There is a massive Confederate flag flying on private property but overlooking the highway near where I grew up in South Carolina. It has been there for years and is highly visible. I always sigh and have been angry and embarrassed seeing it whenever I visit home.
A court ruling recently deemed that the flagpole holding the flag needs to be taken down as the flagpole height of 120 feet is higher than the max 30 feet allowed by county ordinance.
As an aside, I agree with freedom of expression and speech, and any individual has a right to fly that flag or any others on private grounds if they wish. There are clearly people who do not wish for any of the LGBT+ flags out there to be flown.
The difference in my eyes at least having grown up in SC is I cannot say I ever met any individuals proudly flying the Confederate flag whom I would consider pleasant company. So, I'm considering this a small win from my corner of the world.
Great comment! Thanks Ethan. And glad to hear that flag is finally down, even if it’s just on a zoning technicality.
You inspired a little history research. The rainbow flag was created to represent the beauty of diversity. The thing people call “the Confederate flag” was never even the official flag of the Confederacy. It was a battle flag designed for the Army of Northern Virginia, a banner carried into combat to defend a nation built on slavery. And it faded into obscurity after the war until the KKK and the Dixiecrats resurrected it in the 1940s and 50s specifically to fight against civil rights and desegregation. That’s when it became the cultural symbol it is today.
For anyone who was taught that the Civil War wasn’t about slavery, please check out the actual secession declarations the Confederate states put out. They were not subtle. Mississippi’s opens by saying their position is “thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery.” Texas called the equality of all men “a doctrine at war with nature.” And Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens said the quiet part loud in his Cornerstone Speech: the Confederacy’s foundations rested on “the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man.”
So one flag says “we belong here too.” The other says “we fought a war to keep owning people and we’re still mad we lost.” Kinda different!
And of course that’s all kinda moot if the discussion is whether someone has the right to raise the flag on their own private property. The Constitution says we are all entitled to speak our horrible and wrong opinions if we have em, and that’s a good thing. I just want people to acknowledge the history and harm of their actions before they do it. A lot of them want it both ways and say the flag means something different to them. Okay, then it sounds like they have an arts and crafts project ahead of them if they want to say something other than what everyone else reads when they see it. Make a new flag about your so-called love and stop pretending this is it.
Time, place, and manner all matter, right? If it was a Confederate flag that was small enough to hang on their porch, it wouldn't get such a reaction. Still annoying but much easier to ignore. They have it that big because they want attention, they want people to have a reaction. It's antagonistic. (I have a few of those in the area where I grew up in Southern VA as well. It's definitely antagonistic).
Sadly, there will always be bigots in our lives, but we don't necessarily have to associate with them . Just maybe, our good behavior and kindness will rub off on them to where they will want to change for the better.
On my drive home from work everyday I usually drive past a truck that is wrapped in MAGA. It made me angry at first, but slowly that anger started to fade as I thought maybe they were just seeing their side of the picture. Though I suspect the reason they did it was to make people angry.
What a week… I did not watch all of AG Bondi’s oversight hearing, but was horrified by what I saw. That event needed a Mom to take control. One Mom to stand up and say “Young lady, I’m very disappointed in you.” Shut that nonsense down! And seriously, she needed a notebook of insults, really? There aren’t that many committee members.
Finally, check the recent history of AGs who attempted to protect the president-they fly off in Marine One and the AG goes to prison.
Oh, and call your senators to vote against the SAVE Act!!
Taking the dogs for a biiiiiiiiiig walk, because they’ve been such good girls while Dad’s been working and writing all week. Happy Valentine’s day to Mia and Lady. 🩷
I was planning to publish an essay next week on the need for term limits and age limits, something that is broadly popular with all voters across the spectrum but obviously hated by party leadership. I even stumbled across a vintage clip of a town hall from Susan Collins’s first campaign where someone asked if she would support enacting term limits if elected, and good ol’ Susan said, rather sanctimoniously, that if elected she would leave office after her second term, to thunderous applause. She is now the longest-serving woman in the Senate, having served almost five full terms, and has not indicated that she is considering retirement at the end of her term this year. That’ll make SIX terms, Susan!!! 36 years!!!
My questions for the group: do you believe in term limits and age limits? For all federal offices (Congress, President, Supreme Court)? What would be the magic number? Keep president at 8 years (2 terms)? 18 years for everyone else (9 terms for House, 3 terms for Senate, 1 18-year term for SCOTUS)? More or less? Or something different for each office?
As for age, I’ll acknowledge it’s tricky to talk about. It’s not an assumption that everyone over a certain age is suddenly getting Alzheimer’s. It’s that we are observing the tendency for our system to concentrate power among people who don’t have a stake in the decisions they are making for the next generation. The average Senator running for re-election is 63.5 years old and will hit the Full Retirement Age in their next term if re-elected. And when people do have a mental decline, which is a natural part of aging for everyone, they are often the last people to recognize it. Putting the responsibility on their family or staff to pull the plug on their career is u fair to them, and can have disastrous results (might be a big reason Trump got re-elected). And the campaigns are getting increasingly cruel. I don’t think Trump deserves any sympathy for the mockery he gets for pooping his pants and mixing up Iceland and Greenland, but I do feel bad for older folks who have to constantly hear ageist insults as a normal part of politics.
