This Special K isn’t Good for Most

/ Joe Broadmeadow / Leave a comment

The US is in a K-shaped economy. It is characterized by extreme growth in the high-end sector at the expense and detriment of the lower and medium wage sector. While many sing the praises of this administration’s economic policy (if one could even describe what that policy is) the reality for most Americans is not a positive economic outlook.

A K‑shaped economy describes a recovery or growth pattern where different parts of the population experience sharply different outcomes simultaneously. One group’s economic prospects rise (the upward arm of the “K”), while another group’s prospects fall or stagnate (the downward arm). This term became common during and after the COVID‑19 pandemic to explain uneven economic recovery.

Effects on lower‑income Americans

Lower‑income Americans are typically on the downward side of the “K” and face several challenges:

  • Job insecurity: Many lower‑wage jobs are concentrated in service, retail, hospitality, and gig work, which are more vulnerable to layoffs, reduced hours, and automation.
  • Slower wage growth: Even when employment recovers, wages for low‑income workers often lag behind inflation, reducing real purchasing power.
  • Limited asset ownership: Lower‑income households are less likely to own stocks, real estate, or other assets that usually grow during economic recoveries, so they miss out on wealth gains.
  • Rising cost pressures: Increases in housing, food, healthcare, and transportation costs hit lower‑income families harder because these expenses make up a larger share of their income.
  • Reduced economic mobility: Gaps in savings, education access, and job training can make it harder to move into higher‑paying roles as the economy changes.

Bottom line: In a K‑shaped economy, overall growth can mask widening inequality, with lower‑income Americans experiencing prolonged financial hardship.

What the K‑Shaped Economy Means for Workers

Workers on the downward side of the K face intersecting challenges that unions confront daily:

  • Unequal recovery: Office‑based and managerial jobs rebounded quickly, while service, manufacturing, logistics, healthcare support, and food service jobs remain volatile despite being essential to the economy.
  • Falling real wages: Even where nominal wages went up, inflation—especially in housing, food, and healthcare—has eaten away at paychecks, leaving many workers worse off.
  • Precarious employment: More workers are employed part‑time, on temporary contracts, or misclassified as independent contractors, limiting access to benefits and job security.
  • Unsafe and demanding conditions: Productivity demands have gone up without corresponding improvements in safety, staffing, or compensation.
  • Weakened worker voice: Decades of declining union density and weak labor law enforcement have reduced workers’ ability to bargain collectively for fair wages and conditions.

A K‑shaped economy is a direct consequence of declining worker power. When workers cannot collectively negotiate, economic gains flow upward instead of being shared. Union jobs consistently deliver higher wages, safer workplaces, better benefits, and greater economic stability—making unions a key solution to K‑shaped inequality.

Since the Trump administration often blames Biden for everything, here is the reality of the many causes of the high rate of inflation resulting from Global, not exclusively domestic, conditions. Biden faced unprecedented global economic pressures requiring innovative and challenging responses. Yet his policies managed to slow and then reduce inflation from it peak of 9% to a generally accepted 3% level.

Here is a single‑row table summarizing the primary cause of inflation under Biden, as described by mainstream economic research (Fed, NBER, FactCheck): These conclusions are easily verifiable.

Inflation under Biden (2021–2022)Primary cause
Rapid inflation surge to ~9%Post‑COVID demand rebounded faster than supply, while supply chains were still constrained; fiscal stimulus boosted demand, and energy/food shocks from the Ukraine war pushed prices to their peak

In one sentence: Inflation was mainly caused by too much demand chasing too little supply after COVID, with stimulus and global energy shocks making it worse.

Primary cause (the core driver)

Demand rebounded faster than supply after COVID

  • As the economy reopened in 2021, consumer spending surged while production, labor supply, and logistics were still constrained.
  • Pandemic supply‑chain disruptions (ports, chips, autos, shipping) limited how fast goods and services could be produced, pushing prices higher when demand jumped.
    [factually.co], [nber.org]

This demand‑supply mismatch is widely identified as the central mechanism behind the inflation takeoff.

Major amplifiers (what made it worse)

1. Large fiscal stimulus

  • Pandemic‑era stimulus (including the $1.9T American Rescue Plan) added significant purchasing power while the economy’s supply capacity was still impaired.
  • Research and fact‑checks conclude stimulus contributed meaningfully, though estimates vary on how much.
    [nber.org], [politifact.com]

Most mainstream analyses say stimulus was a contributor, not the sole cause. And, with inflation now closer to the standard model, the termination of the program will eliminate necessary and long-term benefits from the program targeting infrastructure improvements, environmental progress, and adapting to a changing energy focus from fossil fuels to renewables.

2. Global energy and food shocks

  • Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in early 2022 caused sharp increases in oil, gas, and food prices, pushing inflation to its peak.
  • Energy prices spill into transportation, manufacturing, and groceries, affecting nearly everything.
    [factually.co], [nber.org]

3. Tight labor markets

  • Job openings far exceeded available workers in 2021–2022.
  • Rising wages added cost pressure in services, contributing to “sticky” inflation later on.
    [nber.org]

What it was not

  • Inflation was not unique to the U.S.; it surged across advanced economies after COVID.
  • That global pattern supports the conclusion that pandemic and energy shocks mattered greatly, not just U.S. policy.
    [chicagofed.org]

One‑sentence summary

Inflation under Biden was primarily caused by a rapid post‑COVID demand rebound colliding with constrained supply, then intensified by fiscal stimulus and global energy shocks—especially the Ukraine war.

Then there’s this, from a posting by Ken Block on social media.

“Have the tariffs negatively impacted the US economy?

Yup.

A $12 billion “Farmer Bridge Assistance” program, also known as a bailout, will provide up to $155,000 to each “row crop” farm (soybean farms are the most affected).

The bailout mitigates financial losses from trade disputes and the impact of reciprocating tariffs.

Farmers are calling this aid a “drop in the bucket” and a short-term band-aid rather than a solution to their economic crisis. Farmers estimate this aid covers only about 25% of the economic harm they have endured since Trump lit up his tariff war.

