Category: Editorial Page 1 of 32

In this age of Donald J. Trump and the Mueller investigation, you can expect updates on what is happening to our country and its Constitution.

“The Tallest Dwarf” Rises: Free Speech Is Exercised While It Still Exists

By Connie Wilson

On March 26, 2025

In Editorial, Movies, Recipes

“The Tallest Dwarf” screens at SXSW 2025′ (Photo by Gabriella Garcia-Pardo).

“The Tallest Dwarf” was a 92 minute documentary helmed by Julie Forrest Wyman, who directed and produced. Debra Schaffner wrote and edited the film, and many Little People populate the scenes as Julie and other members of the group bond and talk about their feelings towards being far shorter than average. The Octopus Project provided the original score.

Julie has a burning desire to find out if she may be a dwarf, but, as we learn, there are many different types of dwarfs. It will take genetic testing to really confirm if she has Achondroplasia or some other form of what I hesitate to call a disease, because the Little People in this movie do not view their condition as “a disease.” As Julie says, “It’s really hard to feel like your body is wrong.”

Julie talks at length with her father, Forrest Paul Wyman and her mother, Genevieve MaGuffin, about her desire to find out if she is really and truly a dwarf. There is no history of dwarfism in the: family that anyone can point to, but 80% of dwarfs are born to average-sized parents. The dramatic tension (if any) throughout the film is contingent upon Julie waiting to receive the results of the genetic testing she decides to undergo. She does have a FGFR3 mutation, as it turns out.

There’s really not much tension in this “reveal.” After all, the title of the piece is “The Tallest Dwarf.” It is highly unlikely that the Director, in today’s society, would be using that term if it were not supported by science. Otherwise, as with another SXSW short film, “The Beguiling,” about white people pretending to be Indians, she’d face intense criticism for pretending to be something she’s not. Julie can “pass” in society, as she is a tall dwarf but testing reveals the presence of the gene that causes dwarfism.

PERSONAL STORIES

Julie shares old home movies of herself growing up. She is tall, by dwarfism standards, and only her arms and legs appear short. She has kept a journal throughout her adolescence and, at age 12, while praising her thick hair and her hands, she knows she is “different” and wants longer legs and also hopes to lose weight. She finds herself always “struggling to accept the body I have.” She (repeatedly) vows to go from 140 pounds to 120 pounds.

That constant struggle to make her body conform to what the world considers “normal” and is something that most of us can relate to, whether we are short, tall or of average height. The trans debate in society today would be another example of people of all genders struggling with acceptance. The sexual orientation dilemma that many face seems a part of everyday life that we have seen play out forever in films. Weight is another area that is germane. The idea of being accepted in society is universal.

Mark, of the Little People of America.

As a good-looking Little Person named Mark says, “I do not suffer from dwarfism. I suffer from the mistreatment imposed on me by my dwarfism.” Little People express their feeling that this mistreatment is the biggest threat to their happiness. Mark is, in fact, an actor, and says that he chose acting as a career “to control how people thought of me.” He seems resigned, but frustrated, by the fact that almost any movie he has ever had a role in denied him a close-up. He was generally shot wide to reveal his stature. But, says Mark, “When you’re doing a Dr. Pepper commercial and you are dressed as an elf and you only have one line, it really doesn’t matter.”

It is now fairly apparent that repression of many sorts is becoming the rule of the day in the United States in 2025. Any form of compassion towards anyone who is “different” is in short supply in the United States in 2025. What happened to the Golden Rule and the religious notion of loving one another? It is down for the count. All of the documentaries about those on the fringes of society made me wonder: Whatever happened to the Golden Rule and respecting and caring for one’s fellow man? [Removed from original review.]

DWARFISM FACTS

How short do you have to be to be considered a dwarf/Little Person? Answer: 4’ 10”

We see Julie and her father measuring from their chin to the top of their heads and from their ribs to their middle fingers. That is a tenth of the entire body and, yes, they are both “off” about 10%.

What is the term for those whose body parts are proportionate? Answer: Pituitary dwarfs. This particular form of dwarfism scientists found a way to fix (if that is the right term). Dr .Herbert Evans and Dr. Eberly Sheridan in 1935 and Dr. Theodore T. Zuck in 1933 spoke of pituitary dwarfs as “specimens that needed to be fixed.” And they were able to do so, via scientific advances. Julie refers to this discovery as “the canary in the coal mine.” [ ITALICIZED DATA REMOVED BY REQUEST. Difficult to find the citations to justify changing the name Dr. Eberly Sheridan (from the film) to Dr. Shelton, as instructed. Still searching to find the origin of these somewhat unusual names used in the piece as viewed, which may or may not be “wrong”].

MORAL DILEMMAS

Julie Forrest Wyman, Director of “The Tallest Dwarf” screening at SXSW 2025. (Photo by Luz Galliardo).

While almost all of the members of the Little People of America group feel that they are “a marginalized community”, they seem to agree that science providing a relief from spinal stenosis and bowed legs is a good thing. Mention is made of the research in the 70s at the University California in San Francisco into growth hormones, using cadaver pituitary glands. The FDA fast-tracked synthetic growth hormones and Genentech, between 1989 and 1994, began a dwarf measuring program in conjunction with this research. [*On July 29, 1994, Dr. Wimu and Dr. John Wasmuth at the University of California in Irvine discovered the gene for dwarfism. DATA REMOVED BY REQUEST.]

This brought on a heavy-duty moral discussion, including, “What should we test for and who(m) should we test?’

Eighty percent of dwarfs are born to normal-sized parents (changed to average-sized by request). Those parents are seen wrestling with the difficult question of what to do about their child’s lack of height.

Some patients underwent as many as 14 operations, like the 3’ 10” Chan, who chose to undergo the repetitive surgeries to lengthen her legs. This choice is left up to the individuals and the families to wrestle with. Some seem to want to remain the way they were born. Some would do anything to be taller because—let’s face it—there are a lot of things that are more difficult when you are very short, such as driving a car.

There is a heated debate about accepting money from pharmaceutical companies, which some of the members of the Little People of America obviously consider an organization that wants to exterminate them.

CONCLUSION

This one contained a lot of food for thought, and a lot of information on a subject about which I knew very little, going in.

Good luck to the Little People of America and to all the rest of us in America in 2025.

******

WHAT I SHOULD HAVE LEARNED AFTER 55 YEARS OF REVIEWING:

I’ve been reviewing since the 70s. (as I explained to the Public Relations representative who hounded relentlessly for over 3 weeks). I sent a lengthy response to her first e-mail and asked what was “wrong” that she objected to in the review (seen above). There was one typo, I was told, a surname, which we fixed. There were numerous word changes that she objected to, including the use of the term “dwarf” despite the fact that the director entitled the piece “The Tallest Dwarf.”

It was just never going to “please” this person, who completely ignored the contents of my lengthy response, explaining how a young girl sitting behind me at the showing of “On Swift Horses” learned of the documentary from me and immediately began reading the review with an intention to attend, if possible. The general chaos that any film festival represents: pretty much ignored and dismissed. And, yes, I gave her enough details for more than the cursory “When are you going to change this?” barrage that continued unabated.

Here is a partial list of the “changes Anne requested:

Updating to current language embraced & used by the community, For example:
- changing dwarf to little person
- changing dwarfs to dwarfism
- deleting THEIR CONDITION
- Dwarf is a term that is reclaimed by many little people – but also that is seen as problematic by others. In this case Julie (the director) is reclaiming this term in her title
- replace normal-sized with Average Height
Correcting spelling. For example:
- it is Dr. Shelton not Dr. Sheridan (*from the doc; unable to be determined as “wrong”, so far).
Clarifying attribution. For example:
- removing a quote from Julie tied to a medical diagnosis in the review but NOT linked to a medical diagnosis in the film
- Julie’s mother is linked to an IMDB page linking the filmmaker
- Mark is not a spokesperson for Little People of America
- removed a quote attributed to Dr. Zuck when it was Julie’s quote
- remove quote on growth hormones attributed to LPA who does not comment on growth hormones in the film – OR clarify who mentions it
- Remove reference to Dr. Wimo who is not mentioned in the film
Clarifying facts. For example:
- changing THE to MOST
- removing statement that there was no dwarfism in Julie’s family but Julie clearly inherited her dwarfism from her father
- removing Hypoplasia as that is the incorrect medical term
- Changing the statement that Mark has always been denied a close up vs. that it is “less common” for him to get a close up)

SXSW Alamo Drafthouse Theater on Lamar.

