Meritocracy Inaction

464 Meritocracy Inaction

This is from another of my friends’ Facebook telling posts

“May 1981. Yale University.

Maya Lin was studying for finals when someone knocked on her dorm room door.
Two men stood in the hallway and asked if she was Maya Lin, who had submitted entry number 1026 to the Vietnam Veterans Memorial competition.
Her stomach dropped. Had she broken some rule?
“You won,” they said.
Out of 1,421 anonymous entries — submissions from decorated architects, established design firms, professionals who had spent careers building monuments — the jury had chosen hers.
Maya was twenty-one years old. A senior architecture student. She had never designed anything that actually got built.
She had just won the most significant memorial competition in modern American history.
For approximately forty-eight hours, she felt pure joy.
Then America learned who she was.

Rewind to fall 1980.
Maya’s architecture professor at Yale was teaching a seminar on funerary design. When he mentioned a national competition for a Vietnam War memorial in Washington, D.C., it seemed like a good portfolio piece. The competition was open to anyone — no age limits, no credentials required, entries judged anonymously.
Maya had spent time studying how different cultures approached death and remembrance. She’d noticed that some cultures integrated cemeteries into daily life rather than hiding them away. Death wasn’t morbid — it was honest.
For this memorial, she wanted something that didn’t glorify war or make political statements. Something that honored 58,000 individual human beings who had died — not abstract concepts like heroism or sacrifice.
She sketched two polished black granite walls forming a wide V, cutting into a gentle slope. The surface would reflect visitors while displaying every single name, listed chronologically by when they fell. Walking toward the center, you’d descend below ground level, surrounded by the accumulating weight of names. Then you’d ascend back to the present.
Simple. Quiet. Brutally honest.
Her professor gave her a B.
Maya submitted it anyway.

Established architects submitted elaborate designs — traditional white monuments reaching skyward, heroic bronze soldiers, flags, eagles, classic patriotic imagery.
The jury examined every entry without knowing who created them. No names. No résumés. Just designs.
They chose Maya’s unanimously.
The jury praised its extraordinary power and appropriateness — its honesty, its refusal to romanticize war, its focus on individual loss rather than political messaging.
Then they opened the envelope.
A college student. Still finishing her senior year.

When Maya’s identity became public, the backlash was immediate and vicious.
A degrading ditch. A black scar of shame. An insult to veterans.
Prominent veterans’ groups erupted. They had expected something traditional — white marble reaching toward heaven, heroic soldiers cast in bronze, symbols of honor and glory.
Not this dark thing designed by a twenty-one-year-old girl who hadn’t even been alive when the war started.
Then they learned she was Asian-American, and the attacks turned uglier. How dare an Asian woman design a memorial for Americans who died fighting in Asia — never mind that Maya was born in Ohio, as American as anyone criticizing her.
She was young. Female. Asian. That was enough.

Decorated military officers testified before Congress demanding the design be scrapped. Major donors threatened to withdraw millions. The Secretary of the Interior refused to issue construction permits. Maya received death threats. Hate mail piled up.
She was barely out of college, sitting in congressional hearings while powerful men who had never met her questioned her patriotism, her qualifications, her right to participate in American civic life.
She attended meeting after hostile meeting, calmly defending her vision to audiences determined to destroy it.
She explained repeatedly: the black granite would reflect visitors’ faces, connecting the living with the dead. The chronological listing placed each name alongside the soldiers who died the same day — recreating the bonds formed in combat. Descending below ground wasn’t degrading. It was intimate. A space for personal grief rather than public propaganda.
The simplicity wasn’t disrespectful. It was honest. Fifty-eight thousand names speaking for themselves without politicians or generals telling people how to feel.

After months of brutal fighting, officials proposed a compromise: build Maya’s wall as designed, but add a traditional statue and flag pole nearby to appease critics.
Maya reluctantly agreed.The wall itself was what mattered.
Constructionbeganin1982.

November 13, 1982. The Vietnam Veterans Memorial opened to the public.
Veterans approached cautiously. Many had opposed the design. Some arrived expecting to feel insulted.
Then they saw the names.
They touched the polished black granite. They traced the letters of friends who had died fifteen years earlier. Found names they had been searching for since the war ended.
Theywept.
They left flowers at specific panels. Made pencil rubbings to take home. Brought their children to show them which names mattered.
Within days, veterans who had testified against the memorial returned and stood in silence before it. The monument they had called a black scar had become a sacred ground.
Critics who had demanded Maya’s design be destroyed brought their families to visit. The items people left at the wall — letters, photographs, combat boots, wedding rings, children’s drawings — revealed what Maya had understood from the beginning: this wasn’t about politics or glory. It was about 58,000 individual human beings. And the people who loved them needed a place to grieve honestly, without being told how to feel.
The National Park Service now collects and preserves every item left at the wall. More than 100,000 objects annually. All catalogued.All saved.

Today, more than five million people visit the Vietnam Veterans Memorial each year.
More than the Lincoln Memorial. More than the Washington Monument. More than any other monument in Washington D.C.
The design that nearly didn’t get built became the most visited memorial in America.
Before Maya Lin, monuments were about glory — heroic figures, patriotic symbols, messages about honor and sacrifice. After her wall, memorials could be about truth. About individual human cost. About grief acknowledged rather than propaganda enforced.

