Wheels On Down the Road

Category: Society & Politics

Discussions on politics, policies, and social issues at local and national levels.

  • When the Season Shifts

    When the Season Shifts

    When I first became a soccer fan, I never thought much about the weather. It was just part of the experience. The game and I have evolved. I’ve started thinking about how changing seasons shape what accessibility really means for fans like me. Changing bodies also influences this meaning.

    I’ve been reading about Major League Soccer’s proposed move to a fall–spring schedule. I understand the reasoning behind it. Still, I can’t help but think about how it will change the fan experience. This is especially true for those of us who feel the seasons differently than we used to.

    When I first became a fan back in 2015, the cold didn’t bother me. I was just excited to be there to feel part of something alive and electric. I remember going to a game one chilly October and bringing one of my aunts along. She thought I “looked cold,” even though I swore I was fine. By halftime, she’d bought me a hot chocolate, a hat, and maybe even a sweatshirt.

    I still remember that small act of care. The steam rose from the cup. Her laughter cut through the cold air. I didn’t think much of it then. Yet, looking back, I realize it was one of those simple, human moments that stay with you.

    A couple of years later, at our first home game in MLS, the weather turned on us fast. Heavy snow fell throughout the match, thick, wet flakes that clung to your eyelashes and soaked your gloves. The snow was coming down so fast that they had to use leaf blowers to clear the lines.

    My toes went numb halfway through, but it didn’t matter. The atmosphere was electric, the crowd united in equal parts misery and joy. We were there together, and that was enough.

    Those were different times. I was a different person. I was more willing to push through the discomfort just to be part of the moment.

    These days, I’ve noticed that the same weather affects me differently. I attend fewer matches as temperatures drop, and this year I didn’t opt in for playoff tickets at all. It’s not that my passion for the team has faded far from it. It’s just that Minnesota’s fall weather is unpredictable. This unpredictability makes it hard to plan. I find it difficult to feel confident that I’ll be comfortable or safe. The wind cuts a little deeper now. The cold lingers a little longer.

    Supporting a team with an outdoor stadium like Allianz Field comes with that territory. Still, it’s made me think more about what “accessibility” really means. We often talk about it in physical terms, ramps, seating, transportation, and those things matter deeply.

    Accessibility can also mean something softer, more personal: being capable of participating fully without discomfort, fear, or exhaustion. Weather affects this aspect, particularly for fans with mobility challenges. It impacts those with chronic pain or other health conditions, making the cold more than just an inconvenience.

    For some fans, colder games are part of the charm. They enjoy layers of scarves and hands wrapped around coffee cups. There is a sense of endurance that becomes almost a badge of honor. But for others, it’s not that simple. The cold can turn joy into endurance, and that can change the whole experience.

    As I’ve grown and my needs have shifted, I’ve noticed some changes. I’ve started to see how sports, something built on togetherness, can sometimes overlook the quiet ways inclusion matters.

    The fan experience isn’t just about ticket sales. It isn’t solely about crowd energy either. It’s about whether everyone can share in those moments equally. That’s true for people of all kinds.

    This includes those experiencing changes due to age. It also includes people with disabilities, sensory needs, or simply changing bodies who experience the world differently than before. Accessibility isn’t one-size-fits-all, and weather adds another layer to that reality.

    I still love this sport, this team, and the community it builds. Soccer has been a steady thread through so many seasons of my life, literally and figuratively. But my relationship to it has evolved as I have. The same stands that once made me feel unstoppable now remind me to listen to my body. To respect its limits. To show up in ways that make sense for where I am now.

    If MLS does move to a fall–spring schedule, I hope clubs and stadiums will think creatively. They should consider what that means for all fans.

    Maybe that looks like expanding covered seating in some venues. It could also mean improving heat access. Or it could simply involve offering more understanding around accessibility options in cold weather. Sometimes inclusion begins with small acts. It could be a staff member who notices. It might be a space to warm up. Or it could be the willingness to ask, “What do you need to feel comfortable here?”

