What is old is new again

Posted on October 8, 2025 by bvanrysdam

“I would like to speak briefly and simply about a serious national condition. The United States Senate has long enjoyed worldwide respect as the greatest deliberative body, but recently that deliberative character has been debased to a forum of hate and character assassination. Freedom of speech is not what it used to be in America. It has been so abused by some that it is not exercised by others.”

The year these words were spoken was not in 2025, but rather 1950 when Sen. Margaret Chase Smith, R-Maine, addressed the US Senate on her concerns about Sen. Joe McCarthy, R-Wisconsin.

It was during the height of the cold war when McCarthy claimed to possess the names of 205 card-carrying communists in the State Department. Smith, who shared McCarthy’s concerns about communist subversion like many of her colleagues at the time, grew skeptical when he repeatedly ignored her requests for evidence to back-up his accusations.

“It was then that I began to wonder about the validity and fairness of Joseph McCarthy’s charges,” said Smith.

As you can imagine, her speech triggered an explosion of both support and criticism. The Hartford Courant said, “this cool breeze of honesty from Maine can blow the whole miasma out of the nation’s soul.” She was called “Moscow-loving,” by her critics with McCarthy dismissing her and mocking her supporters as “Snow White and the Six Dwarfs.”

Smith went out on a limb and asked her fellow republicans not to ride to political victory on the “Four Horsemen of Calumny–Fear, Ignorance, Bigotry, and Smear.”

Joseph Welch (seated left) and Senator Joeseph McCarthy (standing right) during the 1954 Army-McCarthy hearings. credit: United States Senate Historical Office

The end did not go well for McCarthy. In 1954, McCarthy charged there was lax security at a top-secret US Army facility. Boston lawyer Joseph Welch was hired by the army to make its case. At a session on June 9, 1954, McCarthy charged that one of Welch’s attorneys had ties to a Communist organization. During the national televised hearing, Welch responded with the immortal lines that ultimately ended McCarthy’s career:

“Until this moment, Senator, I think I never really gauged your cruelty or your recklessness.” When McCarthy tried to continue his attack, Welch angrily interrupted, “Let us not assassinate this lad further, senator. You have done enough. Have you no sense of decency?”

In December of 1954, the Senate belatedly concurred with the “lady from Maine” and censured McCarthy for conduct “contrary to senatorial traditions.” McCarthy’s career was over and died a broken man three years later at 48 years old.

It’s hard not to see similarities between what took place in the 1950’s and today’s politics. While it can feel a little unnerving living through these events in real time, there is comfort in knowing we have been here before and got through it and we can again.

Should congress be expanded?

Posted on September 1, 2025 by bvanrysdam

There is a lot of discussion these days about redistricting and creating congressional seats to help/hurt the current political parties. While the fighting continues, it is worth taking a look back at what the founding fathers thought about how representation should look like.

The First Congress of the United States proposed 12 amendments to the Constitution in 1789. Ten of those 12 amendments were ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures on December 15, 1791. The ratified Articles (Articles 3–12) made up the first 10 amendments of the Constitution (commonly known as the U.S. Bill of Rights). In 1992, 203 years after it was proposed, Article 2 was ratified as the 27th Amendment to the Constitution and prevents any changes to the salaries of Congress members from taking effect until after the next election of representatives has occurred.

Article 1 was never ratified.

That article called “The Congressional Apportionment Amendment” was proposed by Congress and addressed the number of seats in the House of Representatives, but was never ratified by the requisite number of state legislatures. As Congress did not set a time limit for its ratification, the Congressional Apportionment Amendment is still pending before the states. As of 2025, it is one of six unratified amendments.

The amendment lays out a mathematical formula for determining the number of seats in the House of Representatives. It would initially have required one representative for every 30,000 constituents, with that number eventually climbing to one representative for every 50,000 constituents (The average number of people according to the 2020 census data per congressional district is 761,169).

In 2020, the U.S. census recorded a population of 331.4 million. If the amendment were ratified today, it would result in a House of Representatives with at least 1,700 members (under the terms of the final version of the amendment adopted by Congress).

Because the House wanted a manageable number of members, Congress twice set the size of the House at 435 voting members. President William H. Taft signed legislation increasing the membership of the House from 391 to 433 in 1911 (two more members were added when New Mexico and Arizona became states).

Currently seven states (Alaska, Wyoming, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, and Delaware) have a single Representative. Were this amendment pass, these states would certainly gain greater representation.

