A Thought Experiment on the Political Effectiveness of the Accusation of Fascism in America Today

            

             One performs thought experiments, or imaginary experiments, in the imagination. We set up some situation, we observe what happens, then we try to draw appropriate conclusions. In this way, thought experiments resemble real experiments, except that they are experiments in the mind. I want to state at the outset that it is debatable whether such an approach can provide helpful insights into what is going on the world. If you can join me in the experiment, and not get too defensive, we might open ourselves to a helpful insight. I might be making a too-subtle approach to what I want to say. If that is your experience reading, I apologize at the beginning.

            To carry out this thought experiment, I will need to refer to President Trump and his supporters. The reason is that progressives too often use the fascist label for him and his followers, which number in the millions. Personally, I would prefer that Trump enjoy the rest of his life and allow Republicans to explore a future without his direct involvement. I would like him to be quiet. I did not expect him to do that, and although I hoped for Nikki Haley, I am not surprised at the result of the Republican primaries of 2024. I feel like I do not have a political party.

            For this thought experiment, I am using Trump and his voters to explore whether such an accusation sheds light on the debate occurring in the public square of America today.

“Everyone seems to have become Hitler.” Historian Gavriel D. Rosenfeld wrote these words in his study of how the Nazi past has become a recurring theme in contemporary culture – to the point of almost becoming trivial. Its prevalent use in political conversation is part of the nasty character of political dialogue today. When people make facile comparisons to Hitler and the Nazis, they are trying, usually in good faith, to warn us about the dangers of ignoring history and its lessons. It attempts to deliver a knock-out blow that will end the argument. Thus, in political conversation, we may agree on nothing else, but we can agree that Hitler is a symbol of evil. Negotiating him was futile, so rational political discourse becomes futile if either side considers the other side as Hitler. False equivalencies not only risk trivializing Hitler and the horrors he unleashed. They also prevent people from engaging with the actual issues at hand – ones that urgently require our attention. The standard for inhumanity to other human beings is set high in referring to Hitler, who engaged in genocide. Dehumanizing the political opponent occurs far from genocide, and may include the comparison of the opponent with Hitler.

            The 1930s were the time of Nazi rise to power in Germany. They used the crisis of German defeat in WWI and the global depression as a path to power. The populace was desperate, and the slogan “bread and work” was effective to bring them to power. However, they also effectively used methods of public intimidation to strengthen their hold on the population. The history of fascism does not begin with a dictator simply marching into a nation’s capital and seizing total power. It more frequently begins with the destruction of the legislative branch at the hands of centralization of executive power. Adolf Hitler did not just declare himself dictator; dictatorial power preceded him in the chancellor’s office by several years, dating back to Heinrich Bruning invoking emergency powers under Article 48 of the Weimar Constitution in 1930. Benito Mussolini came to power under constitutional means in 1922 and did not consolidate his rule until 1925. Fascism, in other words, is a gradual process. And that process starts with executive branch actors accumulating authority they did not legally acquire.

            I want to begin the thought experiment by illustrating the accusation of fascism used by a progressive. A progressive I follow on Twitter kept waiting for Trump to attempt the beerhall putsch, the feeble attempt by Nazis to take Germany by force. Some Nazis were killed, and Hitler was himself almost killed. Hitler memorialized those who died when he became chancellor. The progressive I follow thought January 6 was that moment, but it never materialized. Two years after Trump was no longer president, he was still seeing signs of that putsch. Such comparisons tell me much about how Trump and his voters disgust him, how dear his progressive ideology is to him, and nothing about Trump, except that he never took over the government by force. The progressive raising this fear was wrong. His accusation did nothing to persuade. It was a signal to his progressive friends that he was a loyal member of that community, and that was about all. The fact that he is a theologian and has written some solid theology on Bultmann but has never admitted his wrong is troubling but expected.

            Thus, one way to read all this is that amid the collapse of the “public”-“private” distinction and the “other”-izing of half the citizenry by President Biden means that the stakes could not be higher. The vision for America promoted by progressives has grown increasingly dark. Its embrace of identity politics has morphed into an all-out drive for divisiveness, demonizing huge swaths of the American people for purely political purposes. Demonizing releases those who oppose demons from the responsibility of engaging the opposition rationally and respectfully. Thus, one could argue that if anyone is a danger to the soul of this nation and what America represents in the story of human history, it is President Biden and his allies. The idea that a sizable portion of the opposition to the party in power have replaced fascists, Soviets, and radical Islamists as the true enemies of America would seem to be a declaration of war on half of the country.

           I want to concede that an American version of fascism may be the path through which the nation may need to travel to discover itself anew. Such a post-modern differentiation may be the dangerous path down which America needs to travel for its citizens to discover anew their common desire for human flourishing and respect for rationally arriving at divergent political conclusions. Let us now engage in a bit of irony by exploring a few fascist methods and relate them to a reading of certain recent actions by progressives.

            A widely accepted element of “fascism” is the cooptation of the “private” sector by the “public” sector, especially in service of entrenching a one-party state. 

            One could argue that progressive ideology so permeates Big Tech and other large corporations so deeply that its alliance with a progressive power structure in Washington DC constitutes a move in the direction of a one-party state-private sector. Removing not just Trump but other conservatives, removing posts that are not consistent with the progressive view things, placing warnings on conservative views of climate change, are among the hints of such an alliance. 

            One method of fascism was the control of major information outlets. They told reporters what the theme was to be in their communication. They made sure their political views were the dominant concepts in the major newspapers and on the radio. Everywhere one turned, the only acceptable political views allowed were views consistent with the Nazi program. 

            One could argue that progressives are using this strategy effectively. It does not require a central organization dominated by a charismatic personality because it is a shared ideology. We see it in major media outlets (NYT, Washington Post, and the major papers of every major city, NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, MSNBC). We also see it in entertainment, as progressive ideology works their way into movies and television shows. The practice of shaming entertainers if they do not tow the progressive line has been effective, in part because if one moves against it, one is less likely to get a job. 

            Another method of fascism was physical intimidation. The brown-shirts were thugs that occasionally went through the streets to kill and physically intimidate opponents. They were the reason in the Night of Broken Glass they destroyed many Jewish businesses, and they killed 100 Jews, was what it was. 

            One could argue that for the progressives, Antifa and Black Lives Matter were organized to intimidate voters before the 2020 election. It made it appear that if Donald Trump were just not President, everything would quiet down in the streets. This has been true, as the organizations have become less vocal and less violent. One can be sure their violence will increase if the next President is GOP.

