Big brother.
Not the big brother of George Orwell.
Let’s take a break from a political world that is so weird that it defies parody. Take 23 seconds.
 |
| CLICK |
Trump met with a "January Sixer" rioter. So did I.
Micki Larson-Olson drove from Abilene, Texas to see Trump's speech. She was in line beside me, so neither of us got in.
Then she got lucky.
I used a photograph of her in yesterday's blog post. I had no idea that she was all over the national news.
Mikki Larson-Olson did something smart when we were turned away from the speech. She guessed that Trump might make an unannounced drop-in at The Red Arrow diner. Stopping by that diner is a good luck gesture for candidates. She was right. She was there and ready when his entourage stopped by.
She had made a boisterous, flamboyant spectacle in line beside me, with her sequins and skin-tight bright blue lycra. She told me she needed to cover up her Q-oriented insignia but that she was "Q all the way." She was proud of having been a January 6 participant and proud of being found guilty and imprisoned. She said that the Representatives, Senators, and Vice President who stopped Trump from taking office were guilty of treason. They should all be publicly executed as traitors, she said. Hang Mike Pence? Absolutely.
I videotaped two 30-second clips of her, one expressing her support for Q, and the other in support of Trump and his stolen election claim. I did not expect to use them in my blog, and I was careful yesterday to include other people when publishing photos of people in line. I thought Republican readers of this blog would accuse me of cherry-picking kooks if I implied that Trump could be associated with people like her.
Well, I had that wrong.
She called out to him at the diner. She told him she was recently released from 161 days imprisonment for her actions at the Capitol on January 6. Trump came over to her, greeted her warmly, embraced her, signed her backpack, gave her his pen, and reassured her that she was a patriot.
Listen, you just hang in there. You guys are gonna be okay. You just take care of yourself. You’ve been through too much. You’re going to wind up being happy.
Then another coincidence. As I was typing the words above for this post, the attached news story came onto my TV. I began to realize that there were multiple national news stories about her encounter with Trump. I filmed my own hotel TV.
 |
| CLICK |
 |
| Washington Post |
[Note: to subscribe to the blog and get it delivered by email every day, go to: https://petersage.substack.com Subscribe. The blog is free and always will be.]
The Trump event was entirely different from the Nikki Haley event.
The Haley event was a political speech with upbeat staging. The Trump event was a rock concert performed by a veteran star.
Yesterday I stood from 10:00 a.m. until I was turned away at the door at 3:45 p.m. That's right. I didn't get in. I travelled about 3,000 miles mostly to watch the full Trump event live, but I was locked outside the room when he spoke. The Trump venue was capped at 1,500 people. At the time I was turned away, I was approximately in the middle of the crowd, so there were lots of others in the same boat.
I didn't miss the event, not really.
In hindsight, the event was an all-day party that culminated in a stage show. The crowd persevered in sunshine and sprinkles of rain without toilets, water, alcohol, food, or anywhere to sit. No one had an umbrella. Notice of the event informed us that umbrellas were not allowed, per the Secret Service.
Trump spoke for an hour and 40 minutes. I watched it live on my computer in my hotel room. Trump did his "greatest hits" show very lightly updated. He said he was dropping "Crooked Hillary" and replacing it with "Crooked Joe Biden." He reported new poll leads in the GOP primary over DeSantis, Pence, and Haley, He scoffed at the New Hampshire governor, Christopher Sununu, who is openly considering entering the presidential race. He called Lindsay Graham a progressive, and the crowd began groaning at the first sound of Graham's name. Trump said Graham was OK, maybe. The crowd quieted. Graham is on notice. Trump cited general election polls from Rasmussen saying that he would defeat Biden.
It was the familiar Trump message. The world was carnage when he took office, it was glorious under his presidency because he was so strong and decisive, and it fell to immediate ruin when Biden took over after having stolen the election. The crowd loved hearing it.
I understand that reaction. I would love hearing the Beach Boys sing Good Vibrations and might stand in line a while, if there were a toilet I could use if needed.
