Esoteric Meandering Shouting Into the Void

Dwain Northey (Gen X)

The term “credible” is doing a tremendous amount of heavy lifting these days—especially in defense of Donald Trump and the establishment’s persistent unwillingness to release the full Epstein files. When allegations arise or associations are uncovered, we are constantly told that only “credible” claims warrant public concern. But who defines credible? Who gets to decide which victims, whistleblowers, or witnesses meet that opaque threshold?

In Trump’s case, “credible” becomes a shield—a way to dismiss or delay engagement with accusations. His defenders insist there’s no credible evidence of wrongdoing despite stacks of lawsuits, documented payouts, and a mountain of suspicious behavior. The bar for credibility is raised so high it’s virtually unreachable, especially when applied to people who lack institutional power. Claims must be impeccably documented, unemotional, and vetted by a media establishment often complicit in protecting elites. Meanwhile, Trump’s own lies, contradictions, and conspiracies are granted infinite grace.

Nowhere is the weaponization of credibility more stark than in the Epstein case. We are told time and again that only certain allegations, only certain documents, only certain names are credible enough for public release. The rest remain sealed—presumably to protect the reputations of men who walked too close to Epstein’s orbit. But “lack of credibility” is not a reason to suppress evidence; it’s often just an excuse to avoid accountability.

This double standard reveals a painful truth: credibility is not a neutral metric, but a gatekeeping tool used by institutions to protect power. If the Epstein files were fully released, the public could decide for themselves what is credible. But as long as that decision remains in the hands of those with something to lose, credibility will continue doing the heavy lifting of silence.

Dwain Northey (Gen X)

Many Americans feel a deep sense of pride and solidarity with the people of Scotland for their bold and creative protest against Donald Trump—often mockingly referred to as “Mango Mussolini” due to his distinctive appearance and authoritarian tendencies. Scotland has never been shy in making its views clear when it comes to Trump, especially given his history of controversial developments there, such as the highly contested golf courses. But beyond local grievances, many in the U.S. see Scotland’s loud and unwavering resistance as a symbol of global unity in defense of democracy and integrity.

Whether it’s the iconic “Trump baby” balloon flying over protests, signs declaring “Yer Maw Hates Ye,” or even the viral moments of bagpipers drowning out Trump’s appearances, the Scottish people have used wit, satire, and direct action to express what many Americans have felt. While Trump’s presidency was marked by division, misinformation, and an erosion of democratic norms, Scotland’s resistance has served as a mirror of moral clarity.

In a time when some U.S. institutions failed to hold Trump accountable, the unapologetic opposition from a small but mighty country overseas offered comfort—and even a spark of hope—for Americans who felt betrayed by what the presidency had become under his leadership. It wasn’t just about Trump’s actions abroad or his treatment of Scotland; it was about taking a principled stand against authoritarianism, lies, and corruption.

So yes, we are proud. Proud that across the Atlantic, people refused to be silenced or intimidated. Proud that truth, humor, and resistance crossed borders. And grateful that Scotland stood, bagpipes blazing, as a reminder that the world was watching—and that many were not fooled by the bluster of a man who disgraced the office he held.

Lyle Northey (Silent/Boomer)