 

•   There were riots throughout the nation that shut down many cities. The use of violence through Antifa and BLM were designed to intimidate voters into electing whomever the Democrat Party nominated to assure peace. 

 

            Another method of fascism was political intimidation. The goal was to eliminate any legal political opposition for the sake of national security. 

            The progressive needed the Democrat Party for this, and some Never Trump persons, and it worked. 

 

•   Using many lies, notably the Russia narrative which some journalists like Margot Cleveland and others have exposed as the Russia hoax, and the Steele Dossier, making Trump Hitler and Trump supporters Nazis. 

•   They had a sustained effort at the nullification of the 2016 election, which Hillary Clinton still questions its legitimacy.

•   When rioting exploded in the streets of Washington, D.C., after the election results of 2016 became clear, Madonna infamously shouted to a mass crowd that she dreamed of blowing up the White House, with the Trump family in it.

•   Do they believe that Georgia or Texas run “fair and square” elections? Doubtful. Yet, the media asks only conservatives to treat every election law passed by Democrats as a sacrosanct pillar of “democracy” or risk Democrats and their many friends in the media smearing them being as traitors. 

•   As an aside, the election of Biden with a $419 million infusion from Zuckerberg and friends targeting Democrat strongholds in purple states to get out that vote was a significant victory, especially since Trump outpaced past GOP votes from among Hispanic and Black voters. 

•   The President accusing his political foes as “semi-fascist” is the same one who sent the federal law enforcement to execute a predawn raid on the private residence of his former, and perhaps future, ballot box opponent. 

           

            Another fascist practice was to discredit by fabrication and lies. They would turn on each other. The Nazi Storm Troopers came under suspicion by Hitler. In 1934, Hitler had many killed and Ernst Rohm imprisoned. Other Nazi leaders, such as Hess, Himmler, and Goehring, wanted Rohm killed, but Hitler resisted until they fabricated evidence of the disloyalty of Rohm. 

            This allows me to expand on the point above, reading the behavior of progressives in a certain way. 

 

•   Progressives used this method in the fabrication that was the Steele Dossier, the basis for the accusation that Trump colluded with Russia. 

•   This form of intimidation continues in the January 6 committee, in which the opposing political party did not have a representative. No one thinks what happened in the capitol of the nation was a good thing. However, it was not a good thing that riots occurred throughout the country, property destroyed, and lives lost because of it. The use of public show trials of political enemies is a favorite of authoritarian regimes in every time and place. 

           

            Another method was fear. Fascists wanted Germans to blame Jews for their financial woes and for their defeat in the war. This proved to be tricky. When they tried a national boycott against Jewish businesses and planting SS troops outside such businesses, many Germans walked past the troops and did their businesses anyway. They lied about the violence against Germans in neighboring Czechoslovakia, generating a fear in the German population and acceptance of the invasion of that country. 

            One way to read progressive methods is that they have effectively used lies about Trump, but they have also used lies about the effect of overturning Roe vs Wade and lies about the climate, to generate fear and justify calls for national emergency measures and increased restrictions on businesses and individuals that line-up with the lies. 

            My question is this: does such a comparison of fascism and progressive methods have any effectiveness? The comparison I am making between fascist and progressive methods in this thought experiment tells you as a reader that I really dislike these actions by progressives and that I hate fascism. However, does my concern about recent progressive methods and actions equate to fascism on the part of progressives? More importantly, does the comparison do anything to advance the conversation America needs to be having in the public square? 

            If a progressive were to read to this point, I can imagine the reader offering many objections. That is my point. While from my conservative political position I do not like what I see happening, the point of my thought experiment is to explore whether the accusation of fascism in the American context sheds light upon the issues facing the country today. I used a conservative reading of progressive behavior to show that as easily as the charge of fascism rolls off the tongue of a progressive when directed to President Trump and his supporters, a conservative has plenty of behavior by progressives in government and culture to make the same charge. However, do such accusations advance a discussion of the issues facing the country?

            To make my point directly and clearly, not only is history not repeating itself, but it is also not even rhyming, as it relates to the horrible experience of fascism in the 1920s and 1930s. All Americans agree that fascism as experienced in the middle part of the 20th century was a horrible part of the experience of the Western democracies and none of us want it repeated. I encourage you to watch documentaries related to the historical movement of fascism, especially the rise of Hitler to power and its effect of concentration camps and a war that resulted in the loss of 50 million lives. No one on either side of the political spectrum wants this. Thus, the accusation of fascism in that sense ought not to be part of honest discourse. However, an American version of post-modern fascism stemming from intense anger, which the progressive seems to nurture toward all who disagree with that ideology, is clearly a possibility. I have no idea what that path would like or the type of transformed nation it would create. I clearly would prefer not to find out.

            The question then arises as to why both sides use the accusation of fascism against their opponent. I will share my view.

            The accusation of fascism displays an anger that arises from a view of an opposition that considers the political opponent to be either evil or irrational. Such a view results in relieving oneself from the burden of respecting the other and engaging in honest debate with the other. It does not matter if the accusation comes from a conservative or a progressive, for in both cases, it absolves the accuser of engaging the political opponent rationally and respectfully. Instead of thinking of Trump supporters as monolithic haters, one might listen to their concerns for fiscal conservatives, traditional values, illegal immigration, smaller federal government, preserving what is best about America as represented in its founders and its constitution, the sense that cultural, economic, and political elites have isolated themselves from the concerns of the common person, and the alienation some of these voters from institutional life. They are men, women, black, Hispanic, young, old, and of varying economic status and educational level. 

            I suggested that this thought experiment might lead to a helpful insight. I stress that this is only an imaginary experiment. To repeat: the point is not that progressives are fascists. I have seen that accusation proposed concerning Trump and his supporters and find it disgusting. I would find such an accusation against the progressive equally wrong. To state it clearly, I do not think progressives are fascists. 

            Could such a thought experiment help the progressive see with greater clarity what might be happening to the progressive side of the political equation in America today? If I were a progressive, or a never-Trump conservative, I would be concerned with the methods used and with the direction such methods will lead it. 

