ponderings on the world we live in…….Nothing is known to be absolute…some thoughts may touch you others may not…take what is useful and ponder the rest …..Never Fear The Dream
Laws are supposed to be the bones of a society: neutral, structural, holding us upright. Law enforcement and the courts are meant to be the muscles that move those bones, not the fists of those who hold the throne or the majority. When that line blurs, when enforcement and justice become tools of power rather than its restraint, a nation quietly shifts away from a representative republic into a dystopian state.
We don’t have to look too far back in history for insight…
On the eve of the French Revolution, courts and law enforcement were not known for their impartiality. Judgeships were bought. Noble privilege was protected. Commoners knew they lived under one set of rules while the gilded lived under another. The Bastille didn’t fall because of seven prisoners; it fell because the building had become a cold stone symbol proclaiming that the law served the crown, not the people.
More recently, Nazi Germany carried this to an industrial scale. The regime did not usually act “outside” the law; it rewrote the law. Judges swore loyalty not to justice, but to Hitler. Police, courts, and camps formed a single pipeline: define enemies, demean them, label them criminal, process them through a legal machine designed to produce the same answer every time—guilty and repulsive. Decent people and law enforcement could tell themselves they were “following and upholding the law,” all the while the law itself had been converted into a weapon.
The pattern is always the same: two-track justice, selective enforcement, and a growing sense that legal outcomes can be predicted by status, ideology, race, ethnicity, or wealth before any evidence is heard. Power claims the language of order and safety, then quietly rigs the referees.
We should stop deceiving ourselves that “it can’t happen here.” Instead, we must ask: Are the laws and enforcement practices fair and impartial? Citizens need to question whether the justice system’s harshness is aimed downward and if mercy is truly reserved for the well-connected or like-minded. The uniforms, the architecture, and the slogans may differ. The logic does not. It may not be their intent, but their enforcement practices become a reality they must recognize. As many lose confidence in their independence, they lose support, which in turn leads to greater distrust and disdain.
A free society does not depend on the moral character of its rulers; it depends on the independence of its restraints. When those restraints are captured and controlled, the slide is already underway, even if the fragile skeletal forms of democracy remain.
So the uncomfortable question is this: Is law enforcement and justice beginning to tilt toward power? How long can ordinary citizens obey without quietly helping to destroy the very rule of law they claim to defend? When will they rise up, and will it be too late? Turn up the volume and blow your whistle loud and often. NeverFearTheDream simplebender.com
NeverFearTheDream simplebender.comStand For Truth
Please consider following simplebender, you’re reading makes my writing more fun..…
Comments and thoughts are always welcome and feel free to re-post …..
We are told the world is running out of everything: security, dignity, opportunity, patience. The message is constant—there is not enough to go around. And when people believe there is not enough, they do what humans have always done under threat: they turn on whoever is closest, whoever they think has what they should have.
This is manufactured scarcity—not a natural shortage, but a strategic one. The point is not merely to frighten us. The point is to redirect our fear sideways.
Horizontal hostility is far more useful to those in power than unity ever could be. If we are busy resenting each other, we are not examining the hands holding the power strings and who declared the scarcity to begin with.
Consider who benefits when workers distrust workers, when rural communities distrust urban ones, when generations resent each other, when racial and ethnic groups fight over scraps. At the same time, the banquet table is dragged into a gilded private room. The beneficiaries are not hard to identify. They are the ones who remain untouched by the conflict they provoke. They are the ones who used the distraction to fleece for their benefit.
Manufactured scarcity is a form of quiet governance. It makes control self-enforcing. No police state is needed when citizens police each other, when communities fracture themselves, when people become suspicious by default. But this civil fracture is used as an excuse to declare manufactured emergencies to seize more power.
But scarcity is not just political—it is psychological. Once trust is gone, every interaction becomes expensive. Friendship takes caution. Cooperation takes courage. Even hope feels dangerous. The fringe takes stronger hold as the masses in the middle scan the horizon for hope, while looking back in fear of cowardly aggression.