    For many of us, being a fan isn’t about braving the elements anymore. It’s about connection: to the game, to the people around us, and to ourselves. It’s about finding warmth in community, even when the temperature drops.

    Seasons shift, people change, and that’s okay. What matters most is finding warmth in the stands. We need warmth in the community. It is essential in the spaces that still make us feel like we belong.

  • Government Shutdowns: Why Ordinary Americans Pay the Price While Congress Gets Paid

    Government Shutdowns: Why Ordinary Americans Pay the Price While Congress Gets Paid

    The United States government has shut down. Again.

    This isn’t just political theater happening in Washington. When the government shuts down, real people suffer. Federal workers are furloughed without pay. Others are forced to show up and work for free, waiting and hoping that back pay eventually comes. Contractors may never see the money they lose. Families who rely on government programs are left with uncertainty.

    Meanwhile, Congress just shrugs and keeps collecting their paychecks.

    Here’s what gets me: if I don’t pay my rent, I lose my apartment. If I don’t pay the electric bill, the lights go out. But when Congress doesn’t pay the government’s bills? They get to stay in their cushy offices while the rest of the country pays the price.


    The Duct Tape of Democracy: What a Continuing Resolution Is

    When Congress can’t pass an actual budget, they often slap on a Continuing Resolution (CR). Think of it like duct tape: it keeps the machine running for a little while, but it’s no long-term fix.

    A CR basically says: “We’ll just keep spending at last year’s levels.” That means agencies can’t start new projects. They can’t adjust to new needs. They just sit in limbo, waiting for Congress to stop bickering. Sometimes multiple CRs get passed in a single year — kicking the can further down the road.

    And when even a CR doesn’t pass? That’s when the shutdown slams into place.

    A Quick History Lesson on Shutdowns

    Shutdowns weren’t always the rule. Before 1980, if Congress blew the deadline, agencies kept operating. That changed after Attorney General Benjamin Civiletti ruled that under the Antideficiency Act, funding gaps legally required shutdowns. Since then, they’ve become a recurring disaster.

    Some of the biggest shutdowns:

    • 1995–96 (Clinton vs. Gingrich): Lasted 21 days. About 800,000 workers furloughed. A standoff over spending cuts.
    • 2013 (Obama): Sixteen days. Sparked by the fight over the Affordable Care Act. Cost the economy an estimated $24 billion.
    • 2018–19 (Trump): The record-holder at 35 days. Caused by the border wall funding battle. About 800,000 workers went without pay; countless contractors never got their money back.
    • 2025 (Right Now): Once again, Congress blew the deadline. Here we are, living the same old nightmare.

    Every shutdown looks different. The fallout is predictable. Families end up at food banks because paychecks stopped. Veterans wait longer for benefits. Disability services are disrupted. Medical research is stalled. Parks are shuttered. Small businesses near federal facilities take losses they can’t recover.

    Who Gets Hurt the Most

    Shutdowns don’t hit everyone equally.

    Disabled people often feel the blow first. There are delays in Social Security claims. There are disruptions to medical research. Federal grants that keep vital services running can be paused.

    Veterans face delayed benefits. Families who rely on nutrition programs like WIC find themselves in limbo.

    For federal employees who live paycheck to paycheck, a missed paycheck can have serious consequences. Many of these employees are veterans or disabled. It can mean bills pile up, rent becomes overdue, or prescriptions are skipped. It’s not just numbers on a ledger. It’s human lives destabilized by political games.

    Why This Keeps Happening

    Here’s the kicker: shutdowns aren’t about money. The U.S. has the credit to pay its bills. Shutdowns are about politics — leaders holding the budget hostage to force fights over unrelated issues.

    It’s brinkmanship at the expense of ordinary people.

    A Better Way Forward

    It doesn’t have to be this way.

    Look at Minnesota. Our state legislature is required to pass a budget by the end of session. Is it always pretty? No. But the government doesn’t shut down every time lawmakers disagree. There’s a built-in deadline that forces people to do the job.

