Tom Kephart

  • Pardon me? This presidential power needs to go away.

    The President of the United States has the power to overrule convictions on federal charges. This was created in Article II, Section 2, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution:

    The president shall […] have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

    This power is one of the most anti-democratic in the entire Constitution. It surprises me that a group of men whose motivation was to escape the capriciousness of the British monarchy, would have provided such a king-like power to the new presidential office.

    The presidential pardon power traces back to early English law, and over the years the Supreme Court has ruled (most notably in Ex parte Garland (1867) that that power has few limits. The president can forgive anyone who has committed a federal offense, and this forgiveness can be total or partial. It can happen before, during, or after a trial. A presidential pardon does depend on it being physically delivered to its recipient, according to an interpretation from the Department of Justice, meaning that posthumous pardons are largely ceremonial. And, of course, the president can’t pardon someone who’s been impeached.

    Other than that, the president can pretty much let anyone off the legal hook that they want. In practice, however, most pardons, commutations, and other legal reliefs have been in the nature of what the founders imagined: a backstop against miscarriages of justice, as opposed to handing out free tickets to friends and campaign contributors.

    Every president but two have issued pardons (including clemency and other relief). Only William Henry Harrison (who died 31 days into his term) and James A. Garfield (who was assassinated a few months into his) handed out no pardons. George Washington pardoned 16 people, including two who were convicted of treason for participating in the Whiskey Rebellion. Most have issued pardons numbering in the hundreds, and many were announced as they left office, which alleviated the outrage when some of them were controversial.

    Andrew Johnson pardoned 7,654 people, most of them former Confederates during the Civil War. Jimmy Carter pardoned over 200,000 people for evading the military draft during the Vietnam War era, along with 566 others. Joe Biden issued clemency to 4,165 non-violent drug offenders. Gerald Ford issued probably the most famous pardon in 1974 when he let Richard Nixon off the hook for any crimes he’d committed during Watergate. And Donald Trump, of course, pardoned over 1,500 people who participated in the January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol, and recently has pardoned several political allies who committed fraud, contributed to the president’s campaigns, or provided technical support to the Trump family’s bitcoin-related businesses.

    The original text of the Constitution, for better or worse, is quite broad and non-specific. This is a feature, not a bug: The foundational document of an organization, whether it’s a constitution or by-laws or some other hybrid, should be a framework, not a nuts-and-bolts description of every operational possibility. It’s the heart and soul of the country; the laws that stem from the form of governance that the Constitution created are the brain and nervous system, and can be as detailed as needed. More importantly, laws can be fairly easily changed, while the Constitution is not. Again, this is a positive feature.

    The broad, non-specific, nature of the Constitution depends, however, on the good faith of the people living under it and, as importantly, those who the Constitution empowers to lead the nation. The Constitution isn’t perfect; the original document infamously contained several antisocial and anti-democratic compromises and clauses.

    We’ve tried to remedy these through amendments, and these efforts did produce a fairer and more progressive governing document. But even those amendments depend on the good faith of those interpreting them and, as we’ve seen recently from the Supreme Court, “good faith” no longer exists. Their recent decisions have depended on the magical creation of new judicial doctrines or tortured interpretations of plain language in order to reach the political conclusion they wanted.

    Reforming the Supreme Court is gaining traction among Democrats, which is a positive sign. Even if they have majorities in both houses, and we elect a Democratic president in 2028, the Court, as it currently operates, will act as a super veto over anything they don’t like.

    The pardon power is also a super veto, wielded by a single person who can overturn or disrupt the legal process. If it were only used to remedy obvious misuses of the law against citizens, it might continue to work in the way it was intended. The problem in 2026 is that the current president has shown us, over and over, that our laws – including the Constitution – are insufficient to stop corrupt behavior by the chief executive if he doesn’t feel like respecting history, tradition, common sense, and good faith.

    Trump opened Pandora’s Box with his behavior in office, especially the second time around. It’s impossible to just return to where we were a decade ago. The standards have changed. In fact, they’ve been crushed under the weight of reality. We need more than just reforms or repairs at this point. We’ll need a new foundation that will prevent these problems from happening again. It’s one item on a long list, but the pardon needs to go.

  • Seat of the pants writing

    I have been writing every weekday. In addition to a few posts here, I’ve been working on a full-length play that has a science fiction mystery feel to it. I should finish the first act today, and I have the second act’s beats mostly plotted out, so I think I know how it ends.

    I say that because I mostly write prose, including plays, by the “seat of my pants” method, also known as pantsing (not the same as pranking someone by pulling their pants down, though it can be as personally exposing at times).

    I tend to write from a single idea, in this case a short scene that was in a dream I’d had recently. It seemed like a good place to start, so I had my character, a young woman named Julie, wake up from her own nightmare and say the line I’d dreamt. The scenes that followed each had a vague concept to start, but largely came together as the characters spoke to each other.