First, it was “change this to that.” That was done. One typo was fixed; [trying to find the support for that change has proven difficult; believe the name came from the film itself]. The names of the 1933 and 1935 doctors were so unusual and unique that one would expect them to be able to be found in the literature, but, so far, no. Therefore, whether there IS no Dr. Eberly Sheridan (etc.) is something that, like many claims, has yet to be supported by fact. Since it came from careful watching of the film’s screener, it seems unwise to meekly accept the “change” as an error, but, in an attempt to please Anne we did. Searching for support regarding these surnames has proven difficult,—and is it really important, since the entire italicized portion was subsequently removed? The review on a bigger blog was very “stripped down,” so it did not appear there, anyway.

The review was a fair, objective reporting of the issues faced by the Little People of America; in no way would it be considered a “bad” review. It was sensitive to the predicament that Little People face and sympathetic to their plight.

No mention of the “draggy parts” of the documentary was made, although there was cause for making such a negative point. Some editing to make it shorter would have improved the documentary, but that is very often the case. So, there was no mention of that in the original review(s). The review was far “meatier” than others, because research had been done to add to the audience’s understanding. Objections were made to giving this dwarfism background, which seemed, then and now, odd.

No mention was made of the frequent shots taken from an angle that was very unflattering to the director and the others (see picture at the top of the page). None of us would look great if shot from behind, but the shots were frequent. But, as it was a Little People project with many contributing to the filming, the focus was on the issues, not the cinematography. Those issues were presented in a fair and unslanted fashion, usually using direct quotes from the dialogue. If anything, the review was very sympathetic to Little People.

NO GOOD DEED GOES UNPUNISHED

In fact, in the original appearance of the review at SXSW, the times that the documentary was going to be shown were included, in the hopes of boosting attendance at the venue, which was somewhat off-the-beaten path. This only happened in two reviews submitted. It was an attempt to be helpful to the documentary. Also offered was placing the review up earlier than its stated embargo.

Rather than appreciating this additional information (included in only one other review), the “change this to that” orders kept coming. An offer was made to put the review up early (original premier date was March 10^th) with the thought that more people might attend, as happened with “Retirement Plan” from Irish Director John Kelly in the animated short category (a category he won. John wrote twice to say he felt the early review was a factor in their win in the category of Animated Short.)

THIRD TIME IS NOT A CHARM

Red Carpet, Paramount Theater, March 7th.

I’ve had 3 instances (in 55 years) where a representative made herself or himself unbearable by trying to pressure a reviewer (i.e., me) to present a certain point-of-view or slant. The first time was eleven years ago in Chicago. The documentary dealt with Honor Killings in the U.S.. I’ve honestly tried to block the entire incident from my mind and do not remember if it was “The Price of Honor,” or another. It taught me that it is unwise to respond to pushy people who want a total rewrite. A group of Canadian women (all attorneys) were bound and determined to dictate the point-of-view of the piece. Many things that seemed immaterial to the basic opinion of the piece (a piece which was sympathetic) were changed at their request.

But the commands kept coming.

I finally just took it down, BUT the Canadian attorneys resurrected it in PDF format and kept at it.

That went on for a very long time (just like this episode). I made a note never to deal with that agency again in any way, shape or form.

I also made a mental note that it never pays to respond. It leads nowhere. The only “changes” should be fixing factual errors, and, aside from one typo, there weren’t a lot of “factual errors.” [I’m still not certain that the surname change is “right,” but most of the paragraph was “axed” anyway, so it became immaterial.] I will need to write this down before I get into the fray of a large film festival again.

We fixed and fixed and fixed, but nothing was going to make Anne happy. I recognized this immediately and suggested taking it down from the second blog right away, just as I had taken it down from my blog immediately..

But, just as democracy dies in darkness, free speech is not something to surrender without a fight.

Reviewers should not cave simply because the person wanting the changes becomes more and more demanding and persistent. I did not tell Anne how to do her job, but she certainly tried to tell me how to do mine. If alienating reviewers when you are a Public Relations person is the goal, it seems counter-productive. Is this the best line of work for someone with a tendency to verbally bite you in the ankle (figuratively speaking) and do so over and over again? A nice, neutral review with good data should be considered a win by a P.R. team, since it was in no way negative towards the film and even designed in such a way to try to increase attendance (offer to run it earlier) by inserting the run times of the film.

FREEDOM OF SPEECH

In light of the bullying going on nationwide these days, something about removing the entire mention of this (“B-“) documentary does not set well. We still have freedom of speech—don’t we? We might not have it much longer if we cave to every demanding person who feels they have the right to dictate our opinion. [Funny: I got thank you notes from 4 other representatives or their clients, including the Swedish Ambassador representative for “The Home,” John Kelly for “Retirement Plan” and “We Bury the Dead” director Zak Hilditch and The Beguiling team.]

Australian Writer/Director Zak Hilditch and reviewer Connie Wilson at the SXSW screening of “We Bury the Dead.” (Photo by Jeff Peterson),

The second time a P.R representative sent demanding e-mails over a review was a Tennessee documentary entitled “The Tennessee 11.” That happened a good 10 years later. In that case, the P.R. representative didn’t like the opinion expressed, which was that bringing the eleven Tennessee people, who were on opposite sides of the gun control debate, into a room and making them try to reach some sort of legislative consensus to bring about gun control in the state yielded much heat but little light. It was true that the group was civil to one another, but they were no closer to reaching agreement than a liberal would be close to agreeing with a rabid evangelical MAGA supporter. There were other issues, but the Big One was saying that the meetings had been counter-productive. No legislation ever emerged as a result of the Tennessee Eleven and that was ostensibly the purpose of the documentary effort.

By then, I had wised up. I simply took down the piece immediately, rather than be subjected to non-stop “do this/change that” demands.

This time, the onslaught went on from March 2nd for over 3 weeks.

It has been an unrelenting series of “do this/do that” demands. Is this the best way to facilitate future reviews?

In reviewing “The Beguiling” I researched the background of “pretenders” who claim Indian blood when they have none. Research outside of what was presented in the short film was included, because it added to the audience’s understanding of the message of that (short) film. No one from that film sent me a note saying “that wasn’t in the film.” In fact, I received a very nice thank you note.

This attempt to include background information was also the case with this documentary. Much “looking up” of the background of dwarfism, who first found the gene that causes it, etc. The film’s P.R. representative complained about the inclusion of additional information—something that I look for in a good review. Over a period of nearly 3 weeks that information was removed in an attempt to honor her many requests.

It does make one wonder whether it is a P.R. firm’s job to repeatedly contact a reviewer and demand that data be removed. I’ve written 30 books. I’ve never contacted a reviewer telling them what to think about any of my books in their review(s). I’ve never tried to tell them what information can or cannot be used to support their point-of-view. It is fair game to correct misspellings but telling a reviewer in minute detail what should be included is not the way it works. The review should be sensitive and fair and this one was.

Maybe, under our current President, it WILL become how it works, as it does in Russia. But, right now, we have freedom of speech. A reviewer is supposed to give an honest appraisal of the content of the film. That was done. It was NOT a “bad” review and it was sensitive to the subjects. It was a fair and impartial discussion of the issues that were presented in the documentary. One objection was to the use of the term “dwarf.” “Dwarfism” was to be used or Little People. That change was made, despite the fact that the title of the documentary was “The Tallest Dwarf.” A handsome young man who appeared throughout the film—an actor named Mark—was NOT a spokesperson for Little People of America. Okay. He was shown articulating his opinions in front of the group constantly and certainly appeared to be a spokesperson for the group, but that was also removed, by request. Then came requests to change various wordings. Let’s just be precise about what all was asked and what was done:

Changed “dwarf” to “little person,” while respecting the film’s reclaimed use of the term in its title.