How would that system work? Something like nobody can be elected if they will turn 75 during their term? What would you think would be best? I’m not an expert, i’m just trying to think of what makes the most sense and is fair across the board for everyone to have the same safeguard. And then of course retirement doesn’t mean you can’t have a role in government. Advise, speak, march, be a voice by all means. But enjoy that time with family, too!
Term limits are an easy yes for me. I can't say I have a number in my head for any of the federal offices but there's no sound reason I've heard for not implementing them. Term limits would be especially welcome for the Supreme Court instead of the lifelong appointments we have now.
Age is much, much trickier. I'd point to Bernie Sanders as a shining example of an elderly politician that's still mentally sharp and consistent in his policies and messaging for decades. So, on it's face, you can't say age alone is a disqualifying factor.
A lot of the issues regarding why politicians on average are elderly can be boiled down to campaign financing. Overturning Citizens United and having public funding of elections would help tremendously. This would allow younger people to actually have a more level playing field to win against entrenched incumbents as well as restore some faith in the electoral process overall.
How many people in their 20's and 30's can afford to scale back at their jobs and run for office instead? I'd say if we fix campaign financing, then age limits may not be needed as much.
Thanks Ethan! I agree with your points that age itself isn't disqualifying, and that campaign finance reform is a higher priority, perhaps with some beneficial side effect to mitigate the gerontocracy problem. Even if people wanted to cling to power past when most people want to retire, there would be more competition for the job, and voters would have more power to judge for themselves whether someone has become ineffective, whether that's because of age or any other factor.
But I also look at what happened with Joe Biden and RBG and think: if only the system didn't rely upon them to accurately judge their own health. They'd have a legacy intact. We'd probably have a great president right now, and a balanced Supreme Court. Instead, I'm afraid many people in future generations are going to associate them with an instinct to cling to power too long, creating the pathway to a 2nd Trump presidency and a generation of conservative decisions from the Supreme Court. Does that argument hold any water for you?
I don't think it was that they weren't aware of their own health. With Biden and RGB it was the need for continued power and influence to feed their ego.
For age limits I think it should be 65, the normal retirement age. Many companies have forced retirement for even senior level executives/CEO’s at that age. It’s not even about mental clarity for me, because I agree there are plenty of folks over that age that stay sharp for a long time. It’s more about continued/renewed fresh perspectives, bringing in folks that are eager/not jaded, new ideas, new ways to work together, etc. Even the sharpest older people in politics sometimes get a bit “stuck in their ways” (i.e. “this is the way it’s always been done”). Having a set age at 65 encourages the next generation—we want to hear from you! What ideas do YOU have? Where do you see a need for change?
It's also the mandatory retirement age for commercial airline pilots. While we seem to all agree that's a good idea because we don't enjoy the risk of plane crashes, I would say the plane crash that is our country right now is a lot worse. 😬
Katherine, regardless of age ,if something "ain't broke , don't fix it".
Government needs to be steady and true in its happenings and as long as the course involves making a more perfect union and works for everyone and not the rich only, then I say keep it going . The past years since WWII and the FDR days up to about 10 years ago were relatively good years of my life and I would like to see it remain somewhat like that for the next 80 years or so, for the benefit of my progeny , but greed and avarice always comes into play to where some kind of chaos has to happen to help keep the rich richer, ala Trump 201.
This BS in DC now needs to be turned around starting now with the elections to start the process of righting the wrongs that are being perpetrated by the Project 2025 insanity. God forbid that we have a theocracy with the Christian Nationalists being in control of everything in our country. That thought is the worst kind of nightmare right now and must NEVER come to fruition, but according to all accounts is 50% there already.
I think we need both term and age limits. I like your idea of once they turn 75 they cannot be re-elected. I think a total of 12 years for both Senate ( 2 terms) and House (6 terms) Maybe 15 years for SC? How much better this would be!!
Thank you for your input! And your count of years for each role makes sense to me. I'll admit my numbers were all pretty arbitrary.
While you said people who were already 75 perhaps shouldn't be able to run, I was originally suggesting that people who would turn 75 during anytime in their term couldn't run. I'm not sure which is best: phrasing in terms of age at the campaign or eventual age at the end of the term. Either way it kinda works out the same. But I guess it depends on what you want to emphasize: your known abilities now, or your unknown abilities at the end of the term. That was my thinking about an age limit being based on the length of the term. 70-year-olds could run a couple more 2-year House campaigns and voters will have a good sense of what to expect, but committing to a 6-year Senate term seems a little more risky.
Presidential term limits should stay where they are. 10 years is the max amount of time any one person should have such power.
I like 18 years for Congress.
Supreme Court feels different, to me. 25 years? You want stability there, but not lifetime stability.
Age limits is harder. Especially for a senate seat, at 6 year terms, you wouldn't be able to run at 69 and then turn 75 at the end of your term.
Maybe if the majority of your term was completed before you hit the magic age (is it 75?), like at least 50% of your term. Reps could be elected at 73/74, Presidents at 72/73, Senators at 71/72, depending on where their birthdate fell on the yearly calendar. SCOTUS would have a later limit? 80?
All very logical and if this was on the ballot, I'd be voting for it! Since it is all a bit arbitrary anyway, I tend to lean toward favoring something simple and standard across all of the roles. But there's not an exact reason behind my thinking on that. It also makes sense that different roles have different demands and different relationships to tenure and experience. Thanks Allison!