    Why can’t Congress do the same?

    Maybe we need rules that make shutdowns impossible. No budget? No recess. No budget? No pay. No budget? No office.

    If I don’t pay my rent, I get evicted. If I don’t pay my bills, I lose my lights. Maybe it’s time Congress faced the same reality.

    Conclusion

    What do you think? I’d love to hear your thoughts, but let’s keep it civil. No name-calling, no bashing, no personal attacks. This is about ideas, not insults.

    And let me be perfectly clear: I am not laying the blame on one party alone. Both Republicans and Democrats share responsibility for this mess. My goal isn’t to pick sides. I aim to highlight a broken system that keeps hurting real people. I also want to suggest a better way forward.

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • Trapped Without a Voice: Elevator Safety for DeafBlind Residents

    Trapped Without a Voice: Elevator Safety for DeafBlind Residents

    Surley and I had quite the eventful morning.

    We started off with our usual walk through downtown Minneapolis and along the Loring Greenway. It was a beautiful day. We stretched our legs a little further and wandered through Loring Park. It looks strikingly different without the usual Pride festivities filling every inch.

    Then we crossed the Irene Hixon Whitney pedestrian bridge over Interstate I-94, Hennepin Avenue, and Lyndale Avenue. I stopped to snap a picture of Surley, who was looking particularly dashing in the breeze.

    Surley on the bridge.

    We entered the Sculpture Garden after rolling off of the bridge. This brought on a wave of memories. I remembered the time my Aunt Kate took my sister and me there one summer during a visit. She capped the trip off with Sebastian Joe’s ice cream, which triggered an instant craving. Nostalgia always knows where your sweet tooth lives.

    It had been a few years since I’d been there so I looked up the address on their website. I discovered they had affogato on the menu, espresso over ice cream, and that was it. We were going.

    After a few minor detours thanks to road construction in the area, classic Minnesota summer, we made it. I ordered affogato with chocolate peanut butter ice cream. Unexpectedly bold and delightful. Then I spotted the chocolate chip cookies and, well, you know how that goes.

    Chocolate, peanut butter, espresso is a deliciously dangerous combination.

    Cue: emergency mode.

    So there I was cookie in one hand, affogato in the other, soaking in the calm of a summer morning…

    …and then my phone buzzed.

    “help i am stuck in elevator”

    At first I was a little confused. It was random and out of the blue. I sent a follow up message seeking clarification. When I didn’t get a response, I sent another message. After not hearing back for about five minutes, I started to get worried. This was outside of his normal behavior.

    Jason managed to send another message with a few more details. He was stuck between the basement and first floor of our apartment building, where cell signal was weak. The elevator’s emergency call box was no help—unsurprising, given that he’s Deaf and has low vision.

    He also sent a brief video. From that, I called 911 and explained the situation: a Deaf and low vision person was trapped in an elevator. I let them know the office was closed and no one was answering the phone. Thanks to the video, I could tell the dispatcher exactly which elevator he was in and where it had stopped.

    Quick PSA: Many counties in Minnesota, including Hennepin, support text-to-911. It’s a good choice for folks who can’t speak or hear during emergencies. But not everyone knows it’s available, and it doesn’t always work well underground.

    Once help was on the way, I woke Surley from his nap on the cool tile floor and jogged home.

    Surley napping on the cool tile floor at Sebastian Joe’s.

    Poor Surley, tongue lolling and tail wagging, worked hard to keep pace. He trotted beside me as we walked home at mach 10 like a champ.

    By the time we returned, Jason had just gotten out with help from the fire department. He was headed to the store with a friend. He was okay: hot, sweaty, but safe.

    Afterwards

    Later, we sat down. We talked through everything that had happened. The more I heard, the more disturbing the story became.

    Jason had taken the elevator down to grab some things from his storage unit. When it stopped in the basement, the doors didn’t open. He tried hitting the “door open” button. Nothing. He attempted to go back up to the first floor. He swiped his fob for access to his floor. Still nothing.

