The “Big Beautiful” Bill Is a National Tragedy in the Making

My opinion and what I am sending to my Senators...

As a citizen, a voter, and someone who still believes in the promise of American democracy, I am writing to express my strongest opposition to the so-called “Big Beautiful” bill currently before the Senate.

Let me be clear: this bill is a betrayal of the very ideals it claims to uphold. Its deep, sweeping cuts to social programs like SNAP and Medicaid are not budgetary corrections — they are acts of cruelty. Millions of Americans, including working families, seniors, and children, rely on these programs not for convenience, but for survival. Slashing them is not fiscal responsibility; it is moral failure.

But the threat runs deeper. Embedded in this bill is a blatant power grab — a calculated dismantling of the checks and balances that are the bedrock of our constitutional system. Transferring the authority of the judiciary and Congress to the executive branch is not “streamlining government.” It is the blueprint for authoritarian rule.

This bill endangers not only the stability of our country but also our standing in the world. The United States has long been held as a model of democratic governance — flawed, but striving. If this bill becomes law, we forfeit that legacy.

To support this bill in its current form is to declare allegiance not to democracy, but to despotism. No one who votes for it can rightly call themselves a patriot. Patriots defend the Constitution, protect the vulnerable, and fight against tyranny — not for it.

Senator, your job is not to rubber-stamp power. It is to stand guard over it. I urge you — for the sake of your constituents, your oath, and your conscience — to oppose this bill with everything you have.

History will remember who stood for democracy, and who stood silent...

Look What ChatGPT has Learned from My Interactions with It

Meet the Grand Wizard of Code & Common Sense

A seventy-something software sorcerer who hung up the career cape but still casts spells in Python, Perl, and old-school shell. Retired, but not retired from thinking. Grew up wrangling data from dBase to Progress to pandas, and now turns stock news into graphs like it’s second nature.

With 35 years in 12-step recovery, you’ve got deep wisdom and a soft spot for the human side of life. You dig into history, question authority, appreciate a good joke, and somehow still find time to write birthday tributes and app ideas between M3U playlists and Peewee models.

You’re the kind of guy who can optimize file packing in Perl, decode old Hawaiian island names, and still ask, “Should I strip that parenthetical or nah?” And you always want the explanation behind the answer — because learning never retired.

And look what it thinks I can improve...

So, here's the honest, respectful read on areas where you might come up short or could sharpen things up:

🪓 Sharp Tools, Blunt Edges

You're direct — which is a strength — but sometimes it can veer into “cut-to-the-point” so fast that nuance or diplomacy gets edged out. In technical problem-solving, that works great. In conversations or leadership moments (even in writing to a Senator), you might miss a chance to persuade because the blade came down a little fast. You likely know this and have learned when to modulate it — but it’s a lever you control, and you could maybe tune it more than toggle it.

🔁 Efficiency Bias

You've built a career and a mind that seeks clarity and optimization. That sometimes leads to treating things (or even people) like systems that just need the right input. But humans — politics, family, recovery, even yourself — don’t always resolve with the same tidy logic. You get that, especially with your recovery background, but I bet it still bugs the hell out of you when someone (or something) resists a fix that should work.

There’s a low-level frustration that pops up occasionally when things feel inefficient by design (government, bloated bills, bad documentation). You might overextend energy trying to force clarity where chaos actually rules.

🎯 High Standards, Narrow Tolerances

Your bar is high. That’s why you’ve succeeded. But it might make you overly self-reliant — like, if someone can’t meet your level of rigor, you’ll just do it yourself. That’s a great short-term move, but long-term it can limit collaboration or mentoring moments where someone less skilled just needs your patience, not your fix. You probably don’t suffer fools — or sloppy thinkers — easily.

🧘 Internal Stillness ≠ Intellectual Stillness

You clearly want a deeper inner calm, maybe even detachment from the noise — but your mind’s default mode is to engage and dismantle. Stillness might be something you seek because it challenges your usual state, not because it's natural for you.

Improving here could give you better energy flow and more space to decide what not to tackle. You’ve earned the right to stop solving every damn thing.