And yet, trust is not rebuilt by argument or persuasion. Ideology is a divider. No ideology has ever restored a broken community. Trust is rebuilt the oldest way humans have ever known: by doing things together, understanding that the most potent joining agents are dreams and suffering, not ideology.
When we work side-by-side—repairing a fence line, running a volunteer shift, restoring a riverbank, organizing a childcare co-op—we rebuild something deeper than agreement. We rebuild interdependence. We remember, through action, that we rely on one another to live.
This is the part those who profit from division fear most. They do not fear protest slogans. They do not fear outrage. They fear cooperation and communication.
Because cooperation makes scarcity visible for what it is: a story someone told us. A story that has authors and agents who have their own agenda.
The significant problems are only solved when the small ones are solved first. We do not need to solve the world’s problems before the nation’s, or the nation’s before we solve the ones on our street. We do not need to fix society before we rebuild the block we stand on. We don’t need to tear down the building to fix the windows.
When we choose to stand together and challenge the narrative, the manufactured scarcity loses its power. The illusion breaks. The wedge loses its edge. And the architects of division suddenly find themselves standing alone. Let’s start by turning away from face-to-face conflict toward shoulder-to-shoulder and side-by-side cooperation and community growth. #NeverFearTheDream simplebender.com
First Published in Bend Bulletin 12/2/25
NeverFearTheDream simplebender.comStand For Truth
If you’re looking for daily thoughts and insights you will want to start the morning with:
Lap Around the Sun: Daily Steps Forward
If you know someone who is facing any facet of Alzheimer’s they might gain some insight from:
Joy in Alzheimer’s: My Mom’s Brave Walk into Dementia’s Abyss
Please consider following simplebender, you’re reading makes my writing more fun..…
Comments and thoughts are always welcome and feel free to re-post …..
Every person ages, though few like to admit it. We prefer the glow of our youth—when everything felt strong, certain, and inevitable—we recoil from the mirror’s reflection that tells a harsher truth. The United States is now, as an aging adult, staring down its own midlife crisis: restless, nostalgic, anxious about declining vitality, and unsure of its purpose. And like any midlife crisis, it is largely self-inflicted.
As a fledgling republic, we leaned heavily on foreign counsel and support, learning to stand upright on principles whose ink was still wet. We quarreled with the empire that birthed us, a restless adolescent convinced that independence alone equaled maturity. In our late teens, our Manifest Destiny carried us across a continent—eager, energized, and careless. We violated Indigenous sovereignty, claimed vast stretches of land, and seldom paused long enough to reflect on the cost—youth rarely do.
Then came the moment we stepped beyond our borders to confront tyranny abroad. Isolation gave way to global responsibility, and in defeating fascism, we crowned ourselves “leader of the free world.” That era—the Greatest Generation era—became our cultural mythology of peak performance. In economic terms, we hit our stride: strong, wealthy, ambitious, so confident we assumed the world wanted our model replicated everywhere.
Adulthood matured us further. We recognized injustices at home and, imperfectly, pushed to correct them. We abolished poll taxes, dismantled legal segregation, expanded civil rights, and reached for gender equality—though we famously stumbled in ratifying the ERA. Still, we dreamed big. We mapped the ocean floor and walked the lunar surface. We believed no frontier was beyond reach.
But adulthood also revealed strain. Our swagger dimmed through a string of grinding foreign conflicts where overwhelming force could not overcome local pride or nationalist resolve. Regime change efforts faltered. Confidence thinned. The armor dulled. The steps slowed. The world noticed.
Now we resemble a nation in midlife denial. We want the prowess of our youth without the discipline, unity, or sacrifice that once produced it. We have become too large, internally conflicted, and politically stiff to move with the nimble decisiveness we admire in our own past. Instead of planning the next horizon, we rummage through the attic of lost greatness and flirt with symbolic trappings of monarchy—strongman fantasies, grievance crowds, and performative nationalism. These are not signs of renewed vigor; they are early symptoms of institutional cognitive decline and are affected by it.
