By all means stay home if you want, but don’t bullshit yourself that you’re not voting. In reality, 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑒 𝑖𝑠 𝑛𝑜 𝑠𝑢𝑐ℎ 𝑡ℎ𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑎𝑠 𝑛𝑜𝑡 𝑣𝑜𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔: you either vote by voting, or you vote by staying home and tacitly doubling the value of some Diehard’s vote.

– 𝐃𝐚𝐯𝐢𝐝 𝐅𝐨𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐖𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐚𝐜𝐞

𝐈 𝐢𝐧𝐯𝐢𝐭𝐞 𝐜𝐢𝐯𝐢𝐥, 𝐛𝐢𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐢𝐬𝐚𝐧 𝐝𝐢𝐬𝐜𝐮𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐭.

Today, early voting starts in Iowa.  You can register to vote online, and even if you are not registered, you can still register and vote on election day itself.

Today’s quote is from David Foster Wallace, who is an American author who, in 2000, was tasked by Rolling Stone with following the Presidential campaign of Senator John McCain, despite explicitly stating he was NOT A POLIGICAL JOURNALIST, and I absolutely loved this quote in his final article.

As I have written on the topic in the past, I will point to my last post on the importance of voting:
“In 2022, 1.22 million voters cast a ballot in the gubernatorial race while 1.66 million cast a ballot for the presidential race in 2024.  According to the federal register, Iowa has a voting age population of nearly 2.5 million people, meaning over 30% of the eligible population did not vote in recent elections.”

It is easy to be frustrated by nothing but attack ads, preposterous campaign spending, or simply thinking that politics is a team sport.

Please don’t let that frustration boil over into apathy.

Get to the polls.

Vote!

Sources:

Early voting starts this week for Iowa midterm elections. Here’s what you need to know | Iowa Public Radio

Register to Vote | Voter Ready | A Guide To Voting In Iowa

Election Day | Iowa Secretary of State – Paul D. Pate

Up, Simba!

The Importance of Voting – Politically Rational

Negative ads are unpopular. Why do campaigns keep using them? | WFSU News

Midterm Ad Spending Is Set to Hit $11.6 Billion as Dark Money Grows | Politics | U.S. News

Politics remains a team sport: On the continued relevance of studying party organization – Richard S Katz, Tristan Klingelhöfer, 2026

Earlier this week Anthony Fauci appeared before Congress to testify about his time at the National Institutes for Health during the Covid pandemic.  Outside of a short opening statement, Dr. Fauci did not respond to any questions, repeatedly invoking the Fifth Amendment.

I invite civil, bipartisan discussion on this post.

At the very end of his term, President Biden issued a pardon to Dr. Fauci.  According to the Supreme Court Case, Brown v. Walker, if a person accepts a pardon, they are unable to be prosecuted and can therefore not incriminate themselves, meaning they are no longer at liberty to invoke the fifth amendment for related matters.  Josh Hawley referred to this during the hearing, stating “You don’t have any rights under the Fifth Amendment because you’ve been pardoned, as you very well know”

It is important then, to read the pardon itself which Grants Dr. Anthony S. Fauci:

 “A FULL AND UNCONDITIONAL PARDON FOR ANY OFFENSES against the United States which he may have committed or taken part in during the period from January 1, 2014, through the date of this pardon (Jan. 19, 2025) arising from or in any manner related to his service as Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, as a member of the White House Coronavirus Task Force or the White House COVID-19 Response Team, or as Chief Medical Advisor to the President.”

It is also important to consider that Rand Paul pushed for criminal investigations into Dr. Fauci in a letter to Merrick Garland in 2023, which he requested again in 2025 and brought up a possible indictment again in 2026.  All of this comes on the heels of Senator Paul and Dr. Fauci having disputes in the midst of the Covid pandemic, calling one another liars during testimony.