I have developed some observations about the Trump phenomenon, and I expect them to be troubling for Democratic readers of this blog. I had underestimated how impervious Trump supporters are to information that I consider "common knowledge" about the world. I had underestimated how thoroughly Trump supporters believe that it was utterly impossible that a majority of voters could have voted for Biden. I had underestimated the transition of Trump voters away from Fox and toward Newsmax and to internet places where people "do their own research." I had underestimated how deep is the division between Trump supporters and the traditional GOP. Trump supporters now call traitors those RINOs in cahoots with Democrats: Both Bush presidents, McCain, Romney, Pence, McConnell, Paul Ryan, the Wall Street Journal, the FBI, the federal Civil Service, most military leaders, and Trump's own cabinet.
More about those observations in future posts. For today, here are images from the event.
She booked a small venue, and then packed the room.
In the hour prior to the 6:30 p.m. start, her campaign filled the room with upbeat music from the 1980s. As she entered the room the volume increased, and the song was Eye of the Tiger, by Survivor. After her speech, the song American Girl, by Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers, pounded out of the loudspeakers.
She was confident, articulate, and presented herself credibly as a can-do, jobs-oriented governor who exemplified the immigrant experience of upward mobility and She did not talk about Trump, January 6, or abortion. More about all this in future blog posts.
Rick Millward's Guest Post today addressed guns, and it was the only "tough" question she got. A woman presented herself as a mom worried about the safety of her school-age children. Haley addressed her worries, saying that guns were not the problem. She said she had a concealed gun permit herself and fully understood why Americans would want to carry a gun for personal protection. One out of four Americans has some kind of mental illness, she said. (Really. One of four. That is what she said.) She said the reason we have mass shootings is that so many people have undiagnosed and untreated mental illness. Therefore, we need a huge increase in mental health professionals, especially within schools. We don't need mere "guidance counselors," she said. We need mental health professionals, one in every school. We also need an armed police officer in every school. We need a single point of entry for every school building.
As a quick parting comment. If DeSantis' campaign continues to struggle under relentless criticism by Trump, and the fallout from a 6-week abortion ban and his fight with Disney, I would expect Nikki Haley to rise in visibility and begin to be taken seriously as a plausible contender. She packages a set of policies that would be acceptable to both Trump supporters and Trump-wary Republicans who want the MAGA message and a toned-down nastiness. She is energetic and articulate, in a way that Biden most certainly is not.
As I write this I am preparing to go next door to watch a Trump rally. I am simultaneously hearing a TV report detailing the testimony in Trump's trial for defamation following sworn testimony that he raped a woman in a department store dressing room. So strange.
[Note: to subscribe to the blog and get it delivered by email every day, go to: petersage.substack.com Subscribe. The blog is free and always will be.]
"'No Way to Prevent This.' Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens."
 |
| Millward |
Imagine a hungry lion crouched in the bushes unseen by his prey. A master of deception, waiting for the moment to leap out from hiding and attack, it knows this tactic from a deep survival instinct. It cannot conceive of any other way.
This society is suffering from an epidemic of gun violence. I would offer that the main reason this is out of control is due to our laws regarding firearms and the politicization of gun ownership. One party has adopted a convoluted reading of the Constitution around the issue of personal weaponry. The conservative view towards the Second Amendment is part of their embrace of increasingly extremist right wing support, which has led to a near surrender by those in opposition, even though a majority are in favor of stricter controls including a ban on military style assault rifles. But the larger problem is the economics of gun manufacture. All the makers sell to the government, which one would hope would provide sufficient profits, but they also market the same ordinance to private citizens. This is allowed because some of those tax dollars they collect are also spent on lobbying legislators, and donating to their campaigns, to ensure there are no restraints on that commerce.
Consider this: A gun never wears out or becomes obsolete. If someone wants a different gun, they either add to their collection or sell the old one. As a result we have a gun for every man, woman, child and parakeet in the country, give or take 450 million. This number has never decreased, and as the chart shows, is increasing at a faster rate. It’s safe to assume that the gross amount of lethality represents an increasing risk of accidental and intentional discharge. But it also shows a fundamental issue; gun makers' only source of profit is to sell more guns. By the way, this is also true of illegal narcotics, and Skittles.
