Skip to content
That’s not a metaphor. In many districts, primary turnout is under 15%. That means a small, highly motivated, often ideologically extreme group picks the candidates.
We’re talking about the local school board deciding what your kids read.
What Showing Up Looks Like
Remember This:
The Radical Left:
The Radical Right:
The Moderate Middle:
Is the country we live in today the same one your father or grandfather built their values on?
Public Perception: Posts on X reflect mixed views, with some praising its rejection of partisanship () while others criticize it as a “failed” or “vapid” stunt lacking substance.
But is violence the answer? I hope not.
They need to be stopped—and they need to be stopped now.
He needs the chaos. His playbook is short—and this is the play:
These are dangerous times. We must resist—but not fall into his hands.
Go back to peaceful demonstrations. Go back to community rallies.
Make your signs personal. Speak from the heart.
We stand for a country that still belongs to all of us.
Posts By
Part 4 of “The Cost of Doing Nothing” – Fund Local Journalism
On
- activism
/
RSS Feed
If You Don’t Pay for Truth, You Pay for Chaos
There was a time when every city council meeting, school board vote, and budget proposal had a reporter in the room. Not because it was glamorous—but because someone needed to keep watch. That was the role of local journalism: the quiet watchdog making sure decisions were made in the light of day.
But today, many of those newsrooms are gone. Shrinking ad revenue and the rise of free digital content gutted local papers. Hedge funds bought what was left, stripped them for parts, and left ghost publications behind.
And into that vacuum rushed social media—faster, louder, and rarely accountable. But Facebook doesn’t report on your school district’s budget hearing. TikTok won’t tell you when your mayor quietly signs a zoning change that affects your property taxes. Twitter doesn’t sit through six-hour planning commission meetings.
When no one is watching, the powerful get reckless. Corruption grows in the dark. Misinformation fills the void. And democracy starts to wobble.
If we want to keep self-government intact, we need to fund the people who shine the light.
Subscribe. Donate. Share real reporting.
Local truth is not free. But the cost of losing it is far greater.
Share this:
Part 3 of “The Cost of Doing Nothing” – Vote in the Primaries
On
- activism
/
RSS Feed
“The Extremes Win by Default”
By the time you vote in November, the real choice has already been made — often by just 1 in 10 voters.
That’s not a metaphor. In many districts, primary turnout is under 15%. That means a small, highly motivated, often ideologically extreme group picks the candidates.
You’re left choosing between two people handpicked by the far edges of the political spectrum.
So if you’re wondering why our national conversations feel hijacked by outrage and slogans — look no further than the primaries.
Moderates don’t lose because they’re unpopular. They lose because they don’t show up.
The Cycle We’re Stuck In
-
Primaries are held in the spring or early summer — most people don’t vote.
-
Candidates cater to the “base,” not the middle, to win the primary.
-
By November, you’re choosing between extremes.
-
People feel disillusioned — and disengage even more.
This cycle feeds itself — and extremists know it.
What You Can Do
-
Mark your local and state primary dates — they’re different everywhere.
-
Vote early if you can. Don’t let a long workday or a flat tire stop you.
-
Encourage independents to check if they can vote — in some states, you need to register with a party before the primary to participate.
-
This is where your vote has the most impact. A few hundred votes can swing a district. And a moderate challenger can win — if moderates show up.
Share this:
Part 2 of “The Cost of Doing Nothing” – Show Up Locally
On
- activism
/
RSS Feed
“The People Who Actually Control Your Life Aren’t on TV”
You can rage all day about the president, Congress, or that guy on cable news, but the truth is: your everyday quality of life is shaped far more by people whose names you don’t know — yet.
We’re talking about the local school board deciding what your kids read.
The zoning commission deciding if a big box store goes up on your corner.
The water district deciding what you drink.
The county clerk deciding how — or whether — your vote counts.
These aren’t glamorous offices. Most don’t get debates. Few attract press. Often, no one even runs against them. Which means that:
The fewer people show up, the more power each person has. Want influence? Be there.
