Author: Levi

  • Passengers on the Journey: Reflections on Loss and Memory

    Passengers on the Journey: Reflections on Loss and Memory

    As I get older, I find myself more aware of death. I am more aware than I ever was in my twenties or even thirties. It feels like more and more people I’ve known, whether from childhood, family, or community, are passing away. Each loss isn’t just about the person; it’s about the piece of my own history that goes with them.

    A Friend of Garfield’s

    Just this past week, I learned that one of my grandpa Garfield’s friends passed away. This man used to drive for the Heartland Express bus in my hometown. He would sometimes pick me up and take me to school when I was in early elementary school.

    Although I didn’t know him closely, I knew he had a friendship my grandpa. Watching his funeral service online, I felt the depth of their friendship. It reminded me that the people who shape our families’ lives, even at the edges, help shape our own too.

    Saying Goodbye to Colleen

    This summer, the loss came much closer. I said goodbye to my friend Colleen, who passed away after a battle with cancer. Last month, I attended her memorial service and had the honor of speaking. In preparation, I had written a eulogy.

    I didn’t end up delivering it in full. I made sure to share it with her daughter. She told me how much it meant to her. For me, that was just as important. Writing those words wasn’t only about what I needed to say. It was about preserving what Colleen meant to me and sharing it with those who loved her most.

    Here is the eulogy I wrote for her:

    There’s a part of me that feels like an outsider here today. It’s been so long. So many of you knew her in ways I didn’t. You saw chapters of her life that I missed. But I hope you’ll let me speak from the part of her story that I did know the years when she was a steady presence in my life, helping me grow into the person I am.

    It’s probably been over twenty years since I last saw Colleen. Life took us in different directions, as it does. We lost touch. But coming together now to honor her memory, I’m reminded that the connections that shape us don’t always follow a straight path or come with a tidy ending. I realized that even after all this time, the lessons she left me with, the care she gave, the way she made me feel like I mattered—those things are still with me. And maybe sharing that is one small way to honor her.

    It’s hard to put into words what someone like Colleen meant to me. We met during a season of change in my life when everything felt new and uncertain, and I didn’t quite know what I needed.

    I had just moved to Hutchinson and had recently started receiving PCA services. I remember the first time I met her. Frazzled hair, green sweatpants, sweatshirt the picture of someone who had already lived through half a day’s chaos before 9 a.m. But right away, she brought something into my world that I didn’t know I was missing: understanding. Patience. The kind of grounded presence that makes everything feel a little less overwhelming.

    She helped me learn how to navigate the system, yes—but more importantly, she helped me find confidence in myself. She didn’t just do her job; she showed up as a person. A kind, no-nonsense, fiercely loyal person who stayed by my side through some of life’s hardest transitions.

    Over time, Colleen became more than a caregiver. She became a friend. As time went on, our relationship grew beyond the usual roles. That’s where I met Lizzy—her daughter. At the time, Lizzy was this awkward teenager who probably wanted nothing to do with this random kid her mom had brought into their world. And now, she’s become an amazing young woman and a mother herself. I know Colleen would be proud. No—is proud. That much, I have no doubt.

    Colleen always took care of people. That was just in her nature. She made sure people had food to eat, a place to sit, and if you needed to crash on the couch—well, rules were more like suggestions. I’m sure letting me stay over more than once probably broke some kind of policy, but I don’t think she cared. Colleen wasn’t one for letting bureaucracy get in the way of doing the right thing.

    I remember one specific time, right before I moved to the Twin Cities for college. I had a campus visit coming up, and the logistics were… complicated. My dad was going on the visit with me. He would’ve had to drive all over creation from Benson to Hutchinson to Minneapolis and back again. Colleen just looked at the map and said, “I’ll drive you.” And she did. On the way home, she even offered to take a detour so I could visit my grandma, who was in a nursing home in Minneapolis at the time. That’s who she was—always thinking about how to make things easier for the people she cared about.

    The last time I saw her before I moved we promised we’d stay in touch and we did for a while I even remember calling her on my 21st birthday a little tipsy and she got mad at me because I shouldn’t be mixing alcohol with the meds I was on. 

    Even though we eventually lost touch, the impact she had on my life didn’t fade. You don’t forget someone who shows up for you when you’re still figuring out who you are—who makes space for you in their home and their heart without asking for anything in return.

    Colleen was more than my PCA. She was a guide, a protector, and a friend. And even all these years later, the memories of her kindness, her humor, her complete disregard for red tape when someone needed help they’ve stuck with me. And I suspect I’m not the only one who could say the same.

    She took care of people. That was her gift. And the world is better for it.

    Even though I didn’t read the entire eulogy aloud, writing it felt like my way of saying goodbye. Sharing it was also my way of bidding farewell.

    Family Losses

    Of course, loss doesn’t stop with friends. My family has been touched by death too. All of my grandparents have passed. Grandpa Garfield in 1992. Grandpa Roger followed in 1994. Grandma Jonnette in 2004. Grandma Marlys in 2022. Over the years, I’ve also said goodbye to aunts, uncles, and cousins.

    I’m fortunate that both of my parents are still alive. That’s not the case for my partner. In August, he lost his father after a long struggle with dementia.

    Watching him walk through that grief has reminded me that loss affects us differently. It depends on timing, relationships, and the battles fought along the way.

    The Four-Legged Companions

    And grief isn’t reserved for humans alone. Over the years, I’ve also had to say goodbye to the four-legged friends who shaped my life. My black cat, Spaz. My first service dog, Dempsey. My childhood horse, Comanche. Even my first hamster, Sir Henry Lipton, and my second hamster, Bert.