Many will say by expanding the House, representatives would be closer to their constituents and more in tune with their needs. This could increase trust and political engagement among the public. It would also result in an increase to the size of the Electoral College. This could help reduce the disproportionate voting power of smaller states and prevent a candidate from winning the presidency without winning the popular vote.

One of the questions raised is “could this plan help/hinder either party”? The Case for Enlarging the House of Representatives study ran 10,000 simulations of the 2020 election at various House sizes. Neither party gained more than a 3 percent advantage in their odds of controlling the chamber and many House sizes saw no change at all.

The downside to expanding the House would be that a larger and more diverse legislative body could make it more difficult to achieve consensus and pass legislation. When more parties or factions are introduced, collective action problems and coordination problems may increase. It would also lead to higher costs to cover the expense of expansion.

Others will argue Congress has more responsibilities than ever before, leading to some representatives becoming overburdened and overscheduled. Many Americans including veterans and small business owners and employees require regular assistance from congressional offices, which can be inundated with requests from massive constituencies and thus not able to serve them in timely manner.

To amend the U.S. Constitution, ratification is required by three-fourths of the states, which currently means 38 out of 50 states must approve it. This approval can be given either by the legislatures of three-fourths of the states or by ratifying conventions in three-fourths of the states, depending on the method chosen by Congress.

I think we’re a long way off for something like this to take place, but it should certainly be in the discussion to help keep America moving forward.

A lesson in Gonzo Journalism

Posted on August 31, 2025 by bvanrysdam

While playing on the internet, I stumbled upon a book entitled “Driving Hunter Thompson (A SUNY Fredonia Memoir) by Ed Evans. The story involves three SUNY @ Fredonia students charged with bringing Hunter S. Thompson from the airport to speak at Dr. Richard B. Kline’s Press Institute, an annual event highlighted various journalists. Dr. Klein was a professor of English and Journalism at my alma mater.

I was fortunate enough to take several of Dr. Kline’s classes including News Writing and Editing and Opinion in Journalism. There is no way to describe Dr. Kline with a single word. He could be funny, crusty and very old school. He addressed male students by their last name only and added Miss of Mrs. when speaking to his female students.

His credentials were impeccable earning his bachelor’s degree from Harvard (where he wrote for the Harvard Crimson newspaper). He also earned a masters degree in English from Western Reserve University in Cleveland and a Ph.D. from Duke University.

Dr. Klein worked for the Cleveland Plain Dealer covering a variety of topics. He once proudly displayed a money clip he received from the Cleveland Indians when they made it to the World Series in 1954. When asked about whether is it was okay for a reporter to accept a gift from someone they covered, he said his editor was given a TV (a very valuable lesson for budding journalists).

He was relentless grading papers, often pulling an all-nighter to get them back to us before the next assignment. I swear there was more red than black ink when he gave me back my paper, but years later I came to understand he was making me a better writer.

Every year, Dr. Kline hosted a Press Institute, inviting nationally known journalists to speak to his students, the college community at large and anyone interested in learning about the fourth estate. People like Gloria Steinham, Carl Bernstein, Richard Reeves and Edwin Newman were all headliners his annual event.

He also had Daniel Schorr speak at the Press Institute after Schorr provided a classified report to the Village Voice for publication. CBS, who Schoor worked for at the time, was hesitant to publish the story setting off a major political and journalistic scandal. All in all, a very impressive who’s who of major journalists.

In the spring of 1977, Hunter Thompson accepted the invitation from Dr. Klein to speak about his thoughts on writing which featured a new term; “Gonzo Journalism”. Anyone who is familiar with Thompson’s work (“Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas”) understands how Thompson used a chainsaw instead of a typewriter to write his stories and books. He became the protagonist in the story, immersed as a first-person participant whose personal experiences and emotions are central to the narrative.

Evan’s book includes how Thompson was taking drugs and alcohol after landing at the Buffalo airport along with a memorable visit to the Fountain Grill, a popular bar where the locals hung out, to get in another drink before his appearance. I fondly remember the grill was across the street from the old WBUZ-AM where I did some shifts during the summer months, enjoying a draft beer for 25¢ and chatting with the old men from town.

I recall sitting in the large McEwen lecture hall on campus with a packed house, excited to hear what Thompson had to say. According to Evan’s book, Thompson’s contract for his appearance included a pitcher of ice, glass tumblers and a bottle of Wild Turkey so you can imagine the scene.