Changed “dwarfs” to “dwarfism” in relevant contexts.

Replaced “normal-sized” with “average height”

Removed the phrase “their disease.”

Corrected spelling/typo of Dr. Shelton to Dr. Sheridan

Clarified that Julie inherited her dwarfism from her father.

Removed “hypoplasia” but retained the correct term: Hypochondroplasia

Removed a quote that was attributed to a physician, rather than Julie

Unlinked Julie’s mother’s IMDB page and, instead, linked to the filmmaker

Clarified that Mark is not a spokesperson for Little People of America (although he is used extensively in the film)

Clarified or removed information on growth hormones, [which was contained in the film.]

Adjusted language to reflect that close-ups of Mark are “less common”, rather than “always denied. ( The actual dialogue that Mark speaks was taken from the documentary. If the Director later found it off-putting, maybe it should have been edited out?)

So, here is the review, with (some) changes and with the desire to utilize our right to free speech before it is taken away. Just as I said at the end of my review, “Good luck to the Little People of America and to all of us in the United States in 2025.”
.

“

“The Beguiling” Screens at SXSW on March 9, 2025

By Connie Wilson

On March 9, 2025

In Editorial, Essays on Politics: Best Political Essays & Ideology, Movies, Of Local (Quad Cities') Interest, Politics, Pop Culture, Reviews

A United States Premiere of “The Beguiling,” a 15 and ½ minute short about native American Indians, premieres at SXSW Film and TV Festival Sunday, March 9, at the Rollins Theater at the Long Center. The shorts start at 9:45 and run until 11:30 p.m. A second showing will be held at the Alamo on South Lamar on March 13^th, Alamo Theater #9, 10:15 p.m. until 12:06 a.m. (Midnight Shorts Category).

The film, written and directed by Ishkwaazhe Shane McSauby, explores the romance between two young native Americans, portrayed by Benairin Kane as Billy and Kim Savarino as Riley. As the plot summary put it, “Deceit turns their romantic evening into a darkly comedic nightmare.”

Reviewer Alex Heeney (“Seventh Row”) said: “This horror-inflected film addresses some hard-to-discuss-without-stepping-in-it issues. Wait for the fantastic needle drop, which offers a lot to unpack..”

Attempting to address some of the plot points, without stepping in it, here is my unpacking.

SYNOPSIS

The plot summary might more accurately have described this short as being an investigation into the phenomenon of “Pretendians” or “self-Indigenizers,” people who are not of Indian ancestry misrepresenting themselves as Indian. If you don’t remember Senator Elizabeth Warren’s claims to have some native American ancestry, those remarks caused her to be belittled at Trump’s March 4^th Address to Congress (DJT’s “Pocahontas” jab. (Leave it to Donald J. Trump to attack a respected female United States Senator with what he apparently intended to be a racist jab.) That makes “The Beguiling” an even more timely topic.

PRETENDIANS

A New Yorker article by Jay Caspian Kang laid out the case of a Professor at Berkeley, Elizabeth Hoover, who rose quickly through academia based on her claimed Indian heritage. One observer, who described the woman as showing up at every faculty meeting to spend the entire meeting beading said, “It looked like an entire Etsy store had exploded on her.” So, “Pretendians” or “self-Indigenizers” are a fact of life if you are of native American Indian ancestry.

Hoover (one of many, it should be noted) ultimately released a “Letter of Apology and Accountability” for the “broken trust” that she had caused. She maintained that her deception was in no way intentional. She insisted that posing as native American was simply what she had been told about her heritage as a young child, ancestry which she had accepted without questioning it or investigating it more fully. Hoover’s public apology labeled “Identity Crisis” was released on March 4, 2024.

Therefore, the background for this 15-minute short has its roots in recent history. In the pre-Trump days, when diversity and inclusion mattered, sometimes it was advantageous (especially in academia) if a white person had Indian blood.

DENOUEMENT

“The Beguiling” at SXSW. (Photo by Shaandiin Tome)

In the lead-up to an emerging romantic tryst between Riley (Kim Savarino) and Billy (Benairin Kane) in “The Beguiling,” Riley bites Billy a bit too aggressively in the neck. Billy goes in search of a bandaid. What he finds while searching for a bandaid in Riley’s bathroom medicine drawer and cabinet makes him suspicious about Riley’s authenticity.

Is Riley trying to convince Billy she is “a real Indian” when she’s not? If so, why?

You’ll have to journey to the Midnight Shorts at SXSW for those answers.

COMEDY OR DRAMA?

The young lovers’ romantic tryst veered a bit off the romance trail and into thriller, drama and comic territory, merging all three. For me, with my sympathies heavily on the side of the Anishimabemowin natives, the short was another sobering moment in considering the injustices of early West settlement and colonization in this country. I’ve toured the Holocaust Museum in Skokie, Illinois. Nothing funny there on that Museum’s lower level, which is devoted to Indian interment camps in Canada where indigenous Indian youth were imprisoned and mistreated.

The still-emerging details make instances of whites mistreating American (or Canadian) Indians in more modern times a hard sell for humor, for me. Don’t get me started on the rest of history! I used to teach at Black Hawk Junior College. Looking back on our historical treatment of Indian tribes just makes me mad, much like the DJT speech remark on March 4^th, 2025 makes me both mad and sad. In other words, to me, it’s not “funny;” it’s just a continuing injustice that should be stopped and redressed. Historically, I’m with Marlon Brando on this (despite the unfortunate Sacheen Littlefeather Pretender incident at the 1973 Oscars.)

CONCLUSION

Writer/Director Ishkwaahe-shane-mcsauby of “The Beguiling” short at SXSW. (Photo by Gareth Cattermole).

The heavy-duty emphasis on native Indian history on “date night” (Which camp: Carlisle or Haskell? Genocide. Colonization. Wild rice /manoomin) made me wonder about Billy’s taste in women. Flirtation has definitely changed. In today’s America, I’m told, there are Big Discussions about party affiliation before a girl even accepts that date with the cute guy hitting on her. An interesting peek into how divided things have become in the United States of America. And it seems to be getting much, much worse. Hmmmm…I wonder what we can all do about that, as voters?

The synopsis asserted that the piece was “darkly comedic.” For me, the film leaned more heavily to the former (“Dark”) than the latter (“Comedic”). If anyone doubts the timeliness of the underlying debate about authenticity and the issue of dubious claims of native American Indian heritage, we need only direct them to rewatch the supposed Leader of the Free World (is he still?) baiting a female United States Senator Elizabeth Warren on live television (March 4^th, 2025), with a snide remark (“Pocahontas”) during a live Address to Congress. That was just a few short days ago. I’m still upset about it (so was Jimmy Kimmel on his March 5th monologue).

Let’s keep fighting for diversity and inclusion and fair and civilized treatment for all. This short has exposed one small example of exploitation of a minority amidst the cultural mosaic that is the United States of America. Let’s hope that by highlighting such injustices, they can be eradicated. “The Beguiling” calls this particular version of inequality out for what it is: wrong now, then, and forever. A good effort in the fight to restore dignity and equality for everyone by making the public more aware.

Justin Trudeau Addresses Tariffs on Canada on March 4, 2025

By Connie Wilson

On March 4, 2025

In Editorial, Essays on Politics: Best Political Essays & Ideology, Local, News, Of Local (Quad Cities') Interest, Politics, Pop Culture, Television

Canadian Primer Minister Justin Trudeau.

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau unleashed a historic speech scorching Donald Trump’s idiocy over his disastrous new tariffs: “This is a very dumb thing to do.”

“The United States launched a trade war against Canada, their closest partner and ally, their closest friend. At the same time, they’re talking about working positively with Russia, appeasing Vladimir Putin, a lying murderous dictator,” began Trudeau.

“Make that make sense.”

