So You Want to Buy a House: The dream has receded for many but hope does not have to be gone forever

      My 26-year-old son occasionally moans to me that “my generation will never be able to buy a house” — to which I raise my eyebrows and say “you might”. A further response is “things just aren’t the same as they were in your generation”. At which point, I stop trying to change his mind. He is right. Things are not the same as they were in my generation.

     Yet, it wasn’t that way in the past and it doesn’t have to be that way in the near future. It isn’t unusual to look around and see a situation and not be able to imagine anything different. I have done blogs/newsletters on many closely related topics — income inequality, hope, apathy, entropy — but sometimes it is necessary to bring related topics together to address something specific.

     Buying a house is a specific, and physical, issue that is closely related to income inequality, hope, and apathy.

Why do people say “I’ll never be able to buy a house”?

     Most people rent. It used to be that most people owned (or held the lease and the bank held the property title) their house. In the US, in 2025, the average mortgage cost $2329/month. The average rent in the US, in 2025, was $1987/month. This is a $342 difference — not much. Admittedly, even not much may be too much for many.

     With only a $300ish difference between renting and owning, why are so many renting? Some want to rent. Assuming you stay in the house for a number of years, a house is a great investment but it ties up a lot of money which could be used in other ways. It is also very “non-liquid”. Getting your money out of the house (equity) may be easy in a “sellers market” or difficult in a “buyers market” or if features in your house are no longer fashionable. I am sure there other reasons for people to prefer renting.

Requirements to buy a house beyond what is needed to rent

     For those who would like to, but feel they cannot do such, there are two major hurdles. First is a down payment — usually 10% but sometimes 20% and, at times, down to 5%. The second, which is closely related to down payment requirements, is your “credit score”. A credit score is a fictitious number devised by credit companies. Companies that determine credit risk have their own arcane formulas. The minimum down payment required depends a lot on the economy and upon your credit score. This credit score also affects requirements for deposits on rentals and services (such as utilities). A third is being able to qualify for the loan — a mixture of income, credit score, savings, and other assets.

     While the down payment is partially dependent on credit score, it still exists. For 2025, Bing says an average house in the USA is $522,200. With a good credit score, a 10% downpayment would be $52,220. There are also various one-time costs associated with buying a house, so let us say $60,000 is needed to buy an “average” house. If you started savings towards this total five years before, that would mean $12,000/year in savings. Or six months rent in savings instead of in a landlord’s pocket.

     So, beyond requirements for renting, buying a house requires a good credit score, a down payment, and qualifying for the loan.

What has changed? Why have hopes to buy a house dwindled over the years?

     There is a simple, quick answer — it is much more difficult to build up the savings needed. And, with the added difficulty, it is much easier to get discouraged and say “what the heck, I didn’t really want one that badly anyway”. The longer answer of WHY is sad but reversible with a LOT of work by MANY people.

     Note that the credit score is tightly connected to savings and to a secure, reliable history of always paying bills on time. There are lots of details, of which some are secret and some are not very rational, but those are the primary needs.

     Over the past 40 years (starting around the time of Ronald Reagan’s term of office in the US), real income (inflation adjusted dollars) has gone down for most workers. A result of the good old ridiculous “trickle-down” economic fantasy. Many people have written about minimum wage amounts, including myself here, but it is also true for those who make more than minimum wage. More people are earning less money and this makes it difficult to save. If you are living paycheck-to-paycheck it is virtually impossible to save.

There is a reason why so many people put that extra change into lottery tickets.

     After World War II, there was a great push to build small, livable houses for the people coming home from the war and their families. These were called “starter homes” as it was recognized that most people would eventually want to move into larger houses. Nowadays, the idea has been revived in the concept of “tiny houses” — but many communities are very resistant to allowing these because they bring the average house price down (deflate the market). I will repeat — communities are resistant to building houses that more people can afford.

     House sizes and house prices (per square foot) have gone up faster than general income. There are many fewer people who can buy a 3500 square foot house with a $80,000/year income nowadays than could buy a 1200 square foot house with a $15,000/year income in 1975. The house size (and price) has ballooned and the wages have stagnated.

     In the US, Congress passed tax laws that allowed deductions for mortgage interest. This was very beneficial to those who lived at that time but having this advantage for house owners meant that houses were/are a good, usually stable, investment — which has led to home price inflation going up faster than cost-of-living and wages. In the past ten to fifteen years, with this being “such a good investment” — and lack of modification of tax laws to keep larger businesses, which have a lot of capital, out of the market — business funds have purchased more and more homes making ownership harder, affordable houses scarcer, and rental prices less flexible and higher.

So, a longer answer is —

• real wages have decreased for most people in the US.

• House sizes have greatly increased with few smaller houses available.

• Corporations and larger financial institutions have taken advantage of tax benefits and loopholes to move house ownership away from individuals and families.

How can such a situation be reversed?

     Once again, there is a short answer. Reverse income inequality and get tax and wage laws back to the era of pro middle-income/upper lower-income. The long answer is much harder as those that have benefited with changes over the past 50 years have a lot of power, are extremely greedy, and continuously want more. There are, of course, exceptions who give back to the community on a voluntary basis.

Income Inequality, wealth, wages, and savings

     Here in the United States, we are enamored of our wealthy people. It’s been that way for a long time — perhaps since the beginning of the country. We don’t have lords and ladies, dukes and duchesses, kings and queens (though some would like to be). But we do have ultra wealthy people who have much, much more than they need or can use.

     Many people admire those rich people. They sit on the sidelines and watch them, envy them, and cheer them on. It’s kind of like being at a racecourse and watching those speeding horses go by while cheering them on. “Rich people” include groups of highly overpaid CEOs and other C-class executives, inherited wealth, the rapidly dwindling “rags to riches” fantasy fulfillments, the financial market manipulators, and celebrities. I may never understand why celebrities are so highly paid — perhaps they are just exceptionally beautiful race horses such that people want to put wads of money into their harnesses.

     The one category that should be expanded upon is “rags to riches”. It did use to be true that people could come up with an idea, dig in, save, and work their way to the top of the financial structure. They didn’t always do it fairly or legally — that is where the term “robber baron” came from. But it is mostly just a fantasy nowadays though it is firmly lodged into the national psyche.