Term limits are an absolute yes. For me, hard no on the age cutoff. I know too many people who, after retiring from their careers, effectively (and tirelessly) serve in public service or non-profits, offering their immense experience and hard-earned wisdom many years beyond typical retirement age. Regarding the broad generalization that age makes someone stuck in their ways, I fear that's as dangerous as imposing an age barrier for entrance (i.e., arbitrarily saying no one under 30 is eligible due to a lack of lived experience necessary to run the free world). It's about the individual - regardless of age - and their vibrancy, critical experience, what they've demonstrated in their lives to date, and their ego (are they humble enough to stay open to consulting with a broad array of great thinkers)? Even when we solve the campaign financing issue and instill term limits, voters still have the responsibility to be informed and select responsibly (I get how comic that sounds after this last Presidential election), but I do believe the candidates will change significantly if we inhibit the naturally corrosive effects of the money/power. This, in turn, will enable a broader, more diverse pool of candidates at the Presidential level (e.g., a Biden situation would be less likely if he hadn't been able to serve as a multi-decade politician).
All very reasonable points, thank you Lori! I also tend to think that "stuck in their ways" is a stereotype without much evidence, but one that rings more true with amount of time spent in the role (in which a *term* limit is effective) than years of experience on earth.
I think most of my leaning toward an age limit is a lack of trust in the party system to be an effective judge on when someone is due to retire. Poll after poll showed a majority of Democrats thought Biden was too old to run again, but his staff and family and the punditry said to even question his fitness was crazy. Dianne Feinstein's health held up several crucial votes, and when she did appear she'd often be confused, and again the party in general was reluctant to admit there was a problem. Which then also causes its own problem, when the party tells you not to trust what you see with your own eyes: public trust in the party erodes.
Hopefully other reforms would make the age limit less necessary, I'm not sure. But the whole topic might be moot, because I think the chance of Congress passing a reform like this to limit their own power is probably about 0%. 🙃
Term limits definitely. Age limits, I mean we retire at 65 so after 65 a yearly cognitive test and physical carried out by an actual doctor to determine fitness to serve (that would keep Bernie in the mix) Results publically/nationally announced. If you are a sitting Senator/House member and fail those tests that triggers a special election to replace you - not at the end of your term - straight away.
Also, I would suggest lack of attendance triggers a special election. In our local community council meetings I think members have to attend a certain percentage of meetings or they’ll be voted off. Our representatives shouldn’t just be phoning it in (cough Diane Feinstein)
Oooooh I like this! My initial reaction was that people would be put off by mandated medical assessments, but look at the alternative we're living in: armchair psychologists taking every misspoken word as proof of end stage dementia and wild things like "I guarantee you he has two more months to live." The algorithms love that kind of stuff, and there's a lot of incentive to be as cruel as possible.
So perhaps putting it in the hands of a neutral authority would help the public calm down a little bit.
We had a Lady we said good bye to in 2021. She was the sassiest of the sassy queens, we miss her and her brother Cajun every day. Our current two are enjoying a lot of time outside today as it hit 55! It has been below freezing for weeks. It feels like summer 🤣
My gran who is 86 and I talk about age limits a lot. She thinks the upper limit should be 80. She feels like that is when things changed for her. She’s still spunky and has plenty of opinions. But she says the idea of keeping the president’s schedule is too much. I think about her at 75-80 and I would agree. 80 seems like an appropriate cut off. I would say not to run but to serve. If you will be over 80 before the end of your term you can’t run.
What are the really productive years in any persons life? For me , I felt very productive from my 20's to when I retired at 75 and took care of my wife who had Alzheimer's and died at 78. I'm 82 now and still kicking, but in a slower kind of way for sure. If someone is really doing some good in politics ,why put one's self out to pasture just yet and who is going to decide that your time is up and new ideas need to be considered ?
I really like the idea of getting young ones into the political process early to foment change ,all the while guided by those who have gone before and can guide them into really helpful and good projects that will benefit all Americans within our current democratic republic and economic system , thus producing an atmosphere that will constitute a more perfect union for our country. We have experienced 250 years of being the USA and that is something to celebrate and improve upon , as it is truly a life long goal that each of us can participate in as citizens of this great country.
Timothy, you truly have the mind to guide us in that endeavor and thank you for asking the right questions .
I will be meeting a good friend at a local quirky coffee shop today to make a collage piece. We both joined the local collage community last year and I am enjoying getting to know creative artists and making art. I am meeting with the leader this week to interview for a board or committee position as I want to be involved in this fun group.
Tomorrow I will set up at our local community center for a veg potluck. This is a group that I have been involved with for years and it's a great way of meeting people at the table to enjoy a peaceful meal together. I have enjoyed being part of this group.
As I write about my weekend, I realize how important it is to be involved in whatever rings your bell because you will meet other people as I feel it is so important to be connected with others in our community days. These are light and positive groups, however, the conversations, the invitations to help others in the community happen in these groups.
I have also been part of a book club in my community for 20 years. It may be small, but we rarely stretch and read some really good books. And I wanted to recommend one the Destiny of the Republic. It's about the history of 1880 president Garfield. Fascinating read. If you would like to consider watching the mini series on Netflix, it is from this book called Death by Lightning.