Trump’s 25% tariffs on Canada and Mexico took effect today and the markets are in free fall. The Dow Jones Industrial Average has already plummeted 662 points after plunging 650 points on Monday. The S&P 500 lost 1.3% and the Nasdaq Composite lost 0.9%

The gullible fools who thought that Trump would be “good for the economy” have had the rug pulled out from under them in record time.

“Canadians are reasonable and we are polite,” Trudeau continued. “But we will not back down from a fight, not when our country and the well-being of everyone in it is at stake. At the moment, the U.S. tariffs came into effect in the early hours of this morning and so did the Canadian response.”

“Canada will be implementing 25% tariffs against $155 billion worth of American goods starting with tariffs on $30 billion worth of goods immediately and tariffs on the remaining $125 billion of American products in twenty-one days time,” said Trudeau. “Our tariffs will remain in place until the U.S. tariffs are withdrawn and not a moment sooner.”

“And should these tariffs not cease, we are in active and ongoing discussions with provinces and territories to pursue several non-tariff measures, measures which will demonstrate that there are no winners in a trade war,” he threatened.

“Now just like I did a month ago, I want to speak first directly to the American people. We don’t want this,” said Trudeau. “We want to work with you as a friend and ally and we don’t want to see you hurt either.”

BEE GONE

“But your government has chosen to do this to you,” he stated bluntly. “As of this morning, markets are down and inflation is set to rise dramatically all across your country.”

“Your government has chosen to put American jobs at risk at the thousands of workplaces that succeed because of materials from Canada or because of consumers in Canada or both,” he went on.

“They’ve chosen to raise costs for American consumers on everyday essential items like groceries and gas, on major purchases like cars and homes, and everything in between,” he continued.

“They’ve chosen to harm American national security, impeding access to the abundant critical minerals, energy, building materials, and fertilizers that we have and that the United States needs to grow and prosper,” he explained.

“They’ve chosen to launch a trade war that will first and foremost harm American families. They’ve chosen to sabotage their own agenda that was supposed to usher in a new ‘Golden Age’ for the United States,” said Trudeau, taking a direct shot at MAGA’s latest inane rhetoric.

“And they’ve chosen to undermine the incredible work that we’ve done together to tackle the scourge that is fentanyl, a drug that must be wiped from the face of the Earth,” he added. “So on that point, let me be crystal clear. There is absolutely no justification or need whatsoever for these tariffs today.”

Trudeau then shifted gears to go after Donald Trump directly, the clueless mastermind behind this entire disaster—

“Now I want to speak directly to one specific American: Donald. In the over eight years you and I have worked together, we’ve done big things,” said Trudeau, appealing to Trump’s ego.

“We signed a historic deal that has created record jobs and growth in both of our countries. We’ve done big things together on the world stage as Canada and the U.S. have done together for decades, for generations,” he continued. “And now we should be working together to ensure even greater prosperity for North Americans in a very uncertain and challenging world.”

“Now, it’s not in my habit to agree with The Wall Street Journal but Donald, they point out that even though you’re a very smart guy this is a very dumb thing to do. We two friends fighting is exactly what our opponents around the world want to see,” said Trudeau.

“And now to my fellow Canadians: I won’t sugarcoat it. This is going to be tough even though we’re all going to pull together because that’s what we do,” he added. “We will use every tool at our disposal so Canadian workers and businesses can weather this storm.”

(*A last-minute exchange on Trump’s Truth Social Network suggests that Trump might now use this 25% tariff, scheduled to go into effect on March 5th, as a bullying tactic against Canada, much as he used the threat of discontinuing Ukrainian military aid to extract a promise from that war-torn country to hand over precious minerals to the U.S.

CNN called Trump’s threats “a game of economic chicken.”

Trump sees everything in terms of money and power and will use any means to seize and hold both, even if it means abandoning moral principles our country has espoused for many

generations, such as USAID. To put it in simpler terms, DJT finds the far-right groups easier to manipulate, since they will blindly follow a figurehead without thinking through that Talking Head’s positions to determine if they are really advantageous to them, personally. DJT and Elon Musk are overthrowing the traditional values of free speech (and, soon, free elections) because a “free” election might throw them out of power. And, as mentioned, DJT is all about seizing and maintaining their power and wealth. There is no morality to thinking this way, but, then, we’re talking about a man not known for his morality or his compassion or his concern for anyone but Donald J. Trump.

We are talking about a man who is squandering our (former) position as the Leader of the Free World. The message to the world is that the U.S. cannot be counted on. This is not about DJT. This is about the American people and DJT is not keeping the American people (and America) safe on any level.)

How’s the Insurrection Coming Along, Then?

By Connie Wilson

On March 3, 2025

In Editorial, Interviews, News, Of Local (Quad Cities') Interest, Politics

by Mark Gimein, Managing Editor of “The Week”

BEE GONE

“Am I the sucker? For as long as I can remember I thought that the United States stood for democratic values and individual liberty. These were supposed to be the guiding lights of American foreign policy, even if the principles might not always be absolute or the path to them always direct. Critics of the U.S., both external and internal, insisted that this was a delusion at best, and more likely simply a lie. Yet for most of the post-World War II era these ideas served the U.S. very well. To put it bluntly, Thanks to them, we won the Cold War.

OR SO I THOUGHT.

But obviously President Trump and those who have Trump’s ear think differently. He never had much interest in the “suckers and losers” (his words about the American soldiers who died in France) who bought all that stuff about defending democracy. Trump, like Vice-President J.D. Vance and others in his orbit, prefers a hard-nosed realpolitik. If Ukraine shares its wealth, we might help in its defense. Or we might not.

JUSTIFICATIONS

Trump justifies this by calling Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelensky, a dictator and saying Ukraine started it all anyway—making mincemeat of the truth and decades of U.S. foreign policy goals in a single tweet. The idea that Russia is not to blame for the Ukraine war is not original to Trump. University of Chicago political scientist John J. Mearsheimer has been saying that for over a decade, starting with the paper titled “Why the Ukraine Crisis is the West’s Fault.” The “realists” like Mearsheimer urge us to drop talk of freedom and principles and see the world as just the sum of the great powers’ spheres of influence.

THE GREAT POWERS

This is how Vladimir Putin and China’s Xi Jinping see the world. They would like nothing more than to sit down with Trump and carve up the globe—taking a nibble of Latvia, tightening the noose around Taiwan. (*If you were paying attention during the Oscars last night, the Latvian team that collected their Oscar for “Flow” referenced the fighting already going on on one of their borders, which the world does not hear about.)

Jan. 6 siege of the Capitol

Each bargain might make sense to a deal-maker like Trump. But eventually losing our principles will mean losing our influence. And, in the end, it will be the U.S. that looks like the sucker at the table.”

POST SCRIPT

Later, within the magazine he manages, we learn from Charles P. Pierce (“Esquire”) that Trump specifically fired the lawyers charged with resisting illegal presidential orders. Nor was it reassuring when Hegseth explained that the JAGs had been fired to stop them from being “roadblocks to anything that happens.” Paul McLeary in “Politico” said that the former Fox News host promotes a swaggering “warrior ethos” that rejects the Geneva Convention(s).

Trump’s purge, said Tom Nichols in “The Atlantic” is “the next step in his pursuit of total power. After capturing the intelligence services, the Justice Department, and the FBI, the Pentagon is the last piece he needs to establish the foundations for authoritarian control of the U.S. government. With his generals in charge, Trump can start building a military that is loyal to him and not to the Constitution. And the Black general that Trump recently fired, Gen. Charles Q. Brown, Jr., was replaced by a man he met while on a trip to Iraq, three-star general Dan “Razin” Caine. a white retired three-star general (retired and has to be brought back from retirement) who met Trump while wearing a red MAGA hat and said, “I think you’re great, Sir. I’ll kill for you, Sir.”

And if he wouldn’t, there are always the recently-released-from-prison Proud Boys.