            However, I think even that might be too optimistic for the use of a thought experiment as a method of argumentation. All this thought experiment has done is solidify the resolve of those who are concerned with the progressive ideology as practiced by its devotees today. If a progressive were to read this and receive an insight that would question these methods, even if not the ideology, I would be shocked but pleased. However, I suspect that all I have accomplished is tell the reader something about my beliefs. Obviously, I do not like the progressive ideology. By comparing certain practices to those of fascism, the thought experiment is expressing how intensely I dislike these practices. This thought experiment tells you I cannot imagine anything worse than the fascist, so comparing progressive methods in certain areas to them tells you how offensive I find them. Of course, I would like any potential reader to find them equally offensive. The thought experiment assumes that any potential reader would find fascist practices offensive.

            My thought experiment has a modest goal. These concluding words are for the conservative or the progressive engaged in the public square. It has to do with our use of language in the public square. It also has to do with Christians commenting on what is happening in the political world today. It can be difficult to resist the anger so prevalent in the cultural and political discourse of the country, but we need to find a way. 

            I want to share some good wisdom. Since the wisdom derives from the Bible, I want to be clear that my point here is not that the public square become Christian. Rather, I would like to encourage participants to become wiser. 

            For example, blessed are the merciful, said Jesus, for they will receive mercy. If we are merciful in the way we approach those of opposing political positions, we have a greater possibility of receiving mercy from them. It will move us toward the other rather than distancing ourselves from them. From this closer position, we might find common ground and learn from each other. Blessed are those who make peace, said Jesus, rather than allow oneself to be caught up in the war of words so prevalent in the public square today. 

            As another example, Paul in his vice lists refers to stirring up enmity, which involves hostilities between individuals and communities, on political, religious, or racial grounds. He urges that we avoid strife (quarrelsomeness, contention, and wrangling). We are to avoid anger, which is often vengeful. He wants us to avoid malice, which suggests ill will or a desire to injure the other, or to adopt a vicious disposition toward the other. Feuding and rivalry in this form lead to little more than division and disorder, even revolution and anarchy in the political and moral sphere. From the perspective of the virtues (Galatians 5:22-23) we are to develop, such language does not move us toward love, it does not nurture peace, it does not cultivate patience, kindness, or gentleness.

            All political perspectives could remove the accusation of fascism when describing their opponent. If they did, it would increase the fruitfulness of the debate occurring in the public square. Fascism, like all moments of history, was a unique happening that none of us want repeated. It had enough evil for its time, and we do not need to relive it in our language. However, I am confident that the removal I suggest will not happen, but one can always hope — and pray. Let it be so.

From Russia Collusion Narrative to Russia Hoax

            

          

            I want to explore the significance of the Russia collusion story. Here is a significant reason for many on the political Right to who believe the Democrat Party is weaponizing the federal bureaucracy against their political opponents and a significant reason the political Right does not trust major media outlets or the technology companies. 

The stimulation of this exploration is the acquittal of Sussman and Danchenko. I want to begin with what I consider the factual date, provided from several articles by Margot Cleveland and a recent article by Ben Weingarten of Newsweek. I will then get into the frame of mind that led otherwise intelligent persons to behave in these ways. 

            In a matter like this, I want to be clear as to the facts as I understand them. 

            The Clinton campaign and its attorneys hired technicians to attack the servers of Donald Trump to establish a narrative by gathering derogatory information about Trump. They were unsuccessful, so they developed a story about a Russian-based bank, which Jake Sullivan declared on October 21, 2016, that it unlocked ties between Russia and Trump, but Sullivan failed to disclose that Clinton financed the computer scientists on which he relied for his information. After her defeat, her team backed off and after the inauguration they continued. Mueller found no such actionable collusion. Clinton hired members of the Perkins Cole law firm to contract with tech experts with the purpose of finding any dirt that the failed Steele Dossier did not uncover, which led to the claim of Russian Alfa Bank collusion. They fed false information to the media and the FBI. Victor Davis Hanson referred to it as a slow-motion coup. Agent Scott Hellman told the court that he and another agent took less than a day to ascertain that the information did not support the allegations that Trump’s business and Russia’s Alfa Bank had a secret connection.

            The Federal Election Commission fined Hillary Clinton’s campaign for lying about the discredited Steele Dossier in campaign filings. As Special Counsel John Durham’s investigation revealed, Perkins Cole, the law firm hired by the Clinton campaign, paid Fusion GPS more than $1 million, $175,000 which they used to fund opposition research designed to undermine then-Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump. They laundered money to pay Russian nationals like Danchenko for the intelligence that formed the Steele Dossier and was peddled on her behalf to the DOJ, FBI, and CIA. Fusion GPS, hired by Hillary Clinton, then hired Christopher Steele to compile negative and false secondhand accounts designed to tie Trump to the Kremlin that were subsequently fed to corporate media reporters and government officials. This coordinated effort by Clinton allies, Kevin Clinesmith pleading guilty, to lie about their political enemies sparked the Obama administration’s efforts to spy on Trump and his campaign under knowingly false pretenses. For lying about the purpose of campaign funds, the FEC ordered Clinton’s campaign to pay $8,000 to the commission in the next 30 days. The Democratic National Committee was also fined $105,000 for the same violation. Durham used his cases to reveal not only the information operation the Clinton campaign ran to present Trump as a Russian traitor, and how the campaign flooded the federal government from a million directions with its fake evidence, but also how the feds at every turn engaged in willful blindness to lawlessly, recklessly, and corruptly pursue Trump-Russia collusion despite knowing full well it 

            The FBI and the DOJ used the uncorroborated Steele memoranda, which had failed as a Clinton operation, misleading the FISA court as to its authenticity to obtain four FISA court orders to surveil Carter Page, and the judges responsible for authorizing the most intrusive court-ordered surveillance possible based upon hearsay for sources of unknown reliability. Individuals justified this behavior by having a view of President Trump that involved him as being so dangerous he had to be removed. The FBI paid Steele and others to verify the lies in the dossier. An FBI lawyer even altered a document as part of a government effort to disrupt a presidential transition and presidency. 

            The DOJ and FBI launched an investigation into the campaign of a president based on the pretext that a low-level volunteer adviser had made a passing comment over drinks to an Australian diplomat that the Russians might release information detrimental to Clinton, continuing the charade for years, knowing there was no “there” there.

            As FBI Deputy Assistant Director, Peter Strzok launched Crossfire Hurricane, plotted the removal of Michael Flynn, and making the most “impactful series of missteps” seen in some 20-plus years at the bureau that “called into question” and “thoroughly damaged the reputation” of the FBI,” according to an official report. 