Real Power Is Often Unattended
In many local elections, turnout is under 20%. Sometimes it’s under 10%. That means a dozen people at a school board meeting can sway policy. One vote can decide who gets to redraw your district map. Your absence is someone else’s opportunity.
What Showing Up Looks Like
Attend a city council or board meeting (they’re public — and sometimes online).
Ask a question. You don’t need a soapbox, just curiosity.
Vote in the “boring” elections. They’re where the rules are written.
Volunteer for a committee or advisory group. You don’t need experience — just the willingness to listen and help.
Remember This:
The people who affect your daily life — traffic, schools, bills, clean water, housing, voting access — don’t have to go viral to be powerful.
And they don’t need millions to win. Sometimes they only need you not to notice.
Share this:
Technically True, Totally Misleading — The Weaponization of Context
On
- Commentary
/
RSS Feed
“Technically True, Totally Misleading” — The Weaponization of Context”
Truth Without Context Is Just a Weapon We live in the age of the sound bite — the 6-second clip, the cherry-picked quote, the one-liner pulled from a 10-minute conversation. It’s no longer about what was said, but about what can be used.
Take any public figure, any marriage argument, any social post — isolate a sentence, and boom: you’ve got ammunition. It’s how truth becomes distortion. Something technically accurate can be wildly inaccurate once it’s amputated from its full meaning.
Clint Eastwood once called Obama a “hoax.” That’s true. But say it without context, and you’ve created a falsehood with a fact. Same with how a spouse might say, “You said you didn’t care,” without including the next part: “…about the color of the curtains.”
In politics, this kind of manipulation isn’t lazy — it’s strategic. And in our personal lives, it’s toxic.
So maybe we should all stop judging each other by headlines and start reading the full article — or listening to the whole sentence.
That’s where the real truth still lives.
This was written because I love the Kimmel, The Daily Show, Jon Stewart and their satire about just anything.
But we must be careful to not let those short clips, you know. The ones where ‘The Sound Bite, says something entirely different than what the message was’ . Go ahead and laugh, I do. But make sure you fact check the parts that bother you. Or the ones you are about to “Quote”
Share this:
Part 1 of “The Cost of Doing Nothing” – Talk
On
- activism
/
RSS Feed
There isn’t anything I can do
why waste my time when it won’t matter
The System is rigged
I could list more why not’s but in reality, you do matter, you do count. How eles do you think all this stuff you are against happens.
Spoiler alert, it doesn’t happen on it’s own. It happens because the people that do believe or want that agenda go out and work for it while you sit arong a complain and say “That’s not what I wanted”
So we will list five things that you can do that will make a difference.
Part 1 of “The Cost of Doing Nothing” “talking”
We’re living in an age where it’s easier than ever to surround yourself with agreement. Algorithms make sure your feed reflects your views. Friends and family know which topics to avoid. And the people who might challenge you? They’re just a swipe away from being unfollowed.
It’s peaceful. Comfortable.
And, frankly, lethal.
The truth is, our country isn’t broken because people disagree. It’s broken because people have stopped talking across the disagreement. We’ve traded in the messy, human business of dialogue for the false security of echo chambers — and in doing so, we’ve lost the ability to even understand each other, let alone work together.
Here is A Conversation That Went Sideways (But Was Worth It)
A while back, I sat down with an old friend — someone I’d shared beers and stories with back when politics were just background noise. But things changed. He took the MAGA route, full throttle. And I didn’t. Still, we met for coffee. Within 10 minutes, it was clear: we weren’t going to agree on much.
The election. The media. January 6. His tone got sharp. Mine probably did too. At one point he said something I thought was completely nuts — and I told him so. It could’ve ended right there.
But we kept going. I stopped trying to win. I started listening, asking questions. Not to catch him in contradictions — just to understand how he got there. And somewhere in that mess, something softened. Not agreement. But recognition.