Whether it’s for hunting, recreation, or protection the marketing of guns to civilians has to create a plausible purpose. For the first two, there is some rationale though I will digress here to mention something about the overlap of recreation and personal defense. There are many who collect guns, mostly handguns, for target shooting. (Why this is so much fun, I don’t completely get, but hey, it’s a free country.) They keep their pistols locked and out of reach, and are obsessively careful transporting and using them. Another group, a subset, feel the need to go a step further and carry. I can only assume there is some security they feel from having a gun on their person, or in their purse or glovebox. They want a weapon close at hand for fear that they may need it. All I’d ask is, really? Are they at risk from a lion leaping out of the bushes intent on making them lunch? Has our society degenerated into a dystopian hell-scape, and I’ve just missed it?
Between gun makers' using fear tactics to push sales, aided by lawmakers, mostly of only one party, opposing restrictions, we have more guns and more powerful guns. Many are in the hands of those who should never be in the same room with one, with predictable results. The result is that police need to assume that anyone they encounter in their duties might be armed and trigger-happy.
The solution is actually pretty simple; reduce the number of guns. After all, we ban private ownership of bazookas, and the Republic has managed to stay intact. OK, not so simple, but it's the answer nonetheless. If we don’t, it’s guaranteed to get worse.
I don't think Nikki Haley will be the GOP nominee.
She won't be brutal enough to win the nomination.
But she raises some policy issues that Democrats should pay attention to.
I suspect the real GOP criticism of Biden will not be about policy. Policy talk will be the window dressing. The real, bumper-strip-size vulnerability of Biden among swing voters will be his capability. In a hundred different ways the GOP will call Biden senile, confused, incompetent, and weak. The campaign will say Americans cannot vote for him, even if they would like to, and even if they dislike the alternative. It will be ugly.
But, amidst that, there are some issues. In this first email of the day, Haley's campaign outlined some of them. Here is her letter:
|
The 2024 election will be about whether we can trust the government.
That is why I am posting yet again on government ethical rules, norms, and behavior.
It looks like it might be Biden vs. Trump.
Voters will think hard about whether Biden is too old, and will question his capabilities. Trump will be judged on his character and ethics.
We have had corrupt public officials in America. But bad behavior, if discovered, was shameful and disqualifying. That norm is no longer in place. Phil Jahn wants it restored.
Phil Jahn is a classmate from my junior high and high school days. After high school Phil built trails and fought forest fires for the Forest Service to help pay his tuition at Valparaiso University. He received an additional degree in Soil Science at Oregon State University. He was a career Forest Service manager. He is retired now. He serves on advisory boards in his home community of Grangeville, Idaho.
Guest Post by Phil Jahn
Jennifer Angelo's guest post shared her concerns about Justice Clarence Thomas, from the perspective of an attorney with the U.S. Postal Service. I share her concerns. I was a mid-level manager in the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Forest Service, the "Smokey Bear" people.
During my 35 years with the Forest Service I helped manage several million acres of our nation’s forest lands in Oregon and Idaho. My decisions affected timber, range management, wildlife, fisheries, archaeology, recreation, and minerals. They affected contractors, permittees, and the public. It was rewarding work.
In the Forest Service, ethics training involves all employees. It becomes more intense as one rises into management positions. Trainers and attorneys advised managers through questionable situations.
There are three main areas where Forest Service employees faced potential conflicts and temptations. They are: 1) accepting gifts or favors from a client or someone who could benefit, from our decisions. This would be purchasers, permittees, or contractors. 2) appointments or personnel actions appearing to have elements of nepotism, and 3) purchasing stocks involving companies whose businesses are affected by our decisions, or where we might have "insider information," for example about who would be awarded a timber sale.