She was told she was too young to understand. Too female to design something serious. Too Asian to honor American dead.
Powerful men testified before Congress that her vision was fundamentally wrong.
She built it anyway.
And when veterans finally stood before those polished black walls and saw their own reflections merging with the names of the dead—they understood what she had known all along.
Honesty honors the dead more than propaganda ever could.
HerprofessorgaveheraB.
Thejurychoseherunanimouslyover1,421competitors.
Congress tried to stop her.
Veterans initially hated it.
Now it is the most visited monument in Washington D.C. — and Maya Lin, the twenty-one-year-old student they said didn’t understand sacrifice, created the most powerful war memorial in American history.
Not by glorifying war.
By telling the truth about what it costs.
Fifty-eight thousand names. Every one of them someone’s son, brother, father, friend.
Her professor gave her a B. The jury chose her unanimously. Congress tried to stop her. Veterans wept at the wall. That is the complete story.

Racism Experienced

Racism Experienced

The following is a post from a good friend on Facebook. It is too good not to pass along.

“At the height of Jim Crow segregation, John Howard Griffin, a white journalist from Texas, made a decision that would permanently alter his life. He darkened his skin and lived as a Black man, traveling for six weeks through the Deep South on Greyhound buses, trains, and on foot. What he experienced was not theoretical racism—it was daily, relentless, and dehumanizing.

Almost immediately, his social status vanished. People who would have greeted him politely days earlier now refused eye contact. He was denied access to restrooms, restaurants, and basic dignity. Police officers treated him with suspicion. Strangers spoke to him with hostility or fear. Even simple acts—sitting on a bus, asking for directions, looking for a place to sleep—became dangerous calculations.

He documented the psychological toll of racism as much as its physical restrictions. The constant vigilance. The isolation. The way humiliation seeped into the body and mind. He wrote about how quickly the world taught him his “place,” and how exhausting it was to survive in a society designed to break you down quietly.

When his work was published, exposing the everyday realities of racism to a white American audience, the reaction was explosive. Rather than confronting the truth he revealed, many responded with rage. He received hate mail and death threats. His effigy was hung in his hometown. Friends turned away. For telling the truth, he became a target.

The threats grew so serious that he was forced to leave the United States. He moved to Mexico, where he lived in exile for several years—not because he had committed a crime, but because he had revealed one. His experiment had stripped away comforting myths and exposed the cruelty embedded in everyday American life.
His story remains a reminder that racism is not just about laws or signs—it is about power, fear, and the daily erosion of humanity. And it also reminds us how dangerous it can be to tell the truth in a society that benefits from silence.”

The White Elephant in the Room

The White Elephant in the Room

I know many folks think that Trump is our biggest problem. While there are many issues created by him, and he is extremely dangerous, he is far from the world’s most severe problem. His scourge is short-term, and despite his devastating impact, it is short term and soon the USA will recover. The overriding issue is sustainability, and in that regard we are in severe trouble.

Immigration is down, population is aging, the internal population is declining & the workforce is declining. Check the debt clock (https://www.usdebtclock.org/#) for the workforce 2026 vs 2000. Immigration is essential to maintaining both our workforce and a “sort of” balanced budget so that there are enough workers to fund programs for the elderly. The following are some related links,

The Demographic Squeeze: Why Labor Force Participation is Projected to Fall Through 2034 – Indeed Hiring Lab

urban.org/policy-centers/cross-center-initiatives/program-retirement-policy/projects/data-warehouse/what-future-holds/us-population-aging

U.S. Population Growth Slows Due to Historic Decline in Net International Migration

New Population Estimates Show Historic Decline in Net International Migration

Earth is already far over capacity, population study finds

Josie Fischels

Updated: Jul 19, 2026 / 09:59 AM CDT

(NewsNation) — Earth has been carrying more people than it can sustainably support for decades, according to a new study that analyzed more than 200 years of population and environmental data.

The research was led by ecologist Corey Bradshaw of Flinders University in Australia.

Researchers tracked how the rate of global population growth changed alongside population size dating back to 1800.

The super El Niño is getting more super 

They found that, until the 1950s, population growth spurred more innovation, greater energy use, and faster economic expansion.

By the early 1960s, the population continued to grow, but the growth rate began to slow. Even so, the slowdown did not prevent humanity’s overall impact on the planet from increasing.

Earth’s ‘carrying capacity’ naturally is around 2.5 billion

Ecologists use the term “carrying capacity” to describe the number of individuals an environment can support over the long term without exhausting its resources.

The study examined both Earth’s maximum capacity, regardless of quality of life, and a more sustainable figure that assumes people maintain a reasonable standard of living.

According to the study, Earth can sustainably support about 2.5 billion people, roughly the size of the global population in the mid-20th century. The current population is about 8.3 billion, more than three times that figure.

The study estimates the absolute upper limit, if current trends continue, could reach between 11.7 billion and 12.4 billion people sometime between the late 2060s and 2070s.

Fossil fuels and infrastructure have expanded limits — for now

Researchers say cheap, abundant energy has enabled humanity to produce more food, build more infrastructure and support more people than natural resources alone would allow.

However, they argue this has merely delayed the consequences.

Climate change, pollution and growing pressure on food and water systems are all signs the gap is narrowing.

While population size helps explain trends in rising global temperatures, carbon emissions and ecological damage, researchers say consumption patterns are also pushing the planet beyond its limits.

Slower population growth, lower consumption key to avoiding collapse: Researchers Bradshaw and his co-authors argue the world needs to rethink how it uses land, water, energy and other resources. They say slower population growth and reduced consumption are