    Each of them carried their own kind of love, their own kind of presence. Their roles in my life were different from the humans I’ve lost, but their impact was no less meaningful. Their loss is still noted, still acknowledged, still woven into the fabric of who I am.

    What Grief Has Taught Me

    When I step back, what strikes me most is how loss accumulates over time. At nearly 42, death isn’t an abstract idea anymore. It’s a thread woven through my own story. Sometimes this happens in small ways, like a bus driver who was briefly part of my life. At other times, it affects me in deeply personal ways. These include Colleen, my grandparents, and the animals who gave me unconditional love.

    I don’t pretend to have answers about how to handle death. What I do know is this: the people and creatures we lose remain with us in the stories we tell. They are also present in the habits we keep.

    Additionally, they stay with us in the ways they shaped us. That’s what makes memory so sacred—it refuses to let death have the last word.

    Closing Reflections

    Life is a lot like that old Heartland Express bus. People get on and people get off. Some rides are long and some are short. But every passenger, whether human or animal, leaves an imprint on the journey.

    I’ve come to see loss not as an ending but as part of the fabric of living. Each goodbye, whether to a grandparent, a friend, or a four-legged companion, stitches another thread into who I am. And the road ahead is stronger because it carries all of them with me.

  • Why I Applaud Schools for Banning Smartphones (And Why You Should Too)

    Why I Applaud Schools for Banning Smartphones (And Why You Should Too)

    Kids are heading back to school, and I’m thrilled to see more schools taking a firm stand against smartphones. Honestly, it’s about time. Kids don’t need phones.

    They’re not the lifeline we pretend they are. They’re attention traps. They pull students into a digital black hole. Instead of being trapped, students should be focusing on math, making friends, or just being kids.

    And yes, I say this as an adult who knows how easy it is to lose hours to the scroll. If I can’t always resist the temptation, imagine what it’s like for a seventh-grader in the middle of algebra.

    The Research

    The research backs up what most of us already feel in our gut. Nearly three-quarters of school leaders say phones hurt students’ mental health, and a similar number say they damage attention spans. Teachers see it too—about one-third call cellphone distraction a major problem in classrooms. And the issue isn’t small. Studies show teens spend an average of 1.5 hours on their phones during the school day. That’s not “just a quick check.” That’s a full class period wasted every single day.

    And yet, kids are getting smartphones younger and younger. More than half of eight-year-olds already own a phone or tablet. By age eleven, most kids have one in their pocket. Eighty-four percent of teens now carry smartphones everywhere they go.

    Pair that with relentless notifications, hundreds a day, and it’s no wonder anxiety, stress, and fractured attention are running high. We’ve given them a tool designed to keep them hooked. Then, we wonder why they can’t stay focused in class.

    Here’s the kicker: bans work. When schools in the Netherlands restricted phones, 75 percent reported better concentration. Additionally, 59 percent saw kids interacting more. Nearly 30 percent even saw grades go up.

    U.S. schools experimenting with phone bans are noticing something similar…kids are actually talking to each other again.

    Cafeterias are noisier in the best way. Teachers report calmer classrooms. Some schools are even bringing back foosball tables. They are also reintroducing board games. Suddenly, lunchtime looks like 1998 instead of a TikTok set.

    Parental Push back

    Parents often push back with the same argument: What if I need to reach my child in an emergency? I get it. The idea of being cut off feels scary.

    But let’s be real…you grew up without a phone. Your parents grew up without a phone. If something happened, they called the school or they showed up. It worked.

    Civilization didn’t collapse. And it wouldn’t now. There are systems in place for emergencies, and banning phones during school hours doesn’t mean banning common sense.

    The bottom line? Smartphones aren’t helping kids succeed in school. They’re stealing focus, hurting mental health, and replacing real human connection with endless notifications.

    If I had kids, I wouldn’t give them a smartphone, tablet, or computer at all.

    It’s not to punish them. I’d want them to live in the real world and not inside a feed. I’d want them to have real, face-to-face conversations instead of hiding behind a screen.

    They don’t need to be exposed to all the junk floating around the internet. Honestly, they already get enough of that from streaming platforms… but that’s a whole other conversation.

    Technology should serve us, not swallow us whole.

    Schools banning phones isn’t overreach; it’s a reset. It’s a chance to give kids what they need most space to learn, think, and just be kids.

    Chime In

    What do you think? Should schools go all-in and block phones completely, or do you think kids should still have access during the day?

    Sources and Further Reading

    Resources for Parents

  • When School Safety Plans Leave Students Behind

    When School Safety Plans Leave Students Behind

    I wasn’t sure how much more I was going to say about the recent school shooting at Annunciation Catholic School. But then I stumbled across an article in the Minnesota Star Tribune, and it stopped me in my tracks.

    We practice drills in school—lock downs, tornado, fire—because safety matters. I remember those drills vividly from my own time in elementary school. My experience was never quite like my classmates’.

    During tornado drills, everyone crouched on the floor, arms covering their necks. Me? Still sitting upright in my wheelchair, because that was the safest option we had.

    Fire drills were even more complicated. I remember a specific instance when the alarm went off. No one was sure if it was a drill or the real thing. Elevators can’t be used in an actual fire, but that day, there wasn’t time to debate. A staff member just scooped me up and carried me down three flights of stairs. I sat on the grass outside without my chair until we got the all-clear.

    I applaud that staff member for their quick thinking in getting me out of the building. I also applaud the Annunciation staff. They pulled a student out of his wheelchair and shielded him with their bodies. Those moments were heroic—but they were also unplanned. They happened because people acted on instinct, not because the system had a clear, inclusive plan.

