Alex Pretti Death: Braver Angels Call to Action

Please share this post wide and far.

If you’re looking for a positive way forward in these troubled times in America, join the 80% of us Americans — Democrats, Republicans, Independents — who are saddened and disgusted by current events and join the Common Ground Movement and Braver Angels in particular, a bipartisan nonprofit dedicated to civil discussion and action.

Below are the powerful call-to-action comments of Maury Giles, the CEO, about the killing of Alex Pretti. He sent them as an email to those on the BA mailing list, but we need to get the message out to those who don’t know about the organization and are looking for a positive alternative to our current political parties.

Jan. 26 message from Maury Giles

I had just finished drafting this message when I read and watched videos of Alex Jeffrey Pretti being shot to death by ICE agents in Minneapolis. I felt a rush of anxiety, fear, and sadness; but, still, I was hoping it wasn’t true. It was; and it is our reality today.

Dr. Dimitri Drekonja, Pretti’s co-worker at the VA Medical Center, expressed the point on which I hope we all agree, no matter how you view ICE: “There is no reason for a guy like that to be dead, let alone to be killed by the agents of a government that employed him.”

➔ Two deaths in three weeks in Minneapolis.

➔ U.S. federal officers killing American citizens.

➔ Protestors storming church services with families and young children present.

➔ Local and federal officials arguing instead of talking, and leading, together.

So many reactions. So many questions. So many feelings.

Two things are on my mind right now about what is happening in Minneapolis:

What it means for our country and Braver Angels; and

The impact this reality, and the work we do, is having on each of us individually.

I want to start here: What we see in Minneapolis right now is a harsh but true reflection of us as a people.

Intense conflict requires an equal force in response to be resolved; and that force can take very different forms. It can be domination (power and control) or connection (patience, perseverance, and perspective).

I believe it is that simple.

Right now, “we the people” seem to prioritize “tribal interests” over the interests of all. With every emergent conflict, we are choosing domination (or apathy) over connection. It doesn’t matter if the point is destroying the “other side” or checking out as if one has no individual part in the play of our national drama. In both, we choose a path that does not lead to a better America.

Braver Angels’ quest is to inspire people to embrace a way of being because they see it as a genuine pathway to heal society and make a better world. While other groups rightfully advocate for specific solutions or organize protests, Braver Angels focuses on the methods of how we reach those answers. We do it with discipline.

Within our membership people have very different ideas about public policy solutions. That is by design. We aspire to the hard work of engaging across differences to build together. We choose connection over domination.

Think about it. Our individual choices are what matter. No public official, political party, or institution can or will make this change alone without us. They can lead, invite and teach. Or they can, as most seem to do today, incite more anger and more division.

We can choose to go against the grain. Find those with whom we disagree and do the difficult work of learning, sharing, and building. Together. The more intense the conflict, the more effort is required to build a common solution. This is the Braver Angels Way.

Let me close on the very personal, human impact on trying to do this work.

I can’t help but feel the strain. I am as stretched as I’ve ever felt, right now. I know you must feel variations of the same. For me, it is a daily (and sometimes hourly) battle to keep things in perspective, determine what is in my control, and act. My most effective aids right now are family, exercise and study routines, breathing practices, meditation, and think time. Find yours.

In these times, I find there is no replacement for this idea: keep on keeping on… put one foot in front of the other. Sometimes those steps are fast, sometimes we need to slow down (and I ask the same of you). Recognize the challenges, celebrate the victories big and small, give each other the grace these times require. Through it all, let’s keep our eyes on the vision of an America at peace with itself, where courageous citizenship is the norm.

I choose to pray. You may or may not have that practice. But I believe you’ll understand my intent: I pray for peace, wisdom, strength, courage, and patience. Then I get to work.

Walk with me. One foot in front of the other. Shoulder to shoulder.

It’s worth it.

I am so proud to be on this mission with you. Even, and especially, right now. Look for a series of convenings we will be leading with others in our sector.

— Maury Giles, CEO of Braver Angels

Join the Common Ground Movement!

If you’ve found this post helpful, please subscribe below and share with others. Please also join the Vigilant Positivity Facebook page (https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=61570111718959) and YouTube channel (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCQ6XlUCmeBzZEXLPwegWuqQ).

Definition of Common Ground Movement: placing your loyalty with other Americans, rather than any political party, and embracing the fact we have more in common than not.

“13th”: A Tough Movie Worth Watching

When I started watching 13th, a documentary by Ava DuVernay, I had to turn it off because her handling of why America has the highest incarceration rate per capita in the world is brutal. Or rather, the history she exposes is brutal. I forced myself to watch the movie in 10-minute segments over the course of a few months.

I’m still processing what I learned.

The premise of the movie is this: the 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which was meant to abolish slavery, included a single phrase that’s allowed slavery to continue through our prison system.
In specific, the amendment, which passed in January of 1865 after the Civil War, includes this loophole:

“Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.”

That meant if anyone in authority needed free labor, they simply had to find reasons to imprison people.

5 Reasons for Watching the Movie

While my introduction may have discouraged you from watching the movie, I’ll suggest you do so anyway—and recommend the movie to political movie discussion clubs—for the following reasons.
Understanding the current numbers

13th makes clear the extreme nature of America’s incarceration problem

With about 2 million people imprisoned, the U.S. has the highest incarceration rate of any country, including China, which has a billion more people. Our prison population represents 20 percent of the total world’s incarcerated population (195 countries).

Tens of millions more Americans live with criminal records that affect their ability to work, vote, or find housing.

Race sits at the center of these numbers. Black Americans make up about 13 percent of the U.S. population but roughly 38 percent of the prison population. Latino Americans are also incarcerated at disproportionately high rates. Black men, in particular, face a lifetime likelihood of imprisonment that is several times higher than that of white men.

The film doesn’t argue that crime doesn’t exist. Instead, it asks why enforcement, sentencing, and punishment fall so unevenly—and why those disparities have remained stubbornly consistent across decades and political administrations.

Understanding how we got here

One of the most unsettling aspects of 13th is how methodically it traces the system’s evolution.
After the Civil War, Southern states passed “Black Codes” that criminalized everyday behaviors, such as vagrancy, loitering, not having proof of employment. Arrests surged, and states leased prisoners to private companies for labor in mines, farms, and factories. Slavery, in practice, continued under a new legal name.

When overt racial laws became politically untenable, the mechanisms changed but the outcomes did not. Jim Crow laws enforced segregation through policing and incarceration. Later, the “law and order” politics of the 1960s and 1970s reframed racial fear as crime fear.

The War on Drugs accelerated everything. Mandatory minimum sentences, three-strikes laws, and sentencing disparities—most famously between crack and powder cocaine—dramatically increased prison populations without reducing drug use. Private prisons emerged. Entire rural economies became dependent on incarceration. Tough-on-crime rhetoric replaced nuanced policy discussions.