     Bill Gates came from an upper-middle (possibly lower-upper) income family, Mark Zuckerberg was at Harvard when he (with others) started the basis of Facebook — and he wasn’t a scholarship person, Elon Musk was part of a wealthy South African family. I won’t deny talent also but they started off WAY above the “rags” stage. Warren Buffett seems to have started his journey at a lower level than other rich “superstars” but he still didn’t start at the “rags” level.

     So, who cares? However they did it, don’t they deserve it? Aren’t they a reasonable target for our own fantasies of achievement? Maybe — but their huge coffers are filled with what could be our savings and down payments. Tax and wage laws transfer what could, and should in my opinion, belong to the others.

     There is NO “entitlement” to riches. NO ONE got rich by themselves. They may have started on their own (or with a few partners) but, after a certain point, they have to start leveraging the work and talents of others to keep climbing the wealth pyramid. An awful lot of the rich have forgotten, or firmly deny, this reality.

Here is an insanely simple example. A person with a company that has $10,000,000 of sales per year has 200 people working for them each making, on average, $25,000 per year. This leaves the person “owning” the company with $5,000,000 to put into their offshore accounts every year. If the wages were raised to an average of $40,000 per year, those 200 people would each have an additional $15,000/year for savings, education, a down payment, a vacation, or whatever and the “owner” of the company would still have $2,000,000 to put into their offshore account. That “offshore account” is also a major factor in that they quite likely are using various legal loopholes and methods to prevent proper taxes being taken from that $2,000,000.

     The idea of “ownership” is a basic tenet of capitalism — but it isn’t written on the tablets with the Ten Commandments. The ability of the “owner” to pay their employees $25,000 per year rather than $40,000 per year is a matter of wage laws, inherent morality, and unions. Note that unions have suffered greatly over the past 50 years. There is no magic wand that says Bertha doing X work “deserves” $Y,000 a year in salary and benefits. It is ALL up to the society and the laws that are enacted.

So, how can the migration of wealth from the 98% to the 2% be reversed?

     Once again, a simple answer first. Tax and wage laws need to be shifted back to favor the 98%. And unions need to be appreciated and supported with laws and by the community. There is not much to be done about people’s inherent morality or lack thereof.

Changing the laws

     The wage and tax laws favor the rich because our legislators favor the rich when creating the laws. Some do this because they are among the rich — they have a lot of money and see nothing wrong with creating laws that will keep them accumulating excess money.

     I “joke” about the rich owning our legislators. It seems that way but it is not quite that simple. Being elected to national office is a very expensive business (see why in my old blog here). It is easier for a candidate to have the money needed to be elected if they have rich sponsors. Those rich sponsors may, or may not, tell them how to vote and what laws to create or remove — but the elected officials are very careful not to antagonize their rich contributors because “how can they do good for people if they aren’t in office — and that means getting re-elected time and time again”? This is an excellent reason for term limitations. People who have held elected positions for a long time are very likely to do more and more to retain their position but do less and less of the things they originally wanted to do. Once again, exceptions do exist.

     The rich have always had greater leverage but it accelerated horribly when the Supreme Court, very dubiously, ruled in favor of the rich in the Citizens United case in 2010. Although not explicit, this case allowed the rich to give (without disclosure) as much money as they wanted to candidates. It allowed the purchase of legislators. There really isn’t any other way to describe it.

     So, the rich have a highly weighted influence on the US legislators and courts. There are also many other legal and economic benefits for the rich that are not available to the poor. Lastly, legislators who have been elected for multiple terms are more likely to value being re-elected than to be actively fulfilling their original desires for the citizens.

Primaries are key

     Peacefully, the main method that US citizens have of truly changing our legislative base, and judicial appointments, is via the system of primaries. It IS possible to start new political parties but that is a much more difficult process than changing existing political parties from within.

     The ruling structure within a political party have enormous advantages for electing the candidates that THEY choose. But, with a lot of hard work, it is possible to change the candidates running for office. It is possible to choose candidates that favor the general populace rather than the rich.

     This is not easy but it IS possible. Without it, nothing more can be done. Tax, wage, and election laws will not change. You have to have legislators willing to work for the general populace and who are not scared of disrupting the status quo.

Once the legislative base has changed, what then?

We’ve really talked about all the parts but we’ll summarize here (not in any particular order):

• Legislate enforceable ethics requirements for all branches of government.

• Legislate term limitations.

• Legislate enforceable limitations on campaign donations and require (down to the individual) visibility of all people donating.

• Change the tax structure such that the 98% have a better chance to accumulate and save. The word “billionaire” should be so rare that people need to check their (online or print) dictionaries to know what it means. This includes changing tax rates and closing loopholes.

• Change tax laws so that corporate ownership of property no longer has any advantage over investment of any other type of property.

• Add citizen protection agencies that have the power, and political independence, to protect individual rights including unionization.

In some cases, creating effective legislation means approving Constitutional Amendments.

     So, there we have it. Yes, it is much harder to buy a house now for most of us. But it didn’t use to be that way and it doesn’t have to continue to be that way. Primaries are key.

Thanks for reading Ideas & Interpretations! This post is public so feel free to share it.

Ideas & Interpretations is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

The Giving Tree: Boundaries, boundaries, and boundaries. They determine positive versus negative results and actions.

     This newsletter will have some disclosures, and discussion, about a book (The Giving Tree) and a movie (What a Wonderful Life) that might allow you a different perspective on the works — and potentially ruin your enjoyment of them. So, if you think that might happen … stop reading.

.

Ideas & Interpretations is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

     There is a book, a widely read and beloved book, called “The Giving Tree” by Shel Silverstein. It is known for its words, and its illustrations, and for the ideas of how giving is good and how a person needs different things at different times in one’s life. All those are good things and certainly many people can, and should, enjoy the book at that level.

     But, examining further, we can read the book again at a different level. At first, the boy and the tree had fun together. The boy enjoyed the tree as it was and enjoyed the shade and played in the old leaves. The tree loved being able to provide enjoyment for the boy and loved being useful. There is no explicit acknowledgement, or thanks, from the boy about the tree.