The informal format featured Dr. Klein asking questions to Thompson. I remember at one point him asking what he thought of his “hero” William Buckley to which Thompson replied, “Buckley is a fool.” While maybe not shocking today, at the time it felt crazy to be so out there (although I do recall a smattering of applauses to the response).

In the end, Thompson was taken back to the airport, and we were left wondering what we had just experienced. I have to admit, it opened my mind to think about journalism and writing in a whole new way. Suddenly, the normal who, what, when, why approach to a news just seemed boring.

It was no secret that Dr. Kline was conversative and traditional in his approach to journalism, yet he was not afraid to question where it was going and expose his students to see things from a different point of view. He was fearless in his approach to building a journalism department that SUNY @ Fredonia could be proud of and leave a legacy that continues to this day.

I can honestly say that Dr. Kline and Dr. Berggren (my advisor and radio professor) had a tremendous impact and role in helping me to enjoy a career in communications that was both rewarding and satisfying for which I am forever grateful.

Sadly, Dr. Kline passed away in 1987 of Parkinson’s disease, I just wish I could see his red line edits to what I wrote here and keep learning to author with clarity and purpose.

Logo madness

Posted on August 28, 2025 by bvanrysdam

I went to have lunch at a local Cracker Barrel the other day. I was not trying to make a political statement, but seeing all the hup-bub about them updating their logo reminded me how much I enjoyed eating there.

The restaurant was crowded with people and I wondered how many of them (if any) were there due to the decision to go back to the old logo (their stock jumped more than 8% following news that the restaurant chain was dropping the updated logo).

It’s not the first time a national company has tried to “refresh” its brand. The most famous example was the Coca-Cola Company’s 1985 decision to change the formula of its flagship soda, replacing it with “New Coke” to boost declining market share. The company faced a huge consumer backlash and quickly re-introduced the original formula as Coca-Cola Classic. (New Coke was eventually re-branded as Coke II in 1990 and was discontinued in 2002).

Many blamed Cracker Barrel CEO Julie Felss Masino for not understanding their customer base and even accused the company of becoming Woke. “WTF is wrong with @CrackerBarrel??!” Donald Trump Jr. said in response to a post on X that implied the logo may be motivated by diversity, equity and inclusion efforts. I wonder when was the last time he visited one.

Such a major change to any national brand would have to include market research, focus study groups and deep data dives. Conspiracy fanatics are claiming the whole thing feels like a marketing ploy by releasing the most generic logo possible, announcing it as the “new look,” and waited for the internet to erupt. They claim Cracker Barrel knew that outrage would spread because people love a distraction these days and bring attention to a struggling brand and bring back diners by “caving in” and going back to the former logo.

I understand brand loyalty and consumers who don’t want change, but what confuses me is the passion many took to air their discontent of the logo change. Unlike New Coke, the Cracker Barrel menu didn’t change. There were no reports of the restaurant using less butter and lard (which helps make their food extra yummy). So why was there such an uproar? Was it because patrons would be worried, they would be seen as Woke?

It also makes me wonder why people felt such a passion over the rebranding of a restaurant logo, but not other issues facing our country. Where is the outrage over another school shooting? I suspect if there is one issue everyone in America can agree upon is that mass shootings need to stop. I know the answer to that is hard and complicated, but it feels like we don’t even know where to begin so we just throw our hands up (or put them in prayer mode) and move on to the next crisis.

Remember; “Not to decide is to decide” – Harvey Cox.

Putting the “me” in entitlements

Posted on August 6, 2025 by bvanrysdam

Republicans were “entitled to five more seats” in Texas said President Donald Trump when responding to a question about the redistricting efforts taking place in the Lone
Star State.

“We have an opportunity in Texas to pick up five seats. We have a really good governor, and we have good people in Texas. And I won Texas,” Trump told CNBC’s Squawk Box. “I got the highest vote in the history of Texas, as you probably know, and we are entitled to five more seats.”

While not surprising, the word “entitled” raised a few eyebrows.

Merriam-Webster defines entitlement as “belief that one is deserving of or entitled to certain privileges” (interesting they use the actual word in the definition). Dictionary.com takes it one step further saying it is “the unjustified assumption that one has a right to certain advantages, preferential treatment, etc.”.