The film’s central insight is that none of this was accidental. These systems were built, expanded, and defended through legislation, lobbying, and political messaging.

Realizing the economic reasons to make change

Beyond fairness and morality, there are practical reasons to rethink mass incarceration.
Incarceration is extraordinarily expensive. States and the federal government spend tens of billions of dollars each year on prisons and jails. Housing one incarcerated person can cost anywhere from $30,000 to over $100,000 annually, depending on the state and the level of medical care required.

We taxpayers bear those costs, while the benefits often flow elsewhere. Private prison companies, surveillance and security contractors, and vendors supplying food, healthcare, and telecommunications profit from incarceration. Meanwhile, families lose income earners, children grow up with parents behind bars, and communities lose social stability.

Research consistently shows that alternatives—education, mental health treatment, substance-abuse programs, and reentry support—are far cheaper and far more effective at reducing recidivism. Keeping people productive and families intact isn’t just humane; it’s fiscally responsible.

Seeing how narratives shape policy

The film shows how media portrayals of crime—often racially coded—helped create public support for harsher laws. From campaign ads to nightly news broadcasts, fear became a political tool. Once crime was framed as a moral failing rather than a social problem, punishment became the default response.

This matters because policy follows perception. If incarcerated people are seen primarily as “criminals” rather than as citizens, neighbors, or family members, it becomes easier to justify systems that warehouse them indefinitely.

Understanding the need to take action

Often when we watch history that makes us feel bad about our country, the temptation is to blame our ancestors, one political party, one region, one ideology.

But blame achieves nothing.

Here are ideas about how to change the system.

Change what we reward politically

Mass incarceration didn’t grow because voters demanded prisons; it grew because “tough on crime” reliably won elections. To change that outcome:

• Vote in local elections, especially for district attorneys, judges, sheriffs, and county supervisors. These offices control charging decisions, plea bargains, bail practices, and jail budgets.
• Support prosecutors who commit to data-driven reforms, such as diversion programs, declining to prosecute low-level offenses, and ending cash bail for nonviolent charges.
• Pay attention to judicial races, which often fly under the radar but shape sentencing for decades.

Shrink the system at its entry points

The most effective way to reduce incarceration is to stop feeding people into the system in the first place. Here are policy changes we can make.

• End cash bail for nonviolent offenses, which criminalizes poverty rather than danger.
• Decriminalize low-level offenses, especially drug possession and status crimes.
• Expand pre-arrest diversion, allowing police to refer people to treatment, mediation, or social services instead of jail.
• Raise the age of juvenile prosecution and eliminate juvenile transfers to adult court.

Replace punishment with prevention where evidence is clear

Decades of research show that many drivers of crime are predictable and treatable.

We can encourage less incarceration by supporting leaders who support these measures:

• Mental health and addiction treatment
• Stable housing and supportive services
• Early childhood education and after-school programs
• Violence interruption and community mediation programs

Reduce the length of sentences, not just admissions

America doesn’t just imprison people, but also keeps them incarcerated for unusually long periods.

Here are ideas about how to change that:

• Eliminate mandatory minimums
• Expand earned-time credits for education and rehabilitation
• Restore parole and meaningful sentence review
• Make elderly and medical parole routine, not exceptional

Cut the financial incentives behind incarceration

The “prison industrial complex” persists because incarceration is profitable for some and politically safe for others.

• Consider voting for leaders in favor of the following:
• Ban or sharply restrict private prisons and detention centers
• End per-diem jail contracts that reward higher occupancy
• Require transparency around prison labor and vendor contracts
• Oppose rural prison expansion projects disguised as “economic development”

Restore rights and pathways after incarceration

Once American repay their debt to society, they should be able to re-enter society without the stigma of being a convict.

Key reforms include:

• Automatic record sealing for nonviolent offenses
• Restore voting rights upon release
• Ban discrimination in housing and employment for old convictions
• Expand education and job training inside prisons
• Support “Ban the Box” fair-chance hiring laws
• Hire formerly incarcerated people when possible
• Volunteer with or donate to reentry organizations

Change the narrative about crime and accountability

Fear-based narratives sustain punitive systems going. We can shift that culture via the following:

• Challenge language that dehumanizes incarcerated people
• Support journalism and storytelling that shows complexity, not caricature
• Frame reform as public safety plus fairness, not one versus the other

My questions for you

Do you think our criminal justice system needs to be reformed, and if so, how?
How carefully do you examine a candidate’s stance on criminal justice during elections?

Conclusion

13th is not an easy watch, and it’s not meant to be. It challenges viewers to confront a history that is uncomfortable precisely because it is ongoing. But discomfort can be clarifying. By understanding how the system works, how it was built, and who it serves, we gain the ability to imagine—and demand—something better.

Join the Common Ground Movement!

If you’ve found this post helpful, please subscribe below and share with others. Please also join the Vigilant Positivity Facebook page and YouTube channel.

Definition of Common Ground Movement: placing your loyalty with other Americans, rather than any political party, and embracing the fact we have more in common than not.

Social Media Ban for U.S. Kids

I first heard about Australia’s new ban on social media for kids under 16 via NPR on Dec. 10, the day it went into effect. Amazed, I found myself asking deeper questions: Would something like this make sense for American children? Would American parents agree with it? And if most parents said yes, could U.S. lawmakers — especially those with ties to social-media companies and ad-driven business interests — actually pass such a law?

Australia

Australia’s groundbreaking law—born of the Online Safety Amendment passed in late 2024—prohibits children under 16 from creating or maintaining social media accounts on major platforms, including TikTok, Facebook/Instagram, YouTube, Snapchat, Reddit, X, Threads, Twitch, and more. Platforms that fail to verify age and block under-16 access can face fines of millions of Australian dollars.

The goal is to protect young people from the many problems we all know about: online bullying, harmful content exposure, grooming behavior, addictive design features, and mental health risks.

These risks were highlighted in government-commissioned research that found the vast majority of children aged 10–15 used social media and many had encountered harmful content.

Enforcement includes age verification systems that range from facial recognition and behavior analysis to ID checks. (“Explained: How Australia’s Social Media Band for Kids Under 16 Will Work”).

Polls in Australia showed broad public support for the legislation, with some surveys finding as many as 70–77% of Australians backing the ban at the time of its enactment.

Critics argue the ban may be technically difficult to enforce, could push teens toward more hidden or unregulated online spaces, and may isolate vulnerable youth, like those who identify as LGBTQ+, who rely on digital communities for support.

Other Countries

While Australia is the first to implement a nationwide ban, other countries are pondering how to curtail problems related to social media use by kids.

Denmark, for example, is planning to restrict social media for users under age 15.

Norway and several European nations are considering age limits or raising the minimum age, sometimes with parental consent exceptions (“Will Other Countries Follow Australia Social Media Ban for Under-16s?”, The Guardian).