Worse, China has stopped buying US soybeans altogether and has replaced our soybean exports with soybeans from other countries. There is a real risk that our soybean farmers have lost the Chinese market for good. Other countries have also replaced US exports with goods from non-US sources. Economic isolation, as well as isolation stemming from the US’s unfriendly posture toward many of the countries we trade with, means a loss of crucial markets that we may never fully regain.”  Ken Block, Author of Disproven (https://kenblock.com/DISPROVEN.html)

And do yourself a favor and read Ken Block’s book, Disproven. In light of recent statements by President Trump and his administration continuing the spread of the lie that the 2020 election was stolen and rife with fraud, the threat to the free and open elections outside the control of government is an existential one.

Send in the Clowns

/ Joe Broadmeadow / 1 Comment 
But where are the clowns?
Quick, send in the clowns
Don't bothеr, they're herе
Stephen Sondheim "Send in the Clowns"

I posted a photo the other day of the US Border Patrol emblem on the backs of rodeo clowns. It struck me as a bit ironic, but not remarkably significant. I meant it as no insult to Rodeo Clowns, they engage in rather challenging activities, but the irony for those of us troubled by the recent actions by Border Patrol agents was too good to pass up.

By the reaction, you would have thought I posted an AI video of a former President and First Lady depicted as apes.  I expected some of the usual dribble from the Trump camp, but the reaction was more hyperbolic than expected.

Apparently the Border Patrol has been sponsors of Rodeo Clowns for some time. Now, aside wondering why the federal government is spending tax dollars on sponsoring Rodeo Clowns, I didn’t really give it much thought until the comments started to arrive.

The virulence of the reaction was truly amazing.

There was the usual “Obama did it, too. Biden did it, too.” rant. Always expected and meaningless. But then it degenerated into a full-blown diatribe on everything that is wrong with America (it’s the Democrats) and lunatic conspiracy theories of a planned open border invasion to flood the country with voters to support the Democrats.

It was head spinning, full-blown, whack-a-ding-hoy craziness without a point. Or was it?

Perhaps they see a value in putting Rodeo Clowns on the border? Some might suggest we already have one in the White House. Send in the clowns! Don’t bother, they’re here.

Now the overwhelming majority of Border Patrol agents are dedicated, conscientious, and professional. The “clowns” among them and in command are not reflective of the agency as a whole. But I would bet, if asked, they might want to see their emblem displayed on something more in keeping with their job as a law enforcement agencies.

They do not wrestle bulls for a living, but there are being tainted by the leadership bulls*&t.

My only response to this lunacy is simple.

What a bunch of clowns!

“The Inhuman Power of the Lie”*

/ Joe Broadmeadow / Leave a comment

*From Dr. Zhivago by Boris Pasternak

If it is not clear to everyone now that this administration, and Mr. Trump, rival the Soviet Union when it comes to prevarication and suppression of the truth as policy it never will.

What they have done is seize the “inhuman power of the lie” as so aptly put by Boris Pasternak in Dr. Zhivago (and you thought it was just a movie) and implemented it as standard practice.

Can’t answer a question by the media, attack the media.

Can’t explain a revelation or report of incompetence or wrongdoing, attack the source.

Can’t answer critics, indict them or sue them.

The list is long and I won’t bother to recite it all here. Those of you who recognize this disaster of an administration already know it and those of you who deny this reality will skip over it as per your master’s protocol (if you need to know something, he will tell you what it is.)

This political usefulness (in a Machiavellian sort of way) of lies and denial, well documented in On Lying and Politics by Hannah Arendt, while a characteristic of many political entities, has been taken to a different level with the Trump Cabal of Con Artists and Pretenders to the Throne.

Every single member of that administration suffers from nocturnal emissions dreaming about a time when they will occupy that position and bask in the same exercise of undemocratic power.

And it’s not like they concocted some secret plan to do this. Oh no, they hid it in plain sight in the pages of Project 2025. That wasn’t a policy document, it was an operational plan and it is well on its way to full implementation. I’ll post the link (again) and hope you take the time to read it. (Project 2025)

These lies are always accompanied by complaints of assaults by imaginary enemies with the parallel lie of imaginary triumphs. “Enemies are everywhere and they are jealous of our success. They hate America and want us to fail. The Constitution is not always right, we know better.”

Since the first moment he pronounced the 2020 election a fraud, a blatant lie well documented in the book Disproven by Ken Block (a must read), to the latest denial that he “didn’t read the whole post,” when he put a racist and sickening video on his Truth Social platform, which could be named Pravda but the irony might be too deep, I believe he is incapable of telling the truth. And before you scream Block is a liar and agent of the Democrats, he was hired BY THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN and last time I checked they do not hire Democratic operatives. Why would they? They don’t actually embrace democracy in either the Democrat or the once admirable GOP style.

And the frightening part, is the number of otherwise intelligent and supposedly rational individuals around him who have become card carrying members of the Hear no Evil, See no Evil, Speak no Evil club required for membership in the Trump Cult. They would’ve burned a card with a saint in their hands, but they couldn’t find any.

Let’s hope the guardrails of government can withstand this out-of-control monstrosity of an oversize load vehicle veering side to side and smashing against them.

“And this your mountainish inhumanity”

/ Joe Broadmeadow / Leave a comment

The Strangers Case

Anyone who has not experienced the genius of Shakespeare knows not what they are missing. Here, in a speech from the unfinished play Sir Thomas More, Shakespeare again demonstrates his brilliance.

On May 1, 1517 — now referred to as Evil May Day — riots broke out in London as a response to an influx of immigrant workers. This play, written some eighty years later and attributed to Shakespeare, was never performed, likely due to censorship, yet could not be more appropriate for the age in which we find ourselves.

My point is to underscore the fact that the overwhelming majority of those who’ve entered the country unlawfully are human beings that have done nothing more than seek a better life for themselves and their families. Yes they’ve committed a crime but, given the same challenges they face in their native countries—desperation, violence, starvation, torture, death—who wouldn’t break a minor law if it saved your life or the lives of those you love?

We are using them as pawns in the game of politics and overlooking their humanity in the pursuit of justice that bears little resemblance to the ideals of American exceptionalism.

