Perspective! Critically important, but horribly out of sync!

April 8, 2025

Those seasoned citizens among us are frequently a bit dazzled by what they see going on in America today. Seeing how the younger generations are so unimpressed and displeased with the way things are, causes them to scratch their heads in disbelief.

Having grown up decades ago, when life was very, very different, we watched as technology and culture gradually evolved over many years into what is readily available today.

Some of us remember times before television, hand-held telephones, microwave ovens, and a long list of things that are commonplace today.

We had radios, but only AM stations, and they had to be plugged into the wall, or the car’s electrical system. When TV came around, it was little boxes with a black and white picture. And we got only one or maybe two stations, which we received over the airwaves by rabbitears on the TV, and later an antenna mounted on the roof. 

And remote control involved someone getting up from their chair and walking up to the TV and twisting the channel selector, adjusting the volume, or turning the set on or off. Later, color TVs and FM radio came along, and cable TV service

We had typewriters and adding machines, but not computers or calculators. Our telephones were connected to the world by wires and after a while we were able to replace the operators who placed the calls for us with the ability to dial a phone number by ourselves with a wheel device on the phone base.

Milk bottles were delivered to our front porch by delivery people. And the kids entertained themselves playing games outside like tag or hide and seek, riding their tricycles or bikes, or some sport. Or maybe they played inside with plastic bricks to build things.

Cooking was done on the electric kitchen stove, or perhaps a campfire. Our houses were heated by a coal or gas furnace, and air conditioning consisted of opening windows and turning on the fan.

Travel around town could be on foot or a bicycle, by city buses and trolleys, or by the family car if we could drive. We could listen to music performed live, but at home before the late 60s, early 70s, if it wasn’t on TV or radio, we heard it from a 78 rpm, or perhaps 33 rpm record player system that had mono sound.

As the years passed, things improved. More options became available, and life became much easier and more enjoyable.

Kids born since the 90s — Gen Z and Generation Alpha — are so lucky, compared to us. Whereas we saw these improvements come gradually over many years, these young people found all of this waiting for them when they arrived. So, all of these wonders are just normal to them. Nothing to get excited about, folks. Just dull, always-the-same stuff all the time.

An interesting perspective on this situation recently appeared online. It was written by a 26-year-old college graduate student working on her MBA. Alyssa Ahlgren was sitting in a small coffee shop trying to think of a topic to write about. 

“I scroll through my newsfeed on my phone looking at the latest headlines of presidential candidates calling for policies to ‘fix’ the so-called injustices of capitalism. I put my phone down and continued to look around,” she wrote.

Among the sights in her view were people talking amongst themselves, working on their computers, ordering food, which they got rather quickly. And then, reality dawned on her. “We live in the most privileged time in the most prosperous nation and we’ve become completely blind to it,” she wrote.

“Vehicles, food, technology, freedom to associate with whom we choose. These things are so ingrained in our American way of life we don’t give them a second thought,” she continued.

“We are so well off here in the United States that our poverty line begins 31 times above the global average. Thirty. One. Times!!!”

She notes that virtually no one in America is poor by global standards. And the fact that someone can place an order online one day, and receive it the next day does not impress so many of us. “Oh, that’s just normal. No big deal,” they think.

And then, the real trouble is brought to light. “Our unappreciation is evident as the popularity of socialist policies among my generation continues to grow.” She references New York Democrat Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez as commenting that the entire millennial generation, which is a very large electorate, has never even seen prosperity in America. 

They live it, daily, but haven’t noticed how good they have it. And they look to socialism to turn the best country they could ever live in into another Venezuela.

The current protests further highlight how little so many Americans actually know about America and its priniciples.

History instructs us how every great nation eventually collapsed, or killed itself. America appears to be on that track. We have failed to teach so many people about life and their country. And unless dramatic changes are made, America will become just one more memory, and a sad chapter in history.