France has proposed stricter controls with parental consent, though not a full ban yet.
Beyond Europe, ideas ranging from smartphone bans for younger children to content-time limits are being discussed.

America

Proven harm and public health concerns

Decades of research—including advisories from the U.S. Surgeon General—show strong associations between social media use and a range of mental health challenges for children and teens. This includes links to depression, anxiety, poor sleep, and exposure to harmful content. While causation is complex, the correlations are well documented. (“Social Media and Mental Health in Children and Teens,” Johns Hopkins Medicine).

That said, social media isn’t all harm. Research also finds many teens feel more connected, supported, and creative online. (“Social Media and Youth Mental Health: The U.S. Surgeon General’s Advisory,” National Library of Medicine).

The issue creates a generational divide. Youths are often less likely to support restrictive policies than adults.

Would American Parents Back a Ban?

Survey data suggests a significant portion of U.S. parents support restrictions on kids’ social media use, though not necessarily a full ban like Australia’s.

Around 58% of U.S. parents said they would support a ban on social media for children under 16 (Family Online Safety Institute).

Other polls show broad support of 70–80% for parental consent and strict age verification before minors can sign up for social media (Pew Research Center).

Separate research indicates many parents believe legislation is needed to protect children online.

These numbers illustrate that a majority of parents are concerned and would likely back stricter limits, but there is still nuance and not universal agreement on an outright ban (Security.org).

Could the U.S. Pass Similar Legislation?

Currently, U.S. federal law already sets a minimum age of 13 for official social media accounts linked to data-privacy rules like the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act, or COPPA, but enforcement is weak (“US Republicans and Democrats push for Australian-style kids’ social media ban,” ABC).

Proposals like the Kids Off Social Media Act have been introduced in Congress, aiming to prohibit kids under 13 from social media and restrict algorithmic recommendation systems for older teens. These bills have bipartisan support in committee stages but have not yet become law.

However, a national ban on social media use for kids under 16 in the U.S. faces major hurdles:

• Tech industry influence: Social media companies and advertising networks wield significant political and economic clout, and they tend to lobby against sweeping restrictions (Business Insider).
• Legislative complexity: Age verification raises privacy concerns and technical challenges that lawmakers and companies are still debating.
• Business interests: Platforms profit heavily from youth engagement because younger users represent a large, tightly targeted ad market.

Who Would Oppose It?

• Big Tech companies and their trade groups, which argue that parental empowerment and education are better solutions.
• Civil liberties advocates who warn about censorship, surveillance, and digital rights.
• Some parents and teens who worry about cutting off supportive online communities.

My two cents

Australia’s ban is definitely a global test of how far governments might go to protect children in the digital age. In the U.S., a majority of parents might be open to stricter rules, but the dynamics of politics, corporate power, civil liberties, and youth culture make a direct copy of the Australian model improbable.

But I do think here in America we could develop comprehensive legislation and enforcement safeguards that protect kids from the kind of heinous damage we’ve already seen.

We could gradually introduce the program over several years in consideration of kids who are already used to the technology, so they don’t feel cut off. We could also introduce community programs for LGBTQ+ kids, and other vulnerable populations, so they can connect with one another.

Whatever path we choose, it has to balance protection with freedom, parental authority with corporate influence, and youth wellbeing with digital opportunity.

No small task, but something should be done.

My question for you?

Which of the following options would you support, if any?

• a ban on social media for kids under a certain age
• tighter restrictions and better enforcement
• no ban and no restrictions other than what’s currently in place

Join the Common Ground Movement!

If you’ve found this post helpful, please subscribe below and share with others. Please also join the Vigilant Positivity Facebook page and YouTube channel.

Definition of Common Ground Movement: placing your loyalty with other Americans, rather than any political party, and embracing the fact we have more in common than not.

Where do you stand on birthright citizenship?

The Supreme Court recently agreed to hear Trump v. Barbara, a case that challenges birthright citizenship in America. That right was originally affirmed in 1898 in the United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which stated that the 14th Amendment to the Constitution makes anyone born in the U.S. a citizen. That includes children of foreign nationals.

Our leadership’s talk of ending birthright citizenship, which I’d always assumed was a cornerstone of U.S. law, got me curious to learn more.

The 14th Amendment

The Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment states that “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

That clause was put to the test in the 1898 case in which Wong Kim Ark, who was born in San Francisco, was denied reentry to America after visiting China. The Court ruled his citizenship legitimate and clarified that his parents’ citizenship status didn’t matter. The logic was straightforward: if you are born on U.S. soil and are subject to U.S. laws, you are a citizen. That interpretation has remained largely unquestioned.

But Trump v. Barbara signals that this once-settled foundation may be up for reevaluation.

Trump v. Barbara

Trump v. Barbara challenges a recent Executive Order 14160 , issued by the president on Jan. 20, 2025, that seeks to limit birthright citizenship in the United States.

Summary and Status of Executive Order 14160

The order aims to deny citizenship at birth to kids born in the U.S. unless at least one parent is a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident.

Multiple federal district courts, including in Maryland, Washington, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire, issued nationwide preliminary injunctions shortly after the order was issued, blocking its enforcement.

In one of the key lawsuits, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and allied groups filed for class-wide relief. On July 10, 2025, a federal judge in New Hampshire granted a nationwide class certification and enjoined the order’s enforcement for all people born, or about to be born, under the terms of the order.

On October 3, 2025, a federal appeals court upheld the block on the executive order in a related case.
As of now, the order remains unenforceable for the people protected by the courts’ injunctions. The nationwide blocks prevent federal agencies from denying citizenship at birth under the terms of the order.

It should be noted that no federal agency collects or publishes data to track how many births occur to non‑citizen or non‑permanent‑resident parents. Therefore, any estimate used in the media or by advocacy groups, should be treated as speculative.

Why the Court Accepted the Case

The Supreme Court’s decision to hear Trump v. Barbara likely stems from the case’s extraordinary constitutional and national stakes.

The Court has never fully resolved birthright citizenship with respect to children of undocumented or temporarily present immigrants.

As noted above, lower courts halted the order nationwide through a certified national class action, creating both procedural and separation-of-powers questions the justices may feel compelled to clarify.

The case also forces the court to address the contested meaning of the Citizenship Clause, the reach of executive authority over immigration, and the relationship between constitutional guarantees and statutory citizenship law.

In short, the court may see this moment as an unavoidable opportunity to settle a foundational question about who is an American.

Countries That Have Birthright Citizenship

Though many Americans like myself had assumed birthright citizenship is globally standard, it’s getting less prevalent. Only a minority of countries continue to grant unconditional jus soli (“right of the soil”) citizenship. Most are in the Americas—Canada, Mexico, Brazil, and nearly every Latin American country. America remains one of the few developed nations that maintains full birthright citizenship.