We are better than this. We can find a way to protect our borders, enforce our laws, and preserve our humanity. They are not mutually exclusive. But we need to remind ourselves what is the most important part of that. And if you don’t believe it is preserving our humanity, we are in grave trouble.

And if you want to experience the full power of this speech, search Ian McClellan’s off the cuff performance on Stephen Colbert’s show.

However you experience it you have to be touched by its powerful message.


Grant them removed, and grant that this your noise
Hath chid down all the majesty of England;
Imagine that you see the wretched strangers,
Their babies at their backs and their poor luggage,
Plodding to the ports and coasts for transportation,
And that you sit as kings in your desires,
Authority quite silent by your brawl,
And you in ruff of your opinions clothed;
What had you got? I’ll tell you: you had taught
How insolence and strong hand should prevail,
How order should be quelled; and by this pattern
Not one of you should live an agèd man,
For other ruffians, as their fancies wrought,
With self same hand, self reasons, and self right,
Would shark on you, and men like ravenous fishes
Would feed on one another.
[…]
Say now the king,
As he is clement if th’offender mourn,
Should so much come too short of your great trespass
As but to banish you, whither would you go?
What country, by the nature of your error,
Should give you harbor? Go you to France or Flanders,
To any German province, to Spain or Portugal,
Nay, anywhere that not adheres to England,
Why, you must needs be strangers: would you be pleased
To find a nation of such barbarous temper,
That, breaking out in hideous violence,
Would not afford you an abode on earth,
Whet their detested knives against your throats,
Spurn you like dogs, and like as if that God
Owed not nor made not you, nor that the elements
Were not all appropriate to your comforts,
But chartered unto them, what would you think
To be thus used? This is the strangers’ case;
And this your mountainish inhumanity.

Asleep at a Very Dangerous Switch…

/ Joe Broadmeadow / Leave a comment

I have finally found the most apt appellation for our sitting (dozing, catatonic, somnambulistic) President. Persistent vegetative state seemed too crude, imprecise, and insulting to those in such a condition.

I believe the President suffers from Unresponsive Wakefulness Syndrome.

He appears (remember how appearances deceive) to be conscious.

He utters (unintelligible) sounds.

He responds (inappropriately) to stimuli.

And his words and actions seem disconnected from reality.

His quotes seem to be fashioned by shuffling a card deck with words, tossing them randomly on a desk, then struggling to read them.

His SOCIAL MEDIA POSTINGS ARE BEYOND WORD SALAD RISING TO THE LEVEL OF AN ENTIRE SALAD BAR OF NON-SEQUITURS, NONSENSE, AND RANDOM FIRINGS OF THE SLEEPY SYNAPSES OF HIS BRAIN.

In a nutshell, the lights are on (blinking, but on) and no one is home.

Now, to save us all some time with the “yeah, but what about Biden” herd, President Biden may have been exhibiting similar symptoms toward the end of his Presidency but this President has exhibited these characteristics since the first moments he decided to run for office.

Biden may have lost a step or two, but at least he once had the dexterity to accomplish things.  Trump has been tripping over his own bone spurs since his first press conference.

Just imagine what’s in our future with this zombie in the White House. A sharper, more devastating tragic comedy than anything even Shakespeare could craft.

The Fleecing of America

/ Joe Broadmeadow / Leave a comment

“There’s a sucker born every minute.”

Over the past seventy years or so, the general American public has been the unwitting victim of, and in some cases willing participant in, the largest fraud ever perpetrated. And the truly diabolical part about it is, even when faced with the evidence of this fraud, a significant majority still applauds the scheme.

This fraud is not a sole domain of any particular party, both major parties have been participants at various times. But it is characterized by the so-called “pro-business” philosophy generally more fully embraced by the Republicans, but not exclusively.

The fraud itself is simple, as most scams are, and the evidence right in front of our eyes, but the implementation has been so smooth and subtle that even when many suffer from its effects, they are still blinded to it.

There are two fairly straightforward elements that show the results of this fraud; the ratio of executive (CEO, CFO) salaries to worker salaries and the federal minimum wage. There are corollary supporting elements, historical P/E rates and the move from productivity as a measure of business viability to profitability and shareholder returns.

But the prime examples are the earnings gap and historical minimum wage.

Year / EraCEO‑to‑Worker Pay Ratio
1950 (est.)~20:1
196521:1
1978~30:1
1989~58–60:1
2000~350–380:1
2007~325–330:1

By 2025 the ratio had risen to 350 to 1.

This rise is executive compensation and decline in worker compensation demonstrates the dramatic change in the focus from productivity to shareholder return.

Along with the decline in unions which formerly balanced the compensation picture, workers lost ground while executives gained much more.

Coupled with executives gaining more control over the board of directors (which control executive compensation) the fallacy of what’s good for business is good for America strains credulity.

EPI’s research shows CEO pay rose ~1,100% since 1978 while worker pay rose ~25%. [epi.org], [epi.org]

But the real stark evidence is in the decimation of the buying power of minimum wage.

YearNominal minimum wageReal value (≈ 2024 dollars)
1950$0.75≈ $9.50–10.00
1960$1.00≈ $10.00–10.50
1968 (peak)$1.60≈ $13.50–14.00
1980$3.10≈ $11.50–12.00
1990$3.80≈ $8.50–9.00
2009$7.25≈ $10.00–10.50

Today’s minimum wage sits at $7.25 per hour, the lowest buying power since the 1950s

1950s–1960s: Minimum wage did track cost of living

  • Real minimum wage stayed flat or rising
  • A full‑time minimum‑wage job could:
    • Cover basic housing
    • Provide food and transportation
    • Support a single adult above poverty

In 1968, the minimum wage was worth ~40–45% of the average production work

1970s–1980s: Inflation breaks the link

  • High inflation + infrequent adjustments
  • Real value falls even when nominal wage rises
  • Minimum wage stops keeping up with housing, healthcare, and education costs

By the early 1980s, minimum wage workers experienced double‑digit real pay cuts despite “raises.” [budget.house.gov]