     The boy goes away. The next time he comes back, he wants money. The tree gives him its apples to sell. In the story, at least, the boy doesn’t even say thank you. Goes away, comes back. This time he wants a house and the tree gives him his branches. He goes away again and then comes back. Each of these intervals are longer and longer and the tree remains lonely. The next time, the man wants a boat to travel around — the tree donates his trunk to build the boat. The man goes away and, later, comes back tired and the tree offers his stump to sit on.

     Not being privy to the author’s thoughts, he might very well have meant to convey the things that I came away with — or might not. Note, by the end of the story, the tree has given away everything (except his stump (and roots?)). In humans, this would be called martyrdom. The tree is left to be very lonely unless the human wants something. And the human shows no appreciation (and never says “thank you”). To my mind, this is a warning book showing the dangers of not maintaining one’s boundaries. (It would be an ecological message if the tree had been non-aware).

     But, as stated in the beginning, a story (especially a well-written one) can be read at many different levels. A happy one or a warning one. And a well-written story can provide different depths of lessons as one experiences more of life and has that lens of history looking upon what one is reading.

     Then there is the Jimmy Stewart movie “It’s a Wonderful Life”. It, too, has different levels to examine. For most people it is a heartening movie about how the wealth of friendship is the best wealth of all. And I don’t disagree with that message. But the premise of the movie is “what would his world have been like if he had never been born?” Note that it is NOT “what would his world have been like if he had made different choices?” but his absence — his inability to do the things he was able to do. And this lesson is very true — we can never know what effect our actions make upon others.

     But, within that life, what do we see? We have many instances of self-sacrifice. It is not the same as The Giving Tree. His choices leave him alive and, perhaps, those choices led to a better life? Perhaps. But the movie clearly says that you must choose what you think is best for others, rather than for yourself, in order to help the world. It is such choices that are highlighted in the movie. Perhaps he did make other choices based on his own desires? Perhaps. Or perhaps making the more “selfish” choices would have led to an even better result? Perhaps. We won’t know because that is not the story. Self-sacrifice is the focus on the movie — and not doing that, because he had never lived, was a disaster.

     Most well-written books and scripts have multiple levels. As we grow, and have more experiences, our interpretations change. They “deepen”. Perhaps we read into the words something that the author had no awareness of being done. Perhaps we find the golden nuggets that the author was trying to allow us to grow into. Sometimes, those essays assigned in school are a way to practice aspects of writing. Sometimes, they are ways for us to express things that are not easily expressed. For me, both the “The Giving Tree” and “It’s a Wonderful Life” give forth a much different message than that for most people. That doesn’t make me correct or make me wrong — it means that my life has given me a different lens with which to see the world.

     How about you? Are there stories that you have seen with much different eyes as you have grown older?

Ideas & Interpretations is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Thanks for reading Ideas & Interpretations! This post is public so feel free to share it.

Right, Left, Up, Down: Directions (including politics) are relative. How are we really moving?

     There are a lot of words that label political viewpoints — conservative, liberal, progressive, radical, authoritarian, moderate, centrist, pragmatic, and so forth. There are ALSO words that connect economic views to political views even though these are disjoint situations — so a person might be called a socialist, capitalist, communist, or whatever inferring that these economic systems can adequately reflect a person’s political views.

     But, whatever label is used to describe — it can only be useful if the same definition of meaning is used by both the speaker/writer and the listener/reader. All of the above words do have definition meanings (though some are less strictly defined than others). But, if you ask someone the definition of many of these words, they get described from a basis of what they believe it means to themselves as opposed to what the dictionary may say.

People who use a word to communicate must all be working from the same definition.

     So, usage of words like liberal or conservative rarely have value. Certainly current usage, and people definitions (as opposed to dictionary definitions), are not the same as they were thirty years ago or even twenty years ago.

     If one does want to discuss, and describe, political viewpoints and words are difficult to be sure if they are valid, then what can be done?

     Most people agree, in general, that people’s political viewpoints are towards the “left” or the “right” or the “center”. The exact definitions of those words are NOT in full agreement with all users of such words — but they can be used in terms of comparison.

     I would propose that the main spectrum of comparison for political views would range from anarchy (where each person does, says, and behaves as they want — fully independent of others) and fascism (possibly dictatorship or totalitarian) at the other. One end gives all power equally to individuals and the other end concentrates power and control into the hands of a few (usually with ONE person in charge overall).

anarchy ———————————————————————————————- fascism

     Societies of fully anarchic principles don’t last long — conflicts between individuals arise almost immediately and cause the system to collapse. On the other end, however, fascist systems are very hard to eliminate because of the full concentration of resources, control, and power. Fascist systems are more likely to be overthrown because of the huge pools of people who exist outside of the controlling groups — they get “fed up” and create (usually unstable) temporary structures OR the core control groups break up due to the inherent problems with the transfer of power and control within a very small group.

     You could also label the above spectrum

individual ———————————————————————————-—— core cabal

because it is a line of distribution of power and control.

     Now that we have the spectrum line set up what do we do with it? It is all about relativity. The label “centrist” should go into the center but note that the centrist values of the US are very different from the “centrist” values in the rest of the world. For most of the world, Universal Health Care is just a norm that people don’t really think much about — it is only the corporate/stockholder world of the United States that believes people are entitled to make profits out of sickness. For not quite as much of the world, paid public education continues up through later university levels — with the strange idea that an educated public makes a stronger country. The folks that call themselves “centrist” in the US would be quite a bit farther to the right of center than those who call themselves such outside of the US. This applies to much of the US Democratic party.

     The older Republican party would still be to the “right” of the Democratic party but the current Republican party has shifted so far towards the right end of the spectrum that those people they call “far left” are really pretty close to the center. Remember that it is all about relativity. The farther “right” one group is, the more “left” an opposing group might be. As far as the above spectrum is concerned, there isn’t much activity on the left end for the US. Anarchists have no political power and direct mandates (which routes around representative democracy) seems to be losing out in general elections versus the courts (people say “yes”, representatives say “no” and the representatives “win”).

     We can play a game at placing all other labels onto the spectrum but — as is true of personal (rather than dictionary) definitions — we probably would disagree a lot on that position. But, relative to the Democratic party and the current Republican party, libertarians would probably be placed in-between and the Green party to the left of the Democratic party (more left, the more individual-oriented).