The U.K., Ireland, Australia, France, and New Zealand all ended or narrowed birthright citizenship between the 1980s and early 2000s. Many now require at least one parent to be a citizen or legal permanent resident. Globally, the shift reflects growing pressure to control immigration and ensure that citizenship aligns with legal or familial ties rather than geography alone.

Benefits and Costs of Birthright Citizenship

For supporters, birthright citizenship embodies clarity and fairness. A child’s legal identity is certain the moment they enter the world, meaning no risk of statelessness. That simplicity reduces administrative burdens for the government and gives families, especially those with mixed-status immigration situations, a secure foundation from the start.

Economically, children born in the U.S. generally grow up to contribute to the workforce, pay taxes, and participate fully in civic life. Many analysts note that unconditional citizenship helps integrate communities rather than push them into long-term marginalization.

But critics point to perceived costs. Some argue that the policy acts as a magnet for unauthorized immigration, encouraging people to enter the country illegally in hopes that their U.S.-born child will have a legal foothold. Others point to strains on healthcare, education, and social services in border states or high-migration regions. Whether these concerns are driven by data or politics depends on whom you ask, but they form the backbone of the modern challenge.

Arguments for Reevaluating Birthright Citizenship

The push to revisit birthright citizenship generally falls into three categories:

1. Interpretation of “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”
 Opponents argue that the 14th Amendment was never intended to cover children of people who entered the country illegally or who lack long-term ties to the nation. They claim Congress, not the courts, should clarify the law.
2. Modern immigration pressures
Advocates for change point to increased global mobility. For them, citizenship should be linked to legal presence or allegiance, not simply geography.
3. Alignment with international norms.
As more countries move away from unconditional birthright citizenship, some argue the U.S. should follow suit to reduce incentives for “birth tourism” and better harmonize with other developed nations.

My two cents

When researching this topic, I had a number of thoughts:

We humans get used to how things have always been done, but reevaluation of those ideas seems necessary to allow for changing realities.

To me, the idea of ending birthright citizenship seemed unkind and unwelcoming. Yet there are real costs associated with a policy that might encourage some non-citizens to emigrate to the U.S. with the intent of having children who are then granted automatic citizenship and the rights associated with that status.

The reason the Supreme Court may feel the need to take up Trump v. Barbara comes down to the same problem that currently plagues our country: Congress has abdicated its role to create new and better policies. Neither the president nor the Supreme Court should be deciding such foundational issues. Instead, Congress should do what so many of us Americans want, overhaul our immigration system where the rules are clear, logical, fair and transparent.

My Question For You

What are your arguments for ending, or continuing, birthright citizenship?

Join the Common Ground Movement!

If you’ve found this post helpful, please subscribe below and share with others. Please also join the Vigilant Positivity Facebook page and YouTube channel.

Definition of Common Ground Movement: placing your loyalty with other Americans, rather than any political party, and embracing the fact we have more in common than not.

Thanksgiving Thoughts

When I was a kid, I grew believing that when the Pilgrims came to America, the Native Americans in the region observed the newcomers’ difficulties and gave a helping hand that resulted in a banquet where everybody felt good about one another. Like millions of American kids, I made Pilgrim hats out of construction paper along with turkeys I formed by tracing my hand.

It’s a great story that contains everything I believe: it’s good for us to work together and treat one another with respect.

But as we’ve come to learn through the work of researchers and historians, that story is completely made up.

Before you get discouraged that I’m criticizing a much-loved holiday, I’ll give you the punchline: the holiday means so much more now that I understand the real history.

Rather than be a holiday based on a fictitious scenario, Thanksgiving is about taking the day to appreciate the good in our lives. By looking at the darker side, we can cast off what’s unnecessary and focus on the beauty of a day in which we give thanks.

I’d argue that might be the way toward solving any number of issues in our country: acknowledge the facts and give our attention to what would be better for all of us. Acceptance negates the need for denial, which delays improvement.

The Myths

What helped open my eyes regarding this holiday was a 2019 Smithsonian Magazine article by Claire Bugos titled “The Myths of the Thanksgiving Story and the Damage They Imbue” that includes an interview with historian David Silverman, a professor at George Washington University. He wrote “This Land Is Their Land: The Wampanoag Indians, Plymouth Colony, and the Troubled History of Thanksgiving.”

The three things that surprised me

Myth: The arrival of the Pilgrims in Cape Cod Bay, MA, via the Mayflower represented a first contact between Europeans and the Wampanoag who lived in that area.

Response: According to the 2019 article, a major inaccuracy “is that the arrival of the Mayflower is some kind of first-contact episode. It’s not. Wampanoags had a century of contact with Europeans–it was bloody and it involved slave raiding by Europeans. At least two and maybe more Wampanoags, when the Pilgrims arrived, spoke English, had already been to Europe and back and knew the very organizers of the Pilgrims’ venture.”

Myth: The Native Americans and Europeans sat down to dinner to enjoy the harvest.

Response: “Wampanoag leader Ousamequin reached out to the English at Plymouth and wanted an alliance with them. But it’s not because he was innately friendly. It’s because his people have been decimated by an epidemic disease, and Ousamequin sees the English as an opportunity to fend off his tribal rebels.”

Myth: The idea of a great feast that actually took place.

Response: “For quite a long time, English people had been celebrating Thanksgivings that didn’t involve feasting—they involved fasting and prayer and supplication to God. In 1769, a group of pilgrim descendants who lived in Plymouth felt like their cultural authority was slipping away as New England became less relevant within the colonies and the early republic, and wanted to boost tourism. So, they started to plant the seeds of this idea that the pilgrims were the fathers of America.

“What really made it the story is that a publication mentioning that dinner published by the Rev. Alexander Young included a footnote that said, ‘This was the first Thanksgiving, the great festival of New England.’ People picked up on this footnote. The idea became pretty widely accepted, and Abraham Lincoln declared it a holiday during the Civil War to foster unity.”

Unfortunately, the story also helped justify the takeover of Native American lands by painting a picture in which the indigenous people invited the newcomers to do just that.

Going forward

When I finished reading more about the subject, I felt somehow betrayed, which must be what kids feel when they learn Santa Claus isn’t real.

Surprisingly, however, casting off the story proved painless and changed nothing about the way I celebrate the holiday. I still congregate with friends and family and eat the food I grew up loving. I still use the occasion to look around and say thanks for my life and the ability to love and be loved.

How wonderful to discover the story meant nothing to me in the face of what the holiday represents: gratitude and kindness.

But underlying my appreciation for Thanksgiving is the acknowledgment that the appearance of Europeans on Native American shores began the rapid decline of those peoples. Don’t get me wrong, history tells us there was a lot of brutality on both sides. But only one side got decimated and badly sidelined in American society.

That acknowledgement doesn’t decrease my enjoyment of the day, but instead helps me focus on a better meaning: it’s good to congregate and show our appreciation for one another.

So that’s my encouragement for Thanksgiving 2025, that we acknowledge the parts of history we don’t like, and focus on what we humans are doing right, especially when it that righting wrongs for all of us.