Republicans have long been known for opposing entitlements to those groups of people who they feel don’t deserve them. Recently, Elon Musk trumpeted the need to make cuts in federal entitlement programs including Medicare and Social Security citing massive waste and fraud.

Of course, Texas Governor Gregg Abbott added the redistricting agenda item to the special session he called for after the horrific flooding that took place in the Texas hill country last month (along with some other items including banning THC). One wonders how the Texas legislature was able to come up with redistricting plan so fast why still wrestling with how to best protect its citizens who live along the Guadalupe River.

They did manage to hold several town meetings on the issue with no details (aka maps to show to the public) in an apparent show of transparency. Days after the meetings were concluded, low and behold, they introduced the maps that they plan to vote on (funny how that worked).

Sadly, it’s a common practice for politicians to preach, do as I say, not as I do. Perhaps they also need to post the golden rule in Austin.

We’ve come a long way (maybe)

Posted on July 28, 2025 by bvanrysdam

One hundred years ago, the trail of the century took place in a little town called Dayton, Tennessee. The Scopes Trial, also known as the “Monkey Trial,” put John Scopes, a high school teacher on trial for violating a state law prohibiting the teaching of evolution in public schools.

Well before the advent of social media, the trail went viral thanks to two very high-profile attorneys (aka: influencers); William Jennings Bryan, a prominent figure in the fundamentalist movement and a former three-time presidential candidate and Clarence Darrow, a renowned defense attorney who was supported by the ACLU.

A little know fact was that the trial was actually seen as a way for the town to make money and garner national attention (the judge quipped he might use the local football stadium for the courthouse). It attracted newspaper reporters from across the country and was the first live broadcast of a trial in American history bringing the courtroom drama into living rooms everywhere.

At the core of the case was The Butler Act, a Tennessee law which made it illegal for any publicly funded school to teach the theory of evolution, especially any theory that denied the biblical account of divine creation and suggested humans descended from a lower order of animals.

Wanting to put together a test case (a sort of mock trial to test legal strategies) the ACLU found Scopes, a young high school teacher in Dayton, who volunteered to be the defendant thus setting the stage for what would pit science vs. religion.

The case highlighted the deep community divisions between traditional religious values and modern scientific thought. It also raised significant questions about academic freedom and the right of teachers to present scientific theories in the classroom.

The actual outcome of the trial was anticlimactic. Scopes was found guilty by the jury and fined $100. The conviction was later overturned on a technicality by the Tennessee Supreme Court, which ruled that the judge, not the jury, should have imposed the fine.

Fast-forward to 2025 where the debate of religion in the classroom continues. In Texas, the discussion centers on the display of the Ten Commandments and the introduction of optional periods for prayer and Bible reading in public schools (although one has to question if it would be more beneficial to post the Ten Commandments in the offices of elected officials who seem to not remember all of them).

Supporters argue these measures uphold community values and are foundational to American law and education. Those opposed, including some faith leaders and advocacy groups like the ACLU of Texas, argue such policies infringe on religious freedom and violate the separation of church and state.

The state has also introduced the “Bluebonnet Learning” curriculum which was developed by The Texas Education Agency and includes religious references in lessons aligned with state standards (although given the actions of some elected officials, one wonders what those state standards are).

The issue of religion and education is not new, the Condemnations at the medieval University of Paris in 1201 were put in place by the Bishop of Paris to curb certain teachings as being heretical by the church, who at the time could be considered as powerful as any government (see Education under the microscope).

It’s a discussion that seems to not be going away. They say science cannot replace religion and religion cannot replace science. I guess the question is, can they co-exist.

The ghost of Jeffery Epstein

Posted on July 17, 2025 by bvanrysdam

They say old sins cast long shadows and the reported Jeffery Epstein client list is certainly overshadowing much of what is taking place in American politics.

The far right (MAGA) are not happy that President Trump’s administration has decided not to release the Epstein files. Supporters say that was a campaign promise made by Trump in August 2019, after Epstein’s death. To add fuel to the fire, Trump retweeted a post that alleged Bill Clinton was connected to Epstein’s death during that time.

Fast forward to June 2024 when Trump was asked if he would release various files including the John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King Jr. assassination files and the Epstein files during an interview with Fox News, Trump responded, “Yeah, yeah, I would.”

Now the president has done a 180. On July 16, Trump posted to his social media platform blaming Democrats for the files and those who he called “past supporters” of his for the fixation on Epstein.