While I have seen numerous references to a blanket pardon, including by Rand Paul during the hearing itself, it should be noted that while he cannot be prosecuted for any work on the Covid pandemic during his time with the NIH, it is unclear if that would extend to his testimony this week.  With the information evolving rapidly during the pandemic, it is obvious that recommendations would change throughout the pandemic and guidelines would have to be altered as the scientific community learned more.

Dr. Fauci himself said in 2020: “When you’re involved in something that is evolving over time, the best you can do is make a recommendation or a statement based on the data that you have at that particular time.  When the situation changes the data may change, that is the nature of science—it’s called self-correcting, making a modification to a previous recommendation based on new data.”

Immediately preceding this Senate hearing, Senator Paul publicized the diary of Dr. Fauci.  While it does seem that Dr. Fauci was very interested in following his own publicity and new-found fame, maybe to an extreme degree, a lot of the entries discuss his day-to-day activities and the work he was doing to try to navigate the constant changes inherent with an unknown virus spreading through the world.

During the hearing, Senator Johnson claimed he had numerous studies on the efficacy of Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine.  However, even today under President Trump’s second administration, the CDC still does have either medication as a recommended treatment for COVID-19.  Similarly, the Mayo Clinic has a clear statement that it is not an effective treatment.  To date, Senator Johnson has not released any studies that indicate either medication is effective against COVID-19.

It seems the vaccination has been a key issue for Republicans in office.  I remember the announcement, and my own skepticism, when Operation Warp Speed was announced by President Trump.  The operation culminated in vaccines by the end of 2020 and had an immediate impact saving approximately 120,000 lives over the first six months.

While I find it a little odd to make only an opening statement and repeatedly plead the 5^th, including on basic questions like the color of his tie or the day of the week, I can hardly blame someone who is testifying in front of a body filled with members who have been blaming him for the last five years.  Indeed, immediately following the hearing, Senator Paul said he would move to hold Dr. Fauci in contempt of congress.

I also really want to understand why similar, if not worse, outrage was not directed to Pam Bondi when she testified in front of Congress in February.  While the Attorney General did not formally invoke her right to plead the Fifth Amendment, she did not answer a single question from Democrats.  Instead, she brought a ‘burn book’ she could use to attack any Senator who asked a question she did not want to answer.  Pam Bondi’s hearings were the ultimate display of Contempt of Congress.

Getting Back to Dr. Fauci, what exactly do they want him to apologize for?  As far as I can tell, both from his journal and from his time in front of the public in 2020, he was doing his best to navigate his newfound notoriety and mitigate the impacts of a deadly illness during a tumultuous time as a new virus spread throughout the world.

 

 

Sources:

Dr. Anthony Fauci Testifies on Origins of COVID-19 Pandemic | Video | C-SPAN.org

Doctor Fauci pleads the fifth at Senator Rand Paul’s contentious hearing | Fox News

Biden pardons Fauci, Milley and members of Jan. 6 panel : NPR

Brown v. Walker | 161 U.S. 591 (1896) | Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center

Fauci’s Biden autopen pardon won’t spare him from prosecution for 5th Amendment spectacle: GOP senators

Dr. Fauci, Rand Paul call each other ‘liars’ during explosive hearing: full video

Pardon Warrant Fauci

Anthony Fauci Congressional Hearing | Rev

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/07/29/us/politics/fauci-biden-pardon-covid-hearing.html?unlocked_article_code=1.2FA.h5_Q.IE-_WTCBQa1U&smid=url-share

Dr. Fauci shares COVID-19 related insights with the DIA workforce > Defense Intelligence Agency > Article View

Microsoft Word – Final Draft Letter to Garland_CS2[6].docx

Senator Rand Paul Re-Refers Dr. Anthony Fauci to the Department of Justice – Committee on Homeland Security & Governmental Affairs

