The Generalist
One's identity is far more than one's profession.
All across the nation Americans turned out to show their disapproval of the Trump Administration and those who enable their excesses. Newtown’s crowd was large and in good spirits despite intermittent rain. Police took up positions to monitor and be a visible presence, but people were amiable and orderly and the demonstration remained peaceful. Click the box below to see the full collection of photos and video clips taken by Richmond and Marguerite.
The antidote for news fatigue may be simply minding what has your attention. “Flood the zone with sh*t” has been the strategy of the GOP in 2025. It has been practiced for many years, but is at a fever pitch since #47 took office and began implementing Project 2025. Doug Muder explains how he thinks it works and suggests what you can do about it in the talk below. The clip is set to play his advice for coping. You may want to listen to the whole talk if the idea that your attention is being captured and manipulated is foreign to you.
“Whatever has your attention, has you.” ~Willis Elliott
Political strategists have long understood that controlling the media’s news cycle was central to manipulating what citizens see and hear about you and your adversaries. The GOP has been far more effective than the democrats, both in terms of developing Fox News and Sinclair as propaganda organs, and in generating outrage, shock, and fear to rapidly grab attention and rapidly shift it successively from one issue to another. The firehose flow of emotionally wrenching information keeps the public off balance and unable to fully grasp what’s real and what’s hype.
It’s not matter of getting the facts right, or interpreting them with critical thinking. It’s about regaining willful control over what has and holds attention. Can we learn to be mindful in the flooded zone?
I was proud to serve at NSA sixty years ago. It was more secretive then, we joked that the initials stood for “no such agency” but we were serious about never revealing anything about our work outside of the highly protected confines of our particular departments. We didn’t talk about work with colleagues who didn’t have the need to know. We didn’t even disclose where we worked. And nobody talked shop on the outside.
It’s different today. There is a Cryptography Museum that’s open to the public, and a dedicated exit on the GW Expressway with a big sign that says NSA Employees Only. Retired civilian employees are the docents. On a recent visit, I recognized the collegial spirit in those retirees that I had remembered from my days there. Like my contemporaries, they were proud of their work. We were part of a vast network often called the “intelligence community” and our purpose was to keep America safe by being vigilant for threats. It was our job to see threats to America coming and warn those in a position to respond. The early 1960’s were the years of the cold war, and it was a battle of covert actors. Russian agents contacted people I knew, attempted to compromise them, failed, and were apprehended.
Next month Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) is due for reauthorization. It is a critical and controversial part of U.S. intelligence law that authorizes the government to collect foreign intelligence information on non-U.S. persons located outside the United States, without obtaining a traditional warrant.
The next deadline for reauthorization is April 2025 (it was last extended temporarily in 2024).
Section 702 is not a permanent law—it must be reauthorized periodically by Congress.
This renewal is coming up framed by SignalGate, the security scandal where our highest level of leadership in the Trump administration flagrantly violated basic security practices and divulged secret information to the editor of Atlantic Magazine.
It also coming when NSA is being forced by DOGE to reduce its personnel.
At the same time, the administration is defying and seeking to discredit and intimidate a former FISA judge, one who was cleared and trusted to hear cases about security matters, because he’s probing the unlawful deportation and imprisonment of alleged Venezuelan gang members — some of whom were evidently snatched only because they had tatoos.
The manifest lack of honor and the disregard of the law displayed by the current administration leaves me to wonder if they can be trusted with the powers granted by Section 702. Will they disregard the guardrails and order NSA to spy on political enemies here at home?
Talking Points Memo admitted a mistake, quote:
The original version of yesterday’s Morning Memo incorrectly described the prisoners who appeared behind DHS Secretary Kristi Noem in her propaganda video as Venezuelan detainees deported under the Alien Enemies Act. They were in fact El Salvadoran prisoners held in the same prison. The mistake was mine.
What’s interesting here is that TPM was tricked by the visual, as I was. Noem staged the shot with tough-looking prisoners in the background so that viewers would infer that her claim that the detainees were dangerous gang members is credible. She’s attempting to try them in the court of public opinion where there are no rules of evidence, or in this case, any honorable intentions.
We still don’t know much about those detainees.
Adam Schiff lays out what is happening to Justice in the US. What’s amazing about this is how calm he is.
“Here are three of [Robert Reich’s] favorite TR quotes, which I find particularly appropriate today. If you are so moved, you might share them. You might include them in a letter to your local paper. If you have the means, you might even place them in an ad in your local paper or perhaps even on a billboard on a highway near you.” –Robert Reich
***
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
― Theodore Roosevelt
***
“To educate a person in the mind but not in morals is to educate a menace to society.”