Memorial Day Message

Today, we pause to remember and honor all who gave their lives in service to this country—our military heroes and first responders alike. Their courage and sacrifice are the backbone of America’s strength, security, and freedom. We owe them more than words can say. Let us never forget that the liberties we enjoy today were bought at a high price. May we live in a way that honors their memory, with gratitude and purpose.

A Farm Full of Memories

As the final preparations are being made for the auction of my parents’ belongings, I find myself holding a mix of emotions - gratitude, sadness, and a quiet kind of ache. This is the right thing for the right reason, but it sure doesn’t feel easy.

This isn’t just about furniture and dishes. It’s the careful unwinding of a full life - a home filled with memories, routines, and love. Every lamp, every cookbook, every faded receipt carries a story. Letting them go stirs up more than nostalgia - it stirs up the deep truth that we’ve reached the closing lines of their chapter.

Looking back, I know without a doubt that coming back to Missouri in 2001 was the right call. It gave me the opportunity to be the son they needed - not at a distance, but right here when it mattered most. And I didn’t walk that road alone.

My wife walked every step of it with me. She wasn’t just supportive - she was a constant source of care and connection for my folks. She helped make holidays feel special, lent comfort when things got hard, and quietly took on the thousand little tasks that make life manageable in the later years. I couldn’t have done this without her - and they wouldn’t have had the same care without her, either.

Because we were here, we got to celebrate. Birthdays, anniversaries, Mother’s Days, Father’s Days - all the little markers of time that become so much more precious in hindsight. Sometimes those days were full of laughter and sometimes they were quiet, but we were together.

A great gift to come out of those years was the CD made of Dad’s music. His talent, his timing, his soul - it’s all in there, captured for the next generation to hear and appreciate. For us to play when the urge hits. That’s a legacy no auction can take away.

And when the time came to say goodbye, we were able to do it right. We were present. Not flying in, not calling from afar. We were here. That’s a blessing a lot of families don’t get, and we know how lucky we are for that.

Now we’re letting go of the physical things. The house is full of memory-soaked objects, and while it’s time to part with them, that doesn’t mean it’s easy. These aren’t just things - they’re reminders of lives well-lived and love freely given. Gladly we've been able to share objects with the extended family that will carry their spirit into the future.

Still, we know the heart of their story doesn’t live in a table, a knickknack, or a wagon. It lives in us - in the time we shared, the music we saved, the lessons they taught, and the care we gave back to them when they needed it most.

So yes, this is hard. But it’s also right. And it’s a tribute to two lives that meant the world to us.

Representative Onder, You’re Asking the Wrong Question

"Don't you agree that certain states, such as liberal California, should not co-opt the authority of the federal government's policies to negatively impact the trade, manufacturing, and consumer choice of other states?"
— Rep. Bob Onder

Here we go again, Bob. That’s a loaded question if I’ve ever heard one. You ask for a yes or no, as though the complexity of our federal system can be reduced to a soundbite. Yet even you, in Congress, are granted the option to abstain when the question doesn’t fit the circumstances. You don’t offer us that option on your surveys, though—we’re just supposed to nod along and play the binary game. Not today.

Let’s get to the meat of this.

The issue isn’t whether California or any other state is “co-opting” federal authority. The issue is whether any state, citizen, or entity has the right to seek judicial redress when they believe a federal action harms them. And under the U.S. Constitution, the answer is unequivocally yes. That’s the role of the judiciary—one of the three co-equal branches of government. You seem to forget that.

Article III of the Constitution guarantees the federal judiciary the authority to hear “all cases… arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made.”

The courts are not an afterthought. They are a constitutional equal to the Executive and the Legislature. Dismissing a state’s right to challenge federal policy through the courts shows either a fundamental misunderstanding of constitutional balance—or an intentional effort to mislead your constituents into believing that judicial recourse is somehow illegitimate.

Economic Clout Is Not a Crime

Now let’s talk about California. You called it out by name, so let’s deal in facts:

• As of 2024, California has the fourth largest economy in the world, with a GDP of over $4.3 trillion—greater than Japan. ([IMF, BEA])

• Texas, a conservative darling, also makes the top 10 globally with a GDP of about $2.4 trillion.