    The Hard Truth: Our Plans Have Gaps

    Yes, emergency procedures can be written into IEPs. Many do. But let’s be honest—you can’t plan for every scenario. Right now, too many schools are failing to plan for some of the most basic ones.

    Here’s the reality for students with disabilities:

    • They may not be able to flatten to the ground during a lock down.
    • They may not move as fast as their peers—or at all—when evacuating.
    • They may not cognitively understand what’s happening in the chaos and could unintentionally move toward danger.

    These are life-or-death gaps. And yet, they’re rarely talked about until tragedy strikes.

    What Minnesota Requires—and Where It Falls Short

    Minnesota law requires schools to have comprehensive emergency plans, and those plans are supposed to include students with disabilities. Best practices suggest:

    • Individual Evacuation Plans for students who need them
    • Accessible alerts for students with hearing or vision impairments
    • Specialized evacuation equipment, like stair chairs

    But in practice, these things don’t always happen. Many schools still:

    • Skip individualized drills because they’re time-consuming
    • Lack staff training for evacuating students with disabilities
    • Depend on instinct in emergencies, instead of clear systems

    That gap between policy and practice is dangerous—and it needs attention now.

    The Bigger Picture: Gun Violence and Safety for All

    I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again:

    • We need common-sense gun reform.
    • We need mental health screenings.
    • We do not need weapons of war on our streets.

    I support the Second Amendment. I support responsible gun ownership. But firearms designed to fire dozens of rounds in seconds have no place in civilian life. They exist for one purpose: destruction.

    Until laws change, we live in a reality where lock down drills and emergency plans are essential. That reality must include every student.

    What Needs to Happen Now

    We can’t just design safety for the majority and leave the minority behind. Here’s what schools should be doing now:

    • Individualized Safety Plans for every student with mobility, sensory, or cognitive disabilities
    • Regular drills that include students with disabilities (not afterthought drills)
    • Evacuation equipment and staff training to make sure no one is left behind
    • Collaboration with first responders so they know how to assist students with disabilities during real emergencies

    Why This Matters

    I hate writing about this. It breaks me to even think about it. But ignoring it won’t make it go away. These conversations matter because too often, we design for the majority and leave the rest to fend for themselves.

    It’s time to change that. Every student deserves a clear, safe path in an emergency. No exceptions.

    We can’t wait for another headline to have this conversation. Start it now—because safety should never be optional.

    What You Can Do Today

    • Ask your school if students with disabilities have individualized safety plans.
    • Talk to your school board about inclusive drills and evacuation equipment.
    • Advocate at the state level for stronger accountability and resources for schools.

    Resources for Parents and Advocates

  • When Your Service Dog Decides to Channel His Inner Dolphin

    Service dogs are amazing. They open doors, retrieve dropped items, keep us safe, and make life possible in ways that people don’t always see. But here’s the truth people sometimes forget: even the best-trained working dog is still, at the core, a dog. And dogs… well, they have urges.

    Surley after his great plaza water adventure

    Case in point: Surley and the Great Plaza Water Adventure.

    It was one of those gorgeous sunny days that makes every fountain look like a personal invitation to cool off. Surley and I were rolling through a plaza with these shallow streams running across the walkway. He was being so good—focused, steady—but I saw that look. You know the one. Ears slightly perked, tail thinking about wagging, eyes saying, “Boss… water. WATER.”

    I thought, What’s the harm in letting him cool off? So, I stopped, unbuckled his cape, and unclipped his leash so I could stash the gear in my bag. I swear, I didn’t even finish the thought before—WHOOSH!—he was gone. Full-on zoomies. Water flying everywhere. The Labrador joy dial cranked to eleven.

    “Surley! Hey! Come back!” I called, while watching him leap straight into the forbidden water feature like it was the dog Olympics. And honestly? The sheer happiness on his face was priceless.

    Then came the plaza police. They stroll over and go, “Sir, dogs need to be on a leash at all times.”

    And there I am, holding a soggy leash with a grin that says “Yeah… about that.”

    “Sorry,” I said, “he’s usually a professional, but today he decided to… freelance.”

    Look, I get it. Rules are rules. But here’s the thing: Surley spends 99% of his day doing everything right. He resists squirrels, ignores dropped french fries, and basically acts like a canine saint in public. He sometimes has those moments of pure dog joy, even if it means a little embarrassment for me.

    And that’s the part people sometimes miss. Working dogs don’t stop being dogs when you put a vest on them. They need chances to run, play, and get goofy. They should avoid spaces where dogs aren’t allowed. It could be dangerous in those places. I normally take Surley to off-leash areas or quiet places where he can zoom safely. But every now and then, life throws a fountain in your path, and your dog decides to audition for Baywatch.

    So yeah, Surley got me a polite talking-to from the plaza police. And you know what? I’m not even mad. Because that moment? That was pure happiness. And he deserves that.

    Takeaways for Service Dog Handlers and the Public

    For Handlers:

    • Build in off-duty time. Your dog works hard—schedule play sessions where they can let loose safely.
    • Choose the right space. Off-leash parks, fenced yards, or quiet areas away from traffic and hazards are best.
    • Stay in control. Even during playtime, make sure recall skills are sharp so you can bring your dog back quickly.

    For the Public:

    • Respect the bond. Service dogs aren’t robots; they’re living, loving animals who deserve joy too.
    • Don’t judge a moment. If you see a working dog playing off-duty, it doesn’t mean they’re untrained. It doesn’t mean their handler is irresponsible. It means they’re getting a well-earned break.
  • The Tug-of-War Between Thinking and Speaking

    The Tug-of-War Between Thinking and Speaking

    Ever felt like your mouth and your brain are in a tug-of-war? That’s me, whenever a sensitive topic comes up especially when it’s not about me directly. I want to say something, but I don’t want to say the wrong thing. Here’s what I’ve learned about breaking that silence.