― Theodore Roosevelt
***
“Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the president or any other public official, save exactly to the degree in which he himself stands by the country. It is patriotic to support him insofar as he efficiently serves the country. It is unpatriotic not to oppose him to the exact extent that by inefficiency or otherwise he fails in his duty to stand by the country. In either event, it is unpatriotic not to tell the truth, whether about the president or anyone else.”
― Theodore Roosevelt
Quakers are inherently grass-roots. It comes from the belief that metaphysical truth is revealed to any and all of us if we but listen. There is that of God in each of us, and, as communities, we are called to speak up when human events conflict with our values. One of the ways we express our collective sensibilities about important matters is to agree on a “minute” recorded at Meeting for Worship with Attention to Business. Here is one such expression of unity and commitment from my Newtown Friends Meeting:
There’s a myth we tell ourselves in America—that the wealthiest among us are entirely self-made, that their success comes purely from their own hard work, intelligence, and risk-taking. You hear it all the time, often from the billionaires themselves. They built their companies “from scratch.” They “earned every penny.” And when the subject of taxation comes up, they argue that it’s unfair for the government to “confiscate” the wealth they created and give it to those who haven’t worked as hard.
It’s a compelling story. But it’s also incomplete.
Elon Musk didn’t build Tesla and SpaceX in a vacuum. Jeff Bezos didn’t create Amazon out of thin air. Even the late Steve Jobs, the genius behind Apple, didn’t succeed in isolation. Every billionaire, every entrepreneur, every corporate empire stands on a foundation of public investments, social systems, and infrastructure that made their success possible.
Start with the basics. Without roads, bridges, airports, and railways, businesses couldn’t transport goods. Without an educated workforce, companies couldn’t hire skilled employees. Without a functioning legal system to enforce contracts and protect intellectual property, innovation would be too risky.
But let’s go even deeper.
The internet—without which companies like PayPal, Amazon, and Google wouldn’t even exist—was created with government funding. It started as ARPANET, a project of the U.S. Department of Defense. The same goes for GPS, touchscreen technology, and countless other breakthroughs that companies later turned into billion-dollar industries.
Elon Musk, now the world’s richest man, got his start with PayPal, an online payment platform that was only possible because of the internet and a stable financial system backed by government regulations and consumer protections. His later ventures, Tesla and SpaceX, have received billions in government subsidies, research grants, and contracts. And yet, he rails against the very taxes that support the system that made his success possible.
The idea that billionaires “did it all themselves” ignores the millions of people whose labor keeps their companies running and the social programs that keep their customers able to buy products. Amazon’s entire business model depends on reliable roads, an educated workforce, and customers with disposable income. Walmart thrives in towns with a strong middle class. Tesla cars aren’t selling in countries with extreme poverty.
If the economy collapses, so does their wealth. That’s why government stimulus programs—so often criticized as “handouts” for regular people—are quietly welcomed by big business when things go south. During the 2008 financial crisis, banks got massive bailouts to keep them afloat. During the COVID-19 pandemic, government relief checks kept people spending, which in turn kept businesses from sinking.
When billionaires and corporations push for tax cuts, they frame it as a moral issue. They argue that it’s unfair to take what they’ve “earned” and give it to the undeserving. But taxation isn’t about punishing success—it’s about maintaining the system that allows success to happen in the first place.
Progressive taxation funds the infrastructure, education, healthcare, and social stability that create the conditions for prosperity. When done right, it prevents economic stagnation, reduces poverty, and ensures that opportunity is available to more than just the lucky few.
If taxes were really the enemy of success, why do countries with strong public investments—like Denmark, Sweden, and Germany—continue to rank among the world’s most competitive economies? Why do billionaires still flourish in places with high taxes and strong safety nets?
No one is saying billionaires shouldn’t be rewarded for their vision, leadership, or innovation. But let’s stop pretending that they did it alone. They benefited from the roads they didn’t pave, the schools they didn’t fund, and the technology they didn’t invent. They thrived in an economy kept stable by government protections and social investments.
And when they argue that taxes are unfair, maybe we should ask: unfair to whom?
A society that supports its people—through education, infrastructure, healthcare, and fair wages—is not just good for the poor. It’s good for the wealthy, too. Because without it, there would be no wealth to accumulate.
You must be logged in to post a comment.