“Their new SCAM is what we will forever call the Jeffrey Epstein Hoax, and my PAST supporters have bought into this “b——,” hook, line, and sinker,” Trump wrote on his own conservative social media platform. Which is odd given that Trump played a significant role into spreading the “b——-” in the first place.

In an unlikely pairing, Democrats have jumped on the MAGA bandwagon also demanding the files be released. A super PAC working to elect Democrats to the House is naming and shaming Republicans who once demanded to see records from Epstein’s sex trafficking investigation but voted against the Democratic effort to release them.

What I am struggling to understand is what do either side hope to gain with the release of the files. Is it simply looking to hold Epstein’s clients accountable and bring them to justice? Maybe Republicans think they’ll find high-level democrats like Bill Clinton named while Democrats think they’ll find Donald Trump’s name in there. What does each side hope to gain?

I am reminded of a fundamental principle in legal settings; “do not ask questions you don’t know the answers to.”

It was this theory brought up in the O.J. Simpson murder trial, where prosecutor Christopher Darden’s decision to ask Simpson to try on a glove found at the crime scene famously backfired. The glove appeared not to fit, allowing defense attorney Johnnie Cochran to deliver his unforgettable line: “if it doesn’t fit, you must acquit.”

Maybe those on the right and left don’t care where the proverbial chips fall and simply want justice, but in today’s hyper-divided political discord, I for one am not sure that is the case. I am reminded of the old adage, “be careful what you wish for”. There might be hidden downsides or unexpected challenges that come with getting it.

Caveat emptor (buyer beware)

Posted on July 7, 2025 by bvanrysdam

I got an “official” email from the Social Security Administration that caught my eye about the recent budget bill signed into law. It read in part…

“The bill ensures that nearly 90% of Social Security beneficiaries will no longer pay federal income taxes on their benefits, providing meaningful and immediate relief to seniors who have spent a lifetime contributing to our nation’s economy.”

My first thought was wow, that could really save me some money when I file my 2025 taxes. I remember there had been some discussion about that but have to admit (like many other politicians) I did not read all 1,000 pages of the bill.

Turns out, the email was misleading at best.

The bill includes a temporary tax deduction of up to $6,000 for seniors ages 65 and older, and $12,000 for married seniors. The president’s Council of Economic Advisers argued last month that nearly 9 out of 10 seniors would not pay any federal taxes on their Social Security benefits because the new deduction would eliminate their tax burden.

“This is a historic step forward for America’s seniors,” said Social Security Commissioner Frank Bisignano in the email. “For nearly 90 years, Social Security has been a cornerstone of economic security for older Americans.”

This isn’t the first time the Trump administration has used a governmental agency to promote his agenda. You can’t turn on the TV with seeing the Department of Homeland Security running anti-immigrant ads in the United States and overseas that repeatedly thank President Donald Trump for leading an immigration crackdown (at a cost of up to $200 million).

Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said those ads were Trump’s idea, and during the administration’s transition to power, the president asked her to star in ads thanking him “for closing the border.”

Now we have the IRS celebrating the passage of the so called “One Big, Beautiful Bill”, which they called a landmark piece of legislation that delivers long-awaited tax relief to millions of older Americans.

This has led some to worry that the message may violate the Hatch Act, which prohibits partisan political activities of most federal executive branch employees, including the SSA and its commissioner who was also quoted in the email as saying…

“By significantly reducing the tax burden on benefits, this legislation reaffirms President Trump’s promise to protect Social Security and helps ensure that seniors can better enjoy the retirement they’ve earned.”

While Trump repeatedly promised to eliminate federal income taxes on Social Security benefits, congressional rules prevented amendments to Social Security through the reconciliation process and so was not included in the bill.

The bill does include legislation that gives American taxpayers aged 65 and over a $6,000 boost to their standard deduction, which will impact all taxable income, including Social Security benefits, from 2025 through 2028 (individuals with incomes up to $75,000 and couples with incomes up to $150,000 can deduct the full $6,000).

Say, for example, a person received $60,000 in social security benefits. They would be taxed on $54,000 of the money in addition to any other deductions they may qualify for. And these savings expire in 2028 after Trump term ends leaving the next president and congress in the position of ending it, extending it, or modifying it.

Claims the major new spending bill has eliminated taxes on benefits for most recipients is disingenuous at best, but as with many political promises, it is always wise to pull back the curtain to see what is really taking place.