            James Come provided a defensive briefing to provide CNN a hook to report the Steele dossier, took secret notes of his conversations with the president and used a lawyer friend to leak them to the media once he was fired to prompt the appointment of a special counsel, he failed to inform then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions of developments in the case prior to Session’s recusal, he oversaw the Crossfire Hurricane debacle, and he violated the constitutional rights of Page. 

            Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) lied to the American public since he knew the truth of the classified material.

            Confidential human sources Stefan Halper, Rodney, Joffe, Steele, and Danchenko peddled false intel to the FBI. Danchenko failed to polygraph the Russian or conduct the many recommended procedures necessary to ensure his loyalty and credibility. Those responsible for approving his service are equally culpable since they did so with regard for the prior espionage investigation that never reached conclusion.

            Then DOJ General Counsel James Baker shrugged off the peddling by Michael Sussman of the alfa Bank-Trump-Russia hoax. Computer scientists were also responsible for assisting in that how. Inspector General Michael Horowitz kept this information from Durham.

            The agents working the Crossfire Hurricane investigation or assisting Robert Mueller did not do their jobs and did not blow the whistle when others weaponized the criminal justice system. The agents operating under the Mueller special counsel investigation limited the scope of their inquiry into the Steele dossier, ensuring that damning information about the original investigation into the dossier would remain hidden. Mueller allowed his underlings to act in this fashion. Mueller claimed not to investigate the Dossier, but the Durham investigation has shown that not only did he do so but stopped the investigation from reaching a conclusion. The question became not whether the federal government was a mere party to the Russia hoax, but the extent to which it was an active co-conspirator—if not the primary culprit itself.

            Given the powerful people involved in all this, it is hardly surprising that two of three indictments ended in acquittal. This may well have been an investigation where the real targets were too big to bring down.

            Journalists used their skills to sell the Russia-collusion narrative and have since then failed to report the truth of the scandal.

            Sadly, too many Americans do not care that the DOJ and intelligence communities were weaponized to get Trump. In fact, too many Americans celebrate what these persons have done.

            Four years of national hysteria, a divided nation, and dangerous new tensions with Russia were some of the results of such behaviors. 

            My presumption is that neither the persons and groups mentioned here, nor Donald Trump, are any better or worse than the rest of us. They bear the image of God and therefore deserve respect; they bear the mark of the human tendency toward turning away from that which life-giving and becoming self-destructive, and therefore deserve caution as we consider their motives.

            A rational choice after her defeat might have been for Hillary Clinton to accept that she ran an ineffective campaign, lost to someone who focused upon the seven toss-up states effectively and beat her, and be gracious in defeat. Instead, she and Obama decided to cultivate a Russian collusion narrative that brought a tainted election victory to Donald Trump. 

            Given the data, I think we can move from discussing the Russian narrative to discussing the Russian hoax. The Russia hoax was an effort by progressives and never Trump conservatives to warp the results of the 2016 election. The Russia hoax reminds me of what the Clinton’s did surrounding the sexual wanderings of Bill and its coverup. There is a consistent pattern with them of destroying political opponents, which in that case were women abused by Bill Clinton, such as Juanita Broderick and many others. This hoax is consistent with the Clinton pattern of abusing people they believe to be their enemies. We also need to be clear. The Clintons were rewarded for their efforts with a second term for President Clinton. Those who perpetrated the hoax were also successful, for it was the soil out of which the victory of the Democrat Party in the mid-term elections and the defeat of Trump in the 2020 election. What intrigues me most is the form of thinking that leads persons to justify promulgating such a hoax upon the American people, and the fact that so many, whether progressive or never-Trump conservatives, were willing to embrace the hoax. 

            It might be enough that they were angry with the decision of the electorate, a decision with which Hillary took exception. Hillary Clinton repeatedly declared Trump an “illegitimate president,” and claimed that 2016 was “not on the level” and “stolen.” The reason these persons engaged in this behavior may be as simple as believing this to be true. If so, they were engaging in behavior arising from a belief they held, the anger it generated, leading to seeking revenge against Trump, who must have engineered the stealing of the election. One could also reason that they were responding in kind to Trump, who was encouraging crowds to chant, “Lock her up.” Trump had his version of stirring up anger in the crowd. However, most of us would not consider revenge a moral response to what they believed Trump did. Confucius memorably said that if you devote your life to seeking revenge, dig two graves.

            Many of us want to think that hatred is an emotion that we cannot help to have or a feeling we cannot overcome. If we hate someone, so we tend to think, we simply cannot help ourselves. We are human and thus have no choice but to hate. We believe this to excuse our hatred. We are not at fault when we hate. Our problem is that we can help it if we hate, and hatred is our fault. Hatred is a choice, even as love is a choice. Love and hate are matters of the will (Philip Gulley). Do you as a progressive or Never Trump conservative love Donald Trump and his voters or do you hate them? I do not think I can look upon charges of fascism toward President Trump and by implication his millions of voters coming from another place than the anger and hatred that has hooked your darkness. Of course, I could be wrong in that, but with what I see on Twitter and from informal conversations, I do not think so. In either case, you have chosen a path.

            My suspicion is that the justification of their behavior derives from another place in their thinking. 

            First, to think of Trump as one capable of engineering such a steal is to adopt a view of his character that would make him reprehensible when engineered at this level. The voters for Trump were deplorable. President Trump himself was a racist and a hater of women. He was a fascist. Therefore, he attracted voters like this. As an example, before the election and after, a young theologian I follow repeatedly expected something like a Nazi attempted violent takeover of the government at the inauguration of Trump. Such a fear was a common from progressives I saw on Twitter. Thus, President Trump was a danger to peace and democracy. Any action taken against him and that would undermine his presidency became morally justifiable.

            I recall Democrats accusing Ronald Reagan of being a danger to peace, warning that America would not want him anywhere near the nuclear button. This accusation had its precursor in the famous one-time advertisement by the Democrat Party against GOP candidate Barry Goldwater in the 1964 election, in which a girl is counting daises as a nuclear bomb exploded. The accusation of fascism was present in spades with George W. Bush, a man with whom I disagreed in his Iraq and Afghanistan policy. Mitt Romney was a hater of women and was ready to kill the elderly with his desire to reform Social Security. Regarding President Trump, I can only say that before he ran for president, he was friends with many Democrat leaders, donated to their campaigns, had a television show that I never watched for years with NBC, dated seriously an African American model, and had on staff as president people like Ben Carson and Nikki Haley. These are enough to convince me that the accusation of President Trump being such a danger was nothing more than the extreme political rhetoric to which the Democrat Party has resorted at least since the 1960s.