My questions for you

How much of Thanksgiving history do you know?

What does Thanksgiving mean to you?

More resources

• About the Wampanoa (Wikipedia)
• Myth of the First Thanksgiving (Wikipedia)
• “Rethinking Thanksgiving Celebrations: Native Perspectives on Thanksgiving”: National Museum of the American Indian
• “Thanksgiving: Historical Perspectives”: National Archives
• “What is the Real Story of Thanksgiving?” (The College Today, College of Charleston)

Join the Common Ground Movement!

If you’ve found this post helpful, please subscribe below and share with others. Please also join the Vigilant Positivity Facebook page and YouTube channel.

Definition of Common Ground Movement: placing your loyalty with other Americans, rather than any political party, and embracing the fact we have more in common than not.

Special Election 2025: How Do You Feel?

Now that the Nov. 4 special election is over, I want to get your feedback.

Summary of the results

• In Arizona’s 7th congressional U.S. House district, Democrat Adelita Grijalva won the special election to succeed her late father Raúl Grijalva.
• In Virginia’s 11th congressional U.S. House district, Democrat James Walkinshaw won decisively (75 % to 25 %) to replace retiring Democrat Gerry Connolly.
• In Florida’s 1st congressional U.S. House district, Republican Jimmy Patronis won the special election following the resignation of Matt Gaetz. While the GOP held the seat, Democrats made substantial gains in margin.
• On the Georgia Public Service Commission, Democrats flipped two seats, a notable shift in what has historically been Republican-dominated.
• Proposition 50 asked California voters whether to replace the state’s independent redistricting commission-drawn congressional maps with maps drawn by the legislature (to be used starting 2026) until after the 2030 census. It was approved by California voters. The measure is projected to help Democrats potentially flip up to five U.S. House seats in California.
• Self-described Democratic Socialist Zohran Mamdani won the 2025 New York City mayoral election, defeating former governor Andrew Cuomo (who ran as an independent) and Republican Curtis Sliwa. He will become the city’s mayor beginning January 1, 2026. Mamdani is the first Muslim mayor of the city, the first South Asian to hold the post, and one of the youngest mayors in recent city history.

Concerns for Republicans

An aggregate of news sources list the following as possible concerns:

• With the passage of Prop 50 in California, GOP strategists now see a structural threat to their House majority.
• Forecasting models suggest that Republicans risk losing about 28 seats in the House in 2026.
• The special election results signal voter discontent with the GOP’s messaging or coalition in certain key demographics, like younger or independent voters.

Concerns for Democrats

• Brand weakness: Despite winning several high-profile races, the party’s overall public image remains fragile: more than two-thirds of Americans say Democrats are out of touch.
• Internal ideological tensions: The party is still grappling with tensions between its moderate and progressive wings. The wins included both a progressive insurgent, Zohran Mamdani in NYC, and moderate safe-bets in Virginia and New Jersey. The diversity can be a strength, but poses a risk of mixed messaging heading into the midterms: what unites the party may be the opposition to certain GOP moves, but not necessarily a coherent vision.
• Midterm vulnerability: Even as Democrats picked up favorable results, these elections were largely in places already leaning Democratic. Analysts say that broader swing-district contests, especially at the national level in 2026, will be a lot more challenging.
• Policy and governance: Voters focused heavily on cost-of-living, housing affordability, public safety and education rather than solely ideological divides. Democrats will need to deliver concrete results or risk a backlash.

My take

I think the Republican leadership promised Americans the moon, but has not only not delivered, but is actively working against those who voted for them, so I’m not surprised at the losses.

Republicans pitched the President’s massive tax-cut bill as helping working families, but more Americans now realize the wealthy are the primary beneficiaries.

People who rely on Medicaid are seeing the GOP-controlled government push for deep cuts and new work requirements.

Rather than see prices go down, voters are seeing high grocery prices and the possible deletion of their health care coverage.

For my part, I’m most sorry about Prop 50. By pushing Texas to redistrict in an attempt to gain more House seats in the 2026 election, and California’s counter-response, the President canceled out the votes of thousands of Democrats in Texas and as many Republicans in California.

As for Democrats, they need a much stronger message beyond that of “oppose Trump.”

In turn, Republicans need to stop blaming the Democrats and work with them to reopen the government and work on the issues Americans care about: cost-of-living, health care and jobs.

Lastly, Americans need to work with Common Ground organizations like Braver Angels and it’s new Citizen-Led Solutions program to organize around common ground issues at the local, state and national level.

The last strikes me as the most important, because it’s clear our government is no longer working for us. Rather than wait for any particular candidate or political party to save us, we need to speak with one voice about what we want, and then see that our elected officials make it happen.

What’s your take?

Are you happy about the results, have mixed feelings, or scared?

What’s your next step in getting our elected officials to do their jobs?

Join the Common Ground Movement!

If you’ve found this post helpful, please subscribe below and share with others. Please also join the Vigilant Positivity Facebook page and YouTube channel.

Definition of Common Ground Movement: placing your loyalty with other Americans, rather than any political party, and embracing the fact we have more in common than not.

Why People Don’t Vote

I was at a farmer’s market recently handing out information about an upcoming election in my state.

A man passed by and I asked if he knew about the various issues at hand. He threw up his hands and smiled.

“I stopped voting when I was 63,” he said. “I’m 83 now and feeling fine.”

I appreciated the brief exchange, because I’ve always wondered why people don’t vote and he gave me a very good reason: his strategy protects his mental health to an apparently significant degree.

While his tactic would do the opposite for me by increasing my stress — that my lack of involvement and those of others, deterred a better outcome — the exchange encouraged me to take a closer look at why people don’t vote.

The Reasons People Don’t Vote

For some, not voting is a deeply personal decision. For others, it’s the product of barriers built into the system.

• Disillusionment and cynicism: Many Americans believe politicians are out of touch, or that no matter who wins, ordinary people won’t see real change. When elections feel like a choice between the lesser of two evils, abstaining can seem like the only way to send a message.
• Mental health and stress: Like the man I met, some find political engagement emotionally exhausting. Following the news cycle can feel like living in a perpetual argument. Not voting becomes a way to reclaim peace of mind.
• Practical barriers: Voting isn’t always as easy as it sounds. Long lines, strict voter ID requirements, limited polling places in certain communities, and complicated registration rules make the process discouraging.
• Scheduling conflicts: Because Election Day is not a national holiday, people working multiple jobs or caring for children and elders may find it nearly impossible to get to the polls.
• Lack of information: Ballots often contain not just the presidential or congressional races we hear about, but long lists of local offices, judges, and ballot initiatives. Without accessible information, many voters feel unprepared and simply stay home.
• Alienation: For younger voters, new citizens, or people with past felony convictions, the system can feel unwelcoming. If you don’t believe the political process was designed for you, why would you participate?