Rand Paul pushes for Anthony Fauci indictment

2026.07.24_Tonys-Diary-Package.pdf

Types of COVID-19 Treatment | Covid | CDC

Is hydroxychloroquine a treatment for COVID-19? – Mayo Clinic

It’s 2026 And A GOP Senator Is Pushing Ivermectin As A COVID-19 Treatment

Coronavirus: Operation Warp Speed aims to bring vaccine by year’s end

Operation Warp Speed Official: First COVID-19 Vaccines to Arrive Monday > U.S. Department of War > Defense Department News | U.S. Department of War

The impact of COVID-19 vaccination in the US: Averted burden of SARS-COV-2-related cases, hospitalizations and deaths | PLOS One

Fauci invokes Fifth Amendment even when asked the day of the week | Fox News

Sen. Rand Paul says he’ll move to hold Fauci in contempt after combative hearing : NPR

House hearing erupts as Bondi clashes with lawmakers | Fox News

Pam Bondi Roasted By Lawmakers For Bringing A ‘Mean Girls’-Like ‘Burn Book’ To Hearing | HuffPost Latest News

 

Gerrymandering is wrong.

On April 29^th, the Supreme Court of the United States struck down a voting map in Louisiana on the grounds that it used race to create congressional districts.  This ruling explicitly allows for gerrymandering on a political basis, stating states “must ‘disentangle race from politics’ by proving ‘that the former drove a district’s lines.’”

A vast majority of Americans believe that gerrymandering is wrong.  According to a Rasmussen poll, 88% of voters consider it a serious problem.  However, a poll by Politico shows both Democrats and Republicans are in favor of redistricting to allow their side to win.

I invite civil, bipartisan discussion on this post.

In July of 2025, President Trump explicitly called on the state of Texas to redraw their congressional maps.  Texas ultimately did pass new districts prompting California to pass their own initiative, which was passed by the state’s voters in November.

While Texas and California grabbed the largest headlines, many other states have followed suit including
Alabama, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio, Tennessee, Florida, Louisiana, and Virginia with Maryland, New York, and others discussing the possibility, or having voted on changes.

Historically, the Supreme Court has used the “Purcell Principle” to try to discourage last minute changes by federal courts to elections.  In a Wisconsin case in 2020, Brett Kavanaugh wrote: “It is one thing for state legislatures to alter their own election rules in the late innings and to bear the responsibility for any unintended consequences. It is quite another thing for a federal district court to swoop in and alter carefully considered and democratically enacted state election rules when an election is imminent.”

In Louisiana, absentee voting had already begun when a new map was introduced and 40,000 ballots will be discarded.   In the case of Missouri, the state Supreme Court upheld the new map while the Supreme Court of Virginia struck down their effort and the U.S. Supreme Court let the decision stand.  While that order was unsigned, it was also not a major surprise as Article 1; Section 4 of the Constitution gives the power of elections to the states.

As states continue to take action to change electoral maps, or contemplate changes to elections laws, I see no reason to expect these sweeping changes to slow down in the months ahead.  Rather, I would like to discuss options for reigning in gerrymandering, as I reiterate that gerrymandering is wrong.

Revisit Apportionment

According to the Constitution, Article I; Section 2, “The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative”.  This puts an upper bound on the size of Congress, but no lower bound.  While the size of the United States House of Representatives was set to 435 in 1911, the Reapportionment Act of 1929 which remains in effect today kept the size of the House unchanged.

As I have mentioned in the past, one major point of contention from the Anti-Federalists when the Constitution was being debated was the size of Congress, particularly the House of Representatives.  In Cato’s Letter V from 1787, it was argued “that the number of representatives are too few”.  In Federalist No. 55, James Madison referenced the attacks on the number of representatives saying of opponents, “so small a number of representatives will be an unsafe depositary of the public interests” and “they will not possess a proper knowledge of the local circumstances of their numerous constituents.”

Moreover, Madison’s original draft of the Bill of Rights introduced to Congress stated “there would not be more than one Representative for every fifty thousand persons”.  As of 2023, there were an estimated 761,169 constituents for every representative.