            Second, to think of Trump voters as monolithic haters is to not hear them respectfully and rationally. Polls show that progressives have an intensely negative view of the GOP. Some Trump voters were loyal GOP voters who will vote for the most politically conservative candidate on the ballot, were solid fiscal conservatives, have traditional values, and have concern for illegal immigration. In contrast, the progressive supports the fluidity of gender and believes the illegal immigrant has had a positive impact upon the communities in which they live. Some were believers in free markets and small government, while progressives want a larger federal government with more services and higher taxes on corporations and on people making over $400,000. Some have concerns about preserving what they believe to be the best about America, wanting to preserve respect for the founders. In contrast, the progressive thinks many countries are better than the USA is and think major institutions need to be rebuilt to get rid of the racial and sexual bias, and thus support groups like BLM. Some were anti-elite, thinking of the political system as rigged against them. Elites in the entertainment industry, technology companies, labor unions colleges, and universities, are having a negative influence upon the country. Some are skeptical of large corporations and financial institutions, a skepticism that some progressives share. Some were politically disengaged, do not follow politics, and feel alienation from the institutional life of the country. Given that there is little shared ground between the Trump voter and the progressive, I get the intensity of negative thoughts that exists between them. I also understand that some of those who share the concerns listed here are intensely loyal to Trump, while others have doubts about Trump, making what they believe to be the best choice given the options in a binary voting system. Many have high education and high income, but many also came from lower education levels and lower income.

            I would urge a reflection upon the harsh judgment made of Trump and his millions of voters. “Do not judge … do not condemn,” (Matthew 5:37) Jesus famously said. We have one judge, and it is not us, so we are to love our neighbor (James 4:12). On a personal note, I have had to be careful in my judgments of Trump. When he ran for President, he was at the bottom of the lengthy list of GOP candidates. I would still like for him to be quiet and let the GOP sort this out. He simply does not exhibit the personality and character I would like to see in a President. His behavior after he lost the election of 2020 solidified in my thinking that he has a reckless side to him. I was disappointed that Nikki Haley lost to him. I feel today like a person without a political party. My family and friends who remain loyal in their support of him I think are misguided in doing so, but I can appreciate the concerns that motivate them to do so. Washington DC can seem like a swamp that needs to be drained of its corruption and its greed for power that it seeks to gain by reducing the power of states, local communities, and the people. However, I imagine I have said enough to make those who support Trump be upset with me. I might be labeled a RINO, but I will accept that. Yet, none of what I have said would justify behavior on my part, if I were able to do so, to undermine his presidency with lies and deceit necessary to perpetrate a hoax upon the American people. Even with the deep difference the political Left has from the Trump and his voters, it did not justify the actions I have outlined here.

            The result of the actions of the people and groups named above was the weaponizing of the FBI and CIA by Hillary Clinton and President Obama. It was the use of deception and lies to advance a political agenda. Deceit, treachery, guile, (I Peter 2:1), craftiness, malignity, malevolence (Romans 1:29), insolence, violent and insulting words (Romans 1:30), are behaviors that arise out of our darkness and do not lead to the light we need to guide us as a nation. People engaged in these behaviors because a view arose about Trump and his followers. Yes, of course, they were fascists, hate women, and are racists. They had to be stopped. They were a threat to democracy. The justification of this dark behavior in their minds made them patriotic and protective of the future of America. It did not matter that many African American conservatives and many conservative women, including several close to me, were among his supporters.

            Given the resort to deception and lies, the division of the nation is not surprising. New Testament authors had to confront a similar spirit. Paul refers to enmities, referring to hostilities between individuals or communities, on political, religious, or racial grounds (Galatians 5:20).  Paul (II Corinthians 6:20) does not want to find certain vices among them when he visits, such as strife, referring to quarrelsomeness, contention, and wrangling (Romans 1:29 as well). Anger refers to outbursts of rage. Aristotle (Nichomachean Ethics, 7.1149a3) refers to the menace of uncontrolled rage that does not hear the voice of reason. He compares it to a pet dog who vigorously barks before discovering if the approaching person is friend or foe. Quarrels (James 3:14, II Corinthians 6:20) refers to a mercenary spirit and selfish ambition, the seeking of followers and adherents by means of gifts, the seeking of followers, hence ambition, rivalry, self-seeking; a feud, faction. In Romans 13:13, Paul refers to the dishonorable life of quarreling, variously translated as strife, dissension, wrangling and rivalry. Dissensions refers to divisions.  Factions refers to heresy. In II Corinthians 6:20, he refers to disorder, also translated as disturbance, upheaval, revolution, anarchy, first in the political, and thence in the moral sphere. Such behaviors arise out of our darkness, our attraction to self-destructive behaviors, and turning away from that which is life-giving.

            The anger in American culture is deep. That is the real danger to the soul of America and the health of our democracy. It has led to dangerous rhetoric, such as labeling masses of people as fascist or a danger to democracy, designed to draw parallels with the universally hated Hitler, drawing out anger toward the group so labeled, and forcing the accused into self-defense and distancing from the accuser. Such hostility has led to destruction of property and loss of life. It leads to subcultures that look upon adherence to the subculture as primary and looks upon opposing subcultures with hatred and moral superiority. None of these subcultures wants to remain a subculture, for they want their ideology and viewpoints to dominate the scene. That is why subcultures clash. They seek dominion. 

            Anger provides the soil out of which our murderous and violent actions come (Matthew 5:22). Jesus understood that the dehumanizing act of violence has its roots in the dehumanizing of another person through our anger. Moreover, not only does anger dehumanize the other, but it also dehumanizes us. Every time we decide to allow anger to smolder inside of us, we become less than fully human, less than the people God created us to be. Instead of merely avoiding murder and violence, we need to embrace reconciliation, which leads to community. 

            Among the seven deadly sins, anger may be the most fun. We get to lick our wounds, smack our lips over grievances long past, roll our tongues over the prospect of bitter confrontations still to come, savor to the last morsel the pain someone gave you and the pain you give back. We have a feast fit for a king. Of course, the chief drawback is that what you are wolfing down so joyfully is yourself. The skeleton at the feast is you (Frederick Buechner, Wishful Thinking Harper & Row, 1973, 2).