     The title of this newsletter includes two other directions — up and down. These are associated with wealth which is closely related to the “right” end of the spectrum but not identical to it. Just as in the progress of physicists from Newton to Einstein to Hawking, large gravity masses can distort space (and time?), the existence of excessive wealth can distort the individual/fascism spectrum. It does it just as does a dwarf star in space. The excessively wealthy individual can act as a very, very weighty (both senses of the word — pun intended) individual. Thus, on the individual to fascist scale those “super-individual”s can distort the line either direction (or both at once which is weird but, in this viewpoint, still possible.

     What is “best” then? Would someone right in the middle cover the best situation? I doubt it. The center of the mass of wealth/control/influence will fluctuate from day to day, year to year. If you are part of that exclusive set of people who concentrate the power/control then that is “best” for you. If you have ideas less popular to the general populace you might head left on the spectrum but, even if economic distortion continues to occur, your “best” place will still be to the “right” of many.

     Where do you place yourself? Your elected representative? Your king or queen? Your neighbor across the street? Just as is said for other characteristics (such as social interactions), it’s a wide, wide world.

Thanks for reading Ideas & Interpretations! This post is public so feel free to share it.

Ideas & Interpretations is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

The Second Amendment: With this New Year, we need DISCUSSIONS. Discussions where we talk -- hear and listen -- think and respond. No need of rants, sound bites, bumper stickers or political diatribes.

     Another day, another murder. “Just a sad consequence of freedom”. So, why is the United States the only country in the world — that is not in the midst of armed civil war — that has such problems?

History of the Second Amendment

   vv v Back in the days of the beginning of the United States of America, after the Constitution was signed, the “Founding Fathers” continued to work on a Bill of Rights. These aspects — amendments to be considered as part of the Constitution (a work in progress) had been discussed during the time of creation of the Constitution. But, as is true of most things that have to go through committees, agreement was not quick to obtain. So, certain issues, that they KNEW they wanted to have in the Constitution, were postponed so that the foundation document could be sent around to the States and be approved.

     I don’t know if the Bill of Rights, ratified as a group of Amendments on December 15, 1791, had an internal order of importance. The fact that they waited for the group of ten to be ready before sending them to be ratified indicates they were all considered to be important.

     But the Second Amendment is one of those ten composing the Bill of Rights. It reads:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

     The Supreme Court interprets the Constitution (including all Amendments) to determine the meaning behind the words. That interpretation is not unmoving and usually reflects the changes that are occurring within the country and how the words may best be interpreted in the current period. Since the Supreme Court Justices are humans, they have the inherent flaws and biases (and potential corruption) of humans, and as such may make decisions that others disagree with. But, that is their legal, Constitutional, power — to interpret what the words mean.

     Generally speaking (not being a professional lawyer or historian), the Second Amendment was created based on the experiences of those writing it. They had experienced — either directly or via their ancestors’ experiences — the effects of only the government having access to weapons (and ammunition). The splitting of the clauses for “a well regulated Militia” and “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms” has created a lot of the discussion, changes in interpretation, and political divides about the Second Amendment.

     There has been little argument (as far as I have heard) about the “well regulated Militia” part. Each State was to continue to have their own state militia (now called the National Guard) independent of the Federal government and under the control of the State government. The relationship between the Federal government and state government’s control is presently an area of active discussion in the Supreme Court. (To me, it seems pretty clear — but it isn’t my right to make a decision.)

     The part of “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms” is the portion that has — over the past 50 years (not very much before that) — been debated and politicized. Does it apply only in connection to the “well regulated Militia” (the primary interpretation until the 1980s) or is that a separate, but equally weighted, protection within the Amendment? (Once again, I have my opinion — but not the right to make a decision.)

If people kill people, what is special about guns?

     “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people”. AGREED. But does anyone really think that someone could kill 500 people in 5 minutes with a butcher knife?

• Guns make it EASY.

• Guns remove the time possible for second-thoughts.

• Guns reduce the time for potential defence.

• The AR-15 has only the remotest resemblance to a Brown Bess musket muzzle-loader used during the time of the writing of the Second Amendment.

     And yes, there are other means of mass murder available — chemicals, biological weapons, arson, nuclear and conventional bombs, and so forth. But they aren’t as convenient, or easily available, as guns.

Where does gun control come into play?

     Here we come to another area of the division of powers allocated by the Constitution. Congress (NOT the Executive branch) can make laws to clarify aspects of law and the Constitution — subject to the potential judgement of the Supreme Court (which can decide if a law is valid or not, primarily based on the Constitution). So, it can make so-called “gun control” laws to REGULATE access to weapons and ammunition. It cannot forbid access but it can regulate, and control, access — subject to the agreement of the Supreme Court.

     “They want to get rid of all of the guns”. FALSE. Very, very few people want to totally eliminate guns. There are various legitimate uses for guns such as hunting and competitions, and (unfortunately) self-defence. The idea that a group of people “want to take your guns away” is a falsehood (lie) that is very convenient for politicians, or profit-oriented private groups, to repeat over and over. Like other “big lies”, they expect that if it is repeated without end people will believe it is true. So, it goes into campaign speeches and bumper stickers. But it isn’t true.

It IS true that a large number of people would like gun ownership limited. They want gun ownership limited to people who

• Are trained in the use and safety of guns

• Are not criminals

• Are not nuts (I use the technical term here)

The definition of, and requirements for, the above areas are the areas to focus on for discussion.

     It is true that any restriction, no matter how reasonable, will delay the ownership and use of guns by people who meet the above criteria. Such a delay may be irritating to those who qualify but help in keeping all of us safe.

So areas of discussion apply to the above characterization of a qualified gun owner.

• What kind of training is required? Should there be tests involved with granting gun ownership? Who should create these tests? Who should administer them? What is required for safety? Another test or mandatory equipment (gun locks, vaults, etc.)"?

• How is the lack of a criminal record determined? Not all states communicate information to federal, or other state, bureaus or administrators. What types of infractions should disqualify?

• What is “nuts”? A person undergoing, or who has undergone, therapy may be more sane and rational than someone who has never approached a counselor, psychiatrist, or psychologist. Some internal instabilities may be fully invisible. Should ranting on social media count?

Some of my own thoughts in the area of training in use and safety.

     Personally, I think that we should look to the example of Switzerland. Although I do not agree that every citizen should be required to serve in the military, I do agree that every person who has a gun, to be potentially used, should be trained.