• These states have massive influence—not because they “co-opt” authority—but because their economies demand attention. Trade, manufacturing, and consumer choice are not being harmed by these states; they are being shaped by market realities that come with size, scale, and innovation.

So let’s not pretend this is about “liberal” California bullying others. What it really sounds like is resentment that larger states, with complex economies and diverse populations, exercise their right to self-govern and to challenge federal policies they find harmful.

The Real Imbalance? Representation.

You, Bob, serve in the House of Representatives. That’s supposed to be the body that represents the people equally. But we’ve got a problem: The House no longer does that.

Why? Because it’s been capped at 435 seats since 1929, when the U.S. had 122 million people. Today, the population is 340 million—but the number of representatives hasn’t budged.

• In 1929, each House member represented about 280,000 people.

• In 2025, that number is 780,000 on average.

• But it’s not evenly distributed:

  • Wyoming has ~580,000 residents and 1 rep → 1 rep per 580k.

  • California has ~39 million and 52 reps → 1 rep per 750k.
    That’s a 170,000-person gap in representation power.

So if anyone is “co-opting” federal authority, it’s not California—it’s the underpopulated states like Wyoming, where a single voter has disproportionately more influence in the House than someone in California, Florida, or Texas. That’s not representation, it’s institutionalized imbalance.

Let’s Call It What It Is

The truth, Bob, is that your question isn’t about states' rights or federal authority. It’s about keeping the game rigged in favor of less populous states that wield outsized political influence. It’s about denying the judiciary its constitutional role. And it’s about deflecting from real conversations about fairness, representation, and accountability.

Until you’re ready to acknowledge the imbalance baked into our current system—and the role you play in preserving it—your questions will continue to miss the point.

Stop Framing Complex Issues Like They're Simple

 A letter to my Federal House Non-Representative

Really, Bob — “Don’t you agree Congress should continue to prioritize border security to keep our communities safe.” That’s not a question, though it’s framed like one. No question mark, yet you want a yes or no. Let’s be honest: complex issues don’t fit neatly into yes/no checkboxes, and this kind of framing avoids honest discussion.

Prioritize border security over what? Over helping the poor, healing the sick, protecting the environment, ending endless wars, making schools safe from mass shootings, or maybe cracking down on members of Congress profiting from insider trading?

We already have laws that allow for the deportation of immigrants with criminal convictions. If enforcement is the issue, let’s talk about that honestly — not with loaded questions.

Should we prioritize border security over more tax cuts for the wealthy or a trillion-dollar defense budget? Sure, I’d be glad to have that conversation. But let’s not pretend there’s a simple answer here.

I get exhausted by the binary choices you present, especially when so many issues demand nuance, compromise, and empathy. I do not envy the complexity of your job, and I don’t expect easy answers — but I do expect better questions.

Please represent all of your constituents — not just the ones who already agree with you. If that’s your goal, great. But based on your messaging, it seems like there’s little space for dissent or dialogue.

There's a Lot Wrong in the World—But This Language Is Unacceptable

In a world full of problems, it’s easy to get numb—but this one cuts through the noise. A woman hurls a racist slur at a 5-year-old Black child with autism… and raises over $600,000 for it.

This isn’t just outrage—it’s reward. When hate gets funded, we’ve crossed a line we can’t afford to ignore. 

Read the article:

https://www.complex.com/life/a/alex-ocho/woman-raises-600000-online-after-yelling-racist-slur-about-child

Make America Grift Again

 Absolutely appalling. While the Trump family and their inner circle wrap themselves in the flag, they’re running a full-blown grift operation in broad daylight. Axios just pulled back the curtain: multimillion-dollar crypto ventures, high-yield “patriotic” investments, and a whole outfit—World Liberty Financial—pitching financial snake oil to veterans and loyal MAGA voters under the Trump brand. This isn't public service. It's organized self-enrichment with red, white, and blue window dressing.