A new wrinkle in the methods of getting people out of the country, now we are going to denaturalize individuals that we deem to be unfit. Who do you suppose they will target first? The person that has committed a crime like robbery or worse? Some one that runs a business that violates some rule like DEI or whatever? How about an individual that has been elected to Congress but represents the opposition? What a crook of crap this administration is has been pointed out in so many ways and it just gets worse. This rule, or law, or whatever you call it has popped up and most likely been overlooked because of all the other shit that been hitting the fan, and yet it could be so very devistating to many among us. The brutal methods used on people by ICE or whoever the MASKED men, they ain't the Lone Ranger, are show that they want someone to show even the slightest resistance so they can then be as brutal as possible. How much are these guys being paid to sink into the cesspool of subhumanity that is required to be an agent? One day we will see this rein of terror come to an end and when we do all records of who these guys are should be made public and all of them should be awarded the kind of prize they deserve. Let your imagination run wild as to what you feel those prizes should be. For starters I would expect that once this career goies away and they become known that they never get another job, cannot apply for assistance and the list goes on. Not only will this be negative for them but their families are not going to be very forgiving at that point. If any of you HERO's are reading this just keep in mind that what goes around comes around and your windfall today will very likely be your downfall tomorrow. These conformation hearings for some of the most unqualified people to fill important positions keeps moving along like a very dangerous snake. Why do the idiots keep voting for these people? If Trump has the stroke to primary everyone then all of you should make him put his money and his inflluence on the table. Think about what his tariff policies are doing to coorporations and the wealthy owners behind them. Do you honestly believe that his influence is still high enough to go after all that are up for reelection? We all know the GOP has for years tried to destroy every public supportive program and oganization we have, an yet when and if they considered that without the middle and lower classes they would have nothing it would seem obvious that their effort to destroy those programs in pretty much like committing self destruction. Keep on with all these negative efforts and watch as the world shrinks. When you can no longer go to other countries because we Americans are no longer welcome. When there are no venues to entertain you grandchildren becasue there are no people to man Disneyland and all you have left are some golf courses, possibly overgrown as there are not labor personnel to keep things up. Without those that do the work all the money in the world is just as useless as statement coming from your great leader, pure unaulterated bullshit.

Dwain Northey (Gen X)

This week’s celebrity deaths have hit differently. For Generation X, it’s more than just a passing headline or another notification ping on the phone — it’s a quiet, unsettling reminder of our own mortality and the relentless march of time. We’ve always prided ourselves on being the in-between generation — not quite analog, not quite digital, sandwiched between the idealism of Boomers and the hustle of Millennials. But now, with icons from our youth and peers our own age passing away, we’re being forced to face the very truths we’ve spent decades side-stepping.

When someone we grew up watching, listening to, or admiring dies, it pulls at something deeper. These weren’t just celebrities; they were time markers. They gave shape to our identity when the world felt chaotic or uncertain. They were the background music at parties, the posters on our bedroom walls, the characters we quoted endlessly in college dorms. Losing them is like losing pieces of ourselves — fragments of innocence, joy, rebellion, and hope.

But the part that stings even more is when it’s someone our age. Not a legend from the generation before, but a contemporary — someone who came of age during the same cultural moments we did, who maybe even seemed invincible in their fame and vitality. It jolts us. We can no longer pretend that we’re immune or that we’re still “young enough” for everything to work out. We’re not the young ones anymore. We’re the ones people are starting to say “gone too soon” about.

There’s a sobering recognition that our bodies, our time, our chances — they’re all finite. This isn’t to say life loses its beauty, but its fragility becomes more apparent. These deaths are a quiet whisper in our ears: to check in on our health, to reach out to old friends, to spend more time being present rather than numbing out.

Gen X has often been called cynical or detached, but maybe it’s more accurate to say we’re protectively skeptical. Life hasn’t been easy, and trust hasn’t always been earned. But moments like this break through that hard shell. They make us pause, grieve, reflect, and—if we let them—soften. And in that softening, perhaps we find a new way to live the second half of our lives: awake, grateful, and fully aware.

Dwain Northey (Gen X)

Sustainability is often associated with clean energy solutions like wind and solar power, which are crucial in the global effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and combat climate change. These technologies offer long-term, renewable alternatives to fossil fuels and are critical in transitioning to a low-carbon economy. However, focusing solely on energy overlooks another significant aspect of sustainability: the materials we use in everyday products. To truly build a sustainable future, we must also address the destructive impacts of traditional industries—like logging—and turn toward renewable, fast-growing alternatives such as hemp and bamboo.

Old growth forests and regions like the Amazon rainforest are being destroyed at alarming rates to support industries such as paper production, textiles, and construction. These forests are not just carbon sinks but irreplaceable ecosystems that support biodiversity and regulate the global climate. The continuation of logging in these regions perpetuates environmental degradation, biodiversity loss, and the displacement of Indigenous communities.