A.I. Analyzes the 2/28/2025 Meeting Between Trump & Zelenskyy

By Connie Wilson

On March 2, 2025

In Editorial, Essays on Politics: Best Political Essays & Ideology, News, Of Local (Quad Cities') Interest, Politics

An intriguing analysis has been circulating online regarding the psychological aspects of Zelensky’s meeting with Trump and Vance, conducted using ChatGPT.

From this analysis, it becomes evident that we have witnessed a true masterclass in gaslighting, manipulation, and coercion on the part of Trump and his entourage.

Let’s break down the key points:

1. Blaming the victim for their own situation

Trump explicitly tells Zelensky: “You have allowed yourself to be in a very bad position.” This is classic abuser rhetoric—blaming the victim for their suffering. The implication is that Ukraine itself is responsible for being occupied by Russia and for the deaths of its people.

2. Pressure and coercion into ‘gratitude’

Vance demands that Zelensky say “thank you.” This is an extremely toxic tactic—forcing the victim to express gratitude for the help they desperately need, only to later accuse them of ingratitude if they attempt to assert their rights. (Zelenskyy had actually expressed gratitude to the U.S. at least 33 times.)

3. Manipulating the concept of ‘peace’

Trump claims that Zelensky is “not ready for peace.” However, what he actually means is Ukraine’s capitulation. This is a classic manipulation technique—substituting the idea of a just peace with the notion of surrender.

4. Refusing to acknowledge the reality of war

Trump repeatedly insists that Zelensky has “no cards to play” and that “without us, you have nothing.” This is yet another abusive tactic—undermining the victim’s efforts by asserting that they are powerless without the mercy of their ‘saviour.’

5. Devaluing the victims of war

“If you get a ceasefire, you must accept it so that bullets stop flying and your people stop dying,” Trump says. Yet, he ignores the fact that a ceasefire without guarantees is merely an opportunity for Russia to regroup and strike again.

6. Dominance tactics

Trump constantly interrupts Zelensky, cutting him off: “No, no, you’ve already said enough,” and “You’re not in a position to dictate to us.” This is deliberate psychological pressure designed to establish a hierarchy in which Zelenskyy is the subordinate.

7. Forcing capitulation under the guise of ‘diplomacy’

Vance asserts that “the path to peace lies through diplomacy.” This is a classic strategy where the aggressor is given the opportunity to continue their aggression unchallenged.

8. Projection and distortion of reality

Trump declares: “You are playing with the lives of millions of people.” Yet, in reality, it is he who is doing exactly that—shifting responsibility onto Zelenskyy.

9. Creating the illusion that Ukraine ‘owes’ the US

Yes, the US is assisting Ukraine, but presenting this aid as “you must obey, or you will receive nothing” is not a partnership—it is financial and military coercion. It was similar coercion during a phone call between the two men (DJT asking Zelenskyy to investigate the Bidens) that led to Trump’s first impeachment. A notoriously thin-skinned man, he has not forgotten this snub and the set-up on 2/28 reflected that.

10. Undermining Ukraine’s resistance

Trump states that “if it weren’t for our weapons, this war would have ended in two weeks.” This is an attempt to erase Ukraine’s achievements and portray its efforts as entirely dependent on US support.

Conclusion

Trump and his team employed the full spectrum of abusive tactics: gaslighting, victim-blaming, coercion into gratitude, and manipulation of the concepts of peace and diplomacy. This was not a negotiation—it was an attempt to force Zelenskyy into accepting terms beneficial to Russia but potentially fatal for Ukraine. (Who negotiates peace without inviting both warring parties to the table?) No less a GOP voice than former Security Advisor and Ambassador Susan Rice immediately called out the embarrassing display for what it was: a set-up intended to “get even” with Zelenskyy for not submitting to DJT’s wishes at every turn and a backing of his favorite strongman, Putin.

All of what has been happening makes perfect sense if we remember that Russia has been “stroking” Trump in an attempt to convert him to a Russian asset for years. It seems to have worked better than Vladimir Putin could have imagined. Now the oligarchs will divide up the wealth and go about their business, completely ignoring the average citizen, for whom Trump seems to have absolute contempt, since he lied to all of us repeatedly. (How do you feel about your grocery bills now that eggs and beef are more valuable than some precious gems?)

I have some small hope that all of the destruction we have seen being inflicted on all institutions can be reversed, but it will take years. This is one of the few times that I honestly am grateful that I am not going to be around for decades to see all the hard work that it is going to take to UNdo the damage Trump is doing. I came in on JFK, campaigning for him as a high school girl (not old enough to vote). Now I will probably go out on Trump and his band of corrupt cronies. I’ll be bringing out my hopeful feelings of 2008 (expressed in my 2 volumes “Obama’s Odyssey: The 2008 Race for the White House”) when we elected a decent, intelligent, compassionate man President. And now we have Trump. From the sublime to the ridiculous.

Feb. 28, 2025: Democracy in Peril

By Connie Wilson

On February 28, 2025

In Editorial, Essays on Politics: Best Political Essays & Ideology, News, Politics

There are moments in history where you can feel the tectonic plates of power shifting under your feet, the precise seconds when empires declare themselves rotten and ready to collapse. February 28, 2025, was one of those moments—a grotesque display of unchecked narcissism, geopolitical idiocy, and the full-throttle transformation of American foreign policy into a Mafia shakedown.

Donald Trump, the world’s loudest and dumbest charlatan, decided to hold a public execution of Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, not with bullets, but with bullying. This was not diplomacy. This was not strategy. This was the kind of goonish humiliation typically reserved for reality television, except now the stakes were measured in millions of lives and the looming specter of World War III.

“YOU’RE GAMBLING WITH WORLD WAR III”

Trump—flanked by his yes-man JD Vance and an eerily silent Marco Rubio—welcomed Zelenskyy to the Oval Office only to berate, belittle, and ultimately dismiss him like a waiter who forgot to refill his Diet Coke. The Ukrainian president had made the grave mistake of advocating for his people, for his country, for his soldiers dying daily on the front lines against Russian invaders. But in Trump’s world, there is no room for dignity or resistance—only total submission to the Don.

“You’re gambling with World War III,” Trump barked at Zelenskyy, acting like a discount Tony Soprano shaking down a local shopkeeper. “You either make a deal, or we are out.” The message was crystal clear: Surrender to Putin, or America lets you rot.

When Zelenskyy pushed back—trying to explain, like a rational human being, that diplomacy requires more than rolling over and exposing your belly to a psychotic autocrat like Vladimir Putin—Vance chimed in, whining that it was “disrespectful” to discuss such things in front of the American media. Disrespectful! As if the real problem here was the optics, not the grotesque moral betrayal unfolding in real time. One might ask if J.D. was, indeed, brought in on purpose to “poke the bear.” Susan Rice, “W’s” Ambassador and advisor, certainly felt that Zelinskyy was set up.

TRUMP’S FIXATION WITH GRATITUDE: A MOB BOSS DEMANDING TRIBUTE

“Have you ever said thank you once?” Vance sneered at Zelenskyy, echoing his master’s worldview that all human interactions are transactional (By actual count, Zelenskyy has thanked the United States publicly at least 33 times.)

“You have to be thankful,” Trump added, “you don’t have the cards. You’re buried there.” (Zelenskyy responded, sotto voce, “I’m not playing cards.”)

This is what American diplomacy has become: an extortion racket.

Forget alliances, forget history, forget standing up to despots—Trump views everything through the lens of a cheap con artist running a rigged casino. Ukraine, in his mind, is a desperate gambler, and Trump is the pit boss deciding whether to extend another round of credit.

If Zelenskyy had gotten on his knees and kissed Trump’s golden slippers, maybe he’d have left with something. But instead, he left with nothing, because he had the audacity to act like the elected leader of a sovereign nation, rather than a groveling servant.

THE CANCELED PRESS CONFERENCE: WHEN THE HUMILIATION IS TOO MUCH TO SPIN

After the carnage, Trump did what he always does: He took to Truth Social to declare victory.