    There’s something I want to admit: When conversations get sensitive, I often stay silent. These are especially topics that don’t directly affect me. It’s not because I don’t care or I’m indifferent. Far from it. I stay silent because I struggle to express what’s on my mind. I worry about sounding insensitive or stepping on someone’s toes.

    I’ve caught myself biting my tongue more times than I can count. It’s not because I lack an opinion.

    It is because I’m afraid of how my words might land. I worry about being labeled a bigot, or racist, or narrow-minded, simply for sharing my honest perspective. And honestly? That fear sometimes feels paralyzing.

    People often assume silence means indifference. But in my experience, it’s usually the opposite: a mix of empathy, self-awareness, and caution.

    It’s that inner struggle. You want to contribute meaningfully. However, you don’t want to cause harm or come across the wrong way.

    The problem is, if I wait until I can say everything perfectly, I might never speak at all. And I know I’m not alone in this. Many people wrestle with how to balance sharing their truth with being respectful and open.

    So here’s what I’ve learned helps me:

    • Start by sharing my intent: making it clear I’m coming from a place of care and curiosity, not judgment.
    • Acknowledge my own limitations: recognizing when something isn’t my lived experience and being open to correction.
    • Focus on sharing one clear thought at a time, rather than trying to say everything all at once.
    • Leave room for dialogue: inviting others to share their perspectives and help me see what I might be missing.

    It’s not perfect, and I still stumble sometimes. But speaking this way has helped me move from silence to conversation without feeling like I’m walking a verbal tightrope.

    I’m sharing this because I plan to open up about some sensitive issues in the future. And I want you, the reader, to know. When I do, it’s coming from a place of honesty and respect. Even if it’s imperfect.

    If you ever find yourself hesitating to speak up for fear of saying the wrong thing, know you’re not alone. It’s okay to be cautious, but don’t let that stop you from sharing your thoughts and feelings. The world needs your voice, even if it’s sometimes a little rough around the edges.

  • A Dangerous Precedent

    A Dangerous Precedent

    A Quick Word Before We Begin

    In the age of TikTok headlines and 24-hour news cycles, stories come and go at warp speed. Even major developments—like the string of settlements between powerful institutions and Donald Trump—are quickly overshadowed by the next viral controversy. While much has already been said about these deals, I believe this conversation deserves more depth and context. So I’m adding my voice to it. Let’s dig in.

    When Colleges and Newsrooms Pay to Stay Silent

    Columbia made a massive $200 million payout. ABC followed with a $15 million hush-money deal. CBS also sealed a deal worth $16 million. Institutions are caving to politically motivated pressure, which jeopardizes academic integrity, press freedom, and democratic norms.

    Something Strange, and Dangerous, Is Happening

    In the past eight months, a pattern has emerged. Institutions, once considered the bedrock of academic freedom, are quietly agreeing to large settlements. These agreements are with Donald Trump or his administration. These aren’t settlements of moral or legal accountability. They are settlements of political intimidation.

    Let’s walk through the cases:

    1. Columbia University agreed to pay over $200 million. This payment resolves federal investigations tied to its handling of foreign funding disclosures. It also addresses its response to antisemitism and pro-Palestinian protests. The payment allowed Columbia to restore access to roughly $400 million in frozen federal funding.
    2. ABC News, owned by Disney, settled a defamation lawsuit by Trump. This was over George Stephanopoulos’s repeated claim that Trump was “found liable for rape” in the E. Jean Carroll case—a legal finding that actually stopped short of that label. Disney paid $15 million to Trump’s presidential library and another $1 million in legal fees.
    3. Paramount/CBS settled with Trump after he alleged that a 60 Minutes interview with Kamala Harris constituted “election interference.” The network agreed to pay $16 million. It also agreed to donate programming value to Trump’s campaign. Additionally, it will release full transcripts of future candidate interviews.

    None of these settlements included a court finding against the institutions. None of them were compelled by loss in court. They were voluntary. And that’s the problem.

    Columbia University: $200 Million and Policy Concessions

    Columbia’s settlement was staggering not just in dollars but in scope. Beyond the $200 million fine, it included sweeping changes to academic and student governance. The changes involved reshaping its Middle Eastern studies department. It banned race-based admissions policies. Additionally, dozens of students and faculty were disciplined.

    The underlying investigations were rooted in Trump-era policies that targeted elite academic institutions. Critics argue they were less about compliance and more about culture war. By settling, Columbia may have preserved short-term funding but sacrificed its long-term credibility as an independent educational institution.

    ABC News: $15 Million for a Word

    The ABC News case sets an equally grim precedent. After anchor George Stephanopoulos repeatedly misstated that Trump had been found liable for rape, Trump sued for defamation. The actual legal finding was for sexual abuse and defamation, not rape.

    Rather than fight the case, Disney paid $15 million to Trump’s presidential library and covered $1 million in legal fees. They also issued a public apology.

    This may seem like a reasonable correction, but the implications are dire. Legal scholars warn that it gives powerful public figures a playbook. They can target a minor misstatement. Then, they escalate it into a lawsuit. Finally, they extract concessions to fuel their political brand.

    CBS/Paramount: Election Interference, or Editorial Independence?

    The CBS settlement over its 60 Minutes interview with Kamala Harris is arguably the most absurd. Trump alleged the interview violated election law by favoring Harris and sued under Texas’s consumer protection laws.

    Despite the lawsuit’s flimsy legal grounding, Paramount settled. The company agreed to a $16 million payout. Additionally, they accepted a range of non-financial concessions. These include releasing full interview transcripts for any future presidential candidates.