Hemp and bamboo offer compelling solutions. Both are highly renewable and grow rapidly compared to traditional trees. Hemp can be harvested in just four months and grows in a variety of climates without the need for pesticides or herbicides. Bamboo, one of the fastest-growing plants on Earth, can regenerate without replanting, making it an ideal material for everything from construction to textiles and even paper. These crops can be cultivated on land unsuitable for traditional agriculture, reducing pressure on forests and food-producing areas.

Beyond their environmental benefits, hemp and bamboo also hold significant economic potential. Industries that rely on deforestation could shift to these alternatives without losing profitability—in fact, they might find new markets and efficiencies. Hemp is already being used in bioplastics, packaging, clothing, and paper, while bamboo has gained traction in construction, flooring, and even biodegradable utensils. Investing in processing infrastructure and supply chains for these crops could create jobs, stimulate rural economies, and build a more resilient, circular economy.

In short, while clean energy is a critical component of sustainability, it’s only one piece of the puzzle. To truly live in harmony with the planet, we must rethink not just how we power our lives but also the materials we consume. Shifting to sustainable crops like hemp and bamboo offers a clear path away from deforestation and toward a greener, more profitable future.

Dwain Northey (Gen X)

For too long, Democrats have clung to the notion that playing fair will eventually win the day. But the modern Republican Party, led by Donald Trump, has rewritten the rules—and Democrats must catch up or be left behind. The GOP has mastered the art of relentless messaging, never letting a scandal die, and turning even the most damning truths into weapons of political advantage. Meanwhile, Democrats often back down or “move on,” allowing lies, corruption, and criminal behavior to fade from public memory. That must end.

Take the Epstein files, for example. Trump’s associations with Epstein, the allegations, the photos, the flight logs—these should be front and center every time he opens his mouth about “law and order.” Instead, Democrats too often shy away, fearing blowback or accusations of playing dirty. The same goes for Trump’s decades of lies, bankruptcies, racial discrimination cases, and his business dealings while in office. The GOP would hang these facts like a noose around any Democrat’s neck and never let go. Why don’t Democrats do the same?

The stakes are too high to keep fighting a fair fight when the other side is setting fire to the rulebook. If democracy is on the line—as Democrats claim—then it’s time to act like it. That means being ruthless with the truth, repeating it, weaponizing it, and refusing to let the public forget. Because if the Democrats don’t play the game to win, the country may lose everything.

Dwain Northey (Gen X)

For years, critics and media figures have consistently portrayed President Joe Biden as too old or mentally unfit for office, citing his age, stumbles, or verbal gaffes as signs of decline. But this laser focus on Biden’s supposed senility has largely ignored the mounting, and arguably more serious, signs of cognitive deterioration displayed by Donald Trump — a man who is not only the same age as Biden but increasingly untethered from reality in ways that go far beyond slips of the tongue.

Take, for example, Trump’s recent bizarre assertion that people seeking asylum in the U.S. are being released from “insane asylums” or foreign prisons by their governments and deliberately sent to America. This isn’t just fearmongering — it’s a complete detachment from how asylum systems work, not to mention a deeply offensive mischaracterization of vulnerable populations. Yet Trump continues to double down on this fantasy as though it were fact. Even more telling, he recently claimed that “think tanks” are literal buildings where people physically go to “think,” a baffling misunderstanding of a term that has been standard in policy and academic circles for decades.

These are not isolated gaffes; they are symptoms of a man who appears to be cognitively unraveling. Trump has also repeatedly confused world leaders, slurred through speeches, and meandered through conspiracy theories with little grasp of their internal logic. If Biden had made even one of these comments, headlines would explode with questions about his fitness for office. When Trump does it, the media and political world too often shrug.

This double standard is dangerous. If cognitive fitness is going to be a legitimate concern in presidential politics — and it should be — then it must be applied fairly. Trump’s recent statements should raise immediate red flags about his mental acuity. The 25th Amendment, designed for moments when a president is no longer capable of fulfilling the duties of the office, exists for precisely this kind of situation. While its invocation is serious and rare, the time has come for a national conversation about whether Donald Trump meets the basic threshold of cognitive competence. Because the evidence is piling up — and it’s not pretty.

Dwain Northey (Gen X)

A parliamentary system and the U.S. system (called a presidential system) are two different ways of running a government.