Greatly increasing the number of Representatives would make it much more difficult to gerrymander, as it would be more difficult to put each political minority into a larger group of the majority.

Create Rules for Redistricting

Stopping gerrymandering is a notoriously difficult problem.  I don’t know exactly what rules should be in place for redistricting, but a few come to mind:

• Redistricting must be within one year of the Census release
• Redistricting cannot be within six months of the start of voting – and define voting, as the case referenced previously in Virginia ultimately relied on that definition.
• Require the creation of independent commissions to help mitigate the problem.

Tell me your ideas to combat gerrymandering! 

 

Sources:

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/04/29/us/politics/supreme-court-voting-rights-act.html?unlocked_article_code=1.jVA.6vl4.o78pTV4mMmJZ&smid=url-share

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-109_21o3.pdf

Gerrymandering Problem ‘Very Serious,’ Voters Say – Rasmussen Reports®

The POLITICO Poll: Redistricting fight has voters supporting partisan gerrymandering – POLITICO

Trump tells Texas Republicans to redistrict to help keep GOP House majority | AP News

GOP wins Texas redistricting fight despite Democratic walkout attempt | Fox News

Newsom signs California redistricting plan that could tilt 5 House seats toward Democrats – CBS News

California voters pass Prop 50 to redraw the state’s congressional maps, CBS News projects – CBS Sacramento

Alabama lawmakers approve new US House primary, if courts allow it | AP News

Missouri Senate OKs redistricting and initiative petition plans | STLPR

The latest redistricting salvo: North Carolina gerrymanders out House Democrat – POLITICO

Republicans notch redistricting win in Ohio — but it could have been worse for Democrats – POLITICO

Tennessee approves new congressional map that dissolves majority Black district – CBS News

DeSantis unveils new GOP-friendly congressional map on eve of special session – POLITICO

Louisiana lawmakers advance new 5-1 congressional map that favors Republicans – CBS News

Virginia votes for redistricting, giving Democrats a boost : NPR

Maryland lawmakers reject effort to redraw congressional map to boost Democrats | AP News

New York lawmakers eye multiple redistricting amendments – POLITICO

Purcell principle | Election Law, US Supreme Court, Purcell v. Gonzalez, & Voters | Britannica

Supreme Court faces new criticism for changing redistricting law close to 2026 elections

Louisiana to delay House primaries after Supreme Court redistricting ruling

Louisiana lawmakers advance new 5-1 congressional map that favors Republicans – CBS News

Missouri Supreme Court hands GOP a win in redistricting battle – POLITICO

Court rejects Virginia redistricting in a blow to Democrats : NPR

Supreme Court rejects Virginia Democrats’ bid to revive new congressional map – CBS News

The Constitution of the United States: A Transcription | National Archives

Redistricting ahead of the 2026 elections – Ballotpedia

State Voting Laws Roundups | Brennan Center for Justice

Apportionment Act of 1911 – Wikipedia

Reapportionment Act of 1929 – Wikipedia

The Constitution of the United States: A Transcription | National Archives

Cato_V(1).pdf

untitled

The Bill of Rights: A Transcription | National Archives

United States congressional apportionment – Wikipedia

1808.08905

1260127.pdf

Can independent commissions create fair voting districts? | Harvard Kennedy School

According to Facebook, today marks one year since I created a Facebook page, and therefore this website. That really comes as little surprise as my first political post was shortly after the second inauguration of President Trump, and I created the page

𝐈 𝐢𝐧𝐯𝐢𝐭𝐞 𝐜𝐢𝐯𝐢𝐥, 𝐛𝐢𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐢𝐬𝐚𝐧 𝐝𝐢𝐬𝐜𝐮𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐭.

The first few times I wrote something it was because I was frustrated with the political environment. I was frustrated that Congress was not stepping up to fulfill their obligations. Above all else, I was frustrated that people were simply attacking each other rather than listening to one another.