1990s–2020s: Structural decoupling

  • Minimum wage adjustments become political, not automatic
  • No indexing to inflation
  • Real value oscillates but trends downward

By the 2020s:

  • Real minimum wage is ~30–40% below its 1968 peak
  • Covers far less than basic living costs in most U.S. regions

Minimum wage vs cost of living today

2025 reality

At $7.25/hour:

  • Annual full‑time earnings ≈ $15,000
  • Federal poverty line (single adult): ~$15,000
  • Median rent for a 1‑bedroom apartment: $1,200–1,600/month

In other words, the federal minimum wage no longer reflects the cost of living at all—it roughly equals poverty, not subsistence. [concordcoalition.org]

Bottom line

As a cost‑of‑living measure:

  • ✅ 1950–1968: Worked reasonably well
  • ⚠️ 1970s–1980s: Became unreliable
  • ❌ 1990–2025: Failed completely

In real terms, today’s federal minimum wage buys less than it did in 1950, and far less than it did at its 1968 peak.

DecadeStatutory Federal Minimum (nominal $/hr)*Typical real purchasing power (today’s $/hr, band)Key context
1950s$0.75 → $1.00$9–$11Post‑war floor broadly kept up with prices. [fred.stlouisfed.org], [ecommons.cornell.edu]
1960s$1.00 → $1.60 (1968)peaks ≈ $14–$15Highest real value (1968). [legalclarity.org]
1970s$1.60 → $3.10$9–$12Inflation erodes gains; still above 2009–2025 levels. [ecommons.cornell.edu]
1980s$3.10 → $3.35$7–$10Long pauses; real value falls. [ecommons.cornell.edu]
1990s$3.80 → $5.15$8–$10Two step‑ups (1990–91, 1996–97). [fred.stlouisfed.org]
2000s$5.15 → $7.25 (2009)~$9–$112007–09 hikes; then frozen. [fred.stlouisfed.org]
2010s$7.25 (flat)~$8–$10Inflation steadily chips away. [statista.com]
2020s$7.25 (flat)~$7–$8Lowest real value since the 1950s. [economic.github.io]

So when the political powers that be argue that minimum wage was never intended to be a living wage, you can now see the lie.

When companies strip salary and benefits from workers to pay executives whose sole purpose is to increase shareholder returns on the backs of those workers and seek to weaken or destroy unions that try to prevent such actions, you’ll see the lie.

Before anyone gets their panties in a bunch, this is not an argument for socialism. This is an argument for a return to fairness doctrine where workers at the lowest level can survive on a minimum wage and afford the necessities of life.

I have no issue with a corporation paying executives two or three hundred times the wage of their lowest workers, as long as those workers can enjoy a livable salary for their work.

This is supposed to be a land of opportunity for everyone who works hard. At a minimum, it should be fair on both ends of the spectrum.

Now What?

/ Joe Broadmeadow / Leave a comment

Surprise History Quiz

Okay, books away, grab a pen (actually, keyboard) and answer this question, What is the worst Holocaust in recorded history? Answer at the end of this column, but you’ll see it, or should, long before that. Okay, go.

The Latest Trumpian Idiocy: Trump administration erases Native American, slavery history from U.S. national parks

https://english.news.cn/northamerica/20260201/477bfd64d4094e3480863616cd371ed2/c.html

To the victor goes the spoils and the opportunity to write the history. This administration is on a mission to whitewash any inkling of historical facts that place the United States in a bad light.

Slavery was uncompensated skills training and religious reorientation from heathenism with room and board.

The Trail of Tears was an all-expenses-paid government relocation program offering free land and the opportunity to live in other parts of the United States. And, when the discovery of oil, uranium, and other minerals spoiled the landscape, they were moved without cost again, and again, and again.

The European conquest of the Americas was a free offering of advanced technology to backwards people.

Somehow, Mr. Trump believes that removing references to historical facts will change reality. The saddest part of this is that he may not have to. Much of the history of slavery and the treatment of Indigenous peoples by Europeans, and by Americans after the establishment of the country, is glossed over in most classrooms.

This is how people fail to learn from history.

The Answer to the Quiz

The decimation of indigenous people as a result of the arrival of Europeans to the Americas after 1492 dwarfs the deaths of the Holocaust of Nazi Germany.

While there are differences—timeframe, historical context, methodology—they all stem from the same ignorance-based prejudice against one group by another.

The genocide of Indigenous peoples in North, Central, and South America and the Holocaust of Nazi Germany were both driven by dehumanizing racial ideologies and caused immense loss of life. Still, they differed markedly in form and context. Indigenous populations in the Americas were devastated over centuries through a combination of introduced diseases, forced labor, land dispossession, cultural destruction, and recurring episodes of mass violence linked to European colonization, with responsibility spread across multiple empires and states. The Holocaust occurred over a short, defined period (1933–1945). It was a centrally planned, state-run genocide, using industrialized methods such as ghettos, deportations, and extermination camps to systematically murder Jews and other targeted groups. While both cases reflect the lethal consequences of racism and exclusion, they differ in duration, organization, methods, and contemporary documentation and postwar accountability.

It is vitally important to understand both the outcomes of these historical events and how they occurred.

Perhaps the sheer numbers may make it harder to ignore.

Nazi Holocaust

The accepted number for people killed by the Holocaust and Hitler’s final solution is 11 million. 6 million Jews, and 5 million Roma (Gypsies), disabled individuals, Polish and Soviet civilians, prisoners of war, homosexuals, and political opponents.

Slavery

When combining deaths before transport, during the Middle Passage, and under enslavement, historians often cite a total death toll of roughly 10–15 million people attributable to slavery in the Americas, with some broader estimates reaching higher when including wider African demographic losses tied to the system.

Post-Columbian Deaths of Indigenous Peoples

Most scholars today estimate that between 50 and 60 million Indigenous people lived in the Americas in 1492, and that by 1600–1650, roughly 85–90% had died as a result of European arrival. This implies about 45–55 million deaths across North, Central, and South America.