I truly appreciate this community as we learn about a variety of topics. Thank you Sharon for being a great leader.
I watched Death by Lightning and it was well done. I have Destiny of the Republic in my pile of ever growing books to read!
I’ve also been in two different local book clubs since 2015. I joined a new one when I moved in 2024. It does me a lot of good to meet monthly and chat with people very different from me about books. We try and attend local ‘bookish’ events outside of book club as well.
The book dives deeper and it gives me insights of how similar the inner conflicts of the political parties spared then and over the years to today. I found it so interesting as I was not aware of the 20th president and how similar he seemed to Abraham Lincoln. A very good glimpse of History of 145 years ago.
All's quiet in my neighborhood this morning . The construction project behind my house is about 90% complete and our university baseball game is scheduled for 2 pm , but may be moved up to miss some rain that is expected at 5pm. Until then I'm reading a lot from my laptop about political things mostly and comment accordingly.
I've also been passing out flyers about James Talarico in my neighborhood , as he is running as a Democrat against John Cornyn , a Republican , for the US Senate from Texas. James is a man of virtue who openly advocates for the poor and the dwindling middle class against the prevalence of the super wealthy folk's persistent influence in today's politics. His mantra states that the problem with today's political thinking is not so much because of the right vs the left ,but ,rather because of the top super rich toward the rest of us and ,consequently , our democracy suffers as a result of it.
March 3,2026 is just around the corner and we must begin this year's elections with Democrat victories to start the process of turning things around for the better and bring the Project 2025 insanity to a screeching halt, so, get your hopefuls all lined up and get folks to the polls .
I have been calling my senators (my representative was just elected to replace our new governor) 2 or 3 times a week to share my concerns. They are similarly minded to me but I still want them to know we are concerned. I often use info and wording I find here to make my point.
I went to a joyful gathering for a friend who we think... just finished all her chemo and is deemed cancer free. There may be one more treatment... We brought bells to ring . We sang If I had a hammer and ate good food. This friend dresses as the Liberty Bell for the protests :)
I struggle to be sure that I'm referencing / sharing information that has been verified and fact checked. I'm having a difficult time putting together a solid picture in my mind of the facts of what has been released in the Epstein files and what the inferences are from the Epstein files (is there anything in the files that actually indicates cannibalism?).
Obviously, much of what has come out is vile and sick and the DOJ had done a master class in redacting the perpetrators but exposing the survivors. Things that are this evil will solicit strong emotional responses (as it rightly should to anyone who hasn't sold their soul), but it seems that this can also lead to speculation as fact.
Any suggestions on sources that are objectively presenting what is known vs what is suspected.
Clearly, there is more to be released that will continue to bring more facts to light (but will also lead to more speculation). I want to stay informed while avoiding the stories that are based in emotion but have no legs behind them. Thanks!
It's been an exhausting week, just like every one since January, 2025. The protest I was planning to attend was cancelled here because of rain, so I have a free morning. My husband and I are going to see Wuthering Heights this afternoon, the first movie at a theater in probably 6 months. I plan to have popcorn, a treat I seldom allow myself. I look forward to a peaceful, rainy day...and POPCORN! We need these breaks every now and then just to force us to slow down.
It is simplistic fearmongering to cast aspersions toward the Dems and present them as unscrupulous simpletons . Such a comment surely needs to be debunked with actual facts of the matter to help those with a brain to comprehend the fairness in giving honest, hard working immigrants time to become US citizens in cities who have a heart.
So many! There's the obvious straw man of "Democrats want chaos and lawlessness" which I don't think that even the most partisan Republican actually believes. Straw men just let people live in a simpler world where they don't have to think as much. Must be nice.
But then to the main logic of his argument, I'm confused: is he saying that jails are keeping dangerous people behind bars but are making an exception to release people who didn't arrive here legally? Or is he saying that jails are releasing all of the dangerous and violent people, but we only should be worried about the people who weren't born in the United States? It seems like if he wants to identify a problem with jails letting violent criminals out, he should focus on that issue, regardless of how some of them immigrated to the country. Instead, he's making it about a category within that group that, statistically, commits fewer violent crimes than the average citizen.
And then, of course, there's the fact that deporting people without a criminal record makes their communities less stable and more prone to crime. But I don't think crime fighting is Schmitty's real endgame.
Today my husband and his mom went to the Iran solidarity rally in Washington DC. She has wanted to publicly show her support since the woman, life, freedom movement several years ago, and today we were able to help make it happen in a memorable way. A bright spot of being in community with the diaspora in a public way during what has been a dark time for anyone with loved ones in Iran.
There is a massive Confederate flag flying on private property but overlooking the highway near where I grew up in South Carolina. It has been there for years and is highly visible. I always sigh and have been angry and embarrassed seeing it whenever I visit home.
A court ruling recently deemed that the flagpole holding the flag needs to be taken down as the flagpole height of 120 feet is higher than the max 30 feet allowed by county ordinance.
As an aside, I agree with freedom of expression and speech, and any individual has a right to fly that flag or any others on private grounds if they wish. There are clearly people who do not wish for any of the LGBT+ flags out there to be flown.