    CBS insiders expressed outrage. One longtime producer resigned, calling the settlement a betrayal of journalistic independence. Dan Rather called it “a sell-out to extortion.”

    Many media analysts and political commentators believe the settlement was about more than just legal risk. It was aimed at facilitating Paramount’s merger with Skydance Media. Trump could effectively stall or block the merger through his influence over the FCC. The settlement is widely seen as a strategic move to secure regulatory clearance.

    The Real Damage: Institutional Cowardice

    What these cases share is not just large payouts—it’s institutional surrender. When power is abused to intimidate, institutions should stand up, not cave in.

    The real damage isn’t measured in millions of dollars. It’s in:

    • The self-censorship that will follow. Reporters and professors may avoid controversial topics.
    • The politicization of academic research and journalistic standards. Compliance becomes policy.
    • The erosion of public trust. If our most credible institutions fold under pressure, who can we trust to speak truth to power?

    What’s at Stake

    These settlements are not about accountability. They are about leverage.

    They reveal a strategy: use the legal system to financially exhaust your critics, then spin their silence into political capital.

    If this continues, we risk normalizing a future where:

    • Power is transactional.
    • Truth is negotiable.
    • Dissent is punishable.

    What We Need Now

    This moment demands more than outrage. It demands resolve. Here’s what must happen:

    1. Demand Transparency – Institutions must publicly explain their settlement decisions.
    2. Strengthen Legal Protections – For journalism, academic freedom, and nonprofit independence.
    3. Support Courageous Institutions – Alumni, donors, and audiences should reward integrity, not cowardice.

    Because when truth is silenced by settlements, democracy becomes little more than a brand.

    If you appreciated this analysis, share it widely. Stay loud. Stay informed. Because the cost of silence is too high.

    Sources

  • Still in Business: How Trump’s Refusal to Divest Shattered Presidential Norms

    Still in Business: How Trump’s Refusal to Divest Shattered Presidential Norms

    Americans expect their presidents to work for the people, not for personal profit. Traditionally, presidents have gone to great lengths to separate themselves from their private financial interests. But Donald Trump broke that norm in 2016, and he did it again in 2024.

    Despite claiming otherwise, Trump never truly divested from his sprawling business empire. Instead, he used the presidency to enhance his brand. He enriched himself in the process. This created an unprecedented web of conflicts of interest. It set a dangerous new standard for executive ethics.

    I’ve been following this story for years. However, it was a NPR article that finally pushed me to write about it. The piece highlighted just how far Trump’s business tentacles have reached, even during his second term in office.

    What Divestment Is…And Why It Matters

    Divestment isn’t about optics; it’s a safeguard against corruption.

    It means fully separating a public official from financial assets that could bias their decision-making. In most cases, that means selling off those assets. Alternatively, it means placing them in a blind trust. This is a structure managed by an independent party. The party makes investment decisions without the official’s knowledge or input.

    Organizations like the Campaign Legal Center and the Brennan Center for Justice have emphasized the importance of these safeguards. When a president can personally profit from the policies they enact, it undermines democracy. Engaging with certain countries for profit also poses a threat to democratic principles.

    “A blind trust is the gold standard for ensuring that public servants act in the public interest, not for personal gain,” said Meredith McGehee, executive director of Issue One.

    2016: The First Ethical Breach

    When Trump took office in 2017, he refused to place his assets in a blind trust. Instead, he transferred control of the Trump Organization to a revocable trust managed by his sons, Donald Jr. and Eric Trump.

    A revocable trust is not blind—Trump could take back control at any time. He remained the sole beneficiary, meaning he continued to profit from his businesses.

    This move defied precedent. Even Jimmy Carter famously sold his peanut farm to avoid any perception of impropriety. Trump, by contrast, hosted foreign dignitaries at his hotels.

    He jacked up membership fees at Mar-a-Lago. He also saw a flood of government business to his properties. A report by the House Oversight Committee confirmed that Trump pocketed millions from foreign governments during his first term.

    According to Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), there were over 3,700 conflicts of interest. These occurred during Trump’s first term alone. That number is not just a statistic; it’s a warning sign.

    “We’ve never seen anything like this level of financial entanglement with the presidency,” said Noah Bookbinder, president of CREW.

    2024: A Second Term, Same Conflicts

    Fast forward to Trump’s second term, and the pattern continues. In 2024, Trump launched or expanded several for-profit ventures, including:

    • Trump Media & Technology Group (Truth Social) is a publicly traded company. He held a controlling stake in it well into his return to office.
    • Trump Mobile, a wireless phone plan launched in partnership with Patriot Mobile and reportedly backed by T-Mobile infrastructure.
    • Licensing deals for fragrances, cryptocurrency tokens, and more.

    In December 2024, Trump transferred shares of Trump Media to a trust controlled by Donald Jr., again claiming this was sufficient to avoid conflicts. But this was not a blind trust, nor did it involve a sale of the assets. According to Reuters, Democratic lawmakers raised concerns about regulatory favoritism, especially in light of T-Mobile’s prior business before Trump-era agencies.

    Meanwhile, AP News reported that Trump Organization inked new deals with foreign investors. One of these deals was a major golf resort agreement in Qatar.

    These transactions were made while Trump once again held the power of the presidency. They raise clear constitutional issues under the Foreign Emoluments Clause.

    How This Breaks Precedent

    Presidents have long understood the importance of avoiding even the appearance of impropriety. Jimmy Carter sold his peanut farm. George W. Bush and Barack Obama placed their assets into diversified blind trusts or mutual funds. Trump did neither.