These deaths resulted primarily from introduced Old World diseases (such as smallpox, measles (wait, measles kill people?), and influenza), compounded by warfare, enslavement, forced labor, famine, displacement, and social collapse under colonial rule. While earlier estimates varied widely—from as low as 10 million to over 100 million—modern syntheses of archaeological, ecological, and documentary evidence have converged on the ~50–60 million precontact population and ~45–55 million deaths as the most defensible range.

The most dangerous killer of humans is prejudice.

Removing a few signs may eliminate obvious reminders of this tragedy, but it will not erase the reality. The United States learns from its mistakes. There are exceptions —the last Presidential election being the most glaring—but generally, we benefit from an open and frank analysis of our decisions and actions. It is what differentiates us from many other nations.

This folly of revising history isn’t new—The Civil War is known in the South as The War of Northern Aggression—but it is dangerous.

We have a friend from Germany, and we often talked about how a country as advanced, progressive, and educated as Germany descended into the horrors of Nazism. While there is no one answer, fear is a significant factor. And fear is almost exclusively a result of a lack of understanding and empathy.

I hope that, as we approach the mid-term elections and, more critically, the next Presidential election, we return to a nation that embraces empathy and intelligence over fear and ignorance.

And perhaps Columbus Day isn’t such a good idea after all.

Questions I’ve Been Asked

/ Joe Broadmeadow / Leave a comment

After a post on Social media, I received a number of negative responses (always entertaining) including one that wanted me to answer a few questions. Here is the series of topics and my response.

1. Border Policy

Not sure what the question is here. Of course I support secure borders and prevention of unlawful entry but I also support reasonable opportunity to enter the country lawfully, robust and intelligent amnesty programs for those facing deprivation of rights in their native countries, and recognition that lawful immigration is a net benefit to this country.

Closing the borders isn’t a policy. Controlling the borders and those who can enter the country is.

2. FED Policy

The FED has always enjoyed an independent status from political interference. It is the whole purpose that monetary policy be free of politics. While the members are selected by political authorities (hopefully based on background and qualifications, not loyalty), they are free to make their decisions based on sound economic indicators and conditions not political pressure or threats of removal without cause.

Why this is a mystery or perceived as a problem by this administration is troubling yet consistent with their abandonment of standards and precedent.

3. Ukraine War

Russia invaded the Ukraine after agreeing (decades ago) never to do that in exchange for the Ukrainians surrendering nuclear weapons formerly belonging to the Soviet Union after the collapse. While I do not think we should put ground troops there, I do believe it is in our best interest to provide sophisticated weaponry to the Ukrainians as a bulwark against further Russian aggression which would directly impact NATO allies, primarily Poland and Germany.

Not that tit-for-tat is wise foreign policy, but helping Ukraine inflict more casualties on Russia might expedite a settlement. Keep in mind it was Russian and Chinese weaponry that killed most Americans in Vietnam. Of course, it was American weapons that killed many Russians during their exploits in Afghanistan and Russian weapons killing Americans in our time there, demonstrating the folly of such policies. But this is just a speculative discussion, not setting foreign policy.

Mr. Trump seems to believe his force of personality is enough to restrain Putin, it is not. The constant reversal of policy and flipflop between Russia and Ukraine merely delays any long-term resolution. We either live up to our claim of defending all friends, opposing all foes or we drop the facade and just pursue our own agenda.

4. Iran protest

I once read an article (that I am trying to find) that argued, during our invasion of Iraq, we picked the wrong country in terms of the support of the local population. Iraq is a series of historically antagonistic tribal associations with little loyalty to the country. Iran, on the other hand, was a mostly unified population (excepting the Kurds) that would be more supportive of outside assistance to rid them of the horrors of theocracy (something we should take notice of and avoid).

Iraqis would fight for their own part of the country and against any other, the Iranians would be more unified in toppling the Mulahs and crafting a more representative government for the whole country.

I do not think we should directly aid the Iranian people unless we have a fully articulated plan in place for the end game. A war here would be much different than Iraq. And discussion of restoring the Shah to the throne is tantamount to trading one dictatorship for another.

I have no doubt we would succeed militarily. Nor do I believe, despite the threats of other nations (North Korea, Russia, Syria) to come to the aid of Iran, that any of that would come to pass. But I do not believe the US has made the case sufficiently well to justify such an action or to prepare the American people to accept the reality of flag-draped coffins returning to the US in numbers that might exceed Vietnam, Korea, or Normandy. There is also insufficient demand from Iranian opposition parties indicating a openness to such open engagement.

Such an action would require the most deft diplomatic and military skills by the administration and that is sorely lacking.

5. ICE ability to enforce the law without interference.

Clearly legitimate law enforcement operations should be free from interference and those who impeded such operations arrested and charged. But here we have a unique situation. While unlawful entry into this country is a crime, it is a misdemeanor. A minor offense.

The overwhelming majority of those arrested by ICE have committed no other crime other than this misdemeanor

History is replete with examples of people breaking the law to bring attention to injustices and foster change.

No one objects to ICE seeking out and apprehending those here illegally who have committed crimes. Those who have lived here without committing other crimes and contributed to the nation deserve some consideration of their conduct in the country.

At a minimum this would include due process.

But from my perspective, those who committed crimes, whether that crime is operating a motor vehicle without a license or murder makes no difference, they deserve to be deported. You came here to escape some situation then to further compound that act by breaking other laws eliminates my empathy for your struggles. Although, with that said, if someone here illegally were charged with shoplifting for stealing food to feed themselves or their family it may mitigate the circumstances, but that’s just the bleeding heart liberal (although quite Christian attitude despite my atheism) in me.

However, sending masked and heavily armed tactical officers after men, women, and children (particularly children who are completely innocent of any unlawful act) who have done nothing more than commit a misdemeanor is abhorrent. This is what led to the widespread protests against this policy.

One of the key aspects of dealing with arresting individuals for any crime, something every experienced officer knows, is the goal is to make the arrest with the minimum amount of force. Any competent officer seeks to reduce the tension in these circumstance, not exacerbate them.