            I am not confident there is a path away from this anger and toward a spirit of community. If there is, it will need to affirm a rationality that is behind political movements today, instead of making the opponent so other than oneself that they become evil, immoral, and irrational, and instead affirms a rationality in the other that deserves respect, dialogue, and learning from each other. If such a path exists, it will not come from President Biden and those around him, and it will not come from President Trump. That is why I supported Nikki Haley. If such a path exists, it will need to arise from a separate set of political, cultural, and political leaders than have disclosed themselves at present.

Year-end Reflections on 2021

Walk on Clearwater Causeway

To any who might make the time to read this little reflection on 2021, merry Christmas and happy New Year. 

I enjoy taking out some time at the close of the year to reflect upon the year. It has been an important part of my spiritual discipline for many years. It helps me attend to what I am doing with my life. 

I want to let you know that Suzanne and I remain healthy and our children remain healthy. As we age, something that for many of us in our youth we take for granted is not quite so much so as we age. Suzanne and I have a healthy routine of a walk in the morning. She continues to help us eat healthy. I have continued my weight routine I learned from P90X while I was in Logansport. I also do its version of yoga every day. I do plyometrics and core exercises twice a week. I still get in a run and some tennis when I I can. During the cooler months I try to get in more work on the bicycle. My longer bike ride is to Clearwater Beach and back, which is about 11 miles. 

        Michael and David remain in Indianapolis. For Christmas, the children of David and Kari sung a Jingle Bells for me. You can listen here. It was so cute. Michael is working for PNC now. David is working for a part of the government of Indiana, assisting in distributing grant money. Kari is a nurse. My four sisters remain in good health in Missouri, Wisconsin, South Dakota, and Virginia.

I guess I have had a work day of sorts. I spend a couple hours most day in various types of exercise. I spend time reading and studying for about 4 hours. My studies include continued work on the Old Testament. I am working through the books of the Old Testament, paying special attention to texts that occur within the historical periods that scholars designate for Israel. I have studied texts related to Moses and the Tribal Federation, the emergence of sacral kingship with Saul, David, and Solomon, and am now in the period of a divided monarchy of Israel and Judah. This means I have studied some psalms, the Song of Solomon, and some proverbs. I have also been studying cultural movements, such as existentialism, deconstruction, and critical theory, all of which has gotten me into philosophy and theologies based upon them. It has been a delight. I still love reading philosophy. Most of the books I have had in my library and I have shared with my sons or Glen. 

I have continued to have a delightful learning time with a book reading group comprised of two others, Glenn and Lyn. We started the year with some work on the Trinity, which led us to Augustine and the Cappadocian Fathers. We also read: Tripp Fuller Divine self investment; Clark Pinnock in Reason Enough, The Openness of God (1994), Most Moved Mover (2001); Joseph A. Bracken, The World in the Trinity: Open-Ended Systems to Science and Religion. You can read my conclusions here. We ended the year with some reading involving writers with an existentialist persuasion, such as Gabriel Marcel and Soren Kierkegaard. You can read by reflections here. 

I have continued to publish by lectionary reflections. As often as I have studied these texts and preached from most of them, I find that Homiletics preaching magazine continues to challenge and inspire me. You can read my reflections here.

In May, my book on Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics, was published by Pinnacle. It already had a purchase from someone I met on twitter through #karlbarth. He said it was helpful for the project on which he was working relating Barth to parish life in England. It was a blessing. I am going to continue my little efforts to get word out to those who might have some interest in Barth. I look forward to further publication with Pinnacle. I received two royalty checks. It was not much, but it was satisfying. I have made about $240 so far.

Also in May, Suzanne and I celebrated our 29th wedding anniversary. We are living the dream, as they say.

Suzanne and I have continued to enjoy some television. Worthy of note is the Blacklist, where we watched Season 8 on Netflix. We watched all of Monk again. It was a delight. We liked Manifest. I liked Season 10 of the Walking Dead. We completed Game of Thrones. We watched The Courier, a cold war film. We liked The Father and Mank among the Academy Award nominees for best picture. Judas and the Black Messiah brought back memories of 1969 and my opposition to the Vietnam War and support of Civil Rights, but also opposed to the violence in the street. Fatherhood was delightful. We enjoyed watching the TV show Psyche all seasons.

In August, it was a delight to assist with communion with Pastor Cathy while Pastor Keith was on retreat. We attend the Bible Buddies class, although not much at the close of the year. I have also gone to the Wing Men group on Tuesday at Sonny’s, but again, not much toward the end of the year. I agreed at the end of the year to be on call for the pastors, since both were out at the same time.

Also in August, I had my first experience on the Kayak. It was in Dunedin. It was much fun with people most of whom were half my age. It was wonderful to be so accepted among them. It took a team effort to get me back. Three waves converged on me and tipped me over. It was a struggle, but also fun.

In September, Suzanne and I were sick together for about three weeks, the worst of it being the first week. We do not know if it was Covid, but it had many of the symptoms, including temperature and fatigue. It was not pleasant, but both of us got through it. 

In December, I turned 70. In the past, the change of decade bothered me. It did not this time. It might be because I feel healthy and have projects on which I am working.

In December, something that brought good memories, Twins baseball heroes Tony Oliva and Jim Kaat got into the Hall of Fame.

In December Tim, Suzanne’s son, came with his girlfriend Kelly. She stayed for 10 days and Tim another week. We always have a good time with Tim and it was nice to spend time with Kelly. We had a nighttime cruise on Starlight in Clearwater, where the meal was not as good as we remember from the past, but it was still a nice time.

I deal more with death, as one can imagine. I have had some losses that I share with you. Reading existentialist authors lately has made me even more aware of how death shadows us all. We never know when the projects of our lives and the dreams we have for the future will end.

A colleague from Indiana, Dick Hamilton, died in February. I mention this because he was the essence of the old “Christian gentleman.” He was liberal theologically and politically, but in a gentle and kind way. I still recall the one sermon I heard from him at North UMC. He used an example from music. He is comfortable with his faith being background music for his life, gentle influencing every part of his life. Yet, faith also needs to have the role of claiming our full attention. Such music might get loud and annoying, but our faith may need to be that way at times as well. He was an inspiration. 