     A week long course in use of the weapon, cleaning, dismantling and re-assembly, and movements under active fire — very similar to U.S. military training — should be required. Use of a gun is not limited to being able to point and shoot. Decisions about shooting need to be made calmly and quickly. This is especially hard for people totally unused to having weapons fired near, or around, them.

     Switzerland requires use of a gun vault in every home. These are not tiny tin boxes — the vaults are similar to bank vaults in the U.S. A home invader in Switzerland will never use the weapons present in the house. A child will never pick up a gun and shoot their sibling.

Summary

     There are many politicians and profit-oriented groups who try to move disasters and tragedies immediately to “thoughts” and “prayers” which may have some type of good behind them — but which do NOT directly address the problems. We won’t reach any type of approach to the problem without discussion. Discussions are squashed by lies about what groups of people believe. Within the United States, with 342 million people, we may have up to 342 million ideas about what can, and should, be done.

     The first step is discussion. Speaking. Listening. Understanding. Replying. and back to Speaking again.

Thanks for reading Ideas & Interpretations! This post is public so feel free to share it.

Ideas & Interpretations is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Vice Wars: Supply supports demand. Why do we continue to ineffectually attack supply rather than demand?

     Vices — desires that are considered unacceptable by society (or parts of society). Such vices include drugs (alcohol, opioids, tobacco, …) and personal interactions (prostitution, gambling, …)

     A basis of capitalism is the idea of supply and demand. Although the United States is an extremely strong proponent of capitalism (and, at present, unrestrained capitalism) this reality seems to be easily forgotten.

     As long as demand exists, people will find ways to meet it with supplies. As soon as the Eighteenth Amendment was passed in 2019 (and, later, with additional enforcement provided by the Volstead Act), groups and individuals started determining ways to continue to meet the demand for alcohol. Alas, there is a difference between illegal commerce and legal commerce. By definition, meeting the demand for something illegal is a criminal activity and, thus, requires weakening of, and removal of, any obstructions that might impede the delivery of supplies for that demand.

     In that period, the continued demand built up the strength of organized crime and filled their coffers. It also created holes in government and enforcement via corruption and, as often possible with humans and their weaknesses, blackmail and extortion. All in all, the period of Prohibition was one of the strongest supports of organized crime within the US (and, to an indirect degree, the rest of the world) in history. Yet it was all following the principles of capitalism.

     When the Twenty-First Amendment was passed in 1931, it was done as a reluctant admission that Prohibition not only didn’t work but was a huge impetus for crime and corruption. The “temperance” movement continued to exist (and still does to some extent) but the majority said “no more”.

• So, with that flagrant example of the inability to both support capitalism and, at the same time, fight against capitalism (but only in areas defined as unwanted — without removing the demand), the United States would surely have learned its lessons?

• It would admit that supply and demand can be manipulated but not eliminated?

• It would observe that making the supply illegal does not affect demand but only hurts the surrounding infrastructure by continuing the supply outside, and through, the law?

     No. It is rare for groups of humans to adequately remember, and learn, from history. We see that over and over and over.

     And now we see the consequences of the continued folly of this fight against capitalistic principles, Rather than increase efforts, and support, to REDUCE demand (which immediately reduces supply, prices, and competition) — we continue to fight the supply side. Although we have yet to see any evidence that current attacks are even associated with the supply-side of fentanyl trade, we know that it will not work against any potential fentanyl problems.

So, why does it continue? Attacking the supply side, in itself, increases profits.

• By making it more difficult to bring supply to the demand, the price goes up and the profits go up for the suppliers.

• It adds jobs to the economy — to attempt suppression of the supply.

• With the increased profits received by the suppliers, they can give back money to politicians and enforcement officials to keep anti-vice laws in effect and to create the supply line holes which are useful for their business. Also known as corruption and misdirection.

• The actions of “attacking the supply side” can be used as camouflage, or distractions, for other political, or economic, purposes. Such as the current attacks on (totally unproven) “fentanyl supply” from Venezuela.

• It can give the appearance that something is being done to reduce the amount of the vice (whatever vice it may be).

     Attacking the supply side creates great profits (and jobs within both enforcement and criminal production). The fact that these profits are counter-productive to reducing demand, and support corruption and crime, is “beside the point”.

To reduce vices, reduce demand. So simple, so hard.

[ NOTE: In cases where unwilling people are involved, there are laws about kidnapping, extortion, rape, blackmail, theft, battery, assault, and so forth ]

Thanks for reading Ideas & Interpretations! This post is public so feel free to share it.

Ideas & Interpretations is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

There's no Such Thing as a Small Role: Everyone, and every action, is important so let's aim for positive actions

      My birth certificate lists the professions (at the time) of my parents. My father was a roughneck and my mother was a waitress. And I am quite proud of both of them. When you think about people, and what they do, sometimes it is useful to think about life without them. Not quite in the same manner as poor old George in “It’s a Wonderful Life” but from a functional view.

     Enter a restaurant and there is no one to take your order and no one to serve your food or clean up after you have left for the next person. Oh sure, there are places to eat where you perform each of those roles — and that is okay if you expect it. But it isn’t the same experience. Take it one step farther and whisk the cook(s) out of the kitchen and move them to someplace else. Now you not only order your own food but you have to cook it. There’s a bit of assistance in that, presumably, the “restaurant” has supplies on hand and the means to cook things but it’s not a very long step from cooking at home.

     I have to admit that I can only imagine a roughneck at his, or her, work. I can look, and have looked, up the job on Google. I know that they do much of the hard, “dirty”, (often dangerous) work around an oil well but that’s not the same as actually being part of the crew. They do the physically demanding tasks like handling heavy pipes and tools, and maintaining drilling equipment. They also drive, and direct, heavy machinery. It is hard to imagine an oil well created without a crew of roughnecks (risking their necks, fingers, and more) on the job. About the closest I come to such work is having driven Caterpillar® tractors on my summer job at the wheat farm.

     I have done quite a few types of jobs throughout my life — not counting the myriad tasks associated with being a house husband. If I had never rogued a wheat field, the wheat might have had too high of a percentage of contamination — decreasing the price, and income, for the farm. If I hadn’t done my job as a donut baker, then where would the donuts have come from to ease the load of many a person on their way home from work? Perhaps without my weavings, someone’s life would have been that slight bit less pleasurable? I don’t know but I do know that there was some measure of difference, and need, for the tasks that I have done in my life.