The difference in my eyes at least having grown up in SC is I cannot say I ever met any individuals proudly flying the Confederate flag whom I would consider pleasant company. So, I'm considering this a small win from my corner of the world.
Great comment! Thanks Ethan. And glad to hear that flag is finally down, even if it’s just on a zoning technicality.
You inspired a little history research. The rainbow flag was created to represent the beauty of diversity. The thing people call “the Confederate flag” was never even the official flag of the Confederacy. It was a battle flag designed for the Army of Northern Virginia, a banner carried into combat to defend a nation built on slavery. And it faded into obscurity after the war until the KKK and the Dixiecrats resurrected it in the 1940s and 50s specifically to fight against civil rights and desegregation. That’s when it became the cultural symbol it is today.
For anyone who was taught that the Civil War wasn’t about slavery, please check out the actual secession declarations the Confederate states put out. They were not subtle. Mississippi’s opens by saying their position is “thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery.” Texas called the equality of all men “a doctrine at war with nature.” And Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens said the quiet part loud in his Cornerstone Speech: the Confederacy’s foundations rested on “the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man.”
So one flag says “we belong here too.” The other says “we fought a war to keep owning people and we’re still mad we lost.” Kinda different!
And of course that’s all kinda moot if the discussion is whether someone has the right to raise the flag on their own private property. The Constitution says we are all entitled to speak our horrible and wrong opinions if we have em, and that’s a good thing. I just want people to acknowledge the history and harm of their actions before they do it. A lot of them want it both ways and say the flag means something different to them. Okay, then it sounds like they have an arts and crafts project ahead of them if they want to say something other than what everyone else reads when they see it. Make a new flag about your so-called love and stop pretending this is it.
Thank you for sharing the history of the two flags.
Time, place, and manner all matter, right? If it was a Confederate flag that was small enough to hang on their porch, it wouldn't get such a reaction. Still annoying but much easier to ignore. They have it that big because they want attention, they want people to have a reaction. It's antagonistic. (I have a few of those in the area where I grew up in Southern VA as well. It's definitely antagonistic).
Yay for small wins 🙂
Sadly, there will always be bigots in our lives, but we don't necessarily have to associate with them . Just maybe, our good behavior and kindness will rub off on them to where they will want to change for the better.
On my drive home from work everyday I usually drive past a truck that is wrapped in MAGA. It made me angry at first, but slowly that anger started to fade as I thought maybe they were just seeing their side of the picture. Though I suspect the reason they did it was to make people angry.
What a week… I did not watch all of AG Bondi’s oversight hearing, but was horrified by what I saw. That event needed a Mom to take control. One Mom to stand up and say “Young lady, I’m very disappointed in you.” Shut that nonsense down! And seriously, she needed a notebook of insults, really? There aren’t that many committee members.
Finally, check the recent history of AGs who attempted to protect the president-they fly off in Marine One and the AG goes to prison.
Oh, and call your senators to vote against the SAVE Act!!
I live in SC too and have been bothered any time I've passed this flag as well. I had not heard this news yet, that is good!
Taking the dogs for a biiiiiiiiiig walk, because they’ve been such good girls while Dad’s been working and writing all week. Happy Valentine’s day to Mia and Lady. 🩷
I was planning to publish an essay next week on the need for term limits and age limits, something that is broadly popular with all voters across the spectrum but obviously hated by party leadership. I even stumbled across a vintage clip of a town hall from Susan Collins’s first campaign where someone asked if she would support enacting term limits if elected, and good ol’ Susan said, rather sanctimoniously, that if elected she would leave office after her second term, to thunderous applause. She is now the longest-serving woman in the Senate, having served almost five full terms, and has not indicated that she is considering retirement at the end of her term this year. That’ll make SIX terms, Susan!!! 36 years!!!
My questions for the group: do you believe in term limits and age limits? For all federal offices (Congress, President, Supreme Court)? What would be the magic number? Keep president at 8 years (2 terms)? 18 years for everyone else (9 terms for House, 3 terms for Senate, 1 18-year term for SCOTUS)? More or less? Or something different for each office?
As for age, I’ll acknowledge it’s tricky to talk about. It’s not an assumption that everyone over a certain age is suddenly getting Alzheimer’s. It’s that we are observing the tendency for our system to concentrate power among people who don’t have a stake in the decisions they are making for the next generation. The average Senator running for re-election is 63.5 years old and will hit the Full Retirement Age in their next term if re-elected. And when people do have a mental decline, which is a natural part of aging for everyone, they are often the last people to recognize it. Putting the responsibility on their family or staff to pull the plug on their career is u fair to them, and can have disastrous results (might be a big reason Trump got re-elected). And the campaigns are getting increasingly cruel. I don’t think Trump deserves any sympathy for the mockery he gets for pooping his pants and mixing up Iceland and Greenland, but I do feel bad for older folks who have to constantly hear ageist insults as a normal part of politics.
How would that system work? Something like nobody can be elected if they will turn 75 during their term? What would you think would be best? I’m not an expert, i’m just trying to think of what makes the most sense and is fair across the board for everyone to have the same safeguard. And then of course retirement doesn’t mean you can’t have a role in government. Advise, speak, march, be a voice by all means. But enjoy that time with family, too!
Enjoy the long walk!
Term limits are an easy yes for me. I can't say I have a number in my head for any of the federal offices but there's no sound reason I've heard for not implementing them. Term limits would be especially welcome for the Supreme Court instead of the lifelong appointments we have now.
Age is much, much trickier. I'd point to Bernie Sanders as a shining example of an elderly politician that's still mentally sharp and consistent in his policies and messaging for decades. So, on it's face, you can't say age alone is a disqualifying factor.
A lot of the issues regarding why politicians on average are elderly can be boiled down to campaign financing. Overturning Citizens United and having public funding of elections would help tremendously. This would allow younger people to actually have a more level playing field to win against entrenched incumbents as well as restore some faith in the electoral process overall.
How many people in their 20's and 30's can afford to scale back at their jobs and run for office instead? I'd say if we fix campaign financing, then age limits may not be needed as much.
Good points.
Thanks Ethan! I agree with your points that age itself isn't disqualifying, and that campaign finance reform is a higher priority, perhaps with some beneficial side effect to mitigate the gerontocracy problem. Even if people wanted to cling to power past when most people want to retire, there would be more competition for the job, and voters would have more power to judge for themselves whether someone has become ineffective, whether that's because of age or any other factor.
But I also look at what happened with Joe Biden and RBG and think: if only the system didn't rely upon them to accurately judge their own health. They'd have a legacy intact. We'd probably have a great president right now, and a balanced Supreme Court. Instead, I'm afraid many people in future generations are going to associate them with an instinct to cling to power too long, creating the pathway to a 2nd Trump presidency and a generation of conservative decisions from the Supreme Court. Does that argument hold any water for you?
I don't think it was that they weren't aware of their own health. With Biden and RGB it was the need for continued power and influence to feed their ego.
And therefore we should have a system that doesn’t depend on the humility of people who are seeking a national spotlight, right?
For age limits I think it should be 65, the normal retirement age. Many companies have forced retirement for even senior level executives/CEO’s at that age. It’s not even about mental clarity for me, because I agree there are plenty of folks over that age that stay sharp for a long time. It’s more about continued/renewed fresh perspectives, bringing in folks that are eager/not jaded, new ideas, new ways to work together, etc. Even the sharpest older people in politics sometimes get a bit “stuck in their ways” (i.e. “this is the way it’s always been done”). Having a set age at 65 encourages the next generation—we want to hear from you! What ideas do YOU have? Where do you see a need for change?
It's also the mandatory retirement age for commercial airline pilots. While we seem to all agree that's a good idea because we don't enjoy the risk of plane crashes, I would say the plane crash that is our country right now is a lot worse. 😬
Katherine, regardless of age ,if something "ain't broke , don't fix it".
Government needs to be steady and true in its happenings and as long as the course involves making a more perfect union and works for everyone and not the rich only, then I say keep it going . The past years since WWII and the FDR days up to about 10 years ago were relatively good years of my life and I would like to see it remain somewhat like that for the next 80 years or so, for the benefit of my progeny , but greed and avarice always comes into play to where some kind of chaos has to happen to help keep the rich richer, ala Trump 201.
This BS in DC now needs to be turned around starting now with the elections to start the process of righting the wrongs that are being perpetrated by the Project 2025 insanity. God forbid that we have a theocracy with the Christian Nationalists being in control of everything in our country. That thought is the worst kind of nightmare right now and must NEVER come to fruition, but according to all accounts is 50% there already.
I think we need both term and age limits. I like your idea of once they turn 75 they cannot be re-elected. I think a total of 12 years for both Senate ( 2 terms) and House (6 terms) Maybe 15 years for SC? How much better this would be!!
Thank you for your input! And your count of years for each role makes sense to me. I'll admit my numbers were all pretty arbitrary.
While you said people who were already 75 perhaps shouldn't be able to run, I was originally suggesting that people who would turn 75 during anytime in their term couldn't run. I'm not sure which is best: phrasing in terms of age at the campaign or eventual age at the end of the term. Either way it kinda works out the same. But I guess it depends on what you want to emphasize: your known abilities now, or your unknown abilities at the end of the term. That was my thinking about an age limit being based on the length of the term. 70-year-olds could run a couple more 2-year House campaigns and voters will have a good sense of what to expect, but committing to a 6-year Senate term seems a little more risky.
That sounds about right to me but then again we have a Burney Sanders who is clicking on all cylinders at the age of what, 80?
Presidential term limits should stay where they are. 10 years is the max amount of time any one person should have such power.
I like 18 years for Congress.
Supreme Court feels different, to me. 25 years? You want stability there, but not lifetime stability.
Age limits is harder. Especially for a senate seat, at 6 year terms, you wouldn't be able to run at 69 and then turn 75 at the end of your term.
Maybe if the majority of your term was completed before you hit the magic age (is it 75?), like at least 50% of your term. Reps could be elected at 73/74, Presidents at 72/73, Senators at 71/72, depending on where their birthdate fell on the yearly calendar. SCOTUS would have a later limit? 80?
All very logical and if this was on the ballot, I'd be voting for it! Since it is all a bit arbitrary anyway, I tend to lean toward favoring something simple and standard across all of the roles. But there's not an exact reason behind my thinking on that. It also makes sense that different roles have different demands and different relationships to tenure and experience. Thanks Allison!
Term limits are an absolute yes. For me, hard no on the age cutoff. I know too many people who, after retiring from their careers, effectively (and tirelessly) serve in public service or non-profits, offering their immense experience and hard-earned wisdom many years beyond typical retirement age. Regarding the broad generalization that age makes someone stuck in their ways, I fear that's as dangerous as imposing an age barrier for entrance (i.e., arbitrarily saying no one under 30 is eligible due to a lack of lived experience necessary to run the free world). It's about the individual - regardless of age - and their vibrancy, critical experience, what they've demonstrated in their lives to date, and their ego (are they humble enough to stay open to consulting with a broad array of great thinkers)? Even when we solve the campaign financing issue and instill term limits, voters still have the responsibility to be informed and select responsibly (I get how comic that sounds after this last Presidential election), but I do believe the candidates will change significantly if we inhibit the naturally corrosive effects of the money/power. This, in turn, will enable a broader, more diverse pool of candidates at the Presidential level (e.g., a Biden situation would be less likely if he hadn't been able to serve as a multi-decade politician).
All very reasonable points, thank you Lori! I also tend to think that "stuck in their ways" is a stereotype without much evidence, but one that rings more true with amount of time spent in the role (in which a *term* limit is effective) than years of experience on earth.
I think most of my leaning toward an age limit is a lack of trust in the party system to be an effective judge on when someone is due to retire. Poll after poll showed a majority of Democrats thought Biden was too old to run again, but his staff and family and the punditry said to even question his fitness was crazy. Dianne Feinstein's health held up several crucial votes, and when she did appear she'd often be confused, and again the party in general was reluctant to admit there was a problem. Which then also causes its own problem, when the party tells you not to trust what you see with your own eyes: public trust in the party erodes.
Hopefully other reforms would make the age limit less necessary, I'm not sure. But the whole topic might be moot, because I think the chance of Congress passing a reform like this to limit their own power is probably about 0%. 🙃
Agree with everything you've said, but we've got to try. Things can't continue as they are. Well, they can, but it's a scary ponder.
Term limits definitely. Age limits, I mean we retire at 65 so after 65 a yearly cognitive test and physical carried out by an actual doctor to determine fitness to serve (that would keep Bernie in the mix) Results publically/nationally announced. If you are a sitting Senator/House member and fail those tests that triggers a special election to replace you - not at the end of your term - straight away.
Also, I would suggest lack of attendance triggers a special election. In our local community council meetings I think members have to attend a certain percentage of meetings or they’ll be voted off. Our representatives shouldn’t just be phoning it in (cough Diane Feinstein)
Oooooh I like this! My initial reaction was that people would be put off by mandated medical assessments, but look at the alternative we're living in: armchair psychologists taking every misspoken word as proof of end stage dementia and wild things like "I guarantee you he has two more months to live." The algorithms love that kind of stuff, and there's a lot of incentive to be as cruel as possible.
So perhaps putting it in the hands of a neutral authority would help the public calm down a little bit.
Attendance should absolutely be a factor.
We had a Lady we said good bye to in 2021. She was the sassiest of the sassy queens, we miss her and her brother Cajun every day. Our current two are enjoying a lot of time outside today as it hit 55! It has been below freezing for weeks. It feels like summer 🤣
My gran who is 86 and I talk about age limits a lot. She thinks the upper limit should be 80. She feels like that is when things changed for her. She’s still spunky and has plenty of opinions. But she says the idea of keeping the president’s schedule is too much. I think about her at 75-80 and I would agree. 80 seems like an appropriate cut off. I would say not to run but to serve. If you will be over 80 before the end of your term you can’t run.
All good questions to consider.
What are the really productive years in any persons life? For me , I felt very productive from my 20's to when I retired at 75 and took care of my wife who had Alzheimer's and died at 78. I'm 82 now and still kicking, but in a slower kind of way for sure. If someone is really doing some good in politics ,why put one's self out to pasture just yet and who is going to decide that your time is up and new ideas need to be considered ?
I really like the idea of getting young ones into the political process early to foment change ,all the while guided by those who have gone before and can guide them into really helpful and good projects that will benefit all Americans within our current democratic republic and economic system , thus producing an atmosphere that will constitute a more perfect union for our country. We have experienced 250 years of being the USA and that is something to celebrate and improve upon , as it is truly a life long goal that each of us can participate in as citizens of this great country.
Timothy, you truly have the mind to guide us in that endeavor and thank you for asking the right questions .
I will be meeting a good friend at a local quirky coffee shop today to make a collage piece. We both joined the local collage community last year and I am enjoying getting to know creative artists and making art. I am meeting with the leader this week to interview for a board or committee position as I want to be involved in this fun group.
Tomorrow I will set up at our local community center for a veg potluck. This is a group that I have been involved with for years and it's a great way of meeting people at the table to enjoy a peaceful meal together. I have enjoyed being part of this group.
As I write about my weekend, I realize how important it is to be involved in whatever rings your bell because you will meet other people as I feel it is so important to be connected with others in our community days. These are light and positive groups, however, the conversations, the invitations to help others in the community happen in these groups.
I have also been part of a book club in my community for 20 years. It may be small, but we rarely stretch and read some really good books. And I wanted to recommend one the Destiny of the Republic. It's about the history of 1880 president Garfield. Fascinating read. If you would like to consider watching the mini series on Netflix, it is from this book called Death by Lightning.
I truly appreciate this community as we learn about a variety of topics. Thank you Sharon for being a great leader.
I watched Death by Lightning and it was well done. I have Destiny of the Republic in my pile of ever growing books to read!
I’ve also been in two different local book clubs since 2015. I joined a new one when I moved in 2024. It does me a lot of good to meet monthly and chat with people very different from me about books. We try and attend local ‘bookish’ events outside of book club as well.
The book dives deeper and it gives me insights of how similar the inner conflicts of the political parties spared then and over the years to today. I found it so interesting as I was not aware of the 20th president and how similar he seemed to Abraham Lincoln. A very good glimpse of History of 145 years ago.
All's quiet in my neighborhood this morning . The construction project behind my house is about 90% complete and our university baseball game is scheduled for 2 pm , but may be moved up to miss some rain that is expected at 5pm. Until then I'm reading a lot from my laptop about political things mostly and comment accordingly.
I've also been passing out flyers about James Talarico in my neighborhood , as he is running as a Democrat against John Cornyn , a Republican , for the US Senate from Texas. James is a man of virtue who openly advocates for the poor and the dwindling middle class against the prevalence of the super wealthy folk's persistent influence in today's politics. His mantra states that the problem with today's political thinking is not so much because of the right vs the left ,but ,rather because of the top super rich toward the rest of us and ,consequently , our democracy suffers as a result of it.
March 3,2026 is just around the corner and we must begin this year's elections with Democrat victories to start the process of turning things around for the better and bring the Project 2025 insanity to a screeching halt, so, get your hopefuls all lined up and get folks to the polls .
We can do this!
I wore my 'Unhinged SD' T-shirt in the bagel shop this morning. The teens that work there had a good laugh about it! It was fun. 😂
I have been calling my senators (my representative was just elected to replace our new governor) 2 or 3 times a week to share my concerns. They are similarly minded to me but I still want them to know we are concerned. I often use info and wording I find here to make my point.
I went to a joyful gathering for a friend who we think... just finished all her chemo and is deemed cancer free. There may be one more treatment... We brought bells to ring . We sang If I had a hammer and ate good food. This friend dresses as the Liberty Bell for the protests :)
I struggle to be sure that I'm referencing / sharing information that has been verified and fact checked. I'm having a difficult time putting together a solid picture in my mind of the facts of what has been released in the Epstein files and what the inferences are from the Epstein files (is there anything in the files that actually indicates cannibalism?).
Obviously, much of what has come out is vile and sick and the DOJ had done a master class in redacting the perpetrators but exposing the survivors. Things that are this evil will solicit strong emotional responses (as it rightly should to anyone who hasn't sold their soul), but it seems that this can also lead to speculation as fact.
Any suggestions on sources that are objectively presenting what is known vs what is suspected.
Clearly, there is more to be released that will continue to bring more facts to light (but will also lead to more speculation). I want to stay informed while avoiding the stories that are based in emotion but have no legs behind them. Thanks!
It's been an exhausting week, just like every one since January, 2025. The protest I was planning to attend was cancelled here because of rain, so I have a free morning. My husband and I are going to see Wuthering Heights this afternoon, the first movie at a theater in probably 6 months. I plan to have popcorn, a treat I seldom allow myself. I look forward to a peaceful, rainy day...and POPCORN! We need these breaks every now and then just to force us to slow down.
Movie popcorn—nothing better. I usually have mine eaten before the movie even starts! That way I can fall asleep without spilling. 😂
Please help me spot which logical fallacies are used in this post from MO Senator Eric Schmitt. Thanks!!
“Sanctuary cities release dangerous illegal aliens from jail into our communities.
Democrats would rather release these criminals onto our streets than deport them.
Democrats want chaos and lawlessness.
I want law and order.
Pass my Protect America Act now.”
It is simplistic fearmongering to cast aspersions toward the Dems and present them as unscrupulous simpletons . Such a comment surely needs to be debunked with actual facts of the matter to help those with a brain to comprehend the fairness in giving honest, hard working immigrants time to become US citizens in cities who have a heart.
So many! There's the obvious straw man of "Democrats want chaos and lawlessness" which I don't think that even the most partisan Republican actually believes. Straw men just let people live in a simpler world where they don't have to think as much. Must be nice.
But then to the main logic of his argument, I'm confused: is he saying that jails are keeping dangerous people behind bars but are making an exception to release people who didn't arrive here legally? Or is he saying that jails are releasing all of the dangerous and violent people, but we only should be worried about the people who weren't born in the United States? It seems like if he wants to identify a problem with jails letting violent criminals out, he should focus on that issue, regardless of how some of them immigrated to the country. Instead, he's making it about a category within that group that, statistically, commits fewer violent crimes than the average citizen.
And then, of course, there's the fact that deporting people without a criminal record makes their communities less stable and more prone to crime. But I don't think crime fighting is Schmitty's real endgame.
Today my husband and his mom went to the Iran solidarity rally in Washington DC. She has wanted to publicly show her support since the woman, life, freedom movement several years ago, and today we were able to help make it happen in a memorable way. A bright spot of being in community with the diaspora in a public way during what has been a dark time for anyone with loved ones in Iran.
Where can I find your recent conversation with Katie Couric? I missed the live feed.
try Katie Couric's substack...