“I have determined that President Zelenskyy is not ready for Peace,” he wrote, as if the real issue is Ukraine’s unwillingness to surrender, rather than Russia’s ongoing campaign of war crimes and territorial theft.

The joint press conference was canceled—which in diplomatic terms is the equivalent of overturning the table and storming out of the restaurant. Zelenskyy was seen leaving the White House, no deal signed, no support secured. Just the bitter taste of betrayal in his mouth.

Meanwhile, the Ukrainian ambassador literally face-palmed in the middle of the meeting. She couldn’t even hide her disgust. This was the international equivalent of watching your boss drunkenly scream at a client in a meeting while you rub your temples and quietly plan your resignation.

TRUMP’S ‘PEACE’ PLAN IS A SURRENDER PLAN

This is all part of a deliberate pivot in American foreign policy. Trump has always sided with Russia, whether it’s calling Putin “a very smart guy,” ignoring his war crimes, or pretending Ukraine started the war. Now, his administration is pushing a so-called “peace plan” that amounts to a glorified land grab for Moscow.

The Wall Street Journal has already reported that Trump’s advisers are split on how exactly to force Ukraine to submit. Some want a “frozen conflict”—which translates to “Russia keeps what it stole”—while others are pushing for a formal deal that outright cedes Ukrainian land and resources to Putin. Either way, the outcome is the same: Ukraine loses, Russia wins, and Trump gets to preen about his ‘deal-making.’

THE DEATH OF AMERICA’S WORD

The entire world saw this Oval Office debacle. If you’re an ally of the United States, you just learned a very clear lesson: You cannot trust America under Donald Trump. Your security, your sovereignty, and your survival are all secondary to whether Trump personally feels flattered. If you are not groveling at his feet, you’re expendable. And this very small man will always seek to “get even” with those he believes, rightly or wrongly, have not sided with him. Trump is still mad at Zelenskyy for failing to investigate Joe and Hunter Biden when asked during the 2020 election. Just as he is still honked off over his loss of a Trump hotel to a Marriott in the Panama Canal Zone.

Meanwhile, Putin is watching. And he’s grinning. Because now he knows that Trump will do his dirty work for him. All that stroking of DJT and the money spent on his elections has provided a Russian asset who would sell his soul for money. Now, it is U.S. citizenships for wealthy Russian oligarchs that he is planning on peddling next.

Zelenskyy was just the first ally to be fed to the wolves. He won’t be the last.

Welcome to America, 2025. This is what losing everything looks like.

“You Don’t Know What You’ve Got Till It’s Gone”

By Connie Wilson

On February 26, 2025

In Editorial, Education, News, Of Local (Quad Cities') Interest, Politics

By Susan Caskle

“Bee Gone: A Political Parable”

Big, if true.

Elon Musk claims DOGE is uncovering all kinds of waste and fraud, outrageous scams perpetrated on the American people. These scams are so blatant and obvious that even youngsters untrained in forensic accounting can find them in moments. The implication is that federal workers, who are experts in their fields are either too stupid to have seen them or irredeemably corrupt. Look at the Social Security Administration, for example. Musk posted that his minions had found more than 20 million entries in the database with ages over 100 years old, including millions of people listed as over 150. It’s “the biggest fraud in history,” Musk said.

Except, of course, it’s nothing of the sort.

Because of a coding quirk in the vintage computer program the agency uses, an unknown birth date defaults to 1875, 150 years ago. These people are listed in the system, but they aren’t receiving Social Security checks—as a 2023 inspector general’s report had already concluded. In reality, only some 44,000 centenarians are alive and receiving checks, a figure that jibes with census data. And while there are certainly some fake numbers, even the conservative Cato Institute says those are mostly illegal immigrants who use them to get jobs, which means they pay into the system but get nothing out of it.

What else has DOGE turned up?

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt was eager to tell us, saying last week, “I love to bring the receipts!”

But the only examples she offered were a few programs related to equity and inclusion, such as a $3 million Patent and Trademark Office program offering internships to minority inventors, and a $57,000 award for climate mitigation in Sri Lanka. Those may go against current administration protocols but they certainly don’t amount to fraud, since the money for them was duly appropriated by Congress. And cutting them will hardly engender significant savings in a $7 trillion budget.

You know who does know how to find waste and fraud?

The Inspectors Generals in our government agencies.

But Trump fired them all.

*****

Elon Musk.

Elon Musk’s claim to have cut $55 billion is already a fantasy—this week DOGE claimed an $8 billion savings for cutting a contract actually worth only $8 million.

Catherine Rampell (“The Washington Post”): “Trump voters want a shake-up and many cheer the wrecking ball. There are legitimate problems with the status quo, but the fix isn’t to indiscriminately fire air traffic controllers, gut public health agencies, or cut funding for cancer research. Trump is not fixing the problems MAGA voters care about. He’s creating new, much scarier ones.”

Said Martin Wolf in “Financial Times: “It’s a coup that will pave the way for autocracy, plutocracy and dysfunction. You can’t boost efficiency by hacking away at a complex bureaucracy, but you can chase out conscientious workers and replace them with loyalists who’ll do your every bidding. And once Trump and Musk achieve their goal of dismantling the civil service, it won’t be easily rebuilt. “This is destruction, not reform and whatever they have been told, ordinary Americans will not benefit.”

But we know who will.

(The lyrics to Joni Mitchell’s “Big Yellow Taxi” that contain the phrase “they paved paradise and put up a parking lot” are: “They paved Paradise and put up a parking lot. Don’t it always seem to go that you don’t know what you got till it’s gone.”)

“BEE GONE,” warning about all the above, can be purchased on Amazon. Read about it here: https://conniecwilson.com/product/bee-gone-a-political-parable/

Trump Data: The Past Is Predictive of the Future

By Connie Wilson

On February 23, 2025

In Books, Editorial, Essays on Politics: Best Political Essays & Ideology, News, Of Local (Quad Cities') Interest, Politics

A real question from a Trump supporter: ‘Why do many say Trump supporters are stupid?’

(from Adam Troy Castro)

THE SERIOUS ANSWER: Here’s what the majority of anti-Trump voters honestly seem to feel about Trump supporters:

That when you saw a man who had owned a fraudulent University, intent on scamming poor people, you thought “Fine.” (https://www.usatoday.com/…/trump-university…/502387002/)

That when you saw a man who had made it his business practice to stiff his creditors, you said, “Okay.” (https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-hotel-paid-millions…)

That when you heard him proudly brag about his own history of sexual abuse, you said, “No problem.” (https://abcnews.go.com/…/list-trumps-accusers…/story…)

January 6th: Trump-inspired invasion of the Capitol. All pardoned, with no cogent plan to separate those who had attacked police officers and headed militia organizations.

That when he made up stories about seeing Muslim-Americans in the thousands cheering the destruction of the World Trade Center, you said, “Not an issue.” (https://www.washingtonpost.com/…/donald-trumps…/)

That when you saw him brag that he could shoot a man on Fifth Avenue and you wouldn’t care, you exclaimed, “He sure knows me.”

(https://www.usatoday.com/…/president-donald…/4073405002/)

That when you heard him relating a story of an elderly guest of his country club, an 80-year old man, who fell off a stage and hit his head, to Trump replied: “‘Oh my God, that’s disgusting,’ and I turned away. I couldn’t—you know, he was right in front of me, and I turned away. I didn’t want to touch him. He was bleeding all over the place. And I felt terrible, because it was a beautiful white marble floor, and now it had changed color. Became very red.” You said, “That’s cool!” (https://www.gq.com/story/donald-trump-howard-stern-story)

That when you saw him mock the disabled, you thought it was the funniest thing you ever saw. (https://www.nbcnews.com/…/donald-trump-criticized-after…)

That when you heard him brag that he doesn’t read books, you said, “Well, who has time?” (https://www.theatlantic.com/…/americas-first…/549794/)

That when the Central Park Five were compensated as innocent men convicted of a crime they didn’t commit, and he angrily said that they should still be in prison, you said, “That makes sense.” (https://www.usatoday.com/…/what-trump-has…/1501321001/)

That when you heard him tell his supporters to beat up protesters and that he would hire attorneys, you thought, “Yes!” (https://www.latimes.com/…/la-na-trump-campaign-protests…)

That when you heard him tell one rally to confiscate a man’s coat before throwing him out into the freezing cold, you said, “What a great guy!” (https://www.independent.co.uk/…/donald-trump-orders…)

Liz Cheney amidst backlash over her anti-Trump stance.

