Vlogging Pod

Crossroads Rhonda Parker Taylor

Rhonda Parker Taylor is an American writer, entrepreneur, and academic researcher. As an author of the bestselling novel Crossroads, endorsed by Golden Globe-nominated actress Mariel Hemingway, I bring a unique perspective on personal growth, emotional resilience, and leadership.

https://rhondaparkertaylor.com/ 

Where’s the Future We Were Promised?

Tonight’s a little different.

This isn’t the episode I planned, and honestly, I almost didn’t hit record at all. But I felt like I needed to speak, not as a host, not as a commentator, but just as a person sitting in the dark with way too many thoughts.

So here goes.

When I was younger, I genuinely believed the future would look like Star Trek. Not in the shiny-uniformed, warp-speed kind of way, but in the spirit of it. I thought we were moving toward something better. A society where we’d finally learn from our mistakes, take care of each other, explore, evolve, grow.

Instead... we’ve regressed.

We live in a time where facts are debated, empathy feels endangered, and hatred is somehow louder than hope. And I don’t mean online arguments, I mean in policy, in leadership, in the way people look at each other across the street. The dream of progress? It feels like a memory.

Sometimes I look around and I don’t see the future. I see fear. I see division. I see people clinging to power with both hands and no concern for who they hurt. And I feel this deep, gnawing ache, because we could be so much more than this. We were supposed to be.

And I’ll say something hard here:
I’m white. And lately, that’s felt... complicated. Because being white in this country means being part of a system that’s hurting people, whether I want it to or not. Whether I like it or not.

It’s not about guilt. It’s about responsibility. It’s about asking, what kind of ancestor do I want to be? What kind of voice am I going to lend to this moment?

I don’t have clean answers tonight. I’m not here to teach or preach. I’m just sitting with the same sadness and frustration so many of you are. But I do believe in naming the weight we carry, because when we name it, we stop letting it fester in silence.

So, if you’ve been wondering where the future went...
If you’ve felt tired, disappointed, even heartbroken at the state of things...
You’re not alone.

We’re still here.
And we still have choices.

Silent Spread: The Bird Flu Crisis

Over the past few years, a silent crisis has been unfolding across our nation, a crisis that began in the skies, descended into our farms, and is now knocking on our doors. I'm talking about the H5N1 avian influenza, commonly known as bird flu.​

Initially, H5N1 was a concern primarily for poultry. But in March 2024, the virus made an unprecedented jump to dairy cows, marking the first time such a transmission had been documented in the United States.  Since then, over 200 dairy herds have been affected.

The virus didn't stop there. It has now infected humans—farm workers who had close contact with infected animals. As of late 2024, there have been 46 confirmed human cases in the U.S., including individuals with no known exposure to poultry or cattle. Tragically, the first U.S. death from bird flu was reported in Louisiana earlier this year.​ 

Despite these alarming developments, our national response has been, at best, tepid. The CDC maintains that the public health risk is low and continues to monitor the situation . The USDA has allocated funds for vaccine research and emergency relief .​

But is monitoring enough?

Experts from institutions like Baylor College of Medicine are calling for immediate vaccination of cows, poultry, and their caretakers . They warn that the virus is adapting to infect mammals, increasing the risk of a new pandemic.​

Yet, federal policies remain fragmented, and communication is lacking . The virus has been detected in various animals, including cats and rodents, complicating control efforts.​

As someone deeply concerned about public health, I can't help but feel that we're repeating past mistakes. The signs are there: cross-species transmission, human infections, and a virus that's evolving.​

We need a coordinated, proactive response, one that includes widespread vaccination, robust surveillance, and clear communication.​

The time to act is now, before the silent spread becomes a deafening crisis.​

Guardrails Removed: The Impact of Military Legal Firings

Today, we confront a pivotal development: the recent dismissal of the top legal officers, the Judge Advocates General (JAGs), across the Army, Navy, and Air Force. These individuals have long served as the impartial legal conscience of our military, ensuring that actions taken in defense of our nation align with both domestic and international law.

These firings were justified by leadership as necessary because the JAGs were not "well-suited" to provide recommendations when lawful orders are given. However, this rationale raises pressing questions. Were these legal officers dismissed for upholding the law, even when it meant advising against certain directives? Does this signal a shift towards valuing compliance over counsel?​

The role of a JAG is not to obstruct but to guide, to serve as a compass pointing toward lawful and ethical action. Their independence is not a hindrance; it's a safeguard. Removing them for perceived disloyalty undermines this principle and sets a concerning precedent.​

The implications are profound. Without independent legal oversight, the risk of unlawful actions increases, potentially eroding the moral high ground that our military strives to maintain. It also places remaining legal advisors in a precarious position, where offering candid advice could jeopardize their careers.