    Because of his low vision, he had trouble seeing what floor the elevator thought it was on. There were no audible cues. He pressed the emergency “help” button. He wasn’t sure whether it activated. The indicator was too small and hard to see. He backed up further and got on his knees. Only then was he able to see the blinking red light. He used text-to-speech on his iPhone. He said, “I’m Deaf, stuck in elevator.”

    He also tried live captioning on his phone to transcribe the audio from the speaker. He hoped it would tell him that someone was on the line. No matter where he placed his phone nothing came through clearly enough to be transcribed into words. Even though he is deaf, he can hear static and muffled sounds when using his hearing aids. However, he cannot make out words in detail.

    He stayed surprisingly calm, even though his hands were shaking, which made texting and filming difficult. He immediately noticed somewhat bright yellow light just below the floor display. It was a fire dept override. This reassured him that the fire department was here. It put him at ease that they were working to get him out.

    Eventually, the fire department and an elevator tech arrived and got the doors open. Jason had to step up about a foot to climb out: hot, rattled, and understandably frustrated. But he was, in his own words later, “unfazed.” (Though I think he was being generous with himself.)

    Surley resting in the AC after the day’s events.

    After the dust settled, I spoke with our apartment manager.

    I explained why I called 911. They told me I should’ve left a message on the office line. They assured me they would have responded promptly.

    Now look I get the desire for tenants to follow procedure. But here’s the thing: there was no one in the office. No one answered the phone. The voicemail simply said, “Leave a message for maintenance emergencies.”

    This wasn’t a dripping faucet. A Deaf and low vision resident was stuck in a sealed metal box. There was no clear way for him to call for help. He was starting to overheat. I wasn’t about to wait and hope someone checked their voicemail.

    If I hadn’t answered his text message what would’ve happened? How long would Jason have waited?

    He pushed the “help” button in the elevator. He was using text-to-speech to relay a message. Did the dispatcher realize they were speaking to someone who couldn’t hear them? Was the dispatcher aware of the communication barrier? Did they think it was pressed by accident? Would they have done anything?

    I didn’t want to find out the hard way. So I called 911. And I’d do it again.

    But it raises some real concerns.

    People with disabilities are often left out of emergency planning. Even when the systems are technically in place, they don’t always work when you truly need them. This includes systems like text-to-911 and live captions.

    WWYD (What Would You Do?)

    So, I pose this question to you:

    If you were in my shoes…
    Would you have called 911?
    Would you have left a voicemail and waited?
    Would you have done something else?

    Let me know in the comments. If you live in an apartment building, especially one with older elevators, take a minute. Check what your emergency plan looks like. Talk to your neighbors. Learn your options.

    Because accessibility shouldn’t depend on luck. It shouldn’t hinge on a single person being available to answer a phone. It should be built in — thoughtfully, thoroughly, and proactively.

    Call to Action

    If you didn’t know about text-to-911, now you do. Check your local county’s website to confirm it’s available where you live. Share this post with someone who might not be aware. Accessibility starts with awareness.

    Resources

  • Flying Forward: Let’s Talk About the Flag Controversy

    Flying Forward: Let’s Talk About the Flag Controversy

    A few days ago, the Star Tribune published an article titled “Not a ‘Greater Minnesota’ flag? Detroit Lakes latest city to refuse flying state flag.” It covered the growing number of cities. These cities—including Hastings and Detroit Lakes—are opting not to raise Minnesota’s new state flag.

    I followed the redesign process with cautious optimism. I found the piece frustrating. Not everyone needs to love the new flag. However, so much of the conversation continues to miss the point.

    This is what I had to say in the Star Tribune comments:

    I understand the desire to honor history and the comfort of the familiar. While some believe the previous flag honored our past, others saw it as a symbol of racism. Another fact is the old Minnesota flag was frequently confused with others because it lacked distinction as it was just the state seal on a blue background. I don’t love the new design, and I do think there’s room for improvement, but the old flag wasn’t serving us well. One clear advantage of the new flag is that it can actually be recognized as Minnesota’s something the previous design failed to do. Change is uncomfortable, but it’s also an opportunity. It has given us the ability to have a conversation. If people feel passionately about changing the flag again take the initiative to make it happen.