     As I worked in various corporate offices — from a Computer Science department in a university (Kansas State University, to be precise) to work at Bell Labs and other places, it became obvious where the true needs, and values, came from. When the department head was gone for a week travelling, did it make any difference to the life of the people working in the offices and labs? No, not that much. If they were gone for a month or more I certainly hope that it would have made a difference. But have the executive assistant be gone with a cold for a couple of days and things literally ground to a halt. No one even knew how to do the things that were needed to keep the building functional.

     As you meander through your days, especially at this time of enhanced gratitude and hope, pay attention to the folks around you and what they do for you and what they do around you. Step back a moment. What would life be like if they didn’t exist? Likely a worse place. So, acknowledge them, and thank them, before they “disappear”.

     Let’s not just say everyone is important — let’s act like everyone is important.

Merry Christmas, Happy Kwanzaa, Blessed Chanukah, and Happy Holidays to all!

Thanks for reading Ideas & Interpretations! This post is public so feel free to share it.

Ideas & Interpretations is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Insecurity, Corruption, and Democracy: You may be able to have one without the other, but insecurity certainly fosters corruption

     There is a concept called baksheesh in the Middle Eastern world (it also exists elsewhere). It can refer to positive actions such as charitable giving or a non-European type of tipping. In these cases it is voluntary (though requests may be persistent and forceful). But the other side of the word is the negative side — the forceful, requisite (but not always openly stated) giving for corruption and bribery. In this newsletter/blog, I will focus on the latter.

     From the viewpoint of those who have had the good fortune to have been raised, and lived, in a society where even the poor have some place to turn, this forced giving for corruption or bribery seems very bad — a multiple type of corruption. Within many economically poorer cultures, it is just an aspect of life — like having to put a stamp on a letter before mailing it.

     There is a large correlation between corruption and bribery and being part of a society with large income discrepancies. A few rich, many poor, and many poor that don’t see (a viewpoint that may be true) a path to non-poverty other than making use of their position to get what economic, and further leverage, they can.

     In such societies, getting such civil positions is a huge achievement in itself. Loyalty and connections are much more important than ability or qualification. The position may not include salary or benefits. Such is the role, and requirement, of baksheesh within the system. Why tax all for paying reasonable salaries and benefits for the bureaucracy and civil servants? Force those using such services to “pay as they go”. And if some must pay more, and possibly pay in “coin” other than money, that is part of the economic game.

     When people think about democracy, they often think about voting. People vote for, or against, certain issues or people. In the case of representative democracies (the majority of global democracies), they are actually voting for, or against, people who will represent their views — they do not vote directly on issues. But democracy is closely related to egalitarianism. All people equal under the law. All people equal in access to resources. All people equal in treatment as having an innate worth.

     As this is expanded, it is easy to see that egalitarianism does not co-exist well with income inequality. In actuality, income inequality is rather the antithesis of the idea of “we the people” or any other type of egalitarianism. Baksheesh, social levels, perhaps even hereditary rankings, all are at odds with democracy although there is no “pure” democracy in existence.

     The “Founding Fathers” of the United States recognized that a “pure” democracy was only a goal. George Washington said “Democracy is not always easy, but it is worth fighting for.” John Jay said “Democracy is about building a society that is fair and just for all.” There are a lot of such quotes, which can be found here. The general gist is that democracy can be a great system, but it requires a lot of work, and can only be done when everyone stays properly informed and participates.

     Here in the United States, we are having a lot of difficulty with the requirements. Our populace is not well informed, we consider ourselves lucky if 50% of the eligible voters actually vote, and the ability to connect with, and communicate needs to, our legislators is being strangled by an election system that overwhelmingly favors the rich. Even the highest level of the court system is badly corrupted by income inequality and the oligarchy. Baksheesh, long considered inappropriate for United States politics and economy, is becoming acceptable — or, within the current Administration, required — even though it is not called by that name. Position via loyalty. Competency is no longer required — it may even be a negative item for consideration for a position. Such is the path for making a country much worse than it has been.

     We have a large number of problems in the United States that have not been properly dealt with, largely because the primary efforts have been to redirect the resources and wealth into the hands of the already excessively wealthy.

     Concentration of wealth and the lack of a coherent approach to change and the future creates huge problems for the 98% iin the United States. We have three younger children in the family who cannot find jobs that will allow them to move out of the house. Two have recent bachelor’s degrees in previously marketable skills (Computer Science) and the third has been scared away from his major (secondary school english teaching) by the attacks on teachers, education, and libraries. Their friends can give them a listening ear but those friends are facing their own problems.

     But it can change, and current generations are waking up to the problems that have been let slide for too long. Within the United States, that can be addressed within the primary system by making the less corrupted, and the more dedicated to the citizens, be the candidates. But it requires active involvement. As John Adams said — “Democracy is about building bridges, not walls”.

Thanks for reading Ideas & Interpretations! This post is public so feel free to share it.

Ideas & Interpretations is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Infotainment: When pandering to predetermined mindsets is more profitable than telling the truth

     When Rupert Murdoch started Fox News in 1996, his primary motivation was to produce a profit-creating entity. The Australian-born oligarch (current estimated wealth $23.6 billion) obtained U.S. citizenship to meet the legal requirements to purchase US media outlets. And that he did — his News Corp. is an umbrella organization that controls a lot of media companies — including Fox News, the Wall Street Journal and 800 companies in 50 countries.

     Profit, as stated earlier, is the prime motivator. Although one of the first to recognize that creation of media news could be manipulated to encourage certain viewers and advertisers to remain loyal — which stabilizes and increases profit margins, his stance has brought other large media organizations into the same viewpoint. Profit is to be enhanced by presenting what the viewers want to see/hear/read.

     Note that, although the tabloid journals (such as the National Enquirer) were present (and before that, “yellow journalism” — referring to the quick yellowing of the cheap paper used for printing of non-journalistic newspapers), Fox News was among the first to move the structure to broadcast media. It has since spread both to streaming as well as to studios theoretically “progressive” or “left”. It is further on the increase because the current Administration is penalizing, and forcing behavior, contrary to the First Amendment.