The implications are profound. Without independent legal oversight, the risk of unlawful actions increases, potentially eroding the moral high ground that our military strives to maintain. It also places remaining legal advisors in a precarious position, where offering candid advice could jeopardize their careers.

Signal Flare: A Crisis in Command

Today, we examine a situation that has sent ripples through the corridors of power, a series of information leaks involving the current Secretary of Defense.​

In recent months, the Secretary of Defense has come under intense scrutiny for sharing sensitive military information through unsecured channels. Specifically, details about planned operations against Houthi militants in Yemen were disseminated via the Signal messaging app. These communications included specifics such as aircraft flight schedules and missile launch times.

One incident involved a group chat that, inadvertently or not, included a journalist. This led to the public disclosure of operational details before the missions commenced.

In another case, the Secretary created a separate Signal group comprising his spouse, sibling, and personal attorney. This group also received sensitive information about military operations.

These actions have prompted widespread concern. Members of Congress, including a senator from Arizona who serves on the Senate Armed Services Committee, have called for the Secretary's resignation, citing risks to national security and the safety of service members.

The Department of Defense's Inspector General has initiated an investigation into these leaks. Meanwhile, several senior officials have been dismissed or resigned amid the fallout.

This situation raises critical questions about the protocols for handling sensitive information and the accountability of those in positions of power. As we continue to monitor developments, the implications for national security and governance remain profound.​

 

Due Process Denied, Judicial Rebuke: Judge Wilkinson's Stand Against Executive Overreach

​Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III's seven-page opinion in the case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia delivers a powerful critique of the Trump administration's handling of Garcia's deportation. Garcia, a Salvadoran national and Maryland resident, was mistakenly deported to El Salvador despite a 2019 court order protecting him from removal due to threats from local gangs. The administration's failure to comply with this order and its subsequent resistance to facilitating Garcia's return prompted Judge Wilkinson's strong rebuke.​

Key Highlights from Judge Wilkinson's Opinion

• Violation of Due Process: Judge Wilkinson condemned the administration's actions as a fundamental breach of due process, stating that detaining U.S. residents abroad without legal proceedings undermines constitutional protections.​

• Executive Overreach: He warned that the administration's defiance of court orders represents a dangerous precedent of executive overreach, threatening the balance of power between branches of government.​

• Call for Accountability: The opinion emphasized the necessity for the Executive Branch to uphold judicial decisions, highlighting that ignoring such orders erodes the rule of law and public trust in governmental institutions.​

• Historical Context: Judge Wilkinson invoked historical examples, such as President Eisenhower's enforcement of school desegregation, to illustrate the importance of executive compliance with judicial mandates.​

For those interested in reading the full text of Judge Wilkinson's opinion, it is available through Time magazine's coverage of the case. TIME Magazine

Normalcy Bias, The Bystander Effect

Regrettably, in my experience as a 52-year-old woman, I have observed that a significant portion of people remain inactive in the face of a crisis unless it directly impacts their own lives. The urgency and gravity of the situation often escapes them, leaving them indifferent until the consequences knock at their own door.

 

While there may not be a single study explicitly stating that most Americans will not act in a crisis unless it affects them personally, several psychological phenomena and surveys provide insight into this behavior.​

 

Normalcy bias is a cognitive bias that leads individuals to underestimate the likelihood of a disaster and its potential adverse effects. Approximately 80% of people reportedly display normalcy bias during disasters. This bias causes many to prepare inadequately for emergencies, as they believe things will continue as they have been. ​

 

 

The bystander effect, closely related to diffusion of responsibility, suggests that individuals are less likely to help in an emergency when others are present. Studies have shown that the presence of others inhibits helping behavior, often by a significant margin. ​

 

 

A 2018 Pew Research Center survey found that 75% of Americans believed people would cooperate with each other in a crisis, even if they didn't trust each other. However, actual behavior during crises can differ. For instance, a national survey revealed that 41.6% of U.S. adults admitted to being dishonest about their compliance with COVID-19 measures or failed to follow guidelines at least once. The most common behaviors included lying about the extent of their preventive measures and breaking quarantine rules.