Why Votes Often Don’t Seem to Count

Even among those who do vote, there’s a widespread feeling that individual ballots carry little weight for the following reasons:

The Electoral College

In presidential elections, most states allocate their electoral votes on a winner-take-all basis. That means millions of votes in the minority column don’t affect the outcome.

Gerrymandering

When politicians draw district maps to favor their party, many races are decided before voters cast a single ballot. In heavily “safe” districts, results are predictable and competition vanishes. (See my post “Gerrymandering: Where All Americans Lose.”)

Safe states and districts

Beyond gerrymandering, the natural political tilt of states like California or Alabama ensures that one party dominates, leaving minority party voters with little sense of influence.

Two-party dominance

Alternative parties rarely stand a chance in winner-take-all elections, forcing many voters into a binary choice that doesn’t reflect the range of public opinion.

Money in politics

Thanks to the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision in 2010, campaigns fueled by wealthy donors and special interests reinforce the belief that politics is a pay-to-play game, drowning out the voices of everyday citizens.

All of the above reasons are legitimate concerns, according to “Report: Most Americans’ Votes Don’t Matter In Deciding Elections,” by Ross Sherman (April 24, 2025, Unite America Institute), which introduces a “meaningful vote” metric.

• In 2024, researchers at the Unite America Institute estimate that in U.S. House races, only 14 % of eligible voters cast a vote that actually influenced the outcome (in a competitive race).
• Across state house races, the figure is about 13 %.
• Many races are essentially predetermined or uncontested. For example, in many districts, the outcome is decided in the primary (if competitive) or only one party is going to win.
• Sherman notes that in “nearly 90 % of U.S. House and state house races” in 2024 were uncompetitive, which means the general election outcome is already foregone, and only a small subset of voters in the competitive race are meaningfully decisive.
• In 64 % of state house races, they found zero meaningful votes—i.e., neither the primary nor the general election had competition, so no single ballot could have changed the result. uniteamerica.org
• They also show that in many cases, primary elections matter more in safe districts than general elections do.
• So the Sherman report supports the idea that large swaths of votes, while legally counted, did not affect the outcome. That gives empirical weight to the claim that many ballots—despite being cast—aren’t “meaningful” in deciding winners.

What Would Inspire Greater Turnout

If we want more people to vote, the system has to meet people where they are and give them a reason to believe their voice matters. Here are some ways that could happen:

• Make voting easier: Automatic voter registration, same-day registration, expanded early voting, and universal vote-by-mail would help ensure that the act of voting is no harder than paying a bill or ordering groceries online.
• Making Election Day a national holiday would signal that voting is a civic priority, not an inconvenience squeezed into a workday.
• Independent redistricting, or “redistricting commissions”: Taking redistricting power away from partisan legislatures and handing it to impartial commissions, as some states have done, could restore fairness and competitiveness to elections.
• Ranked-choice voting: By allowing voters to rank candidates in order of preference, this system reduces the fear of “wasting” a vote and opens space for more diverse candidates and parties.
• Civic education: Schools, libraries, and community organizations can play a role in teaching citizens how elections work and why they matter. Voters armed with information are less likely to stay home out of confusion or intimidation.
• Campaign finance reform: Curbing the influence of big money in politics could restore trust that ordinary voices matter.
• Community-based outreach: People are more likely to vote when asked by someone they trust. Grassroots efforts, from neighborhood associations to local churches, can frame voting as a shared responsibility.
• A culture shift: In some countries, voting feels like a civic celebration — a moment of pride and participation. If we could build a culture where voting is seen not as a burdensome chore but as a shared act of agency, turnout would likely follow.

Low voter turnout isn’t the result of apathy alone. It’s a mix of frustration, alienation, and very real barriers. But each ballot represents a chance, however small, to tilt the system toward a fairer outcome. The man at the market might be protecting his own peace by abstaining, and I respect that.

For me, though, voting is the opposite — it’s how I protect my peace of mind. Because not voting may feel fine in the short run, but in the long run, it guarantees that others will keep making the decisions for us.

Further Reading

If you’d like to read more about the subject:

“5 Reasons People in the US Don’t Vote” by Leah Rodriguez (Sept. 2, 2020, Global Citizen)

“Millions of people in the U.S. don’t vote. Could anything change their minds?” by Gary Fields (Oct. 8, 2024, AP)

“Barriers and Hardships: Why Some Youth Didn’t Vote in 2024” by Sam Searles, Katie Hilton, Alberto Medina (July 31, 2025, Center for Information & Research on Civic Learning and Engagement, Tufts University)

Subscribe

Join the Common Ground Movement!

If you’ve found this post helpful, please subscribe below and share with others. Please also join the Vigilant Positivity Facebook page and YouTube channel.

Definition of Common Ground Movement: placing your loyalty with other Americans, rather than any political party, and embracing the fact we have more in common than not.

Gerrymandering: Where All Americans Lose

I live in California, so my state’s fight with Texas’ mid-census redrawing of voting districts, known as gerrymandering, in order to gain more seats in the U.S. House of Representatives is an issue that’s only growing bigger.

I didn’t really learn about the practice until I read a Harper’s Magazine article in the early 2000s. I remember wondering how gerrymandering could be legal. The system sounded like an absolute usurping of citizen representation.

I assume most of us agree that the voting district boundaries where we live should reflect already-established geographical locations, such as counties, towns or rural areas. If those places have more voters of one political party over another, that fact should be expressed in the number of U.S. House seats allotted. Over time, if the area naturally shifts politically, then the representation should, as well.

After my research for this post, my attitude has not changed: redrawing of voting district boundaries to keep one political party in power over another seems is an outright cheat..

History

The term “gerrymander” comes from 1812 Massachusetts, when Governor Elbridge Gerry signed a redistricting bill that created an oddly shaped district to benefit his Democratic-Republican Party. A cartoonist said the district looked like a salamander, hence “Gerry-mander.”

Proponents claimed gerrymandering was a constitutionally legal, efficient, and practical tool for the ruling party to protect its agenda and reflect the state’s majority politics.

Opponents immediately saw it as manipulation. They said it undermined fair representation and allowed politicians to “choose their voters” instead of the other way around.

Actual Alternatives

There are four modern methods of redrawing districts that:

• reflect actual political representation
• respect logical/geographic borders
• protect against partisan abuse

Independent Redistricting Commissions

These commissions are created by nonpartisan citizen panels rather than by state legislatures. In varying forms, they’re used in California, Arizona, Colorado, and Michigan. The strengths are that such commissions remove the direct self-interest of lawmakers, increase transparency and often include public hearings.

Unfortunately, they’re still subject to political pressure in how members are appointed, and commissions can deadlock.

Criteria + Algorithmic Maps

Maps are drawn by computer programs that following strict rules, such as:

• equal population
• compact districts rather than oddly shaped
• districts that are whole, rather than not split apart
• respect for existing political/geographic boundaries
• compliance with the Voting Rights Act, which protects protecting minority representation

An advantage is that a variety of maps can be created and then an independent body can choose the one that’s most balanced.