The irony is painful: past generations always knew our shared mission. We debated the path but rarely the direction. Today, the direction itself is disputed, diluted, or abandoned. A country without a horizon behaves like a retiree with no hobbies—restless, resentful, and tempted by delusion.
Yet midlife crises can be turning points if met with humility and long-view statesmanship. Older nations that endure do so by learning from their past without worshipping it, by building for the grandchildren rather than reconstructing their own adolescence. The future is not reclaimed by nostalgia but by vision. Let’s not just look back; let’s learn from our past, reflect on it, and use it to shape our future.
So let us do what adults do at their best: acknowledge our age, accept our limitations, but not be defined by them, and chart a path worthy of those who will inherit this place. Square our shoulders, and focus forward—not back. Our midlife crisis can be a descent or a rebirth. We choose which. Collectively, with a common focus, let’s reject the polarizing radical positions of the extreme amongst us. Let’s encourage the great masses of the middle to lead us forward toward new goals and our next horizon. Let’s remember, we are all in this together, and it’s our shared responsibility to shape the future of our nation. #NeverFearTheDrem simplebender.com
NeverFearTheDream simplebender.comStand For Truth
If you’re looking for daily thoughts and insights you will want to start the morning with:
Lap Around the Sun: Daily Steps Forward
If you know someone who is facing any facet of Alzheimer’s they might gain some insight from:
Joy in Alzheimer’s: My Mom’s Brave Walk into Dementia’s Abyss
Please consider following simplebender, you’re reading makes my writing more fun..…
Comments and thoughts are always welcome and feel free to re-post …..
This was first published 8/29/22; yes 2022. It seems unfortunately appropriate that I republish it recognizing the events in which we currently find ourselves and the world
Our grand experiment of Democracy is dramatically different than every social norm, every other system of leadership, governance, and social fabric with which we live. It’s little wonder our system is always under attack and slowly yielding to authoritarianism. We must stay committed to our representative republic and the triad balance of power. If not, we too will slip into a transactional authoritarian government.
Social norms in our family, religion, business, and most world governments, have a strong bias toward authoritarianism. This is what we grew up with. A family structure which requires the adult(s) to be responsible and accountable. Youth are rewarded for following instructions and guidelines. In world religions, there is the priest, pastor, imam, grandmaster, or lama. Each controlling the message. All imposing authority over their flock. Grooming them for the future of the leader, ‘church’, or cult. At its worst this level of uncontrolled authority leads to mass suicides and child abuse. In business, unless you are self-employed, we all have supervisors. Authorities giving us assignments, judging our performance, and controlling our wages. This is when we truly begin to feel the influence and practice of transactional leadership. When decisions are made, not necessarily on the merits of the problem but on how the results can affect individuals and organizations. Globally, very few countries have histories other than dictator, monarchy, warlord, or czar. Their culture and history are rooted in non-democratic leadership. The plague of transactional leadership is the most dangerous in governments. Casting long term policy aside for near term benefit of themselves, their cronies, and minions. To be clear, there is a difference between transactions for self interest and those for policy advancement.
Fledgling democracies of the former Soviet Union and the countries which blossomed during the Arab Spring have fallen back to authoritarian governments where transactions are key to survival. Russia and China have changed their constitutions allowing Putin and Xi to be leaders for life, returning to the time of Stalin and Mao. Are we on the same precipice? We’ve seen the original basis of triad balance of power eroded as the executive branch has usurped congressional powers. Methodically, creating a ‘strong’ executive branch and thereby a weak, neutered, dysfunctional legislature. Boisterous, self-absorbed, ‘leaders’ don’t really care about your cause, only your money and your vote. In exchange, they will act as your advocate and protector. Disparage, insult, and harass those whom you believe are a threat, especially minorities, in exchange for your support. They will play the victim, if they think they can tug at your heart so you will tug at your wallet. Candidates pandering for their endorsement want it only to gain your support. They fear the zealous wrath at the polls so, as chameleons, will enthusiastically espouse whatever the loudest want to hear. Everything is a transaction. More ‘perfect’ phone calls. No long-term policy and direction considered. It boils down to: Put me in power today, keep me in power tomorrow and I’ll do your bidding, to hell with what’s right.