We walked away still disagreeing. But we also walked away still friends. And now, oddly enough, he sends me articles — some ridiculous, but some thoughtful. And I send him a few back. We don’t always read them. But we send them. That matters.
Why This Matters
If we don’t start rebuilding the muscle of uncomfortable conversation, we’re going to keep drifting into camps that don’t see each other as human anymore.
And once that happens — once people stop being neighbors and become enemies — history tells us what comes next.
You don’t have to agree. You don’t have to convince anyone.
But you do have to be brave enough to talk.
That’s how democracy survives. Not in the yelling, but in the listening.
Don’t flinch.
Share this:
“Boring? Try Being a Moderate.”
/
RSS Feed
“Boring? Try Being a Moderate.”
“Boring. You’re boring. You’re a moderate. How boring.”
Yeah, I’m a moderate. Do you know what that actually means? Because I’ll tell you this: it’s not boring.
Let’s take a simplified look at our current politics. We have a two-party system locked in a tug-of-war between extremes. Each side keeps attacking the other, and in response, both sides retreat further — farther left, farther right — until they’re not just disagreeing anymore, they’re trained to hate each other. That’s not governance. That’s dysfunction.
So what are we left with? Two radical ends.
The Radical Left:
The extreme radical left represents a fringe segment of progressive politics that pushes for sweeping systemic change through aggressive, often uncompromising means. This group tends to reject capitalism, traditional institutions, and incremental reform, favoring revolutionary approaches to issues like race, gender, climate, and economic equality. They often prioritize ideology over dialogue, and in doing so, can alienate potential allies and undermine broader efforts at progress by insisting that moral purity trumps practical coalition-building.
The Radical Right:
The extreme radical right represents a fringe segment of conservative politics that embraces authoritarianism, ultranationalism, and rigid traditionalism. This group often resists social progress and diversity, favoring exclusionary policies and rhetoric rooted in fear, grievance, and cultural dominance. They prioritize loyalty over law, and often reject democratic norms when those norms threaten their power or worldview. In doing so, they undermine the very principles of liberty and equality they claim to defend.
And then there’s us. The moderates. Maybe what’s sometimes called the “silent majority.”
The Moderate Middle:
The moderate middle is often dismissed as indecisive or dull, but in reality, it’s where the hard work of democracy happens. It’s the space where values meet reality — where compromise isn’t weakness, but a strategy for progress. Moderates challenge extremism on both sides, not by shouting louder, but by thinking deeper — weighing facts, listening to others, and choosing country over party. It may not grab headlines, but the middle holds the line when others pull us apart.
Now, if you’re reading my articles, rants, and commentary, you might think I lean left. But that’s only because of the current administration — a gang of political gangsters whose zealousness is causing damage that could take generations to repair.
But make no mistake: if it were Marxists or Leninists destroying us, I’d be saying the exact same thing. Sometimes you have to throw the punch across the line to be heard. That doesn’t mean you switched sides — it means you’re paying attention.
If you feel the need to belong somewhere, take a look at something like the Forward Party. They seem grounded. They seem sane. But I’m not here to recruit you. I’m here to challenge you: Be a thinker, not a follower.
I’ve made mistakes. I’ve been swindled, both financially and politically. But it wasn’t because I was ignorant — and that’s the one thing I want for you, too.
Just take one hour. One hour a week. Do some real research. Learn what’s really going on. Then make decisions. Do something.
The Silent Majority — yes, majority — has to find its voice. It’s no longer safe or sane to just go along with the flow. If you’re still a Republican or Democrat just because that’s what your family always was (that used to be me), ask yourself this:
Is the country we live in today the same one your father or grandfather built their values on?
If not? I’m not asking you to change — I’m asking you to be sure.
Share this:
Tell Me About the Forward Party
On
- purple
Tell Me About the Forward Party
The following is the response I recieved from Grok.
