triumphant at Fox

Today America begins to feel twinges of dread. Questions start coming to mind. 

 

Here are mine:

1. Is it possible that no one in the Iranian military thought this attack might be coming and that the Bunker Buster bombs might work? In the face of threats from Israel and Trump, was Iran so negligent that they didn't remove everything from the obvious target? Really?

2. Isn't it likely that these attacks will have the same effect of strengthening Iranian nationalism that the Pearl Harbor and 9-11 attacks had on the U.S., and the October 7, 2023 attack had on Israel? Might this strengthen the hand of nationalist hawks inside Iran?

3. Didn't we just solidify Iran's position as the victim of American projection of strength, and therefore strengthen Iran's connection to North Korea, China, and Russia? North Korea has nuclear bombs. Even if -- IF -- we destroyed Iran's immediate ability to build one, didn't we make it far more likely that they will buy a few of them from North Korea? 

4. Didn't the U.S. just make clear to Iran and the world that the only way to keep a major power from attacking you is to have nuclear bombs yourself? We tolerate North Korea. We leave Pakistan and India alone to fight. They have nuclear bombs. Iran has oil to trade for bombs. Why wouldn't they immediately acquire them at nearly any price? And wouldn't every other country with friendships to China, Russia, North Korea, Pakistan, or someone else?

5. Why would we think that Iran won't retaliate asymmetrically with disruptive terror? One person with explosives hidden in a shoe has Americans taking off their shoes to board an airplane for two decades. How much cost would Americans need to endure if, from out of nowhere, two or three MAGA Republican Senators or Representatives got assassinated at one of their town halls? Or a conservative Supreme Court justice?  Imagine the scope and cost of new security systems to protect some 600 people from motivated, suicidal assassins. We assassinated their leaders, and thought it a fine idea. Might they feel the same?

Or if what if a couple of shipping containers were armed to explode when they were in New York's Holland Tunnel or Boston's Ted Williams tunnel? Or if a drone dropped anthrax over a crowd of 100,000 at an Ohio State football game? There are lots of ways to spook Americans and force us to endure enormous cost and inconvenience.

6. Trump is now saying that regime change in Iran would be welcome. I agree it would be, if Iran were to move toward a peaceful, tolerant democracy. Did this bomb lead toward that good end, or away from it?

The bombing this weekend changed the story for Trump. Three days ago the story was feckless TACO-Trump, botched immigration, a Big Beautiful Bill that was floundering, tariff chaos, and Trump losing repeatedly in court including decisions by justices appointed by Republicans. Yesterday the story changed. Trump the man-of-action, Mr. Hero, ridding the world of a dangerous Iran. 

That was a one day story.

Beginning today, we start to have questions about how this all plays out. Iran has survived fighting Greeks and Alexander and steppe warriors for millennia. This isn't over until Iran wants it to be over. Maybe they will want that. Did the bombing hasten that day? I question that.

[Note: To get daily delivery of this blog to your email go to: https://petersage.substack.com/ Subscribe. Don't pay. The blog is free and always will be.]