I was confronted with situations involving all of these areas. When unsure, or in gray areas, I and fellow employees were instructed to seek legal guidance. As regards gifts, I was advised that it was permitted for me to accept a cup of coffee, but not a main menu item such as a cheeseburger from someone I was doing business with. That was the line. I wrote a few articles that a state fish and game agency published in one of their magazines. They wanted to offer an honorarium of a few hundred dollars each. I was advised not to accept the offer since I was in a position to authorize some of their activities on national forest lands. I was allowed to be reimbursed for my out-of-pocket cost of supplying the photos. That was the line. Can you imagine Justice Thomas or other high-level officials holding themselves to such a standard? What about Ivanka and Jared Kushner's self-enrichment through supposed dealings with the Chinese and Saudi governments? And Hunter Biden. Who knows?
Administrators often fall victim to the appearance of nepotism, if not nepotism itself. If a supervisor were to hire his/her spouse or child to fill a position in his/her organization, that would be blatant nepotism and illegal. That doesn't happen often. However, there are instances where "you hire mine and I'll hire yours" can occur with a wink and a nod between administrative unit supervisors.This may not be strictly illegal, but it creates suspicion. That is as close as it got in the Forest Service world. I wonder how the former president's hiring of Ivanka and Jared Kushner would rate under nepotism regulations.
I was once advised that I shouldn't invest in Boise Cascade stocks because I was responsible for selling timber to them. My decisions might influence their profit margins. The concern was public perception. Today, once again, I read about legislators on Capitol Hill who adjusted their investments "just in time." This smells like corruption to me.
Corruption at the Forest Service might slow or stop projects from getting done, it could approve bad projects, and it could result in below-standard construction projects passing certification. It is dangerous and it risks taxpayer money. Once it starts, corruption spreads and gets worse. If we see it at the top, and see that no one is able or willing to stop it, it changes the culture and filters down to employees at every level. It never starts at the bottom because there are too many safeguards in the management chain that will inform, advise, and admonish -- unless these layers above become corrupt. They set a standard. Like Jennifer Angelo, I don't like what I see.
My message to readers of your blog is that nearly all government employees I have met in my career go to work each day and conduct business ethically, with a sincere desire to serve the public. I would venture that most would be mad, disgusted, or heartbroken by what is happening at the highest level of our government right now. I know I am.
[Note: to subscribe to the blog and get it delivered by email every day, go to: petersage.substack.com Subscribe. The blog is free and always will be.]
Back in 1968 I was "Clean for Gene."
Clean for Gene meant I had short hair and no beard. I attempted to have a general appearance that would not irritate people my parents' age, i.e. voters.
Eugene McCarthy was an anti-war politician running against Lyndon Johnson. I liked him. I did not want my appearance to cost him votes when I said something good about him or bad about the Vietnam War. I was only 18 but I had already figured out that the appearance and body language of political messengers dramatically affected their message. I wanted to look like a "good, normal, clean-cut guy." Some people said I had sold out to the establishment. It was a fair point.
 |
| Robbie the Robot and Tony Farrell at The Sharper Image |
Guest Post by Tony Farrell
When Peter and I were at Harvard College a half-century ago, there was a sullen cadre of classmates who sported Maoist enthusiasms; activist Red Diaper Babies whom later Woody Allen loved to mock. Their signature attribute was a deep humorlessness, and their ilk still walks among us. This is unfortunate because it is humor that may save us.
Today, the extremism of grim wokeness is disheartening (and not only because it gives free ammo to Republicans). Fortunately, Bill Maher’s “Cajones Awards” is so brilliantly funny and true that it may signal a corner has been turned on our way out of the bleak wilderness of correctness. Particularly gratifying is his recognition of Cornell’s no-nonsense president; Cornell the university that suffered an armed student takeover, spring of 1969, when my Harvard leftist classmates also seized an administration building. (Cornell expelled not a single student; in fact, a leader of that armed takeover was put on their board!)
Check out Maher’s show.
Parental Advisory. This is R-rated and may not be suitable for all viewers.
 |
| Click Here |
Having spent most of my life in the Northeast, I now live in Texas. I like living here in Houston but had to learn the hard way not to talk about politics and religion.Early in my Texas experience, we got to know our neighbors. The friendliest ones grew up in Louisiana and we were fortunate to be invited to casual dinners, cookouts, and pool parties. Life was good until I made the blunder of bringing up a book, I had just read named The Death of Character. I had met the author, a professor at University of Virginia, at a small meeting Wisconsin hosted by a philanthropist who, incidentally, was a practicing, Christian. With the encouragement of my Christian-philanthropist friend, I got the book and read it as soon as it arrived.