    Instead, Trump leveraged his time in office to further entrench his brand and open new revenue streams. The Brennan Center notes that such behavior erodes the norms of democratic governance. Once one president normalizes self-dealing, future presidents may feel entitled to do the same—or worse.

    “The Trump administration has obliterated a long-standing ethical firewall between public service and private profit,” wrote the Brennan Center.

    Why It Matters Now

    Ethical leadership matters, especially in a time of deep public distrust. Trump’s refusal to divest means every policy he enacts is under a cloud of suspicion. Does a trade agreement benefit America—or his hotels? Does a telecom merger face scrutiny—or get a pass because of Trump Mobile?

    This matters not just as a legal issue, but as a moral one. The presidency is not a business venture. It is a public trust.

    As Vox notes in their deep dive on Trump’s for-profit presidency, the risk isn’t just that Trump is profiting now. The danger is that we’ve permanently lowered the bar for what’s acceptable.

    Conclusion

    Donald Trump never truly divested. He rearranged control, rebranded conflict as cleverness, and doubled down on monetizing the presidency. In doing so, he shattered a bipartisan norm that once served as a bulwark against corruption.

    If we want to restore faith in the presidency, we need more than just outrage. We need laws: mandatory blind trusts, enforceable emoluments restrictions, and robust financial disclosure. Because if the president can profit from the office unchecked, then the office no longer belongs to the people.


    Sources

  • What Symbols Say…and What They Don’t

    What Symbols Say…and What They Don’t

    Content Note:

    This post explores personal safety, public perception, and disability. It examines the powerful role of symbolism in shaping how we see each other. It includes candid reflections on behavior, clothing, and stereotyping.

    My goal is to examine how snap judgments affect perceptions. Cultural bias, lived experience, and survival instinct often shape these judgments.

    My goal is not to reinforce harmful narratives. These are sensitive topics, and I approach them with honesty, nuance, and a desire to encourage thoughtful dialogue, not division.


    Hats, Songs, and Snap Judgments

    I was listening to Jason Aldean’s Try That in a Small Town the other day, and it got me thinking.

    Not about the music itself—though it’s catchy in that flag-waving, boot-stomping way, but about the reaction it sparked. The song blew up. It was not because of a brilliant guitar solo or a poetic turn of phrase. It gained popularity because people saw it as more than a song. For some, it was a patriotic anthem. For others, a veiled threat.

    Like another modern American lightning rod: the MAGA hat.

    That bright red cap, simple as it is, might be one of the most instantly polarizing accessories in U.S. history. To some, it’s just a political statement. To others, it might as well be a warning flare.

    So what is it about these symbols—songs, hats, slogans, flags—that causes such intense reactions? Why do some people feel pride when they see them, while others feel fear?

    And most importantly, what can we do to see past the symbol and engage with the person?

    When a Song Becomes a Flashpoint

    Released in 2023, Try That in a Small Town went viral. It reached not just the charts, but also spread across headlines, op-eds, and furious threads. The lyrics paint a picture of small-town loyalty. They highlight tough consequences for crime. Aldean made no secret of the song’s pro-law-and-order message.

    But it wasn’t just the lyrics. The music video, initially filmed at a Tennessee courthouse where a Black teenager was lynched in 1927, paired Aldean’s performance with scenes of violent protests and looting. To many, that imagery—plus the song’s aggressive tone—felt racially charged and threatening.

    To others, it felt honest. Real. A voice for people who believe their rural communities and traditional values are mocked or misunderstood.

    So which is it?

    Well… both. And that’s the point.

    When a Hat Isn’t Just a Hat

    The MAGA hat follows a similar logic. Originally a campaign slogan, “Make America Great Again” has morphed into a political identity. Wear it, and you’re instantly tagged—by strangers on the street, by friends on Facebook, by whoever is across the room.

    Some wear it proudly to show support for Trump. They also wear it to push back against what they see as cancel culture. Others see it as a stance against coastal elitism.

    Others view the hat as a threat—a symbol of racism, exclusion, even violence. And not without reason: plenty of people have used it as a tool of intimidation.

    The reality? The hat isn’t magic. It doesn’t turn someone into a villain—or a hero. But it does carry the weight of what’s been done in its name.

    The Red-Hat Moment: My Brain Took a Shortcut

    I’ll admit it. I’ve had my own knee-jerk reaction. Not long ago I was visiting a friend I hadn’t seen in ages. As I walked up, I spotted that familiar shape on their head: bright red cap, bold white lettering.

    My stomach dropped. I hadn’t pegged them as the MAGA type. For a moment, I felt this weird swirl of disappointment. Confusion and even a little anxiety crept in.

    Then I got closer. The hat? Totally apolitical…just a diner logo. My brain had filled in the blanks—and fast. That’s how potent the MAGA symbol has become: it hijacked my perception before I even focused my eyes.

    Safety, Perception, and Lived Experience

    Snap judgments don’t stop with red hats. They fire when someone’s clothes or body language feel threatening.

    When someone gives off an aggressive or unpredictable vibe, I naturally tense up! it’s less about what they look like and more about the energy they’re projecting. It doesn’t matter their race or background; if the energy feels off, I stay on alert.

    As a person with a disability, I live with the reality that I’m more vulnerable in public spaces. If someone decides I’m an easy target, I can’t always run, fight back, or vanish. Statistics on crime against disabled folks are grim.

    So yes, my guard goes up. I’m scanning for risk.

    But I also know those gut reactions aren’t perfect. They’re shaped by media, experience, and survival instincts that don’t always leave room for nuance. That’s not an excuse it’s just the tension I live with: protecting myself without dehumanizing someone else in the process.

    Being on the Other Side of the Assumptions

    Here’s the twist I don’t just make snap judgments. I’m on the receiving end of them all the time.