 

These findings suggest that while many Americans believe in collective action during crises, individual behaviors may not always align, especially when the crisis does not directly impact them.

Universal Injunctions and Democracy

Today, I want to talk about a development that has serious implications for our democracy. A group of law professors testified before Congress regarding the use of universal injunctions, court orders that can halt federal policies nationwide. These injunctions have been instrumental in checking executive actions that may overstep legal boundaries.

Professors for various Law Schools provided insights into the history and function of universal injunctions. They discussed how these legal tools have been used to ensure that executive actions comply with the law, especially when those actions affect individuals beyond the immediate parties in a lawsuit.

However, recent legislative efforts, such as the No Rogue Rulings Act passed by the House, aim to limit the power of judges to issue such injunctions. Supporters argue this is to prevent judicial overreach, but critics see it as a move to weaken the judiciary's ability to check the executive branch.​

This is particularly concerning given the current administration's track record. There have been instances where the administration has defied court orders, such as continuing deportations despite a Supreme Court ruling, and threatening legal action against states over policies on transgender participation in sports. These actions suggest a pattern of disregarding judicial authority.​

Limiting universal injunctions could further embolden such behavior, undermining the checks and balances that are fundamental to our democracy. It's crucial that we maintain a judiciary capable of holding the executive accountable, ensuring that no branch of government operates above the law.

Deportations, Media, and the FCC: A Constitutional Clash

Recently, a prominent political figure (the president) has called upon the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to revoke the broadcast license of a major television network. The catalyst? A report aired on a renowned investigative journalism program that scrutinized the administration's deportation practices.

Let's unpack the contents of that report.

The investigative piece revealed that 238 Venezuelan men were deported from Texas to El Salvador's maximum-security prison, known as the Center for Terrorism Confinement (CECOT). Notably, 75% of these individuals had no apparent criminal records. Among them was a gay asylum seeker, deported without a court hearing, based solely on tattoos and social media posts, evidence deemed tenuous at best. The administration justified these actions by invoking the 1798 Alien Enemies Act, aiming to expedite removals of those suspected of gang affiliations. However, critics argue that the evidence used was often flimsy, leading to wrongful deportations and raising serious human rights concerns.

In response to the airing of this report, the political figure in question labeled it as "fake news" and urged the FCC to revoke the network's license. This brings us to a critical question: Can the FCC act on such a request?

To answer this, we need to understand the FCC's role. The FCC licenses individual broadcast stations, not entire networks. Its mandate is to ensure that stations serve the public interest, but it does not have the authority to revoke licenses based on content. The First Amendment protects freedom of the press, and the FCC cannot censor or punish stations for their editorial choices. Past FCC chairs have emphasized that the agency lacks the power to revoke a license over disagreements with a station's news coverage.

In essence, while political figures may express dissatisfaction with media coverage, the FCC operates independently and is bound by laws that uphold press freedom. Attempts to leverage the FCC against media outlets not only misunderstand the agency's authority but also challenge the foundational principles of our democracy.

Echoes of Social Security

Social Security has long been a cornerstone of American life, a promise that after years of hard work, there would be a safety net in our later years. But recent developments have cast a shadow over this promise.

In the wake of the 2024 elections, a new governmental body was established, the Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE. Tasked with trimming federal expenditures, DOGE has set its sights on various programs, including Social Security.​

Despite assurances that entitlements like Social Security and Medicare would remain untouched, actions speak louder than words. Reports have surfaced of significant staffing reductions within the Social Security Administration (SSA), with plans to eliminate up to 50% of its workforce. Field offices across the country are facing closures, and the average processing time for disability claims has soared to 240 days, leaving many vulnerable citizens in limbo.

DOGE's aggressive approach has not gone unnoticed. Legal challenges have arisen, with federal judges blocking attempts to access personal Social Security records, labeling such efforts as "fishing expeditions."

The implications of these actions are profound. Social Security is not merely a line item in a budget; it's a lifeline for millions. The administrative costs of the SSA are already minimal, comprising less than 1% of total benefits paid. Yet, the push for efficiency threatens to erode the very infrastructure that ensures timely and accurate benefit distribution.

The rhetoric of rooting out fraud and waste is compelling, but it must be balanced against the real-world consequences of diminished services. As we navigate these changes, it's crucial to remain vigilant and advocate for the preservation of programs that uphold the dignity and well-being of our citizens.