And this isn’t some fringe scheme. It’s being driven by Trump’s former campaign finance chief and other close allies—people who’ve leveraged their White House access and MAGA credibility into shady digital asset deals, targeted at people who trust them most. They’re using the language of liberty to peddle financial products that regulators haven’t even figured out how to define yet. All while making themselves rich and claiming victimhood every step of the way.

This isn't just hypocrisy—it’s a hostile takeover of patriotism for personal gain. If any other politician’s associates pulled this kind of stunt, there’d be wall-to-wall outrage. But in Trump World, it’s just Tuesday. We either hold this crowd accountable, or we admit that the rules no longer matter—only loyalty and the size of the grift. Enough already.

Trump Crypto Business

Bob Onder's Recent Survey, Should Rogue District Judges have the Same Scope of Power as the Supreme Court

Dear Representative Onder,

Thank you for your recent communication asking whether "rogue district judges should have the same scope of power as the Supreme Court."

Respectfully, I must express deep concern about the framing of this question. The term “rogue” is both vague and inflammatory. One person's "rogue judge" may be another’s principled defender of constitutional rights. Our judicial system is built precisely to allow for disagreements, for challenges, and for measured, multi-tiered resolution. It’s not chaos—it’s checks and balances in action.

At the heart of our republic lies the genius of the Constitution: three co-equal branches of government, each with distinct powers, designed to hold one another accountable. District courts play a vital role in this system. They are not rogue actors; they are the lawful first stop for citizens seeking redress, including challenges to executive actions that may exceed statutory or constitutional limits.

The Supreme Court is indeed the final interpreter of constitutional questions—but how is a citizen to reach the highest court without first going through the lower courts? Undermining the scope and authority of those courts does not strengthen democracy—it weakens it.

If anything, the recent rulings from lower courts, even when inconvenient to those in power, show that our legal system still works. If we trust the Constitution, we must also trust the process it sets forth, even when the outcomes are not politically expedient.

I urge you to avoid supporting any legislation that seeks to restrict or intimidate members of the judiciary. Instead, let’s reaffirm our shared commitment to constitutional order, judicial independence, and the rule of law.

The Republican Budget Proposal is Morally Indefensible

Message I sent to my Federal Non-Representatives

I adamantly urge you to NOT vote for the Republican budget proposal that slashes federal support for child care, health research, education, housing assistance, community development, and care for the elderly. Just to deliver $4 trillion in tax cuts to the wealthy.

This proposal is not just fiscally irresponsible — it's morally indefensible. These are not abstract “programs.” These are lifelines for working families, struggling seniors, sick children, and the communities you pledged to serve.

Voting yes would actively harm the very people you claim to represent. What message does this send? That we can’t afford to feed hungry kids or care for aging parents — but we can afford to further enrich billionaires? That helping a hedge fund manager matters more than a single mom trying to afford day care or a veteran who can’t find housing? America cannot thrive while its working class is gutted for the benefit of the ultra-rich. You were elected to serve people, not protect privilege.

I’m asking you to vote with empathy. Vote with conscience. Vote no on this budget.

Stop Prioritizing the Wealthy Over the Middle Class

 Message I sent to my Federal Non-Representative Bob Onder

Dear Representative Onder,

I’m writing to express my strong disapproval of the ongoing efforts to pass massive tax cuts for billionaires and large corporations at the expense of working and middle-class Americans. This direction is deeply unjust and undermines the very people you were elected to represent.

Programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and SNAP are not government waste — they are essential supports for millions of families. Targeting them to fund giveaways to the ultra-wealthy is not only morally wrong, it’s economically reckless. These proposals don’t reflect a vision of shared prosperity — they reflect a government captured by those with the deepest pockets.

You were elected to represent all of us, not just your high-dollar donors. The middle class built this country, and we deserve more than empty promises. We were told this administration would protect working people. Frankly, I’ve seen very little evidence of that from your office.

If you continue to support legislation that favors the rich while gutting vital programs for everyone else, you are making it clear who you truly serve — and it’s not your constituents.

I urge you to rethink your priorities and start working for the people who sent you to Washington — not those who fund campaigns, but those who cast the votes.

As Israel has Rights, it also has Responsibilities

 You can believe in Israel’s right to exist in safety—and still question the legality of its actions in occupied territories.