    A New Emblem for a New Era

    Minnesota’s new state flag was officially adopted on May 11, 2024. It replaced the blue banner bearing the state seal. This banner had flown in one form or another since 1957. Its design lineage goes back to 1893.

    The new flag features a deep blue field symbolizing the night sky. A light blue curve represents Minnesota’s lakes and rivers. An eight-pointed star evokes the state motto, L’Étoile du Nord (“The Star of the North”).

    Looking Back: A Brief History of the Flag

    For the first 35 years of statehood, Minnesota had no official state flag.

    1983

    That changed in 1893 when the Auxiliary Board sponsored the creation of an official flag. The design selected came from Amelia Hyde Center, a Minneapolis artist and leather worker. This original flag featured a white front and blue reverse, which made it expensive and less durable.

    1957

    In 1957, Minnesota redesigned the flag to have a blue field on both sides. This change simplified production. They updated the floral elements for botanical accuracy. They replaced the original moccasin flowers with pink-and-white lady’s slippers. The pink-and-white lady’s slippers are the official state flower.

    1983

    The flag saw another redesign in 1983. Designers lightened the blue. They also updated the seal to include imagery such as the Mississippi River, St. Anthony Falls, and pine trees. This reflects the state’s natural heritage.

    Over time, the 1983 flag drew criticism. It was seen as overly complex and visually confusing. It resembled other state flags that simply feature a seal on a blue background. Critics also raised concerns about the symbolism of the seal, which some viewed as a representation of Manifest Destiny.

    Design Debates and Grassroots Alternatives

    Minnesota’s flag redesign hasn’t been without controversy or creative alternatives. In 1957, Representative John Tracy Anderson and Major General Joseph E. Nelson proposed a star-based flag with red, white, and blue tribands, though it was rejected by the legislature.

    More recently, the North Star Flag was created in 1988 by Lee Herold and Reverend William Becker. It gained grassroots support with its meaningful colors. Its simple and distinctive design also contributed to its popularity. While never officially adopted, the North Star Flag has remained a beloved unofficial symbol. It was even presented to the redesign commission in 2023.

    The Redesign Process

    The push for a new flag gained official momentum starting in 2021. A Wayzata High School student approached State Senator Ann Johnson Stewart with the idea.

    This led to legislation establishing the State Emblems Redesign Commission in 2023. The commission is charged with proposing new designs that reflect Minnesota’s shared history, resources, and diverse communities. It explicitly prohibits symbols that represent only a single group.

    The commission includes representatives from Indigenous, African Heritage, Latino, and Asian-Pacific communities, as well as members of the general public. The commission presented a new flag design after careful deliberation and public input. The legislature adopted this design on May 11, 2024.

    The Refusals and Reactions

    Some People Love It

    As with any change, the new flag has its fans. Many appreciate that the design is clean, modern, and—most importantly—distinctly Minnesota. The new flag doesn’t just look nice on paper. It’s practical and recognizable. It is also far less likely to be confused with any other state’s banner. For decades, people saw a blue flag with a complicated seal. Few could identify it. Now, Minnesota finally has a flag that can stand on its own.

    Some People Don’t

    But of course, not everyone loves the new flag. Some cities, like Detroit Lakes and Hastings, have refused to fly it. Critics often cite nostalgia for the old flag and a desire to honor the past.

    Others see the old flag’s imagery as a reflection of Minnesota’s history. They acknowledge its warts and all. They worry that the new flag erases or sanitizes that story.

    Some also point out that the new flag isn’t perfect and could be improved. And that’s fair—no flag is flawless, and every design involves compromises. The truth is, flags are symbols, and symbols carry different meanings for different people.