Sending what resembles, for all intents and purposes, a military unit to arrest people for minor offenses sets a dangerous tone. Now while every arrest has potential to become violent, no matter the charge, it is incumbent on the law enforcement agency to stage the arrest to avoid, as best they can, inciting violent resistance.

One of the arguments for this invasion of Minnesota (Minnesota?) is the lack of cooperation by state and local authorities. Cooperation is a two way process not a demand for surrender. From what I’ve seen, local and state authorities have only sought the assurances that the law of immigration enforcement, due process, be followed. When they see the reality is midnight flights in direct violation of federal court orders I would expect them to withhold cooperation. It is their duty to operate under the law and refuse to aid any agency which acts counter to that.

One of the biggest roadblocks to expediting deportation is the lack of sufficient numbers of immigration judges. This falls squarely on the shoulders of the administration and their focus on arrest while ignoring the due process aspect. The average time from arrest to hearing can often be months or even years. Reducing this would go a long way to removing one incentive to come here.

The very argument the government made for overturning court decisions on abortion-that it should be a state decision-is inconvenient in this case. And if your argument that immigration enforcement is a Federal issue exclusively you are defeating your own argument. Reducing or eliminating access nationwide to lawful abortions was a cornerstone of the Republican platform. The states rights argument was a smokescreen.

And the fallacious argument of widespread voting fraud, particularly voting by illegal immigrants, is verifiably false.

I firmly believe in the premise of innocent until proven guilty. The tragic shootings of American citizens remain open cases and the officers involved deserve to be treated as innocent. Until all the evidence comes out, and it should be all the evidence for the courts and the public to see, the legality of these matters remains undetermined, but the innocence of the officers under the law need be respected.

Keeping an in-progress investigation confidential is often necessary and prudent, but it cannot remain that way indefinitely. The Justice Department would go a long way to reassuring the public by including local and state investigators in the process.

But, as I mentioned before, placing these officers in these circumstances amid widespread public resistance to these policies is a recipe for disaster. To falsely characterize these demonstrations as a violent insurrection because it fits a political narrative is tantamount to taking a match to a fuse.

While the government has a clear responsibility to keep the peace and enforce the law, it also bears a bigger responsibility to do so in a manner that does not incite violence. Under these circumstances, they have failed.

If ICE held a perp walk of every illegal immigrant convicted of a violent crime being loaded on a plane out of the country, they would do it to almost universal approval. Instead, they face almost universal disdain for their tactics.

6.Transgender surgery and hormone treatment for minors

This issue, like all the others, is complex. There is also an underlying false narrative, often reinforced by the President and his supporters, that children are being surgically altered or given hormone treatments without their parents knowledge on a regular basis. “They send Johnny to school and Jane comes home.”

Nothing could be further from the truth. But this, like many other issues, should be one undertaken with medical advice not political grandstanding. The biggest issue, as always, is a refusal by many who protest the loudest against such treatments to refuse to even consider the complex physical and psychological trauma of these conditions. They let their false “moral” outrage framed by religious nonsense blind them to reality.

God does not determines sex, genetics does.

Gender dysphoria refers to the clinically significant distress or impairment that can occur when a person’s experienced or expressed gender does not align with the sex assigned to them at birth. The distress may affect emotional well‑being, social functioning, or daily life, and it is not defined by gender identity itself, but by the presence of distress associated with that incongruence.

Gender dysphoria is recognized as a medical condition in major diagnostic systems. In the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM‑5‑TR), published by the American Psychiatric Association, it is classified as a diagnosable condition to ensure access to appropriate clinical care. In the International Classification of Diseases (ICD‑11), published by the World Health Organization, it is described as gender incongruence and placed under sexual health conditions rather than mental disorders, reflecting evolving medical understanding while still supporting access to healthcare.

Recognized Legal Exceptions to Parental Control Over Medical Care for Minors

While parents or legal guardians generally have the authority to make medical decisions for minors, U.S. law recognizes several well‑established exceptions where a minor may consent independently, or where the state or courts may override parental choice to protect the minor’s health, safety, or rights.

1. Emergency Medical Care

In situations involving a medical emergency where delaying treatment would pose a serious risk to a minor’s life or health, healthcare providers may provide necessary treatment without parental consent if a parent or guardian is unavailable or refusal would cause harm.

2. Abuse, Neglect, or Medical Neglect

When parental decisions constitute abuse or neglect, including refusal of medically necessary treatment, the state may intervene through child protective services or the courts. Courts may authorize treatment when parental refusal places the child at substantial risk of serious harm.

3. Mature Minor Doctrine (Recognized in Some States)

Under the mature minor doctrine, some states allow minors—typically adolescents—to consent to certain medical treatments if they demonstrate sufficient maturity and understanding of the risks and benefits. Application varies by state and is often limited to specific circumstances.

4. Statutory Minor Consent Laws

All U.S. states recognize statutory exceptions allowing minors to consent to certain categories of care without parental involvement, commonly including:

  • Sexual and reproductive healthcare (e.g., contraception, pregnancy‑related care)
  • Testing and treatment for sexually transmitted infections (STIs)
  • Substance use and addiction treatment
  • Mental health services (with varying age thresholds and limitations)

5. Emancipated Minors

Minors who are legally emancipated—through marriage, military service, court order, or financial independence—generally have the same authority as adults to make their own medical decisions.

6. Court Orders and Judicial Review

Courts may override parental medical decisions when necessary to protect a child’s welfare, including ordering treatment over parental objection or resolving disputes between parents or between parents and providers.

7. State Parens Patriae Authority

Under the legal doctrine of parens patriae, the state has an obligation to act in the best interests of children and may intervene when a minor’s health or safety is at serious risk due to parental decisions.

Again not a simple issue. Absent profound medical necessity for surgery or hormone treatments, the state should defer to parental choice. But if the circumstances warrant intervention, it should be taken.

7. Transgender men competing in women’s sports.

Given the complex nature of genetics, where there can be a range of chromosomal differences between male and female, this is a challenging topic. My personal feeling is it should not be allowed. But a more in-depth review of individual cases may be appropriate.

However, in the big scheme of things, this involves a very small percentage of the population.

Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, gender dysphoria prevalence accounts for 0.005–0.014% of the population for biological males and 0.002–0.003% for biological females. Using an average between male and female we are talking about 1.6 million individuals out of a US population of 326.7 million and they are not all athletes. I think this is much ado about nothing.

Reminds me of the old jokes about the East German women’s Olympic teams.

8. Protesters storming church services.

Like my earlier point on interfering with law enforcement engaged in lawful activities, no one has the right to interfere with someone practicing the faith of their choice. But there is another issue here. When a Church pastor is also engaged in secular matters for which lawful protest in opposition is perfectly legal, the fact that the protesters went to the church is immaterial.

While Freedom of Religion means we have to respect the right to embrace any faith and practice it, it does not mean we have to respect the tenets of the faith itself. Churches are not immune from protest simply because they are religious institutions. Quite often people of faith engage in activities in opposition to government actions. The cloak of faith does not make one immune from criticism, opposition, or open protest as long as it is done lawfully.

The fact that the protest took place at a church is not a significant issue. If someone broke the law, charge them. If they protest lawfully outside the church, it is the First Amendment in action.

In a related matter, the arrest of journalist Don Lemon is frightening, idiotic, and destined to be laughed out of court. What many may not know is the curious background to the arrest. The Justice Department went to a Federal Magistrate with the facts of the case requesting a warrant to arrest Lemon.

It was denied.

They then appealed the Magistrate’s decision and asked a Federal Judge to order the Magistrate to issue the warrant.

The court denied the request.

They then went to a Federal Grand Jury and obtained an indictment to charge Lemon. Now one doesn’t have to be a lawyer to understand this is a most unusual process to arrest someone and to predict, with a high degree of certainty, that the case against any of the journalists charged is going to collapse in court.

I hope this answers the questions. I cannot wait for the response.

Photo by Kindel Media on Pexels.com

…Where Credit is Due

/ Joe Broadmeadow / Leave a comment

If one seeks to be fair in criticizing others, one must acknowledge when you agree with someone as quickly as you are to disagree. To act otherwise is contrary to the spirit of open debate.

While I see little redeeming value in this President’s policies, performance, or persona, sometimes he says something that borders on correctness.

It was during a rambling and wide-ranging interview with the New York Times. Trump waxed on in his customary manner about his rejection of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) and managed to say something quite profound, albeit unintentionally, about the Civil Rights movement.

“Well, I think that a lot of people were very badly treated. White people were very badly treated, where they did extremely well, and they were not invited to go into a university or college.”

He then added,

“I think it was unfair in certain cases. It accomplished some very wonderful things, but it also hurt a lot of people. People that deserve to go to a college or deserve to get a job were unable to get a job. So it was; it was a reverse discrimination…”

Now if you muddle through the poor sentence construction and convoluted logic, there is an element of truth here. And before you take angrily to the keyboard and claim I have joined the opposition, let’s think about what he said.

“White people were very badly treated.”  This is a true statement.

They were very badly treated when they marched alongside their black brothers.

They were very badly treated when they fought for the right of blacks to vote.

They were very badly treated when they were killed for supporting actions such as boycotts, voter registration programs, and sit-downs to bring attention to rampant discrimination against minority Americans.

But their treatment doesn’t even approach the level of horrendous treatment afforded minority Americans (and women!) throughout this country’s history. Not even close!

Some argue this level of racism lies in the past, and that is true to some extent. But hidden, less overt, racism is alive and well and we now see evidence of a reemergence of the more overt version.

But this President wants to “whitewash” it.

The best we get from this President is a statement made in support of his disastrous, ill-conceived, and counter-productive attack on DEI that, when examined, shows signs of a truth, by way of his ignorance, not in the way he intended it to be. Many white people were treated badly when they supported civil rights legislation and those who fought against it now seek to repeal the progress.

That a sitting President can ignore the history of slavery, Jim Crow laws, segregation, racial violence, denial of basic human right, and reinvigoration of white supremacy movements and claim “whites were very badly treated,” is abhorrent.

The 1964 Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 were some of the most effective laws ever enacted to right the wrongs of the past. These equal opportunity laws balanced the inherent unfairness in hiring, housing, voting rights, and educational opportunities seems to have been lost on this man.

Have we made progress? Of course. Have we eliminated the ignorance, inhumanity, and inequity of racism? Clearly not. We may never become color blind, but we can become more aware of our own innate prejudices and work to overcome them.

This President sees a black man placed in a position that once would have been denied that black man and given to a white man because of the color of their skin as unfair. That such discrimination against blacks was acceptable in this country draws no criticism or rational analysis. And his “it did some wonderful things” hardly qualifies as acknowledging both the need and value of the legislation.

His lack of basic historical context and understanding is embarrassing. The fact that any American either supports this or sits idly by and ignores it is tragic. I fear for the very survival of this country.

All you have to do is nothing.

Balancing Equality and Fairness in American Law

Civil rights legislation in the United States has played a pivotal role in promoting equality and protecting individuals from discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. These laws, most notably the Civil Rights Act of 1964, were enacted to address systemic injustices and ensure all citizens have equal access to opportunities. However, as these laws have evolved, so too debates whether certain policies, particularly affirmative action, lead to what some call “reverse discrimination.”

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is the cornerstone of modern civil rights protections, prohibiting discrimination in employment, education, public accommodations, and more. Subsequent legislation, including the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the Fair Housing Act of 1968, further advanced the cause of equality by aiming to eliminate barriers to full participation in American society for historically marginalized groups.

To address persistent inequalities, affirmative action programs were developed to proactively seek the inclusion of minorities and women in education and employment. Supporters argue these measures are necessary to correct historical disadvantages and foster diversity. Critics, however, claim that such policies can result in “reverse discrimination,” where individuals from majority groups feel they are unfairly treated or denied opportunities because of their race or gender.

The term “reverse discrimination” refers to the perception or reality that affirmative action or similar policies discriminate against members of a dominant or majority group. Legal challenges have reached the Supreme Court, with notable cases such as Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978), where the Court ruled that while affirmative action was constitutional, strict racial quotas were not. The debate continues, reflecting differing views on justice, fairness, and the best way to achieve an equitable society.