    Because I move differently, people assume I think differently. They slow their speech, over-enunciate, or talk to the person next to me instead of me. Apparently physical disability = mental disability in their shortcut-happy brains.

    It’s dehumanizing and exhausting. It springs from the exact same place as those red-hat and hoodie reactions. It is that lightning-fast visual assessment we love to rely on. So yes, I get why we judge symbols. I also know what it feels like when that judgment erases who I actually am.

    Why Our Brains Go There

    We’re wired to simplify. Symbols help us sort the world into friend or foe in milliseconds. Efficient, sure—accurate? Not always.

    Songs and hats are easy to judge. People are messy. When we reduce someone to the symbol they’re sporting, we lose the story of why they believe what they believe.

    So What Can We Do?

    • Get curious, not furious. Ask, “What does that mean to you?” instead of “How dare you wear that?”
    • See the person, not the brand. Humans are never one-note.
    • Balance intention and impact. Harm can happen even without malice.
    • Know when to walk away. Some folks wield symbols purely to provoke. You don’t have to oblige.

    More Listening, Less Labeling

    “Try that in a small town,” the song challenges.

    Maybe we should try talking in one. Or in a city. Or across the dinner table. Not to convert just to understand.

    Symbols will always carry power. But so do our choices especially the choice to look beyond the surface.

  • Presidents Shouldn’t Get to Undo Progress With a Pen Stroke

    Presidents Shouldn’t Get to Undo Progress With a Pen Stroke

    The United States has a problem. A structural one. A whiplash problem.

    This past week made it impossible to ignore. First, reports surfaced about a potential rollback of the EPA’s Endangerment Finding. Then came news that the U.S. had pulled out of UNESCO—again. And just to round things out? Federal cuts to public media, already triggering layoffs at PBS and NPR stations across the country.

    It forced me to take a deeper dive. What I found was unsettling. It was not entirely surprising. Our system gives one person, one president, the power to reverse decades of policy and progress. This happens with little to no input from Congress or the public.

    Worse yet, I learned that the U.S. has still not fully committed to the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). This is a global framework modeled on our own ADA. Somehow, even that fell victim to partisan whiplash.

    This isn’t just bad policy. It’s bad structure. Every new administration brings a chance for hard-won progress to be erased with the stroke of a pen. A new administration comes in with different values. Suddenly, the country’s climate policy, civil rights posture, or global commitments disappear swiftly.

    Case in Point: The Recent EPA Endangerment Finding

    On July 22, 2025, The New York Times reported that the Trump administration is considering rescinding the Environmental Protection Agency’s “Endangerment Finding.” This serves as the legal foundation for regulating greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. It was established back in 2009, after a thorough scientific and legal review. Undoing it now would undermine U.S. climate policy just as the world teeters on the brink of irreversible climate damage.

    Let’s be clear. If one president can erase a foundational legal finding like that, it occurs without new evidence. It happens without congressional approval and without public accountability. Then what we have isn’t a democracy. It’s a monarchy with a four‑year contract.

    We left UNESCO… Again.

    Just days ago, the U.S. withdrew, again, from UNESCO, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. This is not the first time. We left under Reagan. We rejoined under Bush. Left again under Trump. Rejoined under Biden. And now here we are. Again.

    UNESCO isn’t some niche club. It helps coordinate global efforts to preserve culture. It promotes science education. It also protects free expression.

    This is particularly important in marginalized communities around the world. Walking away doesn’t just hurt our international credibility. It also impacts LGBTQ+ educators, disabled students, and scientists in the U.S. who benefit from cross-border collaboration.

    Public Media: More Than TV and Radio

    This political power play extends to PBS and NPR. These are institutions trusted by millions. They are now being targeted simply because one administration disagrees with their editorial mandates.

    • In June, the U.S. House narrowly passed legislation rescinding $1.1 billion in funding to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which supports both NPR and PBS
    • The Senate followed suit with a 51–48 vote in mid‑July to finalize the cuts for fiscal years 2026–27
    • According to a recent Star Tribune article Twin Cities PBS (TPT) laid off staff promptly on July 22. They stated they had no choice after the federal funding loss.

    These cuts aren’t abstract they’re local, tangible, and affecting real people right now:

    • Rural and tribal stations are especially vulnerable, with many relying on CPB for over half their budget
    • The National Public Radio editor-in-chief will step down as top staff endure this turmoil

    Why This Matters

    This isn’t just about classical music and Frontline documentaries. Public media are key sources for independent journalism, civic education, emergency alerts, and cultural programming. De-funding them isn’t a symbolic gesture. It leaves news deserts and diminishes local voices. It also disrupts support services for underrepresented communities across formats inclusive of disability and LGBTQ+ issues.

    A Missed Opportunity: The CRPD

    The CRPD, adopted by the U.N. in 2006, cements a full spectrum of rights for disabled people—from accessibility and legal capacity to education and nondiscrimination. Read it here (PDF).

    The U.S. signed in 2009, but failed in the Senate by just five votes in 2012. Opponents claimed it threatened American sovereignty, overlooking that it mirrors our own Americans with Disabilities Act.

    Ratifying the CRPD would:

    • Reinforce civil rights for disabled Americans abroad,
    • Elevate U.S. leadership globally in disability inclusion,
    • Offer solidarity to over a billion disabled people worldwide—even as domestic advocacy continues.

    Yet, just like public broadcasting, that commitment can vanish at the will of one person.