In a parliamentary system (like in the UK or Canada), people vote for a political party. The party that wins the most seats in Parliament chooses the leader, called the Prime Minister. This leader is part of the law-making group and works closely with it. If the Prime Minister loses support, they can be removed quickly by a vote.

In the U.S. system, people vote separately for the President and for Congress (which includes the Senate and House of Representatives). The President is not part of Congress and cannot be easily removed unless they break the law. This system divides power more strictly between different branches of government.

Which one represents the people better? It depends.

Parliamentary systems can make decisions faster because the leader and lawmakers are usually from the same party. They can quickly pass laws that reflect what the people voted for. The U.S. system is slower, but it has more checks and balances. This can protect against one group having too much power, but it also means more gridlock and less action.

So, parliamentary systems may represent the people’s vote more efficiently, while the U.S. system focuses more on limiting power and protecting minority views.

Dwain Northey (Gen X)

I wanted to pen a tribute from all Gen Xers who melt on the altar of Ozzy Osbourne‘s rock ‘n’ roll Heritage thanking him for everything that he put forward in his Musick library that will live on

A Tribute to Ozzy Osbourne: The Prince of Darkness

From the thunderous riffs of Black Sabbath to the haunting solo echoes of No More Tears, Ozzy Osbourne has long stood as the unholy high priest of heavy metal. His voice—a chilling wail in “War Pigs” and a mournful cry in “Mama, I’m Coming Home”—pierced generations with truths too dark for daylight. A man who warned us “Satan laughing spreads his wings,” yet also told us “I’m just a dreamer, I dream my life away.” In Ozzy, contradiction became magic.

Beneath the wild theatrics, biting heads off bats and howling at the moon (“Bark at the Moon”), Ozzy gave voice to the wounded, the misunderstood, and the damned. “Crazy, but that’s how it goes,” he sang, and suddenly madness felt survivable. “I’m going off the rails on a crazy train,” became an anthem for anyone who ever felt like a misfit. He didn’t preach salvation—he lived through the fire and ashes, and came out screaming.

With every guttural howl in “Paranoid” and every echo of “Goodbye to Romance,” Ozzy reminded us that pain and power can share the same stage. He “looked through the window and stared at the sun,” unafraid of what he might see. Even in the shadows, he never lost the fight.

To call him a legend feels too tame. Ozzy Osbourne is immortal—in every riff, every scream, every time someone dares to say “I don’t wanna stop.” So here’s to the Madman, the Dreamer, the Prince of Darkness. As long as metal roars, your voice will never fade. “You can’t kill rock and roll, it’s here to stay.”

Dwain Northey (Gen X)

During Donald Trump’s administration, the COVID-19 pandemic exposed critical failures in crisis management—especially in food distribution. When schools, restaurants, and hotels closed, massive disruptions hit the agricultural supply chain. Farmers, suddenly cut off from their usual buyers, were forced to dump milk, destroy crops, and euthanize animals. Meanwhile, millions of Americans faced food insecurity.

A key reason for this waste was the Trump administration’s inability to mobilize an effective response. Leadership at agencies like the USDA lacked the experience or urgency needed to handle such a crisis. Instead of quickly creating a streamlined national plan to reroute surplus food to food banks or families in need, the administration delayed aid, relied on underqualified political appointees, and allowed red tape to stall action.

The Farmers to Families Food Box program, while helpful to some, was slow to start and riddled with inefficiencies. Many contracts went to companies with no food distribution experience, leading to delays, spoilage, and inequitable delivery. In many cases, food banks lacked the resources or infrastructure to handle large deliveries without federal coordination or support.

This mismanagement reflected a broader pattern under Trump: prioritizing loyalty over competence. Key positions in federal agencies were filled with individuals lacking relevant expertise, which weakened the government’s ability to respond swiftly and effectively to emergencies.

The result? Thousands of pounds of fresh food wasted while families stood in long lines at food banks. What could have been a moment of coordinated national relief became a symbol of missed opportunity and poor leadership. A well-managed administration could have minimized waste and maximized aid. Instead, the lack of experienced personnel and strategic oversight turned a solvable logistics problem into a humanitarian failure.