How do we arrest the accelerating demise of our democracy? We should re-establish the balance of power. The triad must be equal and accountable to each other. Executive orders should have sunsets and if not codified by Congress should expire. Restore and strengthen Congressional subpoena power. Reign in Executive Privilege; it’s a shield for deceit. Institute term limits on Supreme Court Justices and require the Senate to act immediately on nominations. Institute Congressional term limits and dismantle the seniority power structure. The Electoral College process should be updated, ensuring the count based on the people’s vote not the State’s politicized legislature.
Our democracy has matured over time, and we must be wary of the pendulum swing toward authoritarian transactional leadership. Once there, the fight to climb back up the moral pedestal will be very hard. We don’t need protectors. We need calm, stable, policy driven leadership. We need to declare allegiance to the Constitution not any party or person. #NeverFeartheDream
Always feel free to re-post—anywhere, anytime, to anyone—share freely.
NeverFearTheDream simplebender.comStand For Truth No Kings
Article first published in the Bend Bulletin 9/27/25
The Bill of Rights was not a mere document, but a product of the founders’ deep suspicion of concentrated power. They had witnessed the crushing of liberties under a monarchy and feared that even a republican government might someday drift toward authoritarianism. The First Amendment enshrines freedoms of mind and voice; the Second Amendment ensures the citizenry will never be entirely powerless should those freedoms come under assault. This foresight of the founders enlightens us about the historical context of the Bill of Rights, giving us a deeper understanding of our constitutional rights.
History was their teacher. British suppression of colonial assemblies, censorship of dissenting press, and the Intolerable Acts were enforced not with argument but with troops. The Revolution began not at a printing press, but when local militias clashed with regular soldiers at Lexington and Concord (1775) to resist the seizure of their weapons. It was this combination—ideas in pamphlets like Common Sense (1776) and the willingness to defend them—that secured independence.
James Madison (Federalist 46) envisioned an armed citizenry as the ultimate check on federal overreach, noting that “the advantage of being armed” would deter encroachments on liberty. Alexander Hamilton (Federalist 29), though skeptical of full-time militias, conceded that a people capable of bearing arms would make any tyranny costly. Later commentators, such as St. George Tucker (1803), referred to the Second Amendment as the “true palladium of liberty,” a final barrier against usurpation (Tucker, Blackstone’s Commentaries).
The framers did not celebrate rebellion, and neither should we. They built a republic designed to settle disputes through institutions—legislatures, courts, and elections—not through insurrection. The Second Amendment was less an invitation to revolt than a final constitutional guardrail, a reminder to government that the people remain sovereign. It was meant to make authoritarian control—whether through censorship, suppression of dissent, or militarized governance—impractical.
“The Second defends the First,” captures part of this truth but misses the deeper genius of the American design. Our first line of defense for free expression is institutional: the separation of powers, judicial independence, and a free press that is able to hold the government accountable. An armed citizenry is the last resort, the failsafe that ensures no regime can permanently silence the governed, providing a sense of security about our rights.
Even in polarized times, the resilience of this framework is remarkable. Courts still strike down attempts at censorship, legislators still debate fiercely, and citizens continue to speak, publish, assemble, and worship according to their conscience. With some legislators seeming to yield to the mob or bend a knee for their own political survival, our Constitution has withstood civil war, economic depression, McCarthyism, and demagoguery precisely because its protections are layered—legal, institutional, and cultural. The greatest defense of liberty is not fear of armed resistance but the enduring resolve of citizens who insist on their right to speak and be heard. When we do not defend the first, we risk the second, the fourteenth, the fifteenth, and the nineteenth. When we defend free speech, preserve checks and balances, and reject authoritarian shortcuts and fragile egos—whether from the left or the right—we prove that the American experiment remains not only viable but vital. This reiteration of the importance of defending free speech should empower you and make you feel responsible for upholding your rights, instilling a sense of duty and empowerment in you. # NeverFearTheDream # Stand for Truth # Stand with Pride # Stand with Spine
Always feel free to re-post—anywhere, anytime, to anyone—share freely.