That you have watched the parade of neo-Nazis and white supremacists with whom he curries favor, while refusing to condemn outright Nazis, and you have said, “Thumbs up!” (https://www.theatlantic.com/…/why-cant-trump…/567320/)

That you hear him unable to talk to foreign dignitaries without insulting their countries and demanding that they praise his electoral win, you said, “That’s the way I want my President to be.” (https://www.huffpost.com/…/trump-insult-foreign…)

That you have watched him remove expertise from all layers of government in favor of people who make money off of eliminating protections in the industries they’re supposed to be regulating and you have said, “What a genius!” (https://www.politico.com/…/138-trump-policy-changes…)

That you have heard him continue to profit from his businesses, in part by leveraging his position as President, to the point of overcharging the Secret Service for space in the properties he owns, and you have said, “That’s smart!” (https://www.usnews.com/…/how-is-donald-trump-profiting…)

That you have heard him say that it was difficult to help Puerto Rico because it was in the middle of water and you have said, “That makes sense.” (https://www.washingtonpost.com/…/the-very-big-ocean…/)

That you have seen him start fights with every country from Canada to New Zealand while praising Russia and quote, “falling in love” with the dictator of North Korea, and you have said, “That’s statesmanship!” (https://www.cnn.com/…/donald-trump-dictators…/index.html)

That Trump separated children from their families and put them in cages, managed to lose track of 1500 kids, has opened a tent city incarceration camp in the desert in Texas – he explains that they’re just “animals” – and you say, “Well, OK then.” (https://www.nbcnews.com/…/more-5-400-children-split…)

That you have witnessed all the thousand and one other manifestations of corruption and low moral character and outright animalistic rudeness and contempt for you, the working American voter, and you still show up grinning and wearing your MAGA hats and threatening to beat up anybody who says otherwise. (https://www.americanprogress.org/…/confronting-cost…/)

What you don’t get, Trump supporters, is that our succumbing to frustration and shaking our heads, thinking of you as stupid, may very well be wrong and unhelpful, but it’s also… hear me… charitable.

Because if you’re NOT stupid, we must turn to other explanations, and most of them are less flattering.

– Adam-Troy Castro

And, if I may add a personal note from a recent discussion, an intelligent friend with whom I was speaking wrote a defense of his Trump vote, when I made the comment that, historically, Dems were often “too nice” (as we were in Florida when Gore stepped aside for the good of the country and let “W” be handed the presidency by his brother, Jeb.)

His response? (And, yes, this person is well-educated and intelligent, so the statement that Adam (above) ends his data with does rear its ugly head.) Everything that was mentioned in “BEE GONE” is coming to pass now under Trump 2.0 and our democracy is at stake if we don’t defend it and if the (stacked) courts don’t stand up to this wannabe dictator. The price of eggs and beef has shot through the roof (so much for lowering the price of groceries). Inflation is increasing. Economists warn of a coming recession. We’ve pissed off our two closest allies, who are probably going to be boycotting American goods for a very long time. The bird flu, nuclear weapons arsenal, and people that might protect us from ebola, tuberculosis and measles epidemics are in free fall as the CDC is under attack. The 100,000 or more federal employees who have been summarily fired, without due process and possibly axed by an A.I. robot, are justifiably angry and demoralized. The positions like FBI and FAA that require extensive training, as well as places like the IRS that were already understaffed, are struggling. The United States insulted the leader of Ukraine and voted “No” along with North Korea and Russia to a U.N, resolution condemning Russia’s invasion of Ukraine without cause. Our President is barely even conducting meetings, preferring to let Elon Musk and a toddler do the honors. Veteran analysts, seeing all of what is happening, have declared that it is their professional opinion that DJT was being groomed as a Russian asset from many years back and that the Manchurian Candidate may have moved from fiction to fact.

Most experts predict a Constitutional crisis, when these many questions of illegality reach the Supreme Court and we find out whether Chief Justice Roberts will stand up to the malignant narcissist who has completely ruined the United States’ reputation on the international front. European (and other) allies no longer believe in the United States as a steady-in-the-traces ally, and NATO—which Trump had attacked verbally as related in John Bolton’s book—-is now not the bulwark against Soviet aggression that it had been since WWII. (Trump, while in Air Force One on his way to a NATO meeting with Bolton, complained about the organization and revealed an almost complete lack of knowledge of its importance.)

Not everything can be judged or weighed in terms of money to be made. Perhaps that is what our current President thinks, but there was real value in being “the shining beacon on the hill” that Reagan eulogized. The dismantling of the USAID, the Department of Education, and too many other organization to mention by name has left us vulnerable to aggression from abroad as well as to plummeting faith in our institutions and the organizations, like FEMA, that serve Americans in crisis. The entire change of personnel is going so poorly that it is a wonder that we are maintaining whatever position we had as a world power, since all of this chaos and these poorly chosen federal employees, have plunged us into becoming a kakistocracy. Yes, it gives late-night comedians material, but at what price glory?

The book (above), BEE GONE, is a classic parable for our times, as it predicted what might happen if a drone in the hive tried to take over from the Queen Bee (*this was 2016’s election). As the book makes clear, “So the hive lost its honey, its Queen and its money. It was really a mess, and that isn’t funny.” The book really nailed some important facets of the fight today in 2025, following the election of 2024. It is available on Amazon. DJT killed it the first time (he was in office).

TRUMP VOTER, to me:, in defense of DJT: (I had said that Al Gore and the Dems were “too nice” in stepping aside for the good of the country in Florida (the “hanging chads”) back in 2000, therefore dooming us to 8 years of “W” when his brother, Jeb, handed him the presidency. This person felt that it was awful that Democrats were saying that Trump’s supporters were Nazis, but what else can be inferred from Elon Musk giving the Nazi salute at Trump’s inauguration?

His defense:

“Too nice?”

I see one side calling the other side Nazis and fascists. The other side just wants what we had under 45. The lowest poverty rate in the history of the stat in America and the associated childhood poverty rate. It’s as if childhood poverty doesn’t matter to some people. Also the most impressive increase in household income that we’ve seen in our lifetimes. That’s food on our most at-risk peoples’ tables. I guess I don’t understand the name-calling when it’s clear that empowering people is far better than entitling them.”

First, let me say that the “calling of the other side Nazis” may well have come from the Nazi salute Elon Musk gave at Trump’s inauguration. And were it only true that just ONE side has resorted to name-calling. You must have some pretty selective hearing if you only hear the comments aimed at Trump and his supporters. I not only heard worse things aimed at me (Trump Rally, Davenport Iowa Fairgrounds, 2016) but was physically threatened simply because I was wearing a Press badge. That was the last of my following of the candidates across the country, which I had done in 2000, 2004, 2008, 2012 and part of 2016. You are a very tough MAGA follower if you feel it is appropriate to physically threaten a 5’2″ retired 70-something retired English teacher simply for trying to report on a rally. But it was consistent with what happened in Butler, Pennsylvania, when the MAGA crowd seemed to blame the crowd for the youthful would-be assassin’s shots at DJT. Hostility was aimed at the enclosure that held the Press. Trump is actively banning the AP from press conferences now, because they did not rename the Gulf of Mexico as the Gulf of America.

Second:

It’s really reaching to pretend that the incumbent really cares about childhood poverty, when Trump has just dismantled the USAID, which is responsible for less than 1% of the U.S. budget.

And we liberals/independents/anti-Trumpites are the bad guys because WE are the ones who don’t care about childhood poverty?