    My Take

    I understand the desire to honor history and the comfort of the familiar. While some believe the previous flag honored our past, others saw it as a symbol of racism. Another fact is the old Minnesota flag was frequently confused with others. It lacked distinction because it was just the state seal on a blue background.

    I don’t love the new design. I do think there’s room for improvement. However, the old flag wasn’t serving us well.

    One clear advantage of the new flag is that it can actually be recognized as Minnesota’s. The previous design failed to achieve this. Change is uncomfortable, but it’s also an opportunity. It has given us the ability to have a conversation.

    Flags Aren’t Sacred. They’re Evolving.

    Plenty of iconic flags have undergone change:

    • The U.S. flag has changed 27 times.
    • Canada didn’t adopt its maple leaf until 1965.
    • South Africa’s current flag, widely recognized today, was finalized in days.

    Designs come and go, but the values we attach to them can deepen over time.

    Discomfort is an Invitation

    As I wrote before in my Star Tribune comment:

    “Change is uncomfortable, but it’s also an opportunity. It has given us the ability to have a conversation.”

    Don’t like the flag? Great. Say so. Offer your vision. Start a petition. Participate in the next redesign cycle. But don’t opt out of the conversation entirely.

    Because flags don’t just represent where we’ve been. They shape how we see where we’re going.

    Minnesota is big enough to hold multiple truths. To love parts of the past while acknowledging its harms. To critique a design without discarding what it stands for. To fly a flag that looks forward, not just backward.

    If you don’t feel represented by the new flag—make your voice heard. But don’t assume that refusing to fly it is the same as standing for something noble. Sometimes, progress looks like a banner that’s unfamiliar. Sometimes, unity starts with a little discomfort.

    And sometimes, the bravest thing a flag can do is change.

  • Not a Fan of the Man But Like the Plan

    Not a Fan of the Man But Like the Plan

    Why Elon Musk’s “America Party” Could Shake Up U.S. Politics

    I am a big fan of Elon Musk. Let’s just get that out of the way up front.

    His contributions and support in the past of President Trump have been problematic. His handling of public infrastructure and social programs has also caused concern.

    Additionally, he casually toys with systems people actually depend on, both in the U.S. and around the world. These actions have done real harm. That’s not a small thing. And it’s part of why I approach anything he does with a healthy dose of skepticism.

    But then he threw a wrench into American politics yesterday by announcing his new America Party. Whether you love him or hate him, you have to admit it’s a bold move. Even if you mostly just wish he’d stay in his lane, it’s a bold move. One that’s already sparking debate, and it’s definitely got me thinking too.

    I may not be a fan of the man, but I like the plan. It’s not his plan specifically, at least not yet. It’s the bigger idea.

    This country deserves more than two political parties playing tug-of-war with our future. This moment prompted me to reflect on our history. I considered the role third parties have played in shaping American democracy. They could still play an important part.

    We Weren’t Always Just Red and Blue

    American political history has always been a bit messier than the red-vs-blue binary we’ve come to expect. The U.S. used to have vibrant (and sometimes downright bizarre) political alternatives. Some shaped the nation. Others burned fast and weird.

    Here’s a quick tour through notable political parties that once stirred the pot:

    Party NameYears ActiveNotable For
    Federalist Party1790s–1820sThe original pro-central government party; Hamilton’s legacy.
    Democratic-Republican Party1790s–1820sJefferson and Madison’s vision; states’ rights-focused.
    Whig Party1830s–1850sAnti-Jackson coalition; produced four presidents.
    Know-Nothing Party1850sNativist, anti-immigration movement.
    Free Soil Party1848–1854Opposed slavery’s expansion.
    Progressive Party (Bull Moose)1912Teddy Roosevelt’s breakaway reform movement.
    Socialist Party of AmericaEarly 1900sPushed labor rights; Debs ran for president from prison.
    States’ Rights Democratic Party (Dixiecrats)1948Segregationist Southern breakaway group.
    American Independent Party1968–presentGeorge Wallace’s ultra-conservative party.
    Reform Party1995–presentRoss Perot’s fiscally conservative, anti-corruption effort.
    Green Party1984–presentEnvironment, peace, and social justice.
    Libertarian Party1971–presentSmall government, civil liberties, and personal freedom.