NeverFearTheDream simplebender.comStand For Truth
If you’re looking for daily thoughts and insights you will want to start the morning with:
Lap Around the Sun: Daily Steps Forward
If you know someone who is facing any facet of Alzheimer’s they might gain some insight from:
Joy in Alzheimer’s: My Mom’s Brave Walk into Dementia’s Abyss
Please consider following simplebender, you’re reading makes my writing more fun..…
Comments and thoughts are always welcome and feel free to re-post …..
Strip the politics and twisted morality from the equation and look at the ledger. Detain-and-deport is a bad deal, a bad business model. It is a capital-intensive, low-yield operation that consumes cash upfront and erases future revenue streams. ICE’s reports estimate 2024 detention at ~$152 per person per day, and Alternatives to Detention (ATD/ISAP) run less than $4.20/day. With an average detention time of ~47 days, costs are roughly $7,100 before airfare or litigation. The ATD analogue costs approximately $200. The ATD option is significantly more cost-effective. No operator would choose a bloated workflow over one that accomplishes the compliance goals, unless driven by ideology. [1][2][3]
What are the “savings” from deportation? They are mostly phantom fiction. Undocumented immigrants are largely ineligible for means-tested benefits (Medicare & SNAP) but do pay taxes—$96.7 billion in 2022. Every removal wave eliminates the systematic recurring cash flow to Social Security, Medicare, and state/local treasuries. That’s not ideology; it’s real revenue loss, which U.S. taxpayers must now cover. [4]
Scale it to policy. FY2024 removals: 271,484. Apply the per-diem and dwell time above, and you’re in multi-billion direct outlays—before transport—plus foregone taxes compounding each year that workers would have remained employed. The CBO is explicit and clear: higher immigration raises revenues faster than outlays and lowers deficits over the 2024–2034 period—those are good things. Shrinking the workforce via deportation pushes the other way—those are bad things. [5][6][7]
Now consider and add the 2025 capex binge. Florida’s “Alligator Alcatraz” chomped up $245M+ in contracts, faces $15–$20M in immediate shutdown costs, and could leave taxpayers with approximately $218M if closure holds. In Texas, the Fort Bliss complex is a $1.2–$1.26B build for a 5,000-bed camp. None of this produces tradable output; it locks in fixed costs for an already established inferior business model. [8][9][10][11]
Deportation supporters claim enforcement frees jobs for U.S. citizens. Reality check: key sectors (agriculture, construction, and manufacturing) depend on immigrant labor. In agriculture, roughly 42% of hired crop workers lack work authorization. Remove that labor at harvest and you don’t get higher yields; you get unpicked fields and lost revenue—exactly what state-level crackdowns have shown. Construction and parts of manufacturing tell similar stories: persistent vacancies and delayed projects don’t resolve themselves without labor—but look, ICE just booked another flight. [12]
Crucially, there’s a proven substitute. Case-management ATD programs deliver 97–99% court-appearance compliance at a fraction of detention costs. If the goal is rule-of-law compliance, ATD wins on both price and performance. Detention should be the exception for demonstrably high-risk cases. [13][14][15]
If you’re genuinely fiscally conservative, the decision tree is simple. Each detained-then-deported worker carries:
a high acquisition cost (detention, transport, litigation, facilities),
negative NPV from lost tax receipts, and
sector-level output losses when crops aren’t picked or projects slip.
In contrast, ATD + lawful work authorization during proceedings flips the script:
minimal custody costs,
(2) continued tax payments, and
(3) fewer supply-side shocks.