Absolutely incomprehensible that anyone would try to mount a defense using THAT

“Retirement Plan:” The 7-Minute Short That Tells the Truth

By Connie Wilson

On February 20, 2025

In Editorial, Humor and Weird Wilson-isms, Movies, Music, Politics, Pop Culture, Reviews

“Retirement Plan Plan:” A 7-minute short from Screen Ireland featuring Domhnall Gleeson.

I recently had the pleasure of viewing a 7-minute short that is to screen at SXSW in March entitled “Retirement Plan.” From Fis Eireann/Screen Ireland. It was written by John Kelly and Tara Lawall and was an absolute delight. If you have the opportunity, don’t miss it. It is narrated by Domhnall Gleason (Bill Weasley in the “Harry Potter” franchise) and shows a man of retirement age musing about all the great things he is going to do in retirement. Meanwhile, in the background, John Carroll Kirby’s simple piano tunes tinkle pleasantly, with the song “Walking Through A House Where A Family Has Lived” giving you another idea about the light-hearted tone of the short piece.

My favorite exchanges were the narrator saying, “I will paraglide.”

In the next frame, he is shown with a walker and says, “I will NOT paraglide.”

The animated character that animators Marah Curran and Eamonn O’Neill present to us in the short muses on many things he will do in retirement: He will read 35 years of books that he has been putting off reading. He will clean his desktop. He will birdwatch. He will swim every morning. He will hike (“Camping is HORRIBLE!”) The camping line made me think of Woody Allen’s famous line about how his idea of “roughing it” was watching black-and-white TV. [Agreed.]

I’ve been retired for 22 years. I joined a gym with a pool in November. It is almost March. I have yet to swim even once. While I did swim (4 times) last year, the chlorine was so bad that I thought I was going to sink to the bottom of the pool, unnoticed, and drown. (Nobody else is swimming during a weekday afternoon; there is no lifeguard). I only learned on a Monday last year when they canceled the children’s swimming class that the chlorine ratio was totally screwed up. So much for, “No, Doc, I don’t know why I get dizzy and almost pass out while swimming. That never happened to me before I retired.” (It could be because L.A. Fitness didn’t bother to check their chlorine levels; some of the kiddies ALSO almost —or did?—pass out. THEN they fixed it!)

HOUSTON ART GALLERY

Lolita at the Houston Art Gallery.

I related to the cartoon character’s comment that he would go to an art gallery and “I will want to be there.”

I recently went on a 3-day trip to see Gauguin paintings at the Houston Art Museum. A really unpleasant woman within the Museum followed me for 4 rooms because I leaned against a wall in the first room. I was severely chastised for same. (There were no paintings nearby or on the wall). She finally cornered me in the fourth room, asking me if I “wanted to talk to her manager.”

My response was, “No. I don’t want to talk to your manager. And I don’t want to talk to you, either. I just want to get out of here. I have a bad knee and I felt dizzy. Which would you rather have had me do? Lean on the wall or pass out on the floor?”

Lolita and I were not destined to become buddies.

I enjoyed the trip, overall, but found myself (once again) trying out a retirement activity with a downside.

OTHER THINGS TO TRY IN RETIREMENT

What other relatable activities does our retired figure discuss?

“I will take better care of myself.” Right. I spend one day a week visiting doctors. (Today: bloodwork; tomorrow, the endocrinologist). This is my Most Normal Retirement Activity: visiting doctors’ offices. Oncologist. Endocrinologist. Heptologist. Dentist. Oral Surgeon. Podiatrist. Dermatologist. Primary Care Physician. I read an article recently that said that this is common in we “mature” individuals and doctors make no effort to help you consolidate the MANY appointments. Today, I was told that an A1C would cost me, personally, $84, because “you’ve had too many tests and your insurance won’t cover it.” [No kidding. I thought I was simply in training to become a human pin cushion.]

Elise Wilson in action. (This is how I envisioned my volleyball playing would appear. It did not.)

“I will finally find my sport.” That’s not gonna’ happen, either. While playing volleyball in a co-ed league, a demented stork-like 6′ 5″ person (male) on the other side of the net spiked it down, hard, on 5′ 2″ me. My left elbow dislocated as I turned a backwards somersault. A nice nurse in the gym ran over and said, “I think you just broke your arm.” We went to the emergency room where I was injected with intravenous valium and X-rayed to see if I HAD broken my arm. (No, but I still have bone chips in my left elbow and it aches when it rains.) I spent 6 months in a sling, invested many dollars in front-closing bras and capes, and had to go to physical therapy to address the torn ligaments and tendons. Not fun for me. The insertion of the elbow back into the socket was not fun for the 2 men attempting that task, nor for me. (The spouse waited in the hall). The little blonde diving in the clip above is my 16-year-old granddaughter, Elise. This is how I envision my volleyball playing looked. Sadly, it did not.

“I will completely nail my final words.”Probably not happening, either. I always liked the guy that wrote, on his tombstone, “I can’t be dead. I still have checks.” That retort has not aged well. There’s always W.C. Fields’ “All in all, I’d rather be in Philadelphia” for a final greeting from the grave.

BEST LINES

From the 7-minute short “Retirement Plan” from Screen Ireland.

In addition to the line “CAMPING IS HORRIBLE” and “I will not paraglide,” I laughed the hardest at the vow to “haunt the absolute shit” out of an enemy. As the author of “Ghostly Tales of Route 66” I hope this option is open to me in the after-life. I have a couple of “friends” (I use the term loosely) and relatives who, after 35 to 60 years of faithful friendship and loyalty on MY part, backstabbed me into wanting to come back as one of the ghosts of Route 66 and give them a little taste of the misery they’ve visited upon me since 2005 (YOU KNOW WHO YOU ARE!)

CONCLUSION

I honestly have not laughed so hard at a 7-minute bit in a long time. I would like to thank Fis Eireann/Screen Ireland for this truly delightful (and accurate) presentation on retirement. As someone who loved her job and didn’t really want to retire in 2003, [but did], I salute you.

Retirement sucks, basically.

It means you have to actively seek out things to do and “travel more” and “birdwatching” and “gong to plays” (“I will find out if I like plays”) isn’t cutting it. (I have learned I prefer movies to plays. Hell, I prefer shorts like this one to most plays.)

Retirement was the worst idea I have had—if it was even MY idea. I seem to remember my spouse of 57 years suggesting we would travel more, blah, blah, blah, but that went out the window when he began playing golf locally in multiple golf leagues with his old high school, elementary school, and work colleagues. The last time we traveled anywhere was before the pandemic. (I’m not counting the time shares bought in the nineties, because we go to those every year as our “home away from home.”) Me? I did not grow up in his home town and, post-work, it’s been unfun and dull. I hear that the Governor of Iowa has just declared all of Iowa a disaster area because of the bird flu, and we’re very close to Iowa. I would really like to leave any disaster area before disaster strikes (and they closed the only theater on the Illinois side of the Mississippi for over a year!)

VACATIONS?

The previous owners of Royal Resorts properties in Cancun (we owned at the Sands and the Islander) dumped it into the Holiday Inn Vacation Club All Inclusive world recently. That is a special kind of backstabbing. They built a kiddies’ pool right outside of our first floor digs. Now I get to listen to screaming kiddies knocking themselves out on the water slide at the crack of dawn. I can hardly wait. Does that sound like fun in retirement? [Just shoot me now.]

From the short “Retirement Plan”(Fis Eireann/Screen Ireland).

If I were to be asked what I would recommend people do in retirement, I would recommend that they watch this 7-minute film, because it has summed up my own reaction(s) perfectly, including the line “I will find out what a pension is.” I have. It’s not great. Between the taking of half of my Social Security moneys because I had been a teacher and we had a state pension system (I spent more time in the private sector, but Social Security still took half) and the potential insolvency of the Illinois TRS (Teachers’ Retirement System), who knows? I may be back at work before long.

Don’t give up your day job, but do try to see this wonderfully honest and creative short 7-mnute film. After all, if you’re retired, that still means that for that retirement day, instead of having 1,440 minutes to fill with useless activities, many of which you won’t enjoy, you will only have 1,433 minutes to fill.