Civil rights legislation remains essential for protecting individual freedoms and promoting equal opportunity. The ongoing discussion about reverse discrimination highlights the complexities involved in creating laws that are both effective and fair. As society continues to evolve, so too will the legal and ethical considerations that surround these important issues.

One inevitably sees this attack on DEI and Civil Rights laws as a ploy to return to the good old days when whites weren’t “very badly treated.” All that was missing from his diatribe was “the South will rise again.”

If you’ve ever wondered what happened in Germany that gave rise to Nazism, you are a but a step away from experiencing it. He’s given you an enemy. He’s made you fear them. He’s put the blame for all the country’s problems on them. And he will paint all who oppose his actions to “save” the country as anarchists.

An Unnecessary God

/ Joe Broadmeadow / 2 Comments

The fundamental basis of this push to insert God (the Christian version, of course) into American secular affairs is predicated on accepting the existence of this being.

We must also go beyond just accepting existence and agree this being has always existed. William Lane Craig, an American philosopher and Christian apologist, puts it this way when it comes to the universe.

  1. Everything has a beginning
  2. The Universe had a beginning (the Big Bang)
  3. Therefore God created the universe.

This obviously raises the problem of infinite regression when one ask, who created the being that created the universe. Unless, of course, we merely accept as fact that there is a first cause, an uncaused cause, which must be God and, in Dr. Craig’s view, this can only the Christian God.

But quantum physics shows evidence of random, uncaused, events ocurring all the time. To which, I am sure, Dr. Craig would argue, ‘ well, God created quantum physics.’

But is God really necessary? Instead of inserting an eternal God before the universe isn’t it simpler to accept the universe as eternal? An eternal universe wherein the Big Bang isn’t the beginning of time but a consequence of quantum uncertainty.

A sophisticated version of the “eternal universe” argument draws from both metaphysics and contemporary cosmology. It begins by questioning the assumption that everything that exists must have a beginning. This assumption, while intuitive, is not logically necessary. Time itself may be an emergent, relational property of physical processes rather than an independent dimension requiring a first moment. If time emerges from deeper physical laws, the idea of a temporal “start” becomes nonsensical—much like asking what is north of the North Pole.

From a metaphysical standpoint, positing a God to explain the universe’s existence simply transfers the explanatory burden rather than resolving it. If everything must have a cause, then a God must also have a cause, leading to an infinite regress. To avoid that regress, proponents of the eternal universe suggest that the universe (or a larger multiverse) could be the fundamental brute fact—uncaused, necessary, or self-subsistent. In this view, the universe does not come into being; it simply is, and its existence is explained by its own nature rather than by external agency.

Modern cosmology offers models that cohere with this metaphysical picture. Theories such as conformal cyclic cosmology, bouncing cosmologies, and certain interpretations of quantum gravity propose that the universe is eternal in one form or another. These accounts do not require a creator because physical laws—whether classical or quantum—govern transitions from one cosmic phase to another without appealing to a supernatural cause. Creation ex nihilo becomes unnecessary when the universe never transitions from “nothing” to “something,” but instead moves through cycles or exists timelessly in a quantum state from which spacetime emerges.

Finally, the principle of parsimony supports this position. When two explanations attempt to account for the same phenomenon, the simpler one is typically preferred. An eternal universe governed by impersonal laws is less ontologically extravagant than a universe plus a supernatural creator. Therefore, unless there is compelling evidence for divine intervention, a self-existing or eternally cycling universe remains the simpler and more economical explanation.

In the interest of fairness, this is my understanding of the counter arguments for the existence and necessity of God.

A Philosophical Theistic Counter‑Argument

A common theistic response begins by challenging the idea that the universe can be self‑existent or eternal without explanation. While an eternal universe avoids a temporal beginning, it does not address why the universe exists at all rather than not existing. The principle of sufficient reason holds that every contingent reality—anything that could have been otherwise—must have an adequate explanation. The universe appears contingent: its physical constants, laws, and structure could have been different. Because it does not contain within itself a reason for its existence, it requires an external, non‑contingent cause.

That leads to the argument for a necessary being. A necessary being is one whose non‑existence is impossible and whose existence is explained by its own nature. Theists argue that stopping with a brute, unexplained universe undermines rational inquiry. If the universe is treated as a “just‑so” reality, the demand for explanation is arbitrarily abandoned. By contrast, positing a necessary being provides a coherent endpoint to explanation, grounding the existence of contingent things without invoking an infinite regress of causes.

Furthermore, the universe displays order, intelligibility, and mathematically describable laws. These features suggest that the universe is not merely a chaotic brute fact but structured in a way that supports life and rational investigation. Theists argue that such deep rational order points more plausibly to an intelligent source than to mere chance or impersonal necessity. Even if the universe or multiverse is eternal, the existence of rationally ordered laws still calls for an explanation. Theism provides one by proposing a mind as the foundation of those laws.

Lastly, theistic arguments contend that naturalistic explanations ultimately describe how physical processes unfold but cannot explain why there is something rather than nothing. The existence of contingent physical reality, the fine-tuning of constants, and the intelligibility of the cosmos all point beyond the physical domain. God, as a necessary, non‑material, uncaused cause, serves as the ultimate ground of being—something an eternal universe, still contingent and law‑bound, cannot fully account for.

Needless to say, when comparing the two sides of this issue, it seems quite evident to me God is a creation of man who needed to feel important and purposeful in a vast universe beyond his comprehension.

But, if I concede for the sake of argument God created the universe and all that is in it. A universe of incomprehensible complexities. Does it make sense a being capable of such grandeur and wonder would demand the adoration of one evolution-produced being?

And, even more troubling, in the absence of such devotion punish this behavior with eternal torture and damnation? Hardly consistent with someone who created the Milky Way the Andromeda galaxy, the orchid, or the hummingbird.

Or, to borrow lines from Blake,

“Tyger, Tyger, burning bright
In the forest of the night;
What immortal hand or eye
Could frame thy fearful symmetry?”

God isn’t necessary in a universe that is eternal and to which we all belong and will return.