     This is the definition of infotainment used within this newsletter. Presenting entertainment as journalistic information is infotainment. If you do a search on the term, you will find that the term is also used within “infotainment systems” which indicates a system (such as a car dashboard system) which can present entertainment AND information (traffic, maps, real news, …) Infotainment, such as presented within Fox News, is a merged version of sometimes journalism and often self-created stories that will appeal to the audience and advertisers.

     Journalism is just too iffy. The news may reinforce the viewers preconceptions or it may counter them. Profits, and advertiser and consumer loyalty may vary. Undesirable. So, control the contents. If the real news would not appeal to the targeted audience, change it or invent new stories to supplant the true, but unappealing, news. And, if a particular set of stories seems to appeal to the targeted audience, then create more of them. Free publicity in the world of politics (anywhere, but particularly the US) is “gold” and likely was a primary reason for the outcome of the US Presidential race in 2016.

     Profit is the primary goal of infotainment. But selection of the targeted audience, and subsequent invention/manipulation of the information presented, is according to the desires of the owner(s). With journalism, as done following proper standards, the news is (or should be) free of bias (as much as humanly possible). This is not a goal of infotainment and the bias will be slanted (lightly or heavily) in the direction of the opinions of the owner(s) of the studio.

What are journalism’s standards? While there is not a single definitive list, they include:

• Truth/Accuracy: Journalists should ensure they report accurate information by verifying all research and facts, using reliable sources, attributing information, etc.

• Independence: Journalists should act independently of political, corporate, financial, or personal affiliations that could be considered conflicts of interest.

• Fairness/Impartiality: Journalists should consider every side in a story and present each piece of the story in a balanced, objective way.

• Humanity: Journalists should minimize harm by being aware of the impact their words and images could have on other people.

• Accountability: Journalists should hold themselves responsible; they should correct errors, listen to their audience, and provide solutions to any issues that may arise due to their reporting.

Note that “normalizing” is NOT a journalistic standard. Evil is evil. Stupid is stupid.

     An infotainment channel does not require adherence to any of these standards and, with media in the control of ultra-wealthy individuals and mega corporations, the larger conduits are less and less able to believed and followed. This leaves a dilemma for consumers who WANT journalistic standards to be followed. Much smaller, independent, sources are needed but judging the adherence to standards is then left to the individual. Many will SAY they adhere to such — not all do.

     I don’t have an answer — certainly not an easy answer. But, referring to an earlier newsletter/blog, it is necessary to “question everything”. Fact-check, check for references, consistency, occasional retractions (no one gets things right every time), language use. I continue to subscribe to one newsletter that proudly says “unbiased news you can trust” but the language that they use is highly biased leaving the rest of their reportage rather suspicious.

     We NEED journalistic standards. We need help in examining the world. It is exhausting attempting continuous checking. But, at the present, it’s what we have.

Thanks for reading Ideas & Interpretations! This post is public so feel free to share it.

Ideas & Interpretations is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Conspiracy Theories: Opening up secrets or removing trust ... or a bit of both?

      I have a favorite bumper sticker. I haven’t seen it for a while, but it says:

“Just Because I’m Paranoid Doesn’t Mean They Aren’t Out to Get Me”

     A “conspiracy theory” is generally defined as “a theory that explains an event or set of circumstances as the result of a secret plot by usually powerful conspirators”. A group of people conspire to make something happen. The group can be a political group, or an ethnic group, or even a family group (certain rich dynasties seem to attract conspiracy theories).

     Just as in the bumper sticker above, it is difficult to disprove a conspiracy theory. On the other hand, there are usually “holes” in the chain of “evidence” that connects the group to the event. (That doesn’t matter to those who want to believe the theory.)

     These holes include circular reasoning (X happens because of Y, Y happens because of A, A happens because or X). They include lack of proof of presence (we don’t know where Ms. Q was at the time, perhaps they were at THIS location doing that). Motivation is often connected to pre-conceived notions as to character or beliefs about what they are trying to do in more general terms. Denials cannot be true because the denials come from “the guilty parties”.

     My personal feeling is that the most distinctive aspect of conspiracy theories is reverse reasoning. A person starts at the desired conclusion and the group that they want to tie to that conclusion and then start building “evidence” that connects the two. A good way of recognizing a conspiracy theory is that it usually only talks about the two end-points — the group/people and the event/conclusion. If pressed, some may be able to point to in-between logic which can then be examined. But most people passing along conspiracy theories don’t know of any (if any exists) “evidence” that the endpoints are connected.

     If conspiracies never happened then they could all be dismissed without evaluation. They sound crazy so they must be crazy. Back to the above bumper sticker. Conspiracies can happen and we have all heard something of the nature “it must be true, I could never make up something that crazy”. The aspect of being unbelievable makes them more believable simply because life is unpredictable and events happen that we could never explain.

     So, if a conspiracy theory MIGHT be true, why does it matter? Primarily because, most of the time, it is usually NOT true. As someone (among many) who tends to make up statistics when I don’t have anything solid at hand — I would say that 98% of conspiracy theories are not true. The exact number is likely to be wrong but it is certainly a high percentage. The reason this is so is due to the reverse logic — building up a “case” based on what we want. There are so many possible paths that can be taken, from the end to the supposed decision starting point, that having the entire logic chain being correct just fades away into unlikelihood.

     And believing when it isn’t true can cause a lot of damage. It can also cause violent action based on the incorrect assumptions. Since conspiracy theories tie specific groups or individuals to the conclusion, it can be very tempting for those who have chosen to believe them to follow the short-term approach of eliminating that group or individual.

     What about those few cases where it is true? Well, as the saying goes — “a broken clock is right twice a day”. If a conspiracy theory is true then the same conclusions and connections can be achieved via a more direct investigation.

Thanks for reading Ideas & Interpretations! This post is public so feel free to share it.

Ideas & Interpretations is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Unto the Seventh Generation: short-term thinking versus sustainable life

 There are a number of First Nation quotes concerning the matter, but the most famous quote about the “seventh generation” comes from the Great Law of Peace of the Haudenosaunee (Iroquois) Confederacy: “In our every deliberation, we must consider the impact of our decisions on the next seven generations.”