    Want to go deeper? Full list on Wikipedia

    What Elon Musk Just Did

    As reported by The Guardian, Fox News, and CNBC:

    • Musk launched the America Party via X (formerly Twitter), saying it would reclaim power for the people.
    • Framed it as a response to the “uniparty” — a dig at both Democrats and Republicans.
    • Criticized Trump’s $3.3 trillion spending bill.
    • Declared he would target 2–3 Senate seats and 8–10 House seats, not the presidency (yet).
    • Claimed the party would represent the “80% in the middle.”
    • A poll on X showed 65% support — but no voter verification.

    Why a Third Party Could Be a Good Thing

    • Centrists feel homeless. Millions of voters don’t feel represented by either major party.
    • Accountability improves. A strong third voice can hold both sides in check.
    • Elections could get real. Ranked-choice voting and open primaries could gain traction.
    • New ideas. Politics could become about solutions, not just brand loyalty.

    But… There Are Some Big Problems

    • Ballot access nightmares. Every state has its own rules and deadlines.
    • No ground game. Musk has no party infrastructure or grassroots support.
    • Spoiler effect. Could split votes and backfire — especially in tight races.
    • Brand confusion. What does the “America Party” even stand for?

    Even If It Fails, It Sends a Message

    If nothing else, the America Party proves there’s a real hunger for something new. Maybe Musk’s version fizzles — but maybe it opens the door for better third-party efforts in the future.

    Perhaps it encourages changes to ballot access laws. These changes would help minority parties, such as the Green and Libertarian Parties, gain access to local, state, and federal races.

    More choices.
    More voices.
    More ideas.
    More democracy.

    Join the Conversation

    Where do you stand on this? I want to hear from you:

    • Could a serious third party get your vote?
    • Do you think Musk’s money makes this a real threat or is this just political cosplay?
    • Which defunct party do you wish was still around?
    • If you could create a party what would it’s name be and what would you stand for?

    Drop your thoughts in the comments — I’ll be reading.

    Sources and Further Reading

  • Independence for Whom? Reflecting on the Fourth of July in 2025

    Independence for Whom? Reflecting on the Fourth of July in 2025

    It’s the Fourth of July, 2025. Across the country, grills are sizzling, boats are cruising, and coolers are cracking open. The night skies will soon erupt in fireworks. For most Americans, this holiday means freedom, family, and summer fun.

    But I’ve gotten older. Our country has grown louder, more divided, and frankly, more dangerous. And lately, a question keeps echoing in my mind: What does the Fourth of July really mean anymore?

    A Brief History of Independence

    Let’s start with what this day is supposed to commemorate. On July 4, 1776, the Continental Congress adopted the Declaration of Independence. This bold move declared the thirteen colonies free from British rule. It rejected tyranny and laid the foundation for a self-governed nation.

    We still cling to the ideals of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. But here’s the truth: those rights weren’t originally meant for everyone.

    A Revolution That Wasn’t for Everyone

    The Founding Fathers declared that “all men are created equal” while holding others in chains. The government claimed to defend liberty. Yet, it stole land from Indigenous people. It silenced women. It also excluded poor, disabled, and queer individuals from public life.

    In reality, the revolution granted freedom only to a privileged few.

    The story of America since 1776 has been long and painful. It shows a struggle to expand that freedom. The aim has been to include the people left out. The abolition of slavery was not handed down. Women’s suffrage and the Civil Rights Movement were not freely given. The Stonewall Riots and the Americans with Disabilities Act were claimed through struggle. People fought for them alongside those who rose up.

    They were won by those who refused to be erased.

    I write and advocate from within the LGBTQIA and disability communities. For many of us, the fight still isn’t over.

    The Ongoing Attacks on LGBTQ+ Rights…Especially Trans Youth

    Across the country, we’re seeing a coordinated assault on LGBTQ+ rights, particularly targeting transgender individuals. And it’s not happening in shadows—it’s happening in full public view.