The Forward Party, often shortened to Forward (FWD), is a centrist political party in the United States founded by Andrew Yang, a former Democratic presidential and New York City mayoral candidate. Launched in 2021 as a political action committee (PAC), it aims to provide an alternative to the two-party system by reducing partisan polarization and implementing electoral reforms. In July 2022, it merged with the Renew America Movement and Serve America Movement to strengthen its efforts, with a goal of achieving ballot access in all 50 states by 2025 and federal recognition by 2028.
If you want more information on the Forward Party, please vitit their web site. Join the Movement
Core Principles and Goals The Forward Party emphasizes pragmatic, data-driven solutions over ideological rigidity, rejecting the extreme partisanship of the traditional left-right spectrum. Its primary focus is on democratic reform, including: Electoral Reforms: Advocating for open primaries, ranked-choice voting, and independent redistricting commissions to reduce gerrymandering and increase voter choice.
Vibrant Democracy: Empowering voters with more choices and confidence in government through systems that prioritize accountability and representation.
Free People and Thriving Communities: Promoting individual choice, rejecting hate, and fostering safe, flourishing communities with policies tailored to local needs rather than top-down mandates.
Bottom-Up Governance: Unlike traditional parties, Forward avoids a rigid national platform, encouraging local leaders to craft solutions specific to their communities.
The party positions itself as “Not Left. Not Right. Forward,” appealing to independents, moderates, and those disillusioned with the Republican and Democratic parties. It supports candidates across the political spectrum—Democrats, Republicans, and independents—who align with its values of collaboration, integrity, and problem-solving.
Key Features Candidate Support: Forward endorses candidates at local, state, and federal levels who share its principles, often cross-endorsing Democrats and Republicans. For example, in 2022, it backed candidates like Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) and Rep. Mark Kelly (D-AZ). It also supports its own candidates in states where it has ballot access.
No Presidential Run: The party has stated it will not run a presidential candidate in 2024, focusing instead on reducing partisan gridlock in Congress and state legislatures.
Grassroots Approach: Forward builds from the ground up, starting with local races like school boards and city councils, aiming to create a sustainable third-party presence over multiple election cycles.
Financial Backing: The party started with a $5 million budget in 2022, with contributions from donors like William Perkins and groups like the Renew America Movement. It reported raising $97,607.59 from January to June 2025.
Criticisms and Challenges Lack of Platform: Critics argue the party’s lack of a specific policy platform makes it vague and ineffective, with some comparing it to failed tech startups like Theranos for prioritizing disruption over substance. Former national press secretary Mary Anna Mancuso noted its reliance on Yang’s personality and lack of ideological cohesion.
Spoiler Concerns: Some Democrats fear Forward could siphon votes, inadvertently helping Republicans in close races, though the party insists its endorsement strategy and focus on electoral reform mitigate this risk.
Skepticism on Viability: Political analysts doubt its ability to break the two-party dominance, citing historical failures of third parties and the challenge of gaining widespread support without clear policy stances.
Current Sentiment and Activities Growth Efforts: Forward is actively working to gain party registration in states like California (needing 75,000 registrations) and Pennsylvania, where achieving 2% of the vote in certain races could grant minor party status.
Public Perception: Posts on X reflect mixed views, with some praising its rejection of partisanship () while others criticize it as a “failed” or “vapid” stunt lacking substance.
Recent Developments: In 2024, Forward held its national watch party in Philadelphia, expressing optimism about laying the foundation for future growth despite electoral losses. Leaders like Andrew Yang and Craig Snyder emphasized long-term goals over immediate wins.
Why It Matters The Forward Party taps into widespread dissatisfaction with the two-party system, with polls showing 51% of Americans identifying as independents and two-thirds believing a third party is needed. Its focus on electoral reform and local governance aims to address systemic issues like polarization and voter disenfranchisement, though its success hinges on overcoming skepticism and building a durable infrastructure.
Share this:
Daily Rant: Acceptance and Action
/
RSS Feed
Daily Rant: Acceptance and Action
Yesterday I talked about blame — who’s to blame and how we come to terms with our role in what’s happening. That second part — accepting our role — is the hard part. But it’s also the pivotal one.