This quote, and philosophy, does not apply to every First Nation, African tribe, Australian aboriginal group, etc. But the quote, inclusive of a much closer association with the land as stewards rather than possessors, does apply to many.

As part of “colonization”, a focus on economic gain, as well as power structures and control, soon dismissed, and overcame, any such far-reaching philosophy. Short-term results became a paramount value of colonial societies and it continues to be embedded in our cultures to this day.

“The seventh generation.” Right now, we have a long list of “generations” that have been named. (It used to just be “in my mother’s time” or “in my great-uncle’s time”.) Modern usage groups people into 20-year “generations”. The Generations presently talked about are the Lost, Greatest, Silent, Baby Boom, Generation X, Millennial (or Generation Y), Z (or iGen), Alpha, and Beta generations. The boundaries are specific for statistical purposes but fuzzy for self-application (such as, “I am Gen Z”).

The Millennial Generation folks (presently the largest population group) are considered to have been born in the years 1981 through 1996 and Generation Z from 1997 through 2010 (so, as of the publication of this newsletter, ages 15 through 28). Since actual decisions are difficult to pin to a specific generation (in spite of fingers pointed at “Boomers”) it is difficult to say how many generations since a decision has been made. Certainly, the Gen Z people are within the seventh generation ages to consider and, globally, Gen Z are presently saying (in less polite terms) “your decisions have screwed up our lives and we want it corrected now”. They are within that window of first generation to seventh generation and they recognize that they were not taken into consideration when the decisions, which have resulted in the current world situation, were made.

People within the earlier generations looked to the quarterly report and definitely did not look to the seventh generation. Note that it is not the ENTIRE generations that are responsible — many have actively protested against a short-term mentality — but the decision makers and those actively making the rules have done a very poor job when they planned (if there was any plan) their present with its effects on current days. With the Millennials in the plurality and the Gen Zs struggling to enter into a healthy economy, there will be much pressure world-wide to clean up the messes that have resulted.

“Messes”? What “messes”?

• Climate/Ecology — short-term use for short-term benefits, with almost no long-term views, has directly led to accelerated climate change, overwhelming pollution, species destruction, and a general lessening of the ability of the planet to support us.

• Economic — general resources have been encouraged to be concentrated into the hands of the few as the goal of some type of “game” and the world is left with millions of people lacking food, clothing, education, security and realistic hopes for the future.

• Education — Many in the past have said that our children, and their education, is of the greatest importance. But there has been no follow-through with the provision of adequate resources and support for needed for proper education. In the US there is a majority of adults with the equivalent of less than a fifth grade reading level. The education system is currently left to rely on those who steadfastly look beyond their own welfare and needs in order to try to fill in positions for teachers and librarians in overpopulated schools and classrooms.

• Divisiveness — based on economic and power interests, countries and people have been deliberately encouraged to compete against each other for dwindling resources rather than collectively to improve conditions.

Much damage has been done, and there is a lot of anger, but if we can collectively use that anger to create healthier paths to the future, life can truly become the “better place” toward which politicians say we are moving toward.

Culture shifts are very difficult but they are even more difficult when not attempted. It is up to all of us to strive for a change that reaches for, and creates, a better future.

Thanks for reading Ideas & Interpretations! This post is public so feel free to share it.

Ideas & Interpretations is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Time: Flexible, inconstant, and subjective

      “Does anybody really know what time it is?” As I progress to complete my 68th year and start on the 69th, it is hard to look at it all and ask “where did the time go?” There are some years, days, and events that seem to be (recognizing that memory is a tricky thing) crystal clear. And there are other segments that I have no recollection of. I do know that everyone around me keeps getting younger and younger.

     But the song that hits me hardest is “Time in a Bottle” by Jim Croce. Change is an absolutely unavoidable aspect of life. So, if you take a “snapshot” at any period of time, you will be entering into a unique set of circumstances. Perhaps your parent, or child, is no longer around and you want to be able to spend more time with them — to retreat to that time period that was preserved. Perhaps it was before the development of television and the era of radio and the stage was leading the way. Freezing time does no good but being able to go back into a specific set of circumstances can allow new decisions and new paths. As an optimist, one could always hope that “this time” it would be better.

     Time is part of the way our minds interact with our physical environment. For some cultures, it is perceived differently than for other cultures. For some, the perception of time is highly structured with everything done in its segment and all to be done exactly as designed. For others, “in a while” may mean anything from five minutes to five days. Neither is right, neither is wrong.

     What about those who believe they can see directly into other parts of the “time stream” — the past and future? As is true of many things in life, such cannot be “proven” one way or another. Comparing time to the realities of entropy in physics, time should be a single direction and happen at a (averaged) constant rate. But, locally, it is possible to reverse entropy. For a specific contained situation, would it possible to reverse time? Great for speculation, not so great for coming to conclusions.

     We are all aware that (even for highly structured cultures) our perception of time can slow down or speed up. I have not yet been in a death-threatening situation so I cannot speak about “seeing one’s life go by” in a few moments. But some do report such. I was in a car accident once upon at time and the time seemed to go very slowly but — at the same time — I was unable to do anything to change anything. I was trapped in a slow time bubble. On the other hand, unless I spend the time meditating, time can seem to extend a lot while I am waiting for something I anticipate.

     I have always been a fan of “the Flash” superhero character. You may have noted that his speed is a matter of relativity. He goes fast, everything around him goes slowly. Unlike my situation above, he IS able to do things within his accelerated time bubble. An unresolved question for him is whether his time in the accelerated time bubble subtracts from his lifeline in the regular time world.

     And so we go — into methods of time preservation. Cryogenics anyone? In this situation, you have had your body placed into very slow, very cold, circumstances — you continue your life as if in a very slow bubble. You shouldn’t age. But no one is completely certain that you can be brought back to normal time. If you are successfully revived, it is a type of time travel — in one direction only. Potentially the longest preservation is also part of changing time scales. Digitalization of the mind is presently fantasy but, if possible, it would lead to time scales of nanoseconds instead of seconds. Better have a hobby to stay busy during those LOOOONNNNGGG periods of inactivity.

Tick, tick. Tock, tock.

Thanks for reading Ideas & Interpretations! This post is public so feel free to share it.

Ideas & Interpretations is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.