Rush Limbaugh died in February. It has been so comfortable for me to tune in since around 1990 and hear what he had to say. He was part of the family. He had a positive spirit, often urging people to find out what they are passionate about and find a way to have a job organized around that. Given his marriage troubles, I longed for him to find some happiness there, and apparently he did. The hateful things I have spent little time reading is not surprising. He was effective for the conservative movement. He was done with conservatives playing second to the dominant liberal establishment. Yes, he was a vigorous proponent of his position. Spirited debate is what happens when the stakes are high. I know some wanted him to tone it down, but I do not know any liberal who wanted their people to tone it down on the change of wanting push granny over the cliff, racist, misogynist, fascist, and many other choices terms. In fact, the hateful things said about Rush upon his death are the same things said against every GOP presidential candidate since Reagan. The only specific criticism that hurts me because it is so unfair is that he made fun of Michael J. Fox. I happened to hear that show. He was asking what all that movement was when he saw Fox being interviewed. Apparently, on video, his motions had a certain look. It was strange that Rush did not know something, but especially something like this. When he came back from commercial break, he apologized for not knowing that Fox had Parkinson’s disease. However, ever since, Rush “made fun of” Fox having the disease. Rush has a bond with his audience that goes beyond most, and we know his heart. The last thing he would ever do is make fun of someone for a disease. Given that some Christians have gotten into the act as well, which I find shameful, let me say this. You will be surprised at whom Christ allows to have fellowship in the heavenly banquet. Fortunately, the one who decides this matter is not you or me. In any case, I liked Monday because it seemed like the weekend stimulated him with many creative thoughts. His insights into political life were always worth hearing. I disagreed with him on some key issues of the day. One was his view that conservatives needed to support George H. W. Bush rather than vote for Perot. I wanted to register some disappointment with Bush, and besides, Clinton seemed like a conservative Democrat, so I did not see much difference. I am still not sure if it was a good or bad choice on my part, since the GOP won the House under Clinton. Two was the second war with Iraq with George W. Bush president. I just could not see how bombing and invading a Muslim country would have a longterm positive effect. I think on that one, I was right, and Rush and Bush were wrong. The only other major disagreement with him that registers with me today is the obvious favoritism he offered Trump during the primaries. I have not liked Trump, but that started long before he ran for President. For many years, I am sure I will wonder what Rush would have said. To Rush, I would simply say that I miss your voice, insight, and humor. I miss your vigorous defense of the basic values and principles of the country at its founding and as embodied in the Declaration of Independence and in the Constitution. 

In March, Greg Conrad died. He was a good friend from Indiana who was a snowbird in in our area. He loved golf. We did not have our visit this year. He was diagnosed with covid, went into the hospital, and died, all within a little over a week. It seems someone got into the golf cart sick. It was someone from Indiana who flew to Florida. It made me more aware of people around me. If someone is sick, stay away. I am not sure if he had pre-existing conditions. We will miss him. He was so much fun to be around. He and his wife were so nice to Suzanne. She cleaned for them and groomed their dogs. We always enjoyed our time with them.

Toward the end of the year, a friend from Seminary with whom I reconnected on Facebook died suddenly, the result of a fall, as I understand. He made many kind and thoughtful comments on my posts.

        The proper way to have dealt with COVID would have been to protect the most vulnerable among us, allow the rest to pursue normal activity, and get the vaccine. The damage done by the shutdown has yet to be told. People are starting to document the effect upon children and youth. As I have indicated many times, I am pro-vaccine, but anti-mandates for either the vaccine or the mask. 

        Every COVID strategy leads to herd immunity, and the pandemic ends when a sufficient number of people have immunity through either COVID-recovery or a vaccine. It makes as much sense to claim that an epidemiologist is advocating for a “herd immunity strategy” as it does to claim that a pilot is advocating a “gravity strategy” when landing an airplane.

        We now have over 800,000 COVID deaths in the United States, plus the collateral damage. Sweden and other Scandinavian countries–less focused on lockdowns and more focused on protecting the old–have had fewer COVID deaths per population than the United States, the UK, and most other European countries. Florida, which avoided much of the collateral lockdown harms, currently ranks 22nd best in the United States in age-adjusted COVID mortality.

I remain a member in good standing with the United Methodist Church. I have my charge conference connection with Vincennes Community UMC in Indiana and with Palm Harbor UMC in Florida. I submit my brief report to both conferences. I support the protocol that allows for progressives and evangelical-orthodox to separate peacefully. I remain convinced that many people need to accept the biological reality of being male or female. Many people need the healing in intimate areas of their lives that the traditional view of marriage and family provides. Beyond that, although I am all for re-thinking traditional teaching for a contemporary audience, I am not in favor of the church abandoning its history by alienating the church of today from the church of yesterday. 

I became curious about what covid had done to other churches. We visited several large and well known churches in the area. The last was The Chapel, which is the one church we attended where it was almost like the pandemic never happened. It is like going to a Christian music concert for about 20 minutes, and then hearing a message that as far as I can see from two months is biblical and inspiring. The age range, the many young people, and the racial mix, is attractive. One of the preaching pastors is black and the music leader is a dynamic young black man. It has reconnected me with my origins in the church in Austin, MN, which was a non-liturgical church, contemporary music for its time, evangelical, and focused upon applying the Bible to life in preaching. 

If you are interested, here are just a few political thoughts for this year.

The year began with upheaval in Washington DC. The odd thing was that Trump supporters, who have peacefully rallied for years, suddenly had a a few of their number raid the capitol building. An Air Force officer was shot. I am not sure what they thought they could gain. It is clear that some extremist conservative groups planned the raid long before the rally on that day. That means Trump could not have incited the attack upon the Capitol. The effort to blame all Trump supporters for this is typical of the media, Democrats, NeverTrump conservatives, and the rest of the Left. The attempt to suppress political speech concerns me deeply. At the same time, Trump was wrong to claim the election was stolen. Given the Time Magazine report on the secret history of the 2020 election, the group of rich, powerful white guys who “fortified” the election against Trump, combining the tech world, Labor, and the US Chamber of Commerce, I find it amazing that Trump and the populist movement he led got as close as they did. Once again, the establishment and the elites pulled out a victory, even if only narrowly in a few states. I hate that corporations are making me think about their politics. I wish they would stick to being good at what they do. Their pandering to the woke left to deflect criticism from them as individual rich white people and from the their morally questionable business practices has alienated me from them. I will do what I can to give as little of my money to them as I can. Of course, they are so pervasive in our economic life that they are hard to avoid. I will have to await neutral businesses who will compete with them, provide a good product, so that I can support them. I say neutral because I have no interest in conservative politics being supported by a business either. I just want the business to do its business. 