    Some authors say they think they’re a conduit when they write. I’m not “channeling” anything; but I do sometimes feel like the characters have a mind of their own. I mean, I know I’m doing the writing, and they simply respond with something that would make sense under the circumstances I’ve put them in, but it still has a somewhat random, even impulsive, feel to it. Hence, the “seat of the pants” approach. I enjoy it, and I think it’s one of the reasons my characters’ dialogue sounds like things real people would say… or at least I think so!

    I tend to do some plotting, setting up character “beats,” once I’ve written a few scenes. This also gives me a sense of whether there’s something interesting for my characters to do and say beyond what I’ve written. I have several initial attempts that I left behind because the situation I’d put them in no longer had any dramatic energy. Maybe I could go back and repair that, but it’s generally more productive to start with a clean slate.

    I’ll post more about this play when I complete the first draft, which I’m hoping to do in the next week or so. Then I’ll have some friends read it aloud, and I’ll move into a first revision.

  • Market reactions to the WTINAW are baffling

    Let’s look at the financial markets and their reaction to the War That Is Not A War, Has Never Been A War, And Certainly Isn’t Currently A War Despite The Fact That We’re Still Shooting At Each Other (WTINAWHNBAWACICAWDTFTWSSAEO, or WTINAW for short).

    Here’s how the major U.S. market indexes reacted after the start of the WTINAW on February 28, 2026. Note that the WTINAW started on a Saturday, so markets couldn’t react until the following Monday, March 2.

    INDEXClose on 2/27/2026Close on 3/2/2026% Change
    S&P 5006878.886816.63-1.0%
    Dow Industrials48977.9248904.78-0.2%
    NASDAQ22668.2122748.86+0.3%
    Sources: Yahoo Finance (S&P 500, Dow Industrials, NASDAQ)

    Barely a reaction at all. NASDAQ actually ticked up a bit.

    Let’s compare that to the start of two other disruptive events: The Gulf War of 1990-91 and the COVID-19 pandemic.

    The Persian Gulf War (1990-91)

    On the day before Iraq invaded Kuwait on August 2, 1990, the S&P 500 closed at 355.52 [Note 1]. The next day, the index closed at 351.48, a drop of 1.2 percent. By the end of the first week of fighting – and keep in mind this didn’t involve U.S. troops yet, just Iraq invading Kuwait – the index closed at 339.94 (-4.4% from the start of the war).

    By the time the U.S. and United Nations forces launched Operation Desert Storm against Iraqi forces in Kuwait on January 17, 1991, the S&P 500 was at 316.17, down 11.1 percent since the day before Iraq invaded. Of course, this operation was much more successful than the current WTINAW: it had a clear objective (getting Iraq out of Kuwait) and had several months of planning and coordination prior to being carried out, none of which can be said for our present situation.

    Desert Storm was, in nearly every sense, a decisive success, both militarily and politically, and Kuwait was liberated by the end of February. The S&P 500 reacted accordingly, rising steadily as the good news from the Middle East was reported in the U.S., and it closed at 367.07 on February 28, 1991, an increase of 3.2 percent over where it was just before the Iraqi invasion.

    The COVID-19 Pandemic (2020-22)

    There were several key dates in the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, including the first cases of a novel virus in China in late 2019 and the identification of the specific virus (SARS-CoV-2) in January 2020. But for our purposes, I’ll use March 11, 2020, the date that the World Health Organization declared COVID-19 a pandemic. [Note 2]

    On March 10, 2020, the S&P 500 closed at 2882.23. It had actually been much higher earlier in the year; it closed at 3373.23 on February 20 and was already declining due to concerns about the potential effects of a global pandemic by the time WHO made its declaration.

    On March 11, 2020, it closed at 2741.38, down 4.9 percent for the day (and 18.8 percent from its 2020 peak on February 20). The index eventually fell to 2237.40 on March 23 (-22.4% from March 10 and -33.7% from the year’s peak to date) before beginning to recover slowly.

    Initial reaction vs. long term

    The major indexes did eventually start to react negatively to the WTINAW, reaching their most recent nadirs on March 30:

    INDEXClose on 2/27/2026Close on 3/30/2026% Change
    S&P 5006878.886343.72-7.8%
    Dow Industrials48977.9245216.14-7.7%
    NASDAQ22668.2120794.64-8.3%
    Sources: Yahoo Finance (S&P 500, Dow Industrials, NASDAQ)

    Nothing particularly different happened on March 30. By then, President Trump had already declared the war “over” seven times, according to this article in The Independent. Between Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, the U.S. would say the war was “over” five more times through May 5. The president’s supporters in Congress have fallen over themselves avoiding calling it an actual “war” so they don’t have to officially authorize it, and the administration claims the Ceasefire That Is Not A Ceasefire (CTINAC) stopped the clock on the 60-day limit for a president to carry out armed conflicts without the consent of Congress.