This presents a transparent system that’s fast, scalable and reduces bias. The trick is that the criteria, such as “compactness” vs. “partisan fairness,” can be politicized.

Proportional Representation (PR) Systems

This system means that a state awards seats based on vote share. If a party wins 40% of votes statewide, it gets about 40% of seats. That eliminates gerrymandering and gives representation to minority parties in every state.

But — it’s a big but — the system would require changing federal law, and possibly the Constitution, since wording now states that there can be only one House member per district.

Hybrid Models

Some reformers suggest keeping single-member districts, but making them follow strict geographic borders, like those of counties. Or we could use algorithms to test maps for partisan bias, which is known as an “efficiency gap” or “mean-median test,” and reject the biased ones. A last idea is to involve public map submissions and have transparent debates.

But Alas, Politicians Love Our Current System…

…because the current system allows for legal abuse.

It’s bad enough that over time, Republican and Democratic lawmakers have passed laws that purposely whittled down the number of political parties to only two, and that most Americans are unhappy with.

The Current Situation

President Trump’s request that Republican-dominated states redraw their districts to ensure tht Republicans keep control of the House has triggered a redistricting war where all Americans lose.

Let’s look at California where I live.

As a voter, I want Congressional districts to be as fair as possible. If a person moves to a district where a certain political party dominates, that person should be assured their vote will be represented.

I’m also a huge believer in deliberative democracy and am proud that my state has a California Citizens Redistricting Commission the includes 5 Democrats, 5 Republicans and 4 unaffiliated or other party members. They’re selected through a multi-step process involving a state auditor, legislative strikes, and random draws to keep the group independent.

Lastly, I feel democracy depends on at least two parties having an equal chance to gain voter trust.

So the situation is thus: the president’s move pits my love for democracy against my appreciation for CCRC and the fairness it represents. If I don’t want to have one party dominate in America, which would be like China, North Korea and Vietnam, then I have to choose against a fair and democratically-created system. And the last is what’s led to Governor Gavin Newsom’s Prop 50, which would set aside the CCRC for three years in order to redistrict the state to keep Republicans from a significant advantage.

I hate the thought that Republicans in current Republican-dominated districts are faced with having their votes forfeited. But I hate the idea of a one-party America even more.

My question for you

How do you think we Americans can get Congress to outlaw gerrymandering and institute more fair systems for redistricting?

Subscribe

Join the Common Ground Movement!

If you’ve found this post helpful, please subscribe below and share with others. Please also join the Vigilant Positivity Facebook page and YouTube channel.

Definition of Common Ground Movement: placing your loyalty with other Americans, rather than any political party, and embracing the fact we have more in common than not.

RepublicEN: Can a Conservative Climate Change Org Influence a Republican Government?

About RepublicEN

Whether we Americans agree on whether humans caused climate change or not, it’s clear the climate is changing and that we humans will need to adapt, and if possible, reduce the severity by taking action.

Climate change has been politicized to such a degree that I was happy someone referred me to RepublicEN, an organization that stems from the Energy and Enterprise Initiative at George Mason University in Fairfax, VA.

Those who belong call themselves the EcoRight and “believe in the power of American free enterprise and innovation to solve climate change. Together, we encourage, embolden, and applaud conservative climate leadership.”

The organization argues that regulating emissions don’t work because applying such rules to American businesses will encourage them to move elsewhere. And while incentivizing clean energy is a good idea, poorer countries often can’t afford cleaner technologies.

Instead, RepublicENs believe pricing is the answer. By attaching a cost to the negative impacts of emissions, any dirty means of generating electricity would become more expensive that solar, wind, hydro and nuclear power. Consumers would automatically choose the cheaper options.

The organization encourages the use of the well-known carbon tax. Whatever carbon decreases a company manages to make would be paired with a dollar-for-dollar reduction in taxes, or even a dividend to be returned to Americans. The tax would be applied to imports from countries that don’t have a set price on carbon dioxide.

The organization encourages members to write their elected officials; share content that helps navigate conversations with other conservatives; and take action by organizing EcoRight events. They also believe voters would be more likely to choose Republican candidates if they prioritized climate change solutions.

Some stats on conservative views on climate change

The following statistics come from a variety of polls, many of which also include stats regarding Democratic viewpoints.

RE: concern about climate change

Yale/George Mason University 2024 study: Around 52% of Republicans are either alarmed, concerned, or cautious about global warming. About half of that group is either alarmed or concerned.

Among Republicans under 35, 57% believe climate change is happening, while the percentage drops to 43% among those 55 and older.

RE: Level of threat

Chicago Council on Global Affairs: Only about 16% of Republicans see climate change as a critical threat, compared to 82% of Democrats.

Pew Research Center: About 23% of Republicans consider climate change a major threat to the country.

RE: Perceived affect on communities

Pew Research Center: 36% of Republicans say climate change is affecting their community a great deal or some.

AP-NORC poll: 48% of Republicans (versus 93% of Democrats) believe climate change contributed to recent extreme weather events.

RE: Policy Priority

Center for Climate Change Communication: As of spring 2025, about 22% of liberal/moderate Republicans, and 12% of conservative Republicans, say global warming should be a high or very high priority for Congress and the President.

RE: Support for government action

Resources for the Future’s “Climate Insights 2024: Partisan Views”:

• 57% of Republicans support at least a moderate role for the federal government in addressing global warming.
• 61% of Republicans support reducing emissions from power plants.
• 48% support improving appliance energy efficiency.

Current climate change policy

The above statistics seem to be in stark contrast to the actions President Trump has taken since taking office. They include:

• Withdrawing from the Paris Agreement (Executive Order 14162, Jan 2025).
• Exiting the UN’s Loss and Damage Fund (March 2025).
• Dismantling federal climate protections (targeted National Monuments, NOAA, U.S. Global Change Research Program; aligned with Project 2025).
• Declaring a national energy emergency; promoted coal, fast-tracked fossil fuel permits, reversed Alaskan restrictions and Clean Power Plan.
• Deregulating the EPA (31 major deregulations were announced in a single day).
• Proposing 27% budget cut to NOAA, eliminated most climate research programs, and moved to overturn the EPA “endangerment finding.”
• Installing Lee Zeldin as EPA administrator, who rolled back mercury and PFAS rules, closed the Office of Research & Development, and pursued endangerment finding reversal.
• Tightening Treasury rules on wind and solar subsidies (stricter eligibility for federal tax credits).
• Ending Biden-era EV mandates, paused EV charger funding, rolled back tailpipe emissions standards.
• Declaring energy emergency to expand fossil fuel production, reverse green policies, and eliminate climate accords/Green New Deal measures

Here are the actions Congress has taken:

• Introduced 26 resolutions under the Congressional Review Act to overturn Biden-era climate regulations (2 passed a chamber, 4 sent to Trump, 6 signed into law).
• Will end wind and solar credits (projects after mid-2026 / online after 2027).
• Phase out EV tax credits by Sept 2025.
• Ends EV charging credits by June 2026.
• Delays methane emission fees for 10 years.
• Extends biofuel credits through 2031.
• Cuts funding for green banks and alternative fuel vehicle grants

New legislation and resolutions include:

• H.Res. 568: Recognizes climate change as a public health threat (in committee).
• Polluters Pay Climate Fund Act: $1 trillion fund paid by fossil fuel polluters (reintroduced Jan 2025)
• Foreign Pollution Fee Act: Carbon tariffs on imports (steel, cement, solar components), reintroduced April 2025.