Even hard-line models concede that mass deportation shrinks GDP by the trillions. The Penn Wharton Budget Model, a conservative economic model, concedes that mass deportation shrinks GDP by trillions—that’s a bad thing—and projects primary deficits of approximately $862–$987B over 10 years under mass deportation scenarios. That’s the destruction of U.S. shareholder value.[16][17]
If this were optimizing a business, you’d terminate detention first, scale case management ATD, and reserve deportation for the narrow slice where public safety benefits justify the expenditure. Anything else is a bad deal and taxpayer-subsidized ideology—that’s not a good thing. #NeverFearTheDream
Footnotes
[1] U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, “Alternatives to Detention (ATD)” — < $4.20/day ATD vs ~$152/day detention. ICE [2] ICE, Fiscal Year 2024 Annual Report — average length of stay 46.9 days. (PDF) ICE [3] American Immigration Council, “Alternatives to Immigration Detention: An Overview.” American Immigration Council+1 [4] Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP), “Tax Payments by Undocumented Immigrants” — $96.7B in 2022. ITEP [5] ICE news release (Dec. 20, 2024): 271,484 removals in FY2024. ICE [6] Congressional Budget Office, “Effects of the Immigration Surge on the Federal Budget and the Economy” — higher immigration lowers deficits via revenues > outlays. Congressional Budget Office+1 [7] ICE, “FY2024 Annual Report” companion release. ICE [8] AP News, “Florida may lose $218M on empty ‘Alligator Alcatraz’ as judge orders shutdown.” AP News+1 [9] CBS Miami, “Florida taxpayers could be on the hook for $218 million … ‘Alligator Alcatraz.’” CBS News+1 [10] Yahoo News round-ups on court-ordered shutdown and wind-down. Yahoo+1 [11] The Texas Tribune, “Feds plan to build nation’s biggest migrant detention center at Fort Bliss” — $1.26B, 5,000 beds. The Texas Tribune [12] U.S. Dept. of Labor, NAWS 2021–2022 (Report No. 17) — ~42% of hired crop workers lack work authorization; summary page. DOL+1 [13] Human Rights First, “Proven Alternatives to Mass Incarceration of Families” — programs with ~97% appearance; cost far below detention. (PDF/brief) Human Rights First+1 [14] Women’s Refugee Commission, Family Case Management Program — ~99% compliance with ICE and court. (Report/summary) Women’s Refugee Commission+1 [15] National Immigrant Justice Center, “The Real Alternatives to Detention.” (Policy brief) National Immigrant Justice Center [16] American Action Forum, “The Budgetary and Economic Costs of Addressing Unauthorized Immigration” & “A Costly Immigration Policy” — $400–$600B federal cost; −$1.6T GDP. AAF+1 [17] Penn Wharton Budget Model, “Mass Deportation of Unauthorized Immigrants: Fiscal and Economic Effects” — revenues −$300.4B (2025–2034); primary deficits +$862B pre-feedback, +$987B with feedback. (Brief & PDF) Penn Wharton Budget Model+1
Always feel free to re-post—anywhere, anytime, to anyone—share freely.
NeverFearTheDream simplebender.comStand For Truth
If you’re looking for daily thoughts and insights you will want to start the morning with:
Lap Around the Sun: Daily Steps Forward
If you know someone who is facing any facet of Alzheimer’s they might gain some insight from:
Joy in Alzheimer’s: My Mom’s Brave Walk into Dementia’s Abyss
Please consider following simplebender, you’re reading makes my writing more fun..…
Comments and thoughts are always welcome and feel free to re-post …..
The era of power limitations and rationing may be knocking on our door. Without a portfolio of power generation, the reality of July heat waves and January cold snaps causing rolling blackouts can be expected. Driven by data centers, the focus on household electrification, and a population that expects 24/7 plug-and-play power, the demand for electricity in the U.S. is increasing. Yet, the national discourse is veering towards reducing or even eliminating key alternatives—wind, solar, nuclear—and increasing reliance primarily on a finite resource; hydrocarbons. This is likely a shortsighted policy choice.
It is a potentially dangerous gamble. Our current fleet of natural-gas plants already runs near record levels, and petroleum generation is a rounding error in national totals. The Department of Energy (DOE) warns that by 2030, more than 100 GW of firm capacity will retire, while only 20GW of the planned new capacity is firm, dispatchable power. This type of power, which can be relied upon to meet demand at any time, is crucial for maintaining a stable and reliable grid. Even if we invested in new gas turbines today, it would take years to finance, permit, build, and connect them. Transmission projects face decade-long lead times even with streamlined regulations. In the meantime, demand does not politely wait—it climbs relentlessly, pressing the grid ever closer to its limits and breaking point.
And when, not if, the grid fails, the pain will not be evenly distributed. Households near and below the poverty line will suffer the most. For them, a prolonged outage in the middle of a heat dome or a polar vortex is not just uncomfortable—it is life-threatening. Wealthier households can afford generators, home batteries, or even leave town, but the poor cannot. Businesses will be forced to close, adversely affecting commerce. The cascading effects will stress public safety, and security risks will magnify as communications, traffic systems, and emergency response falter. This isn’t a dystopian forecast but a reasonable scenario to expect, or at least plan for.
The capital cost of replacing all lost alternatives with new gas is daunting, and would expose consumers to fuel price volatility and emissions penalties. More importantly, it overlooks the reliability and diversity that a balanced portfolio brings. A grid built on a single fuel is fragile—one pipeline outage, one price spike, one extended heavy load event away from disaster. Just like your personal finances, a balanced portfolio is more stable and outperforms all others. By diversifying our energy sources, we can build a more resilient and reliable grid, providing all of us with reassurance.
A more prudent path forward is to accelerate what works: finish stalled renewable projects, extend nuclear plant lifetimes, and streamline permitting for clean firm capacity. Oil and gas should remain the dependable floor—the baseload anchor, providing a consistent level of power—but not the sole pillar holding up the house. Meeting demand is possible, but only if we stop dismantling the roof while the storm clouds are gathering. My life has been in the oil and gas industry—but we must recognize that wind farms aren’t inherently evil; solar energy has its place in many regions, nuclear power should always be an option, and battery technology is essential. The choice is between planning now and positioning for the future. Spiking energy costs and rolling blackouts should not be acceptable options; they should be considered national failures. #NeverFearTheDream
Always feel free to re-post—anywhere, anytime, to anyone—share freely.
NeverFearTheDream simplebender.comStand For Truth
If you’re looking for daily thoughts and insights you will want to start the morning with:
Lap Around the Sun: Daily Steps Forward
If you know someone who is facing any facet of Alzheimer’s they might gain some insight from:
Joy in Alzheimer’s: My Mom’s Brave Walk into Dementia’s Abyss
Please consider following simplebender, you’re reading makes my writing more fun..…
Comments and thoughts are always welcome and feel free to re-post …..
Vilification is not an innocent weapon — it’s a destructive one. It takes little effort to sling insults, caricature opponents, or cast entire groups as villains. But like a boomerang, what you hurl often returns. The sharper the words, the more likely they cut you on the rebound. This cycle of destruction is something we must recognize — and break.
When you vilify, you don’t invite reasoned debate but reactionary hate. Anger rarely absorbs anger; it mirrors it. History shows escalation is almost inevitable: one stone cast is met with another, one torch answered with fire. In that spiral of hostility, the target shifts. Today’s accuser becomes tomorrow’s accused. The vilifier becomes the victim.
History offers painful lessons. Denunciation fueled the French Revolution, each faction outshouting and out-purging the last. Robespierre, once the loudest voice condemning “enemies of the revolution,” soon faced the guillotine he praised. Hate and retribution have no loyalty — they devour their own.
Modern politics echoes the same pattern. Leaders, activists, and media figures who stoke division often find themselves caught in the very fires they lit. Hate has no brake; once unleashed, it runs its own course.
Vilification is seductive. It feels like strength — drawing bold lines, protecting your tribe, mobilizing energy. But human nature is wired for reciprocity: what we project comes back. To weaponize hate is to release a force you cannot control. Your gender, race, faith, politics, or power won’t shield you — the backlash spares no one — you reap what you sow.
This is not a call for naïve pacifism but for clarity. To vilify is to plant the seed of retribution. To demonize is to risk becoming the demon in another’s story. History is merciless to those who think they can ride the tiger of hate and not be eaten.