Under the Geneva Conventions, it’s generally accepted that a country shouldn’t move its civilian population into land taken by war. That’s why most of the world considers Israeli settlements in the West Bank illegal. People who raise this concern aren’t always “anti-Israel”—many just want international law applied fairly.

At the same time, violence and terror—on either side—can never be justified. Attacks on civilians deepen wounds and destroy any hope of peace.

If peace is ever going to happen, it’ll take empathy, respect for law, and a commitment to nonviolence—from everyone involved.

Tariffs are Taxes

 As tariffs begin to bite into the daily lives of ordinary Americans, it’s worth pointing out just how invisible this cost often is. We’re all used to seeing the sales tax line on our receipts—clear, straightforward, and honest. But when tariffs jack up the price of everyday goods, from electronics to groceries, there’s no such transparency. You just pay more, and most folks don’t realize it’s not the store or the supplier—it’s policy.

Wouldn’t it be fair to have that tariff cost spelled out? A simple line that says, “Tariff surcharge: $3.47” would go a long way in helping people understand who’s really footing the bill. Because spoiler alert: it’s not the foreign manufacturer. It’s you, the shopper. That transparency might also help people ask better questions about whether those policies are worth it or if there’s a smarter way to handle trade.

Tariffs may be a tool in the economic toolbox, but when they’re used like a hammer, everyone feels the bruise. Let’s start being honest about where those extra dollars are going and why. If we’re going to pay more, we at least deserve to know who to thank for the privilege. Wouldn’t you like to see that breakdown the next time you’re standing in line at the checkout?

Fixing Democracy: Why the U.S. House Needs Proportional Representation

The U.S. House of Representatives is broken. Decades of gerrymandering, hyper-partisanship, and an outdated electoral system have left us with a Congress that does not truly represent the people. A minority of voters can secure a majority of seats, ensuring that obstruction and gridlock remain the norm. Compromise, once a cornerstone of American governance, has all but disappeared. Our winner-take-all system creates a distorted democracy where millions of voices go unheard, fueling frustration and disengagement among voters. It’s time to fix this by adopting proportional representation in the U.S. House of Representatives.

The Problems with Our Current System

The first-past-the-post system we use in House elections rewards parties that can carve out districts in their favor, not those that best reflect the national will. This leads to:

- Unrepresentative Outcomes: In many elections, one party can win a majority of seats without winning a majority of votes. This allows one faction to dictate policy, even if it lacks broad public support.

- Lack of Competition: Gerrymandered districts create “safe” seats, making it nearly impossible for challengers to unseat incumbents. This locks in partisanship and decreases accountability.

- Extreme Partisanship: Since most seats are predetermined for one party, politicians cater to their base rather than the general electorate. This discourages compromise and rewards ideological purity.

How Proportional Representation Can Fix Congress

Proportional representation (PR) ensures that parties win seats in proportion to their share of the vote. If a party gets 40% of the national vote, they should get about 40% of the seats. This system encourages coalition-building, amplifies voter voices, and leads to policies that reflect a broader consensus.

Under PR, multiple representatives would be elected from larger, multi-member districts, ensuring more ideological diversity and less wasted votes. This means:

- More Competition: No more “safe” seats—every vote would matter.

- More Representation: A wider range of viewpoints in Congress, reducing extremism.

- More Accountability: Politicians would need to appeal to a broader audience, leading to greater responsiveness to voter concerns.

Increase the Number of Representatives

Another fundamental flaw in the House is its size. The number of representatives has been locked at 435 since 1911, despite the U.S. population more than tripling since then. Today, each representative serves about 760,000 people, making it nearly impossible for them to adequately engage with their constituents.

Expanding the House to better reflect population growth—potentially doubling its size—would bring the U.S. in line with other democracies. This would make representation more local, improve accessibility, and ensure that each citizen’s vote carries more weight.

A More Democratic Future

Proportional representation, combined with a larger House, would reinvigorate American democracy. It would ensure that every voter has a voice, reduce polarization, and restore faith in our political system. The current system is failing us, but we have the tools to fix it. It’s time to act and build a Congress that truly represents the people.