    This Hurts Real People, Not Just Policy Nerds

    These aren’t isolated incidents. They’re symptoms of an administration-centric system that thrives on the absence of guardrails—and here’s who suffers most:

    • LGBTQ+ Rights: Anti-discrimination enforcement under Title IX or federal healthcare regs can vanish or reappear depending on the day’s wind.
    • Public Media Access: Rural disabled listeners lose these lifelines almost overnight. Deaf communities rely on accurate closed captioning. LGBTQ+ youth tune in to inclusive programming.
    • Disability Policy: We haven’t ratified the CRPD. Executive orders often set protections that can be undone. This illustrates how brittle our rights framework still is.

    What Needs to Happen

    Here’s how we fix the structural rot:

    1. Mandate Congressional Approval for Major Executive Withdrawals:
      If presidents need a vote to enter, they should need one to leave.
    2. Codify Protections into Statute:
      The Endangerment Finding, Title IX, ADA interpretations, and more must be hard law, not easily revoked.
    3. Ratify the CRPD
      Transform disability rights from fragile executive fiat to durable international commitment.
    4. Set Up Public Review Mechanisms:
      Major decisions, like de-funding PBS/PBS or leaving UNESCO, should need public hearings and community feedback.

    Final Thought: Rights Shouldn’t Be Reversible

    Rights aren’t privileges. Civic trusts shouldn’t expire when a new President moves in. Whether environmental safeguards, civil protections, public media, or global disability frameworks the template shouldn’t wobble with the Washington weather.

    That’s not democracy. That’s not leadership. It’s short‑term thinking.

    We deserve better. Our communities deserve better. And the next four-year spin cycle shouldn’t decide whether we have them at all.

    Suggested Further Reading

    Sources Cited

  • Lost in Translation on the Bus

    Lost in Translation on the Bus

    The other night, I was waiting for the Minnesota United vs. Portland Timbers match to start on Apple TV. The screen hadn’t gone live yet, so there was the usual pregame placeholder: “The game will begin shortly.” Nothing revolutionary—except it wasn’t just in English. It was in multiple languages.

    Just a quiet, rotating message that said: “We see you. You’re included.”

    And it made me think—why don’t we do this everywhere?

    A Bus Ride I Won’t Forget

    Last week, I was riding the bus through Minneapolis. I noticed a woman with two young children. They were struggling to understand why the bus wasn’t stopping at the location she expected. She looked confused and increasingly distressed.

    From what I could tell, she didn’t speak English, or at least not fluently. She clearly didn’t understand the driver’s responses or the automated announcements. Her kids looked just as lost.

    This wasn’t a case of someone zoning out and missing their stop. This was a breakdown in communication—one that could’ve been avoided if our transit system acknowledged the city’s rich multilingual population.

    Minneapolis Isn’t Monolingual. So Why Is Our Transit System?

    Minneapolis is home to large Somali, Hmong, Spanish-speaking, Oromo, and Amharic communities. And yet Metro Transit, like most U.S. public transit systems, communicates primarily in English.

    Let’s be honest—who is that really serving?

    Apple TV can take the time to translate “the game will begin shortly” into multiple languages. They do this before a soccer match. Then surely a public transit system can do the same. It should help people trying to get to work, school, the grocery store—or just home.

    And it’s not like this is uncharted territory. In fact, transit systems around the world are already doing this better than we are.

    How It’s Done Around the World

    When I visited Canada, every single transit announcement I heard was in both English and French. Sure, those are the country’s official languages, but it’s still a prime example of how baked-in language access can be. It sends the message: You’re not an afterthought.

    Japan took it a step further leading up to the Tokyo Olympics. According to Kyodo News train stations across the country added signage and announcements In Japanese, English, Chinese, and Korean. This was not just for tourists, but for a globally connected population. They understood that access means everyone can navigate independently.

    And it’s not limited to subways. Airports across the world, from Europe to Asia, are far more likely to offer clear signage. They often provide multilingual signage compared to most American transit systems. That’s because in many places, multilingual infrastructure isn’t a novelty it’s the standard.

    This kind of inclusion isn’t just functional—it’s intentional. According to Modulex, signage is more than just instruction; it’s a message of belonging. And if the signs and announcements only speak one language, what message are we sending? the dominant language. So they build systems that reflect reality instead of ignoring it.

    Why Aren’t We Doing This?

    There are a few reasons you’ll hear tossed around:

    • Budget constraints. (“We can’t afford that.”)
    • Technical limitations. (“Our announcement system is too old.”)
    • Thinly veiled xenophobia. (“If you’re here, you should speak English.”)

    But let’s be real: those are excuses, not explanations. If we can add WiFi to buses, we can update a few audio files. If we can add QR codes to shelters, we can update digital displays.

    Multilingual signage and communication don’t just make things easier—they build trust. As House of Signs puts it, these tools “break barriers and bridge cultures.” They create spaces that feel safer. These spaces become more welcoming to everyone who uses them. trust. If people don’t feel seen or understood, they’re less likely to rely on a system that doesn’t work for them.

    What Needs to Change

    Here’s what Metro Transit—and any transit system—could start doing tomorrow:

    • Add bilingual announcements (English + Spanish) as the baseline.
    • Expand to include Somali, Hmong, and other locally relevant languages.
    • Use digital signage to rotate announcements visually in multiple languages.
    • Work with community partners to co-create solutions that work for real people not theoretical riders in a planning spreadsheet.

    Language Access Isn’t a Bonus It’s a Right

    That mom on the bus didn’t need a translator or a heroic bystander. She needed a system that saw her coming and made space for her to get where she was going.

    If we truly want to be a city that works for everyone, then we must include everyone. This includes the languages they speak, read, and understand.

    Let’s stop pretending that monolingual transit is good enough. It isn’t. We can improve. The first step might be as simple as saying, “The next stop is Lake Street…” in more than one language.

    Sources / Further Reading: