Living Room Conversations are a conversational bridge across issues that divide and separate us. They provide an easy structure for engaging in friendly yet meaningful conversation with those with whom we may not agree. These conversations increase understanding, reveal common ground, and sometimes even allow us to discuss possible solutions. No fancy event or skilled facilitator is needed.
Site Navigation
Search
Latest Stories
Start your day right!
Get latest updates and insights delivered to your inbox.
Top Stories
Latest news
Read More
As the Trump administration redefines “Warrior Ethos,” U.S. military leaders face a crucial test: defend democracy or follow unlawful orders.
Getty Images, Liudmila Chernetska
Warrior Ethos or Rule of Law? The Military’s Defining Moment
Oct 08, 2025
Does Secretary Hegseth’s extraordinary summoning of hundreds of U.S. command generals and admirals to a Sept. 30 meeting and the repugnant reinstatement of Medals of Honor to 20 participants in the infamous 1890 Wounded Knee Massacre—in which 300 Lakota Sioux men, women, and children were killed—foreshadow the imposition of a twisted approach to U.S. “Warrior Ethos”? Should military leaders accept an ethos that ignores the rule of law?
Active duty and retired officers must trumpet a resounding: NO, that is not acceptable. And, we civilians must realize the stakes and join them.
This issue is crucial as President Trump is sending National Guard troops with authorization to use “Full Force, if necessary” to what he characterized as Oregon’s “War ravaged Portland.” That, along with deployments to Los Angeles, Washington D.C., and Memphis, is part of an attempt to normalize the use of troops against the desires of mayors, governors, and citizens. Yet, no U.S. city is in a state of war or insurrection. Such deployments subvert U.S. traditions and undermine confidence in a nonpolitical military. And, they are outright dangerous.
Also ominous, the illegal use of military force is being normalized in the Caribbean through the sinking of four boats under the false claim of warfighting. A flotilla of eight U.S. warships is gathering off Venezuela, among reports of possible attacks on that country. That, too, carries broad implications at home and abroad.
The “Warrior Ethos” depicted on the U.S. Army website says: always place the mission first; never accept defeat; never quit; never leave a fallen comrade. Such principles for those serving courageously and honorably in the U.S. military are to be cemented in the context of the law of war and broader legal norms. That bonding is fundamental in distinguishing between just using force and aggression. Reading even the first few pages of the U.S. Marine Corps’ Student Handout, the “Introduction to the Law of War/Rules of Engagement” makes that clear as a bell. The other basic military sources are also clear on this.
The bonding of warrior ethos and the rule of law is essential to avoid troops from following illegal orders and avoiding disgraceful, horrendous actions like the My Lai Massacre in the Vietnam War, the Wounded Knee Massacre, or the National Guard killing students at Kent State and Jackson State in 1970. It is not an academic issue that bonding safeguards the proud service of our military and public safety.
Consider this scenario. Orders from the president: Blow that boat to smithereens. Why? Because intelligence says it carries illegal drugs and is run by “narcoterrorists” who are under the direction of a foreign country’s president. Those facts are not publicly established, and the latter assertion is dubious according to reputable sources. A White House spokesperson says the actions are legal under the laws of war.
BUT, the United States is not at war with any country. So, those laws do not apply. Even under those laws, people on the boats do not fit the definition of “combatants.” Lethal force is not a military necessity in this situation. The boats did not fire at U.S. ships or planes, nor are they attempting to seize U.S. land; so, the sinking is not self-defense. The circumstances fail to meet even the Marine Student Handbook description of the rules of engagement.
The scenario makes the president judge and jury, whose orders are equal to pulling the trigger, and the Supreme Court, in Trump v. United States, gave presidents immunity for official acts. The military, however, is not excused for following illegal orders. Most members of the military know that they should not implement unlawful orders, but they are not experts in the laws of war.
The Judge Advocate General’s (JAG) Corps, however, includes such experts who are to provide legal advice to commanders. The top uniformed JAG officers for the army, navy, and air force were dismissed earlier this year, enfeebling commanders' abilities to weigh the legalities of orders. The Corps will be further weakened by the transfer of 600 JAG Corps officers to immigration court duty. Debilitating the JAG Corps as norms against domestic deployment of troops are being broken, and dubious military strikes are ordered, is another glaring warning sign.
The U.S. recently blowing up four boats in the Caribbean violates international law, pure and simple. I am not an expert, but I taught law school courses that covered the law of war, and experts like those at the Atlantic Council agree with my analysis. If such actions are said by President Trump or Secretary Hegseth to be part of “warrior ethos”—if the assembled generals and admirals are told that even by implication—it is time to slam on the military brakes.
The Trump administration removed the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the chief of naval operations, the Air Force chief of staff, the commandant of the Coast Guard, and other top general officers. Plus, Hegseth has ordered that 20% of four-star generals and admirals and 10% of other general officers will be dismissed, and there will be demotions as top positions are eliminated in reorganizations.
Those factors place pressure on military leaders to accept this administration's approach to their rebranded Department of War (though only Congress can officially change the name). The administration’s widespread disregard of constitutional and legal provisions—whether in ignoring Congress’s power of the purse, politicizing the Department of Justice, usurping the state’s powers on elections, attacking judicial independence, and much more—is also directed at the military, whether deployed domestically or overseas.
The military’s oath swears members to defend the Constitution and to obey orders according to the Military Code of Justice. That requires adherence to the rule of law. If democracy and the rule of law are to survive in this country, the military has to hold that line. Domestic tranquility and international peace depend on it, as does the safety of military personnel.
Keep ReadingShow less
Recommended
Yes, They Are Trying To Kill Us
Oct 08, 2025
In the rush to “dismantle the administrative state,” some insist that freeing people from “burdensome bureaucracy” will unleash thriving. Will it? Let’s look together.
A century ago, bureaucracy was minimal. The 1920s followed a worldwide pandemic that killed an estimated 17.4–50 million people. While the virus spread, the Great War raged; we can still picture the dehumanizing use of mustard gas and trench warfare. When the war ended, the Roaring Twenties erupted as an antidote to grief. Despite Prohibition, life was a party—until the crash of 1929. The 1930s opened with a global depression, record joblessness, homelessness, and hunger. Despair spread faster than the pandemic had.
This was the context when Franklin Delano Roosevelt took office in 1933. The nation was demoralized by nonresponsiveness, corruption, and rot. Over the next decade, FDR passed a series of policies that made up the New Deal for American workers. He reset our measure of success from “take what you can hold” to “a chicken in every pot.” Large public projects put people to work. Pride in earning a living, providing for families, and building together helped heal. These common efforts—Hoover Dam, CCC reforestation, rural electrification—are reminders of what’s possible. They still belong to us, the people. FDR fought with industrialists and their politicians to level the playing field for working Americans.
Before FDR, Presidents Warren G. Harding (1921–23) and Calvin Coolidge (1923–29) championed a “small government, pro-business” creed—lower taxes and regulations, high tariffs, and a hands-off posture toward corporate power. Their era also carried the stain of major scandals like Teapot Dome. With that context, today’s moves—tariffs, shrinking federal capacity, pressuring the Fed, and a fog of favoritism—feel like a remix of the 1920s playbook. So what do we do about this?
The 1920s → 2020s: the rhyme we can’t ignore
A century ago, America flirted with minimal federal guardrails just as new risks were exploding. The decade glittered—right up to the cliff’s edge. Today, we’re repeating patterns that predict more suffering and earlier deaths, especially for kids, elders, and low-income families.
- Public health pullback. The 1920s briefly invested in maternal and infant health (Sheppard–Towner) and then let it die in 1929—exactly when families needed it. Today, cuts or rollbacks to public-health capacity (disease surveillance, vaccination programs, mental-health lifelines) send the same message: you’re on your own. We know how that story ends—avoidable deaths that land heaviest on those with the fewest resources.
- Environmental non-protection. In the 1920s, national air and water protections didn’t exist. Industrial growth came with a hidden casket count: heart and lung disease from soot, chemical exposures, poisoned rivers. Now, attempts to weaken pollution standards, methane controls, conservation rules, and climate resilience push us back toward that pre-regulatory baseline—just as heat waves and wildfire smoke intensify.
- Labor and child safety were viewed as “cost centers.” Before modern labor law, workplaces were more lethal and kids worked dangerous jobs. Loosening enforcement today or expanding hazardous youth work echoes those risks—and robs children of schooling that lengthens lifetime health and earnings.
- Breadlines without safety nets. The 1920s offered little protection when incomes collapsed. Today, proposals to shrink SNAP, Medicaid, and IRS capacity (which delivers the EITC and Child Tax Credit) weaken the very programs proven to improve birth outcomes, reduce medical debt, and stabilize families.
- Moral panics, real violence. Then, Prohibition and nativist politics. Now, defunding community violence-intervention and loosening restrictions to carry weapons even as political temperature spikes. Then as now: when prevention capacity is stripped, the funeral homes get busier.
The throughline is simple: when we dismantle the basic public functions that make freedom real—health, safety, fair rules—life expectancy falls. There’s nothing “pro-life” about that.
What breaks the cycle: a practical bargain for longer, better lives
The good news is we’ve learned a lot since the 1920s. We know which policies lengthen lives and expand opportunity at the same time. The Grand Bargain Project (GBP) doesn’t sell a silver bullet; it offers a package that stacks life-extending, prosperity-building reforms across six areas. Here’s how that package counters today’s risks:
Greater economic opportunity & growth.
Health is a growth strategy. Expanding the Earned Income Tax Credit and childcare access, investing in rural and low-income urban entrepreneurship, and cutting red tape for affordable housing all boost labor participation and family stability—while reducing the conditions that drive early death. Community-college upskilling tied to fast-growing sectors turns dead-end jobs into ladders.
Schools that enable kids to reach their potential.
Title I support, school meals, broadband, and evidence-based teacher development improve achievement now and adult health later. Accountability paired with resources—not austerity—closes gaps. Kids who learn and eat well today become adults who live longer tomorrow.
Effective & affordable healthcare.
Pay for outcomes, not volume. Expand community health support in rural and distressed places. Protect reproductive care and maternal health. Strengthen Accountable Care Organizations and negotiate drug prices. These are cost-cutting, life-saving levers that avoid the false choice between health and budgets.
Spending efficiently to lower the national debt.
Prevention is cheaper than the ICU. Clean air, violence interruption, nutrition, and early care reduce downstream costs. Modernizing revenue collection (yes, a capable IRS) ensures everyone pays what they owe so we don’t starve the very programs that save lives and money.
Dependable, clean & affordable energy.
A predictable carbon price with rebates for low-income and rural families, plus streamlined transmission, accelerates cleaner air and lowers bills. Pair it with methane abatement and conservation and you get fewer asthma attacks, heart crises, and heat-related deaths—measurable gains in life expectancy.
A fairer, simpler tax code.
Simplify. Broaden the base. Cut the carve-outs that reward tax gymnastics over real productivity. Align business incentives with investment and wages. Protect pro-health credits like the EITC with reliable administration. That’s how we fund the basics without sandbagging growth.
“Are they trying to kill us?” Or are we going to save each other?
If you look only at the headlines—cuts to the very systems that keep people alive—it’s easy to conclude that yes, some leaders are comfortable with sicker, shorter-lived Americans as long as their faction is satisfied. But we are not condemned to replay the 1920s. The New Deal wasn’t magic; it was mobilization. People demanded a better deal and then showed up—on job sites, in union halls, at ballot boxes.
The Grand Bargain approach is how we show up now. It’s not a culture-war victory lap. It’s a coalition of neighbors who want to live longer, spend less on preventable tragedy, and hand our kids a future that’s cleaner, saner, and fairer. People from left, right, and center are choosing a package they prefer to the status quo, even when it includes trade-offs. That’s how big changes happen: together, with enough trust to trade.
A century ago, we chose practical solutions over posturing. We can do that again—cleaner air, safer communities, better schools, fairer taxes, and lower debt. But it only happens if enough of us lean in and choose a deal we can live with—and live longer because of.
Yes, They Are Trying To Kill Us was first published on Debilyn Molineaux's substack platform and was republished with permission.
Debilyn Molineaux is a storyteller, collaborator & connector. For 20 years, she led cross-partisan organizations. She currently holds several roles, including catalyst for JEDIFutures.org and podcast host of Terrified Nation. She also works with the Center for Collaborative Democracy, which is home to the Grand Bargain Project as a way to unify Americans by getting unstuck on six big issues, all at the same time. She previously co-founded BridgeAlliance, Living Room Conversations, and the National Week of Conversation. You can learn more about her work on LinkedIn.
Keep ReadingShow less
Trump Pushes Gaza Deal, Mideast Leaders Tread Carefully
Oct 07, 2025
On the second anniversary of the October 7 attacks, The Fulcrum spoke with Benjamin Radd, Senior Fellow at the Merkle Center for International Relations at UCLA, political scientist, and faculty member at the UCLA School of Law. In a conversation from Los Angeles, Radd analyzed President Trump’s latest peace proposal for Gaza, the mounting pressure on Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and the divisions inside Hamas as both sides weigh a ceasefire. He also discussed the shifting role of Congress and the influence of business interests in Trump’s diplomacy.
How realistic is President Trump’s proposed peace plan, given the current positions of both Hamas and Israel regarding peace in Gaza?
Let’s start with the Israeli side. There is immense pressure from the hostage families and from many Israelis who are eager for the war to end. For them, the main goal is not necessarily the destruction of Hamas but the release of the hostages and the end of the war.
The public would like to see Hamas stop being a threat, but that does not require the level of military action against Gaza that Netanyahu and his cabinet have been pursuing. Domestic pressure is likely to push him to accept the deal as Trump has proposed it, and Netanyahu has already indicated he is willing to do so.
And what about Hamas?
The deal, as it stands, is essentially a suicide pact for them. It calls for the end of their movement and organization at a time when there is no guarantee of a future Palestinian state. That makes it deeply problematic.
These factors make it difficult, though not impossible, for Hamas to agree. The Wall Street Journal reported this week about serious internal divisions within Hamas over whether to accept the terms. Those divisions are real, and the group as a whole does not yet know what it wants to do.
From the U.S. perspective, how would you describe President Trump’s current approach, and in what ways does it differ from the Biden administration’s policy?
It is extremely forceful, aggressive, and persuasive. He is using a mix of diplomacy and his own personal relationships with leaders, including Arab leaders who are now being brought in as supporting players.
But perhaps the most distinctive element is the business side. Trump is willing to do what most presidents would not because it would normally be considered unethical. He turns diplomacy into an opportunity for business and real estate deals.
What kinds of business opportunities are involved in this approach?
You can see this with the crypto fund connected to Trump, his family, and his advisers, and with his son-in-law Jared Kushner’s investments involving Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Qatar. This mix creates a unique chemistry that allows deals to happen when they otherwise would not, because the deals serve not only state interests but also private financial interests of several leaders.
Money talks. It is an incentive, and it has an effect. That is part of the calculus. You can get countries to come along if they see a profit in it. It is cynical, but it is real.
In this context, under Trump, how is Congress shaping or constraining his stance on Israel and Hamas?
The United States has traditionally been very supportive of Israel, but now we are seeing cracks in that consensus. Many progressive Democrats and even some moderate Democrats are under pressure from voters back home who do not want to see the U.S. unconditionally supporting Israel’s war effort.
People are seeing horrific images on their screens every day, and it is forcing Washington to justify its position. In the past, the U.S. did not have to explain its support for Israel. Now it does.
Where is the pushback in Congress coming from?
It comes from both extremes, from the right with figures like Marjorie Taylor Greene, and from the left with the progressive wing of the Democratic Party. Some simply do not think this is the right approach.
So Congress today plays a less supportive role than in the past. So far it has not interfered directly, but that is because the pressure has not reached a breaking point. The leadership in both houses still backs Israel, and that has allowed Trump’s administration to move ahead. But if those leaders start to hesitate, policy could shift very quickly.
Does the current position in Congress reflect public opinion? And how are universities, advocacy groups, and civil society movements influencing this debate?
These movements are having a real impact from the bottom up. Student protests and social movements are forcing the administration and members of Congress to justify their positions.
They are making people speak up about what they believe and, frankly, making some members of Congress who take pro-Israel positions uncomfortable. These grassroots movements are influencing the tone of the national debate.
What role are regional actors such as Egypt, Jordan, and the Gulf states playing in shaping U.S. decisions?
They are not influencing it much. Under President Trump, he is essentially doing what he believes is right or what his closest advisers recommend, and other countries are following his lead.
He is not the kind of president who yields to pressure from Egypt or Jordan. It is a bit different with Saudi Arabia or Qatar, where there are more overlapping interests, especially economic ones. The business dimension matters enormously here. Those relationships have a strong influence on how Trump sees and manages the Israel–Palestine situation.
What risks does the U.S. face to its credibility and influence in the Middle East under Trump’s leadership? And how are Arab countries reacting to this more aggressive stance?
Right now the dynamic is, who wants to be the country that disappoints Donald Trump? No one wants that.
The pressure on all sides is intense. But if credibility is ever called into question, if one side or the other refuses to follow through with the deal, the consequences for that side will likely be worse than any credibility loss for the United States.
The reason is simple. There is no other country that can do what the U.S. does in this context. If the U.S. loses credibility, there is no viable alternative power to take its place.
So any loss of credibility would probably fall on Netanyahu, who is already under heavy international pressure. If he is seen as disappointing Donald Trump, that would be politically devastating for him.
This remains a very fluid situation that changes almost daily. Looking ahead, what scenarios are most likely for U.S. engagement in the next year, and how might the conflict evolve by the end of 2025?
Honestly, I do not think anyone can predict, and I do not think anyone should.
If someone tries to, they are ignoring the history and unpredictability of this region. I did not think Trump would be able to present an offer like this. I did not think Hamas would even consider it. Yet I have been surprised on both counts.
The next week will tell us a lot about the direction things will go. We need to let the dynamics of the offer play out and see the response before drawing conclusions. But I am not going to attempt a prediction. It is simply too uncertain.
Finally, is there anything else you believe observers should be paying attention to?
The main thing to watch now is whether Iran plays the role of spoiler, in two possible ways. Either by interfering to make the deal fail, or by provoking a new Israeli strike that undermines the process.
We do not know how that will play out yet, but that is what I am watching most closely.
Alex Segura is a bilingual, multiple-platform journalist based in Southern California.
Keep ReadingShow less
A hand lights a candle among lit candles.
Photo by Laura Chouette on Unsplash
How Do We Atone: Reflections on Faith
Oct 07, 2025
“Mommy, look! A girl police officer!!” I will never forget the excitement in my then four-year-old daughter’s voice as she ran to greet one of the many officers stationed outside of our synagogue in Long Island, NY, on a random Tuesday evening. She and her brother were there with multiple other young children for weekly Hebrew school.
I was less excited. The stepped-up police presence was a response to bomb threats against not just our temple but many in the area. Because this was after October 7, 2023, and Israel was at war. Because being Jewish had suddenly become synonymous with being in favor of genocide. Of condoning war crimes. Of being complicit in the systematic starvation of thousands, as more and more Palestinians in Gaza, including women and children, were injured or killed.
As an American Jew who loves my relatives in Israel and supports the Jewish state, I watched with increasing concern as Benjamin Netanyahu attempted to overhaul the judiciary in Israel to avoid facing his own accused crimes and was met with massive demonstrations and protests.
Then came the horror of October 7, 2023. A country that has been under almost constant attack since its inception found itself under attack yet again. Except this time, the man in charge had a very self-serving reason to prolong the war.
You can be a Jew, love Israel, and still vehemently disagree with the actions of the Israeli government. Just as being American does not mean that a person fully supports the actions of the current administration, being Jewish does not mean one endorses the views and actions of the current Israeli government.
Yes, there are Jews who cannot look past the pain and anger of seeing hundreds of innocent lives lost on October 7. They label all Palestinians as terrorists who deserve to see their homeland and people destroyed. Perhaps they forget that Jews also were once a people without a homeland.
There are also tens of thousands of Jews who continue to protest the prolongation of the war in Gaza, call on Netanyahu to stop his campaign, and support a two-state solution. They grieve for the children of both Israel and of Gaza. They believe that every child deserves to grow up in a safe country, whether they are Jewish or Palestinian. I count myself among them.
I am proud to be Jewish. I also support and respect the Palestinian people and their quest for a homeland of their own. And I love Israel. But the indiscriminate actions of Israel’s government, which have inflicted horrific and inhumane amounts of suffering on other people, cannot be justified. Although the latest peace talks have created a renewed sense of hope, the hostages still have not been returned. With each passing day and another news report of further aggressive actions taken by the Israeli government, it becomes increasingly difficult to try to justify the war.
Two years after the October 7 attacks, the horrors of that day have been all but erased in the mainstream media by images of starving children in Gaza. Of NICU babies in need of health care. Of women struggling to protect their families.
Jews observed Yom Kippur last week—our day of Atonement, the most solemn and important holiday of the Jewish year. In the spirit of that holiday, I would ask my fellow Jews to find a way back to a middle ground. To recognize and remember one of the central tenets of Judaism is to love the stranger, to love your neighbor as yourself, and always, above all else, show unconditional love.
It won’t be easy. However, one horrific action cannot justify another. Revenge is not a Jewish value. Instead of resolving conflict, it leads to an escalating series of conflicts. It puts more lives at risk—here in the U.S. and around the world.
As a physician, a wife, and a mother, I pray that the senseless violence ends. Inflicting harm upon those we see as enemies continues a cycle that leads to mutual destruction. I know I am not alone in these beliefs.
My children are still too young to understand the increase in police presence outside of our place of worship. My prayer is that by the time they are old enough to know, those police cars will no longer be necessary. That love for our neighbor will one day return—regardless of religious beliefs. It’s the only way we can ever find our way back to peace.
Dr. Shannon F.R. Small is an Assistant Professor of Surgery at Yale School of Medicine and a Public Voices Fellow of the OpEd Project in partnership with Yale University.
Keep ReadingShow less
Load More