We can’t fix anything until we’re clear-headed and honest with ourselves. Only then can we be honest with others.
That said, let’s talk about what the real problem is.
I’ll generalize: the issue revolves around the 47th President and a pattern of behavior many of us see as unlawful and anti-constitutional. I assume you’re reading this because you feel the same way — if you weren’t, you’d be over at Bubba’s MAGA retreat sipping Kool-Aid out of a red hat.
I perceive Trump as a clear and present danger to the Republic. A wannabe dictator — or as I call it, a “dictraitor.” He’s a power-hungry tyrant who demands absolute loyalty, sees himself as not above the law, but the law and surrounds himself with so-called loyalists who are actually opportunists. Let’s not kid ourselves — any one of them would throw the others, even Trump himself, under the bus if it got them closer to power.
That’s the danger. If Trump goes down, these people don’t just disappear — they’re waiting in the wings. I cover this more in my commentary “Okay, He’s Been Impeached — Now What?” (read it if you’re serious about helping).
Once you start asking those hard questions, you have to start examining consequences.
Would we be better off politically neutering him — stripping him of influence while letting the term play out — so that we can choose his successor democratically? Or do we impeach and risk a Mar-a-Lago shadow presidency run through handpicked stooges? He has demonstrated that his control runs deep, from making Mike Johnson Speaker to forcing his Big Beautiful Bill through. He doesn’t have the clout, he has the dirt.
If we choose to let the term expire, then the next big question becomes: Who do we want next? And that choice shouldn’t be made for us by party machines. I’m a Republican moderate — that’s where my heart lies. But I believe the answer should come through consensus, not coercion.
We should be looking at new frameworks, like Andrew Yang’s Forward Party — a space where the extremes are left behind. But we still need to ask: What does it mean when a party is founded by a billionaire? What’s the long game — good or bad?
None of this matters if all we do is bitch and moan. Get up. Protest. Join something — anything — that isn’t pushing a red hat or a deep blue badge.
Or join my Purple Hat Party — no membership, no dues, no agenda except one: Make decisions based on morality and facts. Stop swallowing lies. Save America — don’t burn it down.
Who knows, I may even have some made.
Share this:
A Call for Violence—Is That Really What You Want?
/
RSS Feed
Electorial College or Popular Vote
Public Opinion (2023–2024 polls):
~60% to 65% of Americans support deciding presidential elections by popular vote.
~35% to 40% prefer keeping the Electoral College.
Source: Pew Research, Gallup, Axios/Ipsos, and others.
Partisan Divide:
Democrats: Around 80% favor the popular vote.
Republicans: Around 60–65% prefer the Electoral College.
Independents: Lean toward popular vote, but less strongly (~55–60%).
This split has grown since 2000 and 2016 — both years where Republicans won the presidency while losing the national popular vote.
Why People Support Popular Vote:
Simpler and more democratic: each vote counts equally.
Avoids “swing state” bias — candidates currently focus on a handful of battlegrounds.
Prevents outcomes where the Electoral College winner loses the popular vote.
Why People Defend the Electoral College:
It protects smaller states from being ignored by big population centers.
It forces candidates to build broader coalitions across regions.
It’s part of the federalist structure — states choose electors, not individuals directly.
Compromise in the Works?
Yes — the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC) is a workaround gaining traction:
States agree to give their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote — once enough states join to reach 270 electoral votes.
So far, 17 states + D.C. have joined (totaling 205 electoral votes as of 2025).
Summary:
Most Americans support a national popular vote.
But political self-interest and structural inertia keep the Electoral College firmly in place — for now.
The path forward may come through the NPVIC, not a constitutional amendment.
Here’s the chart showing support for the Popular Vote vs. Electoral College across major political groups. As you can see:
Democrats overwhelmingly favor the popular vote.
Republicans strongly prefer the Electoral College.
Independents lean toward the popular vote but are more divided.
Overall, most Americans favor switching to a popular vote system.
Share this:
Like this: