WHAT IT DOES TO US

(I wrote something this morning that I couldn't stop thinking about)

WHAT IT DOES TO US

(The people who are on the other side of Maga)

Until a few weeks ago, I thought of Questa as a sleepy little village by the mountains. Ever since Chevron closed the mine, tourism has been about all we had left as an industry. We have our struggles, as rural villages everywhere do, but we were still living our lives in a beautiful place: tending gardens, watching the mountains, listening to the birds, and trying to get by.

Then I learned about the industrial development planned beside us: 

a hydrogen plant and a huge solar project near Questa and Cerro, in an area where water is already becoming a serious problem. 

The Red River has less water than I have ever seen since 2018 come out when I moved here. Wells have gone dry. 

Yet projects that could reshape this area are moving ahead, while many residents are only now trying to understand what is happening and what it may mean for the water, the land, and the future of our community. People in Questa have raised serious concerns about transparency, water scarcity, and whether the village has been given a real voice in decisions of this size. 

For me, it changed something. It is one thing to watch the country being damaged by people in power who seem determined to take apart every protection, every public safeguard, and every public obligation they can reach. It is another thing to realize that the damage has arrived at your own front door.

What is happening in Questa is not separate from what is happening across the country. In different forms, people are watching the protections they depended on, like environmental rules, public services, health care, civil rights, labor protections, and the basic idea that our government should serve ordinary people, come under attack. 

The political program known as Project 2025 became widely associated with a plan to concentrate executive power and weaken or dismantle many federal institutions and protections, which is why many critics see local harms as part of a wider national pattern rather than isolated events. Trump publicly tried to distance himself from it during the campaign, but much of what people fear now follows that same general direction: power moving upward, protections being stripped away, and ordinary people being told to live with the consequences.

This kind of pressure changes people. When daily life is already difficult, and the future feels less secure every month, people can become depleted before they ever reach the point of action. They may turn inward, stop following events, or conclude that speaking up makes no difference. 

That is understandable, but it also creates an advantage for those who benefit when the public is too worn down to demand accountability.

A country whose people are frightened, divided, distracted, and exhausted is easier to control. When people are consumed by worries about health care, food, rent, jobs, water, or the survival of their own communities, they have less energy to organize, vote, protest, or challenge the people making the decisions. 

That is why the psychological damage matters politically. It weakens the very solidarity people need in order to defend themselves.

For people who already live close to the edge, older people, disabled people, poor people, rural people, people with chronic illness, and people who cannot simply sell their homes and move away, the pressure is even greater. There is no cushion. There may be no other affordable place to go, no nearby services, and no easy way to escape the consequences of decisions made in corporate offices and government buildings far away.

I know I am not alone in this. I have seen it in the responses to what I have written. So many people are frightened and discouraged by what is happening in their own communities and across the country. They may not use the same words, and their circumstances may differ, but they know the feeling, the sense that the ground beneath them is becoming less secure, while those responsible do not care how much damage they leave behind.

We need to speak honestly about all of it, not only the damage to the land, water, public institutions, and democratic rights, but also the damage done inside people. Keeping people frightened, isolated, and worn down makes them easier to ignore and easier to manage. Recognizing one another, telling the truth, and refusing to let isolated communities be treated as sacrifice zones is part of resistance.

We may be tired, and we may be afraid, but we are still here!

Note: 

Project 2025 is a policy blueprint organized by the Heritage Foundation and allied conservative organizations. Its main document, Mandate for Leadership, proposes a major restructuring of the federal government and greater presidential control over the executive branch. In July 2024, Trump publicly said that he knew “nothing about Project 2025” and had “nothing to do with it.” 

(Heritage, Project 2025, heritage.org)

The Cost of Not Looking

The Cost of Not Looking

This is how it all started. I was listening to an audible book, a German mystery novel, in which the inspector reminded himself that in Germany way too few autopsies are performed.  

That made me curious and so I started looking. 

I put out a question, to which the answer turns out not to be fictional at all: 

Are too few autopsies being performed in Germany? 

The answer is yes, and the reasons point toward a larger problem in how modern societies decide what is worth investigating.

Germany’s hospital autopsy rates are exceptionally low. A survey of German pathologists found rates of about 3.6% in 2013 and 3.4% in 2014.¹ A separate survey covering 2005 through 2014 found that the overall number of autopsies reported by participating German institutions fell by 30% in that decade.²

The United States has followed a similar trajectory. National data show that autopsies were performed in 19.3% of deaths in 1972, but only 8.5% by 2007.³ 

Hospital autopsy rates, once commonly reported around 40-60% before 1970, have fallen to a small fraction of that level.⁴

This decline is not explained by cost alone. Improved scans, laboratory tests, and other diagnostics encouraged physicians to believe they already knew why a patient had died. Hospitals lost accreditation incentives that once required a minimum share of deaths to be autopsied. Families may decline permission, doctors may be reluctant to request an examination, and institutions face a simple financial fact: a full autopsy costs money but does not generate the revenue that billable medical procedures do.¹⁴

Yet, to me, an autopsy is not merely an administrative formality. It is about why a person suddenly died, and nobody is interested in knowing why, solely based on financial reasons!?

After all, it is a final check on diagnosis, a source of public-health knowledge, and sometimes the only way to identify an unnatural death that has been made to look natural. Toxicological investigation is not automatically performed whenever someone dies. It depends on a death being referred for forensic examination, an autopsy being authorized, and the right tests being ordered.

That is important because some lethal acts leave little obvious external evidence. A death that appears to be from illness, an accident, or suicide may require a careful postmortem examination and targeted toxicology to reveal something else. The real danger is not that there is some magical “undetectable poison.” It is that, if nobody looks, no evidence is sought. The investigative capacity may exist, but it remains unused.

The first recorded forensic-style examination is often associated with Julius Caesar’s assassination in 44 BCE. His physician, Antistius, examined Caesar’s wounds and reportedly determined that, among 23 stab wounds, only one had been fatal.⁵ 

For centuries thereafter, dissection and autopsy were limited by cultural, religious, and legal taboos about disturbing the dead. Those objections have not vanished: families from several religious and cultural traditions may still object to autopsy on grounds of bodily integrity, burial requirements, or respect for the deceased.⁶

But in the modern era a new resistance has joined the old ones: the resistance of the balance sheet.

The United States is heavily policed in the name of public safety, yet its death-investigation system is understaffed and uneven. 

The country has a serious shortage of forensic pathologists; recent reporting estimates roughly 850 practicing specialists nationwide, hundreds fewer than needed.⁷ 

This means that many communities have limited access to expert postmortem investigation precisely when a death is ambiguous, unexpected, drug-related, violent, or potentially criminal.

The contradiction is hard to miss. 

Public money can be found for visible enforcement, surveillance, and punishment, while quieter systems that might establish what actually happened after a death, and reveal patterns of violence, poisoning, medical error, unsafe work, addiction, or neglect, are allowed to weaken.

The same contradiction appears in healthcare. Research on public-health interventions finds that prevention often produces substantial economic returns: one systematic review calculated a median return of $14.30 for every dollar spent, and an even higher median for nationwide interventions.⁸ Yet preventive care is chronically underfunded because the institution that pays today may not be the one that receives the savings tomorrow.

Economists call this “misaligned incentives” or the “wrong pockets problem.” Those terms describe the mechanism, but they can be too polite about the outcome. When a system declines to investigate suspicious deaths because investigation costs money, and declines to prevent illness because the long-term benefit appears on someone else’s ledger, the effect is not neutral. It shifts risk, suffering, and preventable loss onto ordinary people, while preserving short-term institutional revenue.

That is why “predatory capitalism” is not merely rhetorical language. It describes a system that treats the cost of looking as more real than the human cost of refusing to look. It treats prevention, care, and truth-seeking as expenses, while allowing the far greater costs of illness, premature death, violence, and uncertainty to be carried by families and communities.

The science exists. The tools exist. The question is whether we choose to use them, and whether we are willing to count the cost of looking away.

Corinne Wesley 

PS: This is not a story about a lack of science. It is a story about a lack of willingness to pay for truth itself, especially when the truth might expose harm, error, neglect, or the cost of decisions.

As autopsies and thorough death investigations have become less common in real life, forensic investigation has become one of the most popular forms of entertainment around the world. From the 1990s onward, and especially after CSI arrived, audiences have watched countless investigators examine bodies, preserve scenes, test evidence, and ultimately uncover the truth.

I am not claiming that the decline in real autopsies caused the rise of CSI-style crime fiction. But I find the contrast revealing. The less certain we can be that every suspicious death will receive serious scientific attention, the more eagerly we seem to watch fictional experts give it exactly that attention. On television, there is always a lab, an expert, enough time, and a determination to look beneath the surface. In real life, too often, there is not.

Perhaps the popularity of these stories reflects a hunger for what we are not reliably willing to provide: the assurance that somebody will look, that evidence will matter, and that hidden harm will not simply disappear into an official explanation.

Sources:

J. Waidhauser et al., “Can low autopsy rates be increased? Yes, we can! Should we?” Virchows Archiv (2021)

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00428-020-02884-8

M. Grassow-Narlik, M. Wessolly, and J. Friemann, “Autopsy rates in Germany,” Der Pathologe (2017), PubMed

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28842753/

National Center for Health Statistics, “Autopsy Rates: United States, 2007”

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db67.htm

“The Dying American Autopsy,” Policy Perspectives

https://policy-perspectives.org/2021/03/02/the-dying-american-autopsy/

“Julius Caesar’s Assassination and the Dawn of Forensic Autopsy”

https://simplyforensic.com/julius-caesars-assassination-and-the-first-recorded-forensic-autopsy/

“Religious Objections to Autopsies—A Virtual Solution?” Marquette University Law School

https://law.marquette.edu/facultyblog/2012/10/religious-objections-to autopsies-a-virtual-solution/

“Shortage of forensic pathologists is now critical,” STAT

https://www.statnews.com/2026/07/13/forensic-pathologist-shortage-medical-examiners/

R. Masters et al., “Return on investment of public health interventions: a systematic review,” Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health

https://jech.bmj.com/content/71/8/827

When “Take Care of Yourself” Is Impossible

When “Take Care of Yourself” Is Impossible

On any given day, I can be bombarded by several "afflictions" at the same time. I may begin the day depressed because I am bipolar. Then the vertigo and vision impairment start. After that comes anxiety and/or agoraphobia, and sometimes it all merges into something close to panic.

I have to be strong in order to stand up to these things. But on a day when I am weak, overwhelmed, and have no energy, there is nothing I can do.

There are many people living with mental illness who know this experience in their own way. Some of us cannot simply be “fixed.”  Yet we are still expected to take care of ourselves, even at the very times when we are least able to do so.

Talking about mental health is not enough. The system fails people who are already below the poverty line, isolated, sick, or unable to push through the endless obstacles required to get help.

People tend to presume that finding help is a simple matter: 

Go make the call, fill out the forms, go to the appointment, follow the rules, keep trying. 

But those things can be difficult or impossible when a person is severely depressed, frightened to leave the house, in pain, unable to think clearly, without transportation, or simply too exhausted to keep fighting a bureaucracy.

Too often, people are judged for not being able to manage their own illness perfectly. They are called lazy, difficult, uncooperative, or complainers. But the real question should be: what happens to a person when they need help most and are least able to organize it for themselves?

They need more than advice to “take care of yourself.” They need steady treatment that does not vanish when a therapist leaves, practical help with forms and appointments, transportation, affordable medication, safe housing, enough income to survive, and someone who checks in rather than waiting for a crisis to become catastrophic.

It took me a while to put up a post saying I was having a very bad day. I almost did not do it because I worried people would think I was complaining. Some probably would—especially those who do not understand. But I decided to do it for all the people whose days are filled with suffering, pain, loneliness, and isolation, and who may feel they have no right to say so.

We are not problems to be fixed, nor burdens to be ignored until we disappear from view. We are people living through conditions that can take over the mind and body without warning. We deserve dignity, support, and a system that does not abandon us precisely when we are too ill to fight it alone.

PREDATORY CAPITALISM: WHEN THE PUBLIC MUST SERVE THE BUSINESS

 PREDATORY CAPITALISM:

WHEN THE PUBLIC MUST SERVE THE BUSINESS 

I have been thinking about capitalism, not merely as an idea in a textbook, but as a pattern that repeats itself in real life, in communities, workplaces, stores, hospitals, online platforms, housing, food, and nearly every place where people must spend money to meet their needs.

The pattern often begins innocently enough.

Someone starts a business. Perhaps they have an idea, a skill, or a product people need. They may provide food, transportation, medicine, housing, communication, entertainment, or some other useful service. 

People become customers. The business grows. It hires workers. It becomes part of the local economy. It may even become something people depend on.

At that point, we are often told that this is success. But there is a moment, sometimes gradually sometimes obvious, when the purpose of the business begins to change. What began as a means of meeting human needs becomes an institution whose own survival, expansion, and profit are treated as more important than the people it was supposed to serve.

That is the point at which I begin to think of predatory capitalism.

A business should be a tool. It should exist because it provides something useful, treats people fairly, and contributes more to a community than it takes from it. But too often, the tool becomes the master. The business grows large enough that its continued existence is no longer questioned, even when it is harming customers, workers, or the community around it. The company becomes like a living creature that must keep feeding.

It needs more customers, more sales, more data, more labor, more debt, more consumption, more growth. It needs people to keep sending money into it. Yet the people supplying that money are no longer treated as human beings with needs, rights, and intelligence. They become numbers on a spreadsheet. They become “users,” “accounts,” “traffic,” “market share,” “labor costs,” or “consumer demand.”

The customer who was supposedly “king” becomes one sheep among millions.

As long as the money keeps coming in, the company may feel no obligation to listen. It may raise prices, lower quality, hide important information in fine print, make cancellation difficult, collect private data, provide worse service, or exploit people’s dependence on something they cannot easily live without. And when customers complain, the answer is often: You are free to go somewhere else.

But what if there is nowhere else to go?

What if the company has driven out smaller competitors? What if it is the only employer in town? What if it controls an essential service? What if a person cannot afford an alternative? What if the alternative is just another giant company behaving in nearly the same way? Then “choice” becomes a hollow word.

A person may technically be free to leave, but that does not mean they have real power. Telling someone they can walk away from an abusive or exploitative arrangement means very little when the system has been designed so that walking away leads to hunger, unemployment, debt, isolation, or the loss of basic necessities.

This is one of the most troubling tricks built into our present economic culture: people are taught that they are responsible for problems they do not have the power to solve alone.

If a company mistreats customers, we are told the customers should simply stop buying from it. If a company mistreats workers, we are told workers should simply quit. If a corporation pollutes a community, we are told residents should move. If the price of medicine, food, or housing becomes unbearable, we are told people should work harder, budget better, or make wiser choices.

But individual people do not have the same choices, resources, or power that corporations do.

A giant company can hire lawyers, lobbyists, public-relations firms, consultants, and political allies. It can move jobs, reshape markets, negotiate tax breaks, influence local officials, and spend millions of dollars protecting its image. An individual customer may have a complaint, a social-media post, or the ability to take their business elsewhere, if they are lucky enough to have another place to go.

That is not an equal relationship. It is not a free relationship. It is not a relationship in which the customer is king.

And then comes the emotional blackmail.

When people finally organize—when customers boycott, workers unionize, residents protest, journalists investigate, or citizens demand regulation, the company’s defenders often respond by accusing those people of wanting to destroy jobs.

This is where the story gets turned upside down. The same corporation that may underpay workers, cut benefits, outsource jobs, close plants, suppress unions, raise prices, and place profits above human lives suddenly claims to be the defender of working people. The public is told that demanding accountability is cruel because it might hurt employees.

But workers and customers are not enemies.

Workers are customers. Customers are workers. They are parents, neighbors, patients, elders, students, caregivers, and members of the same communities. They depend on one another. The people harmed by a company’s practices are often the very people blamed for challenging those practices.

The corporation benefits when working people are taught to fear one another.

It benefits when the customer is told, “Do not complain, or people will lose their jobs.” It benefits when the worker is told, “Do not organize, or the company will leave.” It benefits when the community is told, “Do not regulate us, or we will take our money elsewhere.” 

In each case, the threat is the same: accept the harm, accept the imbalance, accept that the business comes first, or suffer the consequences.

That is not freedom. That is dependence disguised as freedom.

A business that cannot survive without mistreating people does not have a moral right to continue in the same form. A company that can only remain profitable by exploiting its workers, deceiving its customers, poisoning its environment, or holding a community hostage is not an economic success. It is a warning sign.

We need to stop treating the existence of a company as sacred.

No business should be considered more important than the people whose labor built it, whose purchases sustained it, and whose purchases sustained it, and whose community made room for it. The fact that a company provides jobs does not give it permission to mistreat workers. The fact that a company provides a useful service does not give it permission to mistreat customers. The fact that a business is large, profitable, or politically connected does not make it beyond criticism.

Businesses are created by people. They are sustained by people. They should remain accountable to people. That means we need to ask different questions than the ones we are usually encouraged to ask. Not simply: How much money does it make?

But: Who benefits from that money? Who does the work? Who carries the risk? Who pays when something goes wrong? Who is harmed when the company cuts corners? Who has the power to object? Who gets heard? And who is told to be quiet because the company’s needs matter more than their own?

Those are the questions that reveal whether an institution is serving society or feeding on it.

Capitalism does not become predatory merely because a business makes a profit. People deserve to be paid for their work, creativity, skill, and risk. Local stores, independent makers, family businesses, and worker-owned enterprises can strengthen communities. Honest exchange can be useful and dignified.

The problem begins when profit becomes the only measure of value.

A healthy economy should recognize that human dignity, public health, fair wages, affordable necessities, environmental protection, and community stability all matter. If a company makes enormous profits while leaving workers exhausted, customers trapped, families indebted, neighborhoods damaged, and public institutions weakened, then something is deeply wrong—even if the company’s stock price is rising.

Growth is not always progress.

Size is not proof of virtue.

Profit is not the same thing as value.

And no institution should be allowed to become so powerful that the people it depends upon are no longer permitted to ask whether it deserves to exist as it does.

That is the pattern I see: a business begins by serving people, grows by relying on people, then becomes powerful enough to demand that people serve it.

It is like a snake eating its own tail. The more the institution consumes the well-being of the people around it, the more it weakens the very communities, workers, and customers it requires in order to survive. 

Yet instead of recognizing this contradiction, the system often asks those same people to sacrifice even more—to pay more, work harder, complain less, and be grateful for whatever is left. 

We can reject that story.

We can insist that people are not merely consumers, workers, or units of profit. We are human beings. We have the right to question institutions that affect our lives. We have the right to organize with one another. We have the right to demand that the economy serve the public rather than requiring the public to serve the economy.

A business is NOT a person. NO MATTER WHAT THE CORRUPT JUDGES OF THE SUPREME COURT SAY! 

It does not feel hunger, fear, grief, love, or pain.

People do. And that is why people must come first!

✌️

THE END CONSUMER: WHERE THE BURDEN STOPS

 

THE END CONSUMER: 

WHERE THE BURDEN STOPS

(What the expression made me think about)

Recently, I came across the expression "end consumer." It names the person who finally uses a product or service. It is an ordinary business term, but it made me stop and think.

The phrase began to sound like "the end of the line": the place where costs and difficulties arrive after others have passed them along. That is my interpretation, not the definition of the term. But it raises a question worth examining: when a business or institution encounters a problem, how much of that problem eventually becomes the responsibility of the person it is supposed to serve?

A business may respond to higher costs by raising prices. An institution may respond to limited resources by reducing assistance or requiring people to do more for themselves. At the receiving end, people must find more money, do more work, or wait. The difficulty has not necessarily disappeared. It may simply have changed hands.

When the Unresolved Problem becomes Yours:

I recently tried to schedule a mammogram at the hospital in Taos. I called, was transferred to the scheduler, and left a message with my telephone number. More than a week later, I called again and left another message. I still had not received a response.

During a subsequent doctor's visit, I mentioned this to a nurse. She told me that staff were overwhelmed and

scheduling requests were running behind. I cannot establish the cause of that particular backlog from this conversation alone. But I can describe what it required of me: repeated calls, waiting, and uncertainty about when I could obtain an appointment.

Inside an institution, the explanation may concern staffing, funding, or workload. Outside it, the result is a person trying to obtain a service without a clear way forward.

Researchers use the term "administrative burden" to describe costs people encounter when dealing with government programs and procedures. These include finding out what to do, meeting requirements, and coping with stress or a loss of control. Although this research concerns public administration, it offers a useful way to think about the effort required to obtain services. (1)

The Administrative Conference of the United States has examined how agencies can identify and reduce unnecessary burdens on the public. Its work recognizes the importance of understanding people's experiences when evaluating administrative processes. (2)

That leads to a simple question: has an institution reduced the work required to provide a service, or has it left part of that work for someone else to do? With higher prices, fewer choices.

At the supermarket, the burden is more visible because it appears on the receipt.

Economists call the transfer of changes in business costs into prices cost pass-through. It is not automatic or always complete. A business may absorb some increases, and its ability to raise prices depends on market conditions and customers' responses. (3)

Nevertheless, when an increase reaches a household, that household cannot simply raise its income to match. People can buy less, choose cheaper products, postpone purchases, or give something else up. These are ways of managing a burden, not evidence that the burden has vanished.

Giving up an optional purchase is also different from reducing spending on something necessary. Economic analysis identifies customers' ability and willingness to change their purchases as one factor affecting how

costs are passed on. A choice on paper is not necessarily an easy choice in practice. (4)

This is what interests me about the position of the end consumer. Others may have some ability to transfer costs onward. At the household level, those costs become decisions about daily life. Not everyone can absorb the same demands.

A higher price or complicated procedure does not affect everyone equally. Someone with enough money may pay more without changing much else. Someone with time and assistance may manage a difficult application or keep pursuing an unanswered request. Others have far less room to absorb those demands.

Research on "administrative burden" explains how the effort required to understand and comply with procedures can obstruct access to public programs. A program's existence, therefore, does not by itself establish that people can successfully use it. (5)

This does not mean that the person with the greatest need always receives the least. But it raises a serious question: does obtaining help require resources that the people needing help have in limited supply? A service may formally be available while remaining difficult to reach.

How Prices are decided:

Higher operating costs are not the only issue. There are also questions about the tools businesses use to determine prices.

In January 2025, the Federal Trade Commission released initial findings from its investigation of surveillance pricing. It described pricing intermediaries with access to detailed consumer information, including location, browsing history, and shopping behavior, that could be used to tailor prices and offers.

These were preliminary findings, not proof that every retailer uses such methods or that every practice is unlawful. (6)

A separate concern is whether pricing software can weaken competition. In its 2024 lawsuit against RealPage, the United States Department of Justice alleged that the company's rental-pricing software used confidential information from competing landlords in ways that harmed competition. (7)

In November 2025, the department announced a proposed settlement requiring changes to information sharing and other practices. Allegations must be distinguished from proven findings, and a proposed settlement is not a judgment establishing every claim. (8)

Using software to set prices is not automatically wrongdoing. But these examples show why higher prices should not automatically be explained as unavoidable responses to higher costs. We also need to ask what information businesses possess, how they use it, and whether customers have meaningful alternatives.

Employees and Service Users are not Enemies

When people ask for an institution to change, they may encounter another objection: restructuring could threaten employees' jobs. That concern deserves attention. People's livelihoods do matter. 

An overworked scheduler and a patient unable to obtain an appointment may both be struggling with the same system. Treating their interests as opposing interests can distract from decisions about resources, management, and organization. 

The International Labour Organization's work on a just transition, developed principally around environmental and economic change, emphasizes protecting workers while pursuing change. It does not provide a ready-made solution to hospital scheduling, but it offers a useful principle: worker protection can be part of planning reform, rather than simply a reason to reject it. (9)

Working conditions and individual conduct must also be distinguished. Recognizing that employees face pressure does not mean dismissing every complaint about how people are treated. The question is not whether workers or service users matter more. It is how an institution can take responsibility for both.

What this Argument does - and does Not - Claim

These problems are not exclusive to capitalism. Administrative burdens also arise in public institutions; the research discussed here examines interactions between citizens and government. Nor does every price increase indicates exploitation, or every delay establishes neglect. Different failures require different explanations. (10)

My argument is this: an institution can save money or reduce its own workload by shifting costs and work onto the people who depend on it. The burden has not disappeared; someone else is carrying it.

That possibility deserves attention whether the institution is a private business or a public agency. Financial viability matters, but it does not answer every question about whether a service works for its users. We need to count more than the costs appearing in an institution's accounts. We also need to consider the time, effort, and resources required from the people outside it.

Where the Burden stops

What began for me as a question about a business expression became a question about responsibility. Who can pass a difficulty onward? Who has the authority to change an arrangement? And who must accommodate the consequences when nothing changes?

The end consumer is not necessarily powerless. But neither should we assume that the ability to complain, change suppliers, or make another telephone call provides an adequate answer.

A service should be judged not only by whether it exists, but by whether people can obtain and use it. A saving should be examined not only for what it removes from one budget, but for what it demands from someone else.

At the end of the chain, an unresolved institutional problem becomes part of a person's life. 

That person, as in you, me, and a whole bunch of other people do belong in the accounting!

Source Notes

1. Donald Moynihan, Pamela Herd, and Hope Harvey, "Administrative Burden: Learning, Psychological, and Compliance Costs in

Citizen-State Interactions," Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 25, no. 1 (2015): 43-69.

https://academic.oup.com/jpart/article-abstract/25/1/43/885957

2. Administrative Conference of the United States, "Identifying and Reducing Burdens in Administrative Processes," research project and final report, December 5, 2023. 

https://www.acus.gov/research-projects/identifying-and-reducing-burdens-administrative-processes

3. Office of Fair Trading, Cost Pass-Through: Theory, Measurement and Policy Implications, published June 17, 2014.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/cost-pass-through-theory-measurement-and-policy-implications

4. Office of Fair Trading, Cost Pass-Through: Theory, Measurement and Policy Implications (2014). See note 3.

5. Moynihan, Herd, and Harvey, "Administrative Burden" (2015). See note 1.

6. Federal Trade Commission, "FTC Surveillance Pricing Study Indicates Wide Range of Personal Data Used to Set Individualized Consumer Prices," January 17, 2025. https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2025/01/ftc-surveillance-pricing-study-indi

cates-wide-range-personal-data-used-set-individualized-consumer

7. United States Department of Justice, "Justice Department Sues RealPage for Algorithmic Pricing Scheme that Harms Millions of

American Renters," August 23, 2024.

https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/justice-department-sues-realpage-algorithmic-pricing-scheme-harms-millions-american-renters

8. United States Department of Justice, "Justice Department Requires RealPage to End the Sharing of Competitively Sensitive

Information and Other Anticompetitive Practices in Proposed Settlement," November 24, 2025.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-requires-realpage-end-sharing-competitively-sensitive-information-and

9. International Labour Organization, "Just Transition towards Environmentally Sustainable Economies and Societies," topic overview.

https://www.ilo.org/topics-and-sectors/just-transition-towards-environmentally-sustainable-economies-and-societies

10. Moynihan, Herd, and Harvey, "Administrative Burden" (2015). See note 1.

WHEN A COURT ORDER IS NOT ENOUGH

 WHEN A COURT ORDER IS NOT ENOUGH

I know that many people already understand the court system and follow legal news closely. This essay is not mainly for them. It is for people who hear that a judge has issued an order, that the White House has been told to do something, that there will be an appeal or a hearing, and then wonder why the people in power seem able to carry on doing what they want.

I am not a lawyer. I am an ordinary citizen trying to understand why rules that can come down so hard on ordinary people seem so difficult to enforce when the person breaking them holds great power.

This week, federal Judge Timothy Kelly, appointed by Donald Trump, ordered the White House to restore press credentials for CNN, MS NOW, and Politico. The White House had barred those news organizations from access. Judge Kelly found that the ban was likely unlawful and ordered that access be restored immediately.

But something happened that ought to concern every one of us. Even after the judge’s order, reporters from those outlets were initially refused entry. Their access was eventually restored, but the delay matters.

It may sound like a small dispute about press passes. It is not. It is a small, clear example of a much larger problem: a judge can issue an order, but an order is only meaningful if powerful people obey it.

There is another important detail. This was not the first time Judge Kelly had faced this kind of conduct from Donald Trump’s White House. In 2018, the administration revoked CNN reporter Jim Acosta’s White House credential after a contentious press conference. Judge Kelly ruled that Acosta’s right to fair process had likely been violated and ordered the credential restored.

The White House then restored Acosta’s pass, issued new rules for reporters, and CNN dropped its lawsuit because the immediate problem had been resolved. The administration did not appeal and lose. It backed down before there was an appeal.

That matters because the principle was already clear. Once the White House grants a reporter access, it cannot simply take that access away arbitrarily. It must give a clear reason, notice, and a fair chance to respond. Yet eight years later, the same president’s White House was again testing essentially the same boundary, forcing journalists back into court to defend a protection they had effectively already won.

Most ordinary people understand what can happen when they do not obey a court. If a person repeatedly ignores a judge’s order, fails to comply with legal conditions, refuses a subpoena, or disobeys a lawful directive, there can be consequences. Fines may increase. Property can be seized. A person can be held in contempt. In some circumstances, a person can go to jail.

So why does it look so different when the person involved is the president or a powerful administration?

Part of the answer is that the legal system is slow by design. There are hearings. Lawyers argue. Judges need evidence. Orders may be appealed. Higher courts may issue stays. All of that exists for good reasons. We do not want a country where judges can punish people without facts, procedure, or a chance for review.

But there is another side to that careful process. A powerful government can use it to delay. It can act first and let the harm happen now. It can make people find lawyers, go to court, wait for a hearing, answer legal arguments, and wait again for an appeal. It can comply late, comply only partly, or change the wording of a policy and begin the whole process again.

That means delay can become a kind of victory. A person’s rights may eventually be recognized, but only after the damage is done.

We have also seen that courts, especially the Supreme Court, Courts can move very quickly when they choose to. The Supreme Court has an emergency process that allows it to act in days, sometimes even faster, without the normal long process of complete briefing, oral argument, and a fully explained opinion.

That raises a plain question: if the Court can act quickly when a government asks for help, why must ordinary people so often wait months or years while their rights, benefits, homes, families, safety, or livelihoods are at stake?

This is not an argument that every decision against Trump is correct, or that every court decision in his favor is wrong. Appeals are sometimes necessary. Courts should review cases fairly. The question is whether the rules are applied equally, and whether justice arrives in time to matter.

Judge Kelly’s decision is important precisely because he was appointed by Trump. It shows that not every judge is willing to excuse conduct simply because of who committed it. The restoration of press access was a real and important result.

But it is not enough to say, “The court ruled, so the system worked.”

The larger question is whether a court order is obeyed immediately and completely, or whether people in power can test it, delay it, comply only after pressure, and then try again years later. If they can, then the burden of enforcing the law is shifted away from the powerful people breaking it and onto the people harmed by it.

Courts must do more than announce rights after the fact. They must be able to protect those rights while protection can still make a difference.

If a president can remove journalists, deny access, wait until forced to comply, and later try something similar again, the issue is larger than one press pass or one news organization. The issue is whether a court order has the same force against political power that it has against an ordinary citizen.

The purpose of the courts is not to make us admire legal language. Their purpose is to ensure that power has limits. If those limits can be postponed, evaded, or endlessly re-litigated whenever they inconvenience the powerful, then the law is not protecting people equally.

The courts do not belong only to lawyers, judges, presidents, wealthy donors, corporations, or those who can afford endless litigation. They belong to all of us.

And every ordinary citizen has the right to ask: when a court speaks, who has to listen? Who must obey at once—and who is allowed to wait, delay, appeal, distract, and act as though the order does not fully apply to them?

Letter # 4 09/22/26

 

"OFFICE OF PUBLIC INFORMATION HARMONY"

Updated Guidelines for Responsible Presidential Coverage

"For Security, Efficiency, and Continued Confidence in the American Public Press System"

Dear Members of the Press,

The Administration is pleased to announce updated procedures designed to strengthen the important relationship between the United States government and the journalists who have been granted the opportunity to describe it correctly.

These guidelines will ensure a safer, smoother, more respectful press environment for everyone, particularly for those whose work may otherwise create unnecessary confusion by mentioning events that occurred, statements that were made, or questions that remain unanswered.

-Credential Renewal

All White House credentials will be renewed according to the highest standards of professionalism. 

Professionalism will be determined by a reporter’s demonstrated ability to avoid hostile facts, inconvenient video recordings, previously published statements, and questions that contain an unhelpful amount of memory.

Journalists who have shown a persistent interest in accuracy may be asked to undergo additional review.

-Questions

To promote orderly communication, all questions must be submitted at least thirty days before the event at which they may not be answered. Questions should be brief, respectful, patriotic, and constructed in a manner that permits a satisfactory response.

The following questions may require special authorization:

-Questions beginning with “Why.”

-Questions beginning with “How.”

-Questions containing dates, numbers, quotations, or verifiable facts.

-Questions based on previous statements by the President, members of the Administration, or anyone capable of remembering them. Follow-up questions of any kind.

Approved questions may be revised for clarity, tone, and historical compatibility.

-Pool Coverage

The White House television pool remains a valued partner in sharing official events with the American public.

To ensure broad and balanced coverage, pool participation will be reserved for networks that demonstrate an established commitment to reporting the Administration’s preferred version of events with appropriate warmth and minimal interpretation.

Cameras should remain directed toward approved speakers, approved flags, and approved applause.

Should an event contain material unsuitable for public viewing, the pool will receive a written description of what would have happened, had it been appropriate for anyone to see it.

-Security Measures

For the safety of all participants, journalists carrying notebooks, microphones, cameras, recording devices, legal knowledge, or excessive curiosity may be subject to additional screening.

Questions, observations, photographs, and visible skepticism may also be inspected before entering the premises.

These procedures are not intended to limit reporting. They are intended to ensure that reporting remains within secure and manageable limits.

-Corrections and Clarifications

Any report that differs from an official statement may contain an error. 

Such reports should be corrected promptly, preferably before publication, and certainly before anyone notices.

To assist the press, the Administration will provide approved descriptions of events, approved context, approved adjectives, and, when necessary, approved memories.

The phrase “unprecedented success” is encouraged wherever contextually or spiritually appropriate.

-Legal Clarification

Journalists are encouraged to address any concerns through the appropriate channels.

Please do not sue us; we will sue you first, thereby saving everyone valuable time and preserving the orderly administration of justice.

-Access Alternatives

Journalists who are denied access may continue their important work by quoting official statements, reviewing approved social-media posts, and refraining from reading the replies.

This process will allow the public to remain fully informed without the complications created by independent observation. 

FINAL REMINDER

A free press is essential to democracy.

That is why it must be handled with care.

Thank you for your cooperation, your professionalism, and your continued willingness to report responsibly.

(This document is satire. It is not an actual government directive.)