    Much of this legislation focuses on minors, stripping away access to gender-affirming care under the false banner of “protection.” But let’s be honest: this isn’t about safety. It’s about political control. It’s about fear. It’s about forcing children to live in bodies and identities that cause them pain.

    Most trans youth seeking care are not undergoing surgeries. They’re being prescribed puberty blockers—safe, reversible treatments that offer something simple and profound: time. Time to think, to grow, to become.

    Instead of trusting doctors or supporting parents, lawmakers are imposing one-size-fits-all mandates on children they’ve never met.

    What happened to freedom?
    What happened to parental rights?
    What happened to that “small government” so many once held sacred?

    35 Years Since the ADA

    This year marks 35 years since the Americans with Disabilities Act was signed into law. It’s a landmark civil rights achievement that changed the legal landscape for millions. I was just finishing kindergarten in 1990. I had no idea then how deeply the ADA would shape my path—or how far we’d still have to go.

    Because the fight didn’t end in 1990.

    If you need a refresher on how we got here, here’s a brief history of the ADA. It still matters. A lot.

    As someone who belongs to both the disabled and LGBTQ+ communities, these issues aren’t abstract to me. They’re personal. They’re real. They’re urgent.

    Even with the ADA in place, accessibility remains inconsistent. Healthcare is broken. Now, under the current Trump administration, programs that support disabled people are under attack.

    These aren’t luxuries. They’re lifelines.

    Today, crucial programs for people with disabilities face funding cuts. Leaders are trying to balance the books. This comes after giving massive tax breaks to billionaires and corporations. Their choice? Slash services for the most vulnerable among us.

    What We Teach And What We Erase

    We say we value freedom, but we whitewash our history to make it more comfortable.

    We teach about the Declaration of Independence. We give a brief nod to the Civil Rights Movement. But what about the Stonewall riots? What about the 504 Sit-In, where disabled activists occupied a federal building for nearly a month?

    Why do we erase the truths that make us uncomfortable?

    Some states are now passing laws that allow parents to pull their kids from school activities that mention LGBTQ+ families. A picture book about two dads becomes “controversial.”

    Look—I support the right of families to hold personal beliefs. I also believe education should prepare kids for the real world. It’s a world full of diverse people, relationships, and identities.

    Pretending they don’t exist doesn’t protect kids. It confuses them. It primes them to respond with fear—or hate—when they meet someone different.

    Independence in a Nation Built by Immigrants

    We are a nation of immigrants. But you wouldn’t know it from today’s political discourse.

    Let me be clear: I support deporting people who commit serious crimes after entering illegally. That’s not controversial—it’s common sense.

    But millions of immigrants—many undocumented—are holding up the scaffolding of our daily lives. They’re working in fields, hotels, kitchens, janitorial services. Jobs many Americans scorn—while depending on them.

    And instead of treating these workers with dignity, we vilify them. We build walls and cages. We pass policies that dehumanize.

    Meanwhile, billionaires and corporations are shielded from taxes, oversight, and even basic accountability.

    The Boiling Pot We Refuse to Notice

    The average American is being played.

    We’re told to fear immigrants. Disabled people. Trans youth. Anyone “different.” We argue among ourselves. Meanwhile, lawmakers pass legislation that benefits the ultra-wealthy and large corporations. This leaves the rest of us scrambling.

    Social safety nets are unraveling.
    Corporate profits are protected, while food assistance, Medicaid, and disability programs are slashed.

    It’s like the old frog metaphor:
    If you slowly turn up the heat, the frog won’t notice it’s boiling.

    That’s where we are as a country.
    And the water’s getting hotter.

    Final Thoughts

    So what does the Fourth of July mean anymore?

    For me, it’s not fireworks or flags. It’s the chance to remember that the dream of freedom isn’t finished. It’s unfinished business.

    The work of building a more inclusive, just, and fair country belongs to us now.

    Not just today—but every day.