The American legal system badly needs some modifications

April 1, 2025

Since Donald Trump entered the political arena the number of times he has been involved in legal actions has grown enormously. And as he continues to be involved in politics, that list continues to expand.

Each of the times he has been charged with a crime or sued excites his political enemies, and provides them with ammunition to fight him with. And his supporters and some others say that is mostly why these allegations are made and charges are brought in the first place.

The term “lawfare” has become a common term. It means to use legal elements as warfare, or using the law as a weapon of political war.

A shining example provided by Trump supporters of how lawfare is used occurred in New York not too long ago. In May of 2024, he was charged by a Democrat DA who campaigned on “getting Trump,” and he was tried in a court in a heavily Democrat county, presided over by a judge with heavy Democrat ties, and found guilty by a jury of all or mostly Democrats.

Democrats disagree with that description, of course. But the heavy influence of Democrats in that part of that heavily blue state are inarguable.

And as time has passed more questionable actions have only added to the concerns that our legal system is sometimes driven more by politics than it is by the law and the Constitution.

U.S. District Judge James Boasberg ordered the Trump administration to immediately halt efforts to remove criminal illegal aliens until he has more time to consider whether Trump’s use of the Alien Enemies Act was illegal. And, there are other instances where a district judge has also intervened in a presidential action.

There are 94 federal judicial districts and each one has at least one district judge, who is appointed for a life term. In total there are more than 670 federal district judges in the U.S. And as some of these judges see it, each of them, having judicial authority over a very small area of the country, somehow has the power to overrule the President of the United States.

Other actions by trial judges have brought about resistance. New York Republican House of Representatives member Elise Stefanik produced two ethics complaints, alleging judicial abuse by two judges in cases against Trump.

One of them was Judge Arthur Engoron of the Manhattan Supreme Court. Stefanik’s complaint noted that Engoron had called Trump “a bad guy,” and had supported Attorney General Letitia James for going after him. When challenged on this, he refused to recuse himself.

During the trial, Engoron told Trump’s attorney, who was trying to file a routine motion, that he wasn’t interested in what he had to say, and “to just sit down.” He then issued a gag order against Trump.

The second complaint was filed against New York state Supreme Court Judge Juan Merchan, who presided over the trial in which Trump was convicted of 34 counts of falsifying business records. Stefanik provided evidence that Merchan’s daughter was working for the Kamala Harris presidential campaign, calling into question his ability to preside impartially.

The New York Judicial State Commission on Judicial Conduct did not even consider those complaints.

A theory on what has led to many judges making rulings and taking other actions beyond their actual authority is the existing assumption that judges hold absolute immunity for their actions. There are cases where obvious errors and deliberate improper actions by judges have been ignored. Judicial immunity has been awarded to judges by other judges.

One example: An Indiana judge ordered a 15-year-old girl to be surgically sterilized for no better reason than that her parents asked for it. There was no hearing of evidence or a trial that determined this action, and the girl was told she was going to have an appendectomy, not sterilization. She didn’t realize what had actually happened until she was married years later, and discovered she could not have the children she wanted.

The victim later sued the judge, but his peers defended him from being held accountable for his horrific action. You see, he was protected by absolute immunity. The court wrote that, “A judge will not be deprived of immunity because the action he took was in error, was done maliciously, or was in excess of his authority.” 

The idea of judicial immunity was inherited from English common law, and has survived several legal challenges. However, this situation has caused some organizations to seek a change to this assumption of blanket immunity from all actions. 

One of them, the Institute for Justice (IJ) — a nonprofit, public interest law firm — has launched the “Project on Immunity and Accountability.” The basis for this, IJ states, is this simple idea: “If we the people must follow the law, our government must follow the Constitution.”

We do not want a situation where judges and their decisions will be challenged every time one side or the other in a legal matter is displeased with the outcome. 

But what we must have are conditions in existence that will insure that judicial decisions are based upon the law and the Constitution, as written, not on personal or political opinions.