My question for you

If you’re a conservative, do you think climate change is being adequately addressed?

Join the Common Ground Movement!

If you’ve found this post helpful, please subscribe below and share with others. Please also join the Vigilant Positivity Facebook page and YouTube channel.

Definition of Common Ground Movement: placing your loyalty with other Americans, rather than any political party, and embracing the fact we have more in common than not.

Crime Rates in America in 2025

President Trump’s deployment of the National Guard and takeover of the Washington, D.C., Metropolitan Police Department after a Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) employee was carjacked in the city got me to wondering three things:

1. Which are the highest crime rate cities per capita?
2. Which of the cities have experienced a drop in crime?
3. Why would the president get involved in city crime rates?

Crime rate per 100,000 people

Total crime rate

The following comes from the FBI Uniform Crime Rate data for 2023 (cities with populations over 50,000):

• Oakland, CA – 13,793.94
• Memphis, TN – 11,277.78
• Tacoma, WA – 8,655.11
• St. Louis, MO – 7,881.60
• Little Rock, AR – 7,257.15
• Pueblo, CO – 7,069.40
• Detroit, MI – 6,863.19
• Denver, CO – 6,791.00
• Berkeley, CA – 6,749.86
• San Leandro, CA – 6,674.92

Total violent crime rate

The following comes from CBS News, which summarizes FBI data.

For large cities (over 250,000 people):

• Detroit, MI – ~1,988 per 100,000
• Memphis, TN – ~1,740 per 100,000
• Oakland, CA – ~1,685 per 100,000
• St. Louis, MO – ~1,679 per 100,000
• Milwaukee, WI – ~1,476 per 100,000
• Baltimore, MD – ~1,339 per 100,000
• Cleveland, OH – ~1,334 per 100,000

For medium-sized cities (100,000 – 250,000 people):

• Birmingham, AL – 1,588 per 100,000
• Little Rock, AR – 1,392 per 100,000
• Rockford, IL – 1,235 per 100,000

Top Murder Rate per 100,000

The following is from CBS News data shows for large cities:

• St. Louis, MO – ~49.9 per 100,000
• Detroit, MI – ~43.5 per 100,000
• New Orleans, LA – ~38.8 per 100,000
• Baltimore, MD – ~33.8 per 100,000
• Newark, NJ – ~33.3 per 100,000

Additional ranking from RoadSnacks for 2024:

• New Orleans, LA
• St. Louis, MO
• Baltimore, MD
• Detroit, MI
• Jackson, MS
• Memphis, TN
• Cleveland, OH
• Little Rock, AR
• Milwaukee, WI

Which big cities of 250,000 or more people have seen a big drop in crime?

All of the following have seen a decrease in homicides

• Oakland, CA: down 21% in the first half of 2025 vs. the same period in 2024 (the overall violent and property crimes down over 25% combined (San Francisco Chronicle).
• New York City, NY: down 34.4% in the first quarter of 2025 vs. the same period in 2024.
• Los Angeles, CA: down 33% in the first quarter of 2025 vs. the same period in 2024.Chicago, IL: down 25% in the first quarter of 2025 vs. the same period in 2024.
• Philadelphia, PA: down 30% in the first quarter of 2025 vs. the same period in 2024.
• Dallas, TX: down 34% in the first quarter of 2025 vs. the same period in 2024.
• Atlanta, GA: down 35% by early May 2025 vs. same period in 2024.
• San Diego, CA: down 27% in the first half of 2025 vs. first half of 2024.
• Miami-Dade County (includes Miami), FL: down 39% in the first quarter of 2025 vs. the same period in 2024.
• Baltimore, MD: down 23% in first half of 2025 compared to same period in 2024.

In San Francisco, CA, violent crime dropped 14% between 2024 vs. 2023, as did property crime (down 30%), and homicides fell to 35 total.

Though Washington, D.C., is not mentioned, the city apparently does have a serious crime problem. And while the city’s violent crime rate is down, there’s a question about the “30-year low” mentioned in the widely-circulated Jan. 3 US Department of Justice press release. Consider reading Isaac Saul’s commentary, “Trump’s Takeover of the D.C. Police” in the Aug. 19 Tangle newsletter.

Why would the president get involved in city crime rates?

I looked up the reasoning behind the president’s actions from both Republican and Democratic viewpoints. Because I’d like to avoid using code words that upset one side or the other, as discussed in my article, Political Code Wording: Are We All Guilty?, I’d rather provide my observations and see what you think in order to get a conversation going.

My opinion

Crime rate

Washington, D.C.’s, crime rate doesn’t merit the level of time and expense the president has expended so far. The city is not listed among those with the highest crime rates, and it has seen a continued decline in crime, even if a more modest decrease than other cities. If the president is going to get involved in local crime matters, I’d like to see him spend resources on smaller communities that are really suffering, such as Birmingham, New Orleans and St. Louis.

Type of crime

I was surprised a carjacking would instigate such a strong reaction from the president. While I’m sure it would be very upsetting to experience, the crime is not equivalent to one that involves the loss of life.

According to Wikipedia, in 2025 there have been 268 mass shootings between January and July in America, which if the trend continues, could lead to 441 by year’s end.

As a citizen, I’d much rather that federal attention be focused on creating the laws and resources necessary to address that issue.

Local autonomy

Given the above research, I don’t think President Trump has provided even close to a strong enough reason to deny a city of its autonomy. Much of his information appears to be wrong regarding crime rates.

I do understand his stated goal of being tough on crime, and encourage him to take substantive action to help all communities toward that end.

But having the president of an industrialized nation step in to take over a local police department due to a single crime perpetrated against a low-level government official feels disingenuous. More importantly, it diminishes the ability of our local governments to operate as the citizenry directed through laws and elections.

My question for you

Would you welcome having the president take over your local police department and send in National Guardsmen due to a carjacking or an equivalent crime?

Join the Common Ground Movement!

If you’ve found this post helpful, please subscribe below and share with others. Please also join the Vigilant Positivity Facebook page and YouTube channel.

Definition of Common Ground Movement: placing your loyalty with other Americans, rather than any political party, and embracing the fact we have more in common than not.