I have said it many times over the past year, but I still firmly believe that the ideologies of 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞 𝐰𝐞 𝐬𝐞𝐞 𝐨𝐧 𝐚 𝐝𝐚𝐢𝐥𝐲 𝐛𝐚𝐬𝐢𝐬, 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐟𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐚𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐟𝐚𝐫 𝐚𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐭.

Politicians in search of soundbites and campaign slogans have long sought to vastly oversimplify the details of the proposals they support. Bills in Congress that are thousands of pages long are often reduced to a small number of talking points; in reality, they can encompass hundreds or thousands of different political positions and represent long-debated compromises while being drafted.

𝐈 𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐨𝐧𝐠𝐥𝐲 𝐛𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐞𝐯𝐞 𝐰𝐞 𝐧𝐞𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐨 𝐥𝐨𝐨𝐤 𝐩𝐚𝐬𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐛𝐢𝐭𝐞𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐞𝐱𝐚𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐧𝐮𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐢𝐧 𝐥𝐞𝐠𝐢𝐬𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧.

Over the past year I have written around 50 posts in total. I have read a number of books about politics and history. I have done my best to elicit dialogue between left and right.

Moreover, I have thought about what purpose I have in writing my thoughts on a regular basis. I would love to see more discussion and 𝐡𝐞𝐥𝐩 𝐫𝐞𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐧𝐚𝐫𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐧𝐮𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐢𝐧 𝐚 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐥𝐝 𝐨𝐟 𝐜𝐨𝐥𝐨𝐫 𝐛𝐞𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐩𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐨𝐧𝐥𝐲 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐛𝐥𝐚𝐜𝐤 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐰𝐡𝐢𝐭𝐞.

However, at the end of the day, a large part of the reason I write is to be introspective. Many days 𝐢𝐭 𝐟𝐞𝐞𝐥𝐬 𝐥𝐢𝐤𝐞 𝐈 𝐚𝐦 𝐬𝐢𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐲 𝐬𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐨𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐯𝐨𝐢𝐝, but I have come to appreciate doing so for my own sake.

I am currently reading the book Moon and Sixpence by William Somerset Maugham. I wouldn’t necessarily recommend it, but I do find many passages in his book resonate very well with me, and this explanation felt very familiar:

“It is a salutary discipline to consider the vast number of books that are written, the fair hopes with which their authors see them published, and the fate which awaits them. What chance is there that any book will make its way among that multitude? And the successful books are but the successes of a season. Heaven knows what pains the author has been at, what bitter experiences he has endured and what heartache suffered, to give some chance reader a few hours’ relaxation or to while away the tedium of a journey. And if I may judge from the reviews, many of these books are well and carefully written; much thought has gone to their composition; to some even has been given the anxious labour of a lifetime. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐚𝐥 𝐈 𝐝𝐫𝐚𝐰 𝐢𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐰𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐬𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐥𝐝 𝐬𝐞𝐞𝐤 𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐫𝐞𝐰𝐚𝐫𝐝 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐬𝐮𝐫𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐤 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐢𝐧 𝐫𝐞𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐬𝐞 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐛𝐮𝐫𝐝𝐞𝐧 𝐨𝐟 𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐠𝐡𝐭𝐬; 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐢𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐟𝐟𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐭𝐨 𝐚𝐮𝐠𝐡𝐭 𝐞𝐥𝐬𝐞, 𝐜𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐧𝐨𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐩𝐫𝐚𝐢𝐬𝐞 𝐨𝐫 𝐜𝐞𝐧𝐬𝐮𝐫𝐞, 𝐟𝐚𝐢𝐥𝐮𝐫𝐞 𝐨𝐫 𝐬𝐮𝐜𝐜𝐞𝐬𝐬.”

Thank you to everyone who has read my thoughts over the past year. I have appreciated the opportunity to scream into the void and release the burden of my thoughts, and I look forward to continuing to do so.