The theme was that character in America began to erode, in part, with the merger of Christianity and politics via the creation of the Moral Majority in the 80s. Nationally, the organization encouraged its members to use registration drives to recruit churchgoers to vote for Moral Majority-endorsed candidates who were all Republican. So, the marriage of politics and the Republican party was begun.One dilemma in this merger is that the Republicans became the party presumably endorsed by God and Democrats became the enemy of Christianity. Though the Moral Majority as an entity was short-lived, the concept of preaching politics from the pulpit lives on. Prior to that time, there was a belief that good character was informed by religious belief. The Bible and Torah were seen as guidance for the development of good character. Religion wasn't about identity on a team. It shaped ethics. I was deeply interested in this because I had spent the past decade helping private and public charter schools develop character programs.
The blunder I made was to bring up The Death of Character at a neighborhood cookout. Oops. The topic did not go over well and friendly attempts to change the subject failed. Folks began to take offense. The crescendo was when our host put her foot down and told me pointedly, “If God could vote, He would vote Republican.” She said what the other guests were thinking. Luckily, we dropped the subject, the party went on. I wrote an apology for spoiling things. Fortunately, we never returned to the topic, and via my wife’s loving personality we stayed on the invitation list.
I remain very concerned about the idea of politics co-opting religion. Recently, I attended a very well developed, year-long Bible study that has a lecture and small group discussion. I could not help noticing the little barbs and jokes about Democrats and Catholics. Concerned about the resentment I was feeling, I went to confession to share my negative feelings toward my study mates. The priest was silent for a while, and regarding my study mates he said, “Why don’t you look for goodness in the lives of the men. Try to love them even if you don’t agree with them. God wants us to love our neighbors, our enemies, and those that do not believe as we do. Drop the subject and look to do good in your community.” Good concept.
Twenty six states allow concealed carry of firearms without a permit.
Oregon requires a permit.
An early version of yesterday's blog post contained an error. I inadvertently included the word "concealed" when discussing my own locality's policy regarding firearms training. I have corrected that.
 |
| https://www.usconcealedcarry.com |
Nearly any adult can buy, own, and carry a firearm in most of the USA. In blue-state Oregon, convicted felons, people convicted of a misdemeanor within the past four years, and people subject to restraining orders are prohibited from buying firearms. However, people with serious and well-documented substance or mental health problems can buy and carry firearms so long as they have not been convicted of crimes. The key is to avoid formal convictions or a court determination of mental illness. My sheriff told me that people with a clean record on those points do not set off "red flag" subjective interventions by law enforcement. It is not illegal to be angry, jumpy, paranoid, schizophrenic, or to have a strong fear and dislike of certain people or ethnicities. One can be some or all of those things and still legally carry a firearm.
 |
| Sheriff Nathan Sickler |
However, my county does require people to take and pass a class on firearm law and safety if a person wants a permit to legally carry that weapon concealed. A reader brought that error to my attention. He told me he personally had decided not to bother getting a concealed gun permit when he learned he needed to take a class.
My point remains the same, though. It is a head's up to all of us. The U.S. is increasingly a place where people have guns at the ready for personal protection. Some gun carriers may not be cool-headed rational people. Gun carriers can "stand their ground" based on their subjective belief that they are in danger. In the aftermath of a shooting, police and courts will look at what the victim might have done--perhaps innocently or inadvertently--to cause that belief. The balance has shifted on fault between the "self-defender" and the "shooting victim."
The direction in red-state legislatures is to loosen gun laws, not tighten them. In both red and blue states Americans notice that more people are carrying guns, so are deciding they, too, need a gun in self defense. More guns. More looking out for danger from others. What could go wrong?
What could go wrong are incidents like this one yesterday.
 |
| NBC report |
[Note: to subscribe to the blog and get it delivered by email every day, go to: petersage.substack.com Subscribe. The blog is free and always will be.]