In August, Biden conducted by bipartisan assessment a disastrous pullout in Afghanistan. As I understood it, a small contingent of Americans was all that was necessary to keep the Taliban somewhat checked. I am not one who thought invasion of either Iraq or Afghanistan were good things. Going after bin-Laden made sense, but attacking and rebuilding a Muslim and primitive “nation” was not something I thought the USA should be doing. I saw no way for it to be successful. I have no doubt that anyone could have done it better than Biden did. 

With any good fortune for the country, the rest of the Biden program will not pass. 

My suspicion is that the real president is Obama, but only because Biden seems to be so out of it mentally. But then, I think that when the history of this period is over, Obama and Soros are behind the BLM-Antifa protests in the streets, something a community organizer would do on a national scale. Create enough instability and fear to intimidate voters your direction politically. 

I am concerned about the public square discussion. Patrick Oden noted: When you demonize people, they don't trust you want the best for them.  When you then need to depend on them to trust you, it's too late.  Demonizing makes for great politics and self-righteous grandstanding, but it makes for bad social reliance and cooperation. I appreciate Governor DeSantis so much. I think Fauci has become an opponent of good health policies as well as freedom. Part of what angers me is that I have had to make decisions to stop supporting businesses who make a big deal about supporting politics I cannot support. Starbucks is one such company, as well as Nike and Coke. 

Trump did not help matters when he claimed he won the election. So far, I see no evidence of that. Granted, the money of Zuckerberg and the added weight of the AFL-CIO and the Chamber of Commerce combined to tip the election to Biden in the battleground states. They did to Trump what Trump did to Hillary 4 years before. I am concerned about the money of George Soros, who funds anything he can that weakens America, including BLM, Antifa, and the Steele Dossier. The major media outlets were part of the shameful dissemination of the Steele Dossier, using what they knew to be a lie to vilify Trump and his supporters. No one will suffer for what they did to this country in those years. I am ready for a reboot of the FBI, which has become part of the progressive cabal. I was glad for the victories in North Carolina and hope it says some good news about November 2022. Help is on the way. 

I believe that election integrity is a real issue. We need to have photo ID as a basic rule and get rid of ballot of harvesting.

I do not want the gender confusion promoted by the progressive. I want to accept the biological fact of male-female. That is science. 

I do not want cancel culture. I do want freedom of speech. I treasure the Bill of Rights.

I do not accept the notion that crime is simply a social construct to protect privileged classes. Social justice warriors and their attempt to defund the police is simply not a country in which I want to live. I appreciate the police standing between me and the criminal.

I do not accept the notion of printing more money so that wealth is devalued. I do not want either inflation or recession, and certainly not both at the same time.

I am pro-vaccination, but opposed to mandates in any form, whether vaccination or masks. The shutdowns advanced large corporations like Amazon and put many mom-and-pop stores out of business. The use of fear by the progressives to gain political power is not new, but I remained concerned about what they will do that power.

I am opposed to open borders. I want legal immigration, but remain concerned about crime and other matters when people begin their relationship with this country in that way.

Climate change is an attempt by those who want the government to gain increasing control of the economy. Extreme poverty—the norm for most of human history—plummeted 80%, thanks to economic growth and access to energy. Global crop yields of grains increased over 200%. Deaths from climate-related disasters decreased 96%. As a percent of global gross domestic product, damages from natural disasters have actually declined since 1990. Air pollution in the U.S. (not to be confused with greenhouse gases) has declined 73% since 1980. Skepticism about climate policy is merited.

I am concerned that some people want a war over Taiwan and Ukraine. The wars in Iraq  and the war in Afghanistan have been a disaster for the country and for conservatives. A better approach would have been targeted US missile strikes and helping the opposition to the totalitarian and terrors supporting political leadership in both countries.

The last comments are what make me think that I do not want live in the same country that progressives seem to want. Simply put, AOC, Ilhan Omar, and so on, want to impose a form of government that would make me want to leave. My political thinking changed in the mid-70s after reading George Will, William F. Buckley, and Milton Friedman. I remain committed philosophically to the economics of Adam Smith and Milton Friedman rather than Karl Marx. I remain committed to the respect and dignity owed to each individual and to what they own, as we find in David Hume, John Locke, Immanuel Kant, and Hegel, rather than persistently favoring perceived “common good” to the diversity provided by individuals, as we find in all brands of socialism. I appreciate the creativity that capitalism encourages, as people use their faith in themselves and others to pursue goals, demonstrate some dimension of love for what they do, whom they do it with, and whom they do business with, sustained by a hope for a better future for themselves and those about whom they care. 

Critical theory has its root in Karl Marx. It is an alienating critique. Applied to the history of the country, it seeks to alienate the present generation from their past. For the purpose of present political purposes, it seeks to denigrate the past by pointing to its imperfection and sin. Granting that these sins were present, it refuses to acknowledge the lengths to which the nation has gone to amend them. It also creates a distorted view of the past to enhance the moral superiority of the anointed ones who embrace critical theory. I do want what they want in their push to alienate Americans from their founding as a nation. Applied to race, it elevates something unimportant, the color of one’s skin, into a place of prominence. I do not want what progressives want in using this critique to alienate people from each other based upon race or gender. I care far more about character than I do the color of skin. People should advance socially and economically because of merit rather than quotas or tribal chauvinism. Violent organizations like BLM and Antifa are the storm troopers of the Progressive movement. They are like the KKK using violence to advance their racial and religious policies, or the fascist violence of Hitler. 

When I step back, I want to reaffirm my commitment to the constitution. That includes its vision of distributing power across three national institutions, among the several states, and most of all to the people. I could think of myself as reactionary in the sense that far too much power has gravitated toward Washington DC. States need to be the primary domestic polices of this country. The variety of responses to domestic issues provided by states would make them a laboratory of experimentation. It also would give citizens the option of moving to a different state. 

Enough with such seriousness.

I wish you the best as you close the door on one year and open a door to another. 

Peace,

George Plasterer

Dining with Cato and Susan who have a signed copy of my Barth book

Christmas with Tim and Kelly

Dining with Lyn

Couple at LAFitness who are glad to be out of Chicago and living in FL

With Tim and Kelly on Starlight Cruise

Lyn a friend who has a signed copy of my Barth book

Signing book at Veskolini Cafe

Annie relaxing with me

A happy time with Greg Conrad in 2019. He died in 2021 with COVID

We were with Monique, a friend at The Breley's, on her birthday.

Part of our routine is to feed the ducks, who have become pets that waddle up to us when they see us coming

One of the owners of Veskolini Caffe where I wrote part of the Barth Book

One of the owners of the Veskolini Cafe in Dunedin