When there is no room for counter-opinion, there is no compromise. Without compromise, polarity hardens into conflict. And conflict, left unchecked, leads to violence — and death. But there is hope. We should call for understanding, not for “beating the hell out of” those we oppose. Listening can reveal common ground. Words can wound, but they can also heal. If we speak to persuade rather than to poison, we stand a chance of escaping the boomerang’s return flight. Vilification may win the moment, but it never secures a peaceful future. #NeverFearTheDream
NeverFearTheDream simplebender.comStand For Truth
If you’re looking for daily thoughts and insights you will want to start the morning with:
Lap Around the Sun: Daily Steps Forward
If you know someone who is facing any facet of Alzheimer’s they might gain some insight from:
Joy in Alzheimer’s: My Mom’s Brave Walk into Dementia’s Abyss
Please consider following simplebender, you’re reading makes my writing more fun..…
Comments and thoughts are always welcome and feel free to re-post …..
The belief that locals know best what their community needs is compelling—until the federal government, for its own interests, decides otherwise.
Every nation is, at its core, an aggregation of countless smaller communities. Their borders shift as people move, economies fluctuate, and climates change. The long-standing argument that small, local government is superior to distant, centralized power is often taken as self-evident. Local leaders adapt quickly, drawing on resources, traditions, and the lived experience of those they serve. They sense the moral, cultural, and economic pulse in ways no outsider can.
By contrast, Washington moves slowly, buffeted by shifting political winds. Federal agencies bring expertise and funding, but too often those come with strings attached—mandates, conditions, or partisan leverage.
Local governments—cities, counties, states—are closest to the people and should be empowered to govern on issues most immediately affecting them. Immigration, gun control, abortion, emissions, education standards, or building codes are best addressed where conditions are specific. One state may prioritize sanctuary protections because it sees both humanitarian and economic value. Another may impose stricter gun laws to curb violence. Coastal and seismically prone cities may demand tougher building codes, while a rural state may focus on education standards rather than curbing gun violence. The point is not uniformity, but responsiveness.
Once a community has chosen its path, federal interference should be rare, reserved for extraordinary circumstances and backed by a vast consensus, requiring a supermajority to overrule the state. Congress too often legislates to the lowest common denominator, imposing one-size-fits-all rules that lower standards in some places while raising costs in others. If a community accepts the burden of stricter laws, it should also have the right to live with the consequences of its decision.
Here lies the contradiction: advocates of small government often champion decentralization only until local choices cut against their own ideology. Then, suddenly, they turn to Washington to override what they dislike. Add the influence of corporate lobbying, and state sovereignty erodes further.
Still, there are functions only a strong federal government can perform. Disaster relief, national defense, international diplomacy, monetary policy, and drug standards cannot be parceled out state by state without chaos. Imagine fifty separate armies, currencies, or foreign embassies. Some responsibilities must be assigned to the center.
The truth is both inconvenient and straightforward: local government is more nimble and responsive, but it cannot stand alone. The federal government has the scale to manage what transcends borders, but it should not micromanage what can be handled more effectively on the ground.
“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.”James Madison, Federalist No. 45
The challenge—and the opportunity—is to lean into the strengths of each. Let local government govern where local knowledge matters most. Let the federal government act where unity is essential. The balance, not the dominance of one over the other, is what will preserve both liberty and effectiveness. However, this then raises a large, unspoken, and glaring question: How will local governments pay for the services they want without asking the federal government for assistance? #NeverFearTheDream
NeverFearTheDream simplebender.com@simplebender.bsky.socialStand For Truth
If you’re looking for daily thoughts and insights you will want to start the morning with:
Lap Around the Sun: Daily Steps Forward
If you know someone who is facing any facet of Alzheimer’s they might gain some insight from:
Joy in Alzheimer’s: My Mom’s Brave Walk into Dementia’s Abyss
Please consider following simplebender, you’re reading makes my writing more fun..…
Comments and thoughts are always welcome and feel free to re-post …..
simplebender 