    The CTINAC hasn’t ended the WTINAW. The Strait of Hormuz remains effectively closed. Thirteen American service members have died and another 380 wounded. Thousands of Iranians have perished and devastating damage has been inflicted on Iran’s cities, as well as those of Lebanon by Israel in the related conflict. We’ve spent, by one estimate, at least $25 billion on this pointless conflict. And it appears that our goal in the ongoing negotiations to end the WTINAW is to restore the status quo before we started the whole thing, and perhaps return, in effect, to the agreement negotiated during the Obama Administration, which Trump tore up in his first term.

    But since that low point at the end of March, the markets have recovered and are, as of yesterday, near the peaks they were at before the whole WTINAW adventure began. The price of crude oil is up significantly since the start of the year: it was around $64 a barrel in January versus $104 yesterday, which has caused gas prices in the U.S. and elsewhere to spike. Yet the markets seem to be unconcerned about that, even though higher oil prices mean higher prices for nearly everything. Nothing to see here, pay no attention to the WTINAW behind the curtain.

    The indexes recovered after the initial shock of the Gulf War and after the declaration of a global pandemic in 2020. That made sense, we saw immediate success in Kuwait and government responses to the pandemic, while certainly not perfect, provided a sense that we would find our way out of that challenge. Once new information was available, and it seemed we were making progress toward fixing the disruptions, it made sense that markets reacted positively.

    (Ironically, one of the best responses to COVID was Operation Warp Speed, which was instrumental in funding the development and manufacturing of the initial vaccines in just months instead of years. That program was announced – and supported – by Trump. Of course, he also promoted bleach, bright lights, and an antiparasitic drug for horses as cures, and the federal government’s response to the current hantavirus outbreak is about what you’d expect from Robert Kennedy, Jr. But that’s another post, I suppose.)

    I have no idea what they’re reacting to today, though, beyond another round of bouncing between “a whole civilization will die tonight” and “the war is over.” Unlike the Gulf War and the COVID-19 pandemic, there are no military victories, no miracles of medical science, no concrete positives at all. Just the whims of one man and his surrounding sycophants.

    Financial markets aren’t completely rational; I know that. But most of my life, they’ve reacted very badly to uncertainty. If the markets were down, it was a good indicator of concern about the future. The fact that they aren’t reacting that way now is baffling and, frankly, is a bigger indicator of concern for me.

    [Note 1] That’s not a typo, the S&P 500 index has increased over 2100% since 1990 without adjustment for inflation.

    [Note 2] I’m also aware that there isn’t a clear “end” to the COVID-19 pandemic; in fact, many people consider it to still be active. However, I wrote quite a bit about COVID on this blog during the pandemic, and by the end of 2021 we were starting to return to “normal,” or a reasonable facsimile thereof, and the vaccines had begun to move the virus and its variants to something closer to endemic status, similar to influenza. While it was still serious – and still may be again, thanks to the current administration’s general demonization of vaccines – the most stringent restrictions on socializing and public gatherings had been removed by the start of 2022.

  • AI is a tool, but not the answer to our problems

    We live in challenging times. But we’ve always had obstacles to overcome and problems to solve. In my lifetime, humans created technology that reduces the time it takes to analyze and synthesize data from months to just a few moments. These tools have caused enormous changes in the way we work.

    But make no mistake: They’re not creating anything new. They’re not coming up with original thinking or ideas. Meeting the challenges we face will require human innovation, creativity, and imagination.

    We need leaders with the ability to think critically and for the long term. These leaders must have broad experience in the arts and humanities and the social sciences. We also need scientists, economists, and business experts, but true innovations in science and mathematics are inspired by the freedom of creative, original thought.

    I’ve been a writer, a graphic designer, and actor and director, and a team builder for over 30 years. If I’ve been successful over that time, it’s because I know when to follow the rule book… and when to invent new rules that solve a new challenge. By definition, computers are rule followers. Humanity’s future is still dependent on human thought and ingenuity.

    I have broad experience in higher education admissions, enrollment, marketing and communications, and in the classroom. I have expertise in copywriting, graphic design, and web development, creating effective marketing and technical content for multiple media platforms at Tom Kephart Communications LLC. I’m also an experienced and confident acting and public speaking teacher, and have helped many individuals and groups to develop their presentation skills.

    Do you make a difference in the lives of others? Do you believe there’s hope for a better future? If so, I’d like to work with you to help make that happen.

  • Welcome, new Canadians!

    Welcome, new Canadians!

    UPDATE (5/11/2026): This post was written with a considerable amount of tongue in cheek, but some have taken it at face value. For the sake of clarity, I must note that the whole thing is a bit more complicated than it originally seemed.

    Your “anchor” ancestor – the Canadian citizen you’re tracing your potential citizenship to – may not qualify for a number of reasons. First, and importantly, Canadian citizenship didn’t exist before January 1, 1947. Before that, all Canadians were subjects of the British Empire.

    The great majority of British subjects living in Canada on that date became Canadian citizens, a separate legal status. If your anchor ancestor was a legal resident of Canada on that date, they almost certainly gained the new citizenship status. If they’d already moved away from Canada, however, that’s less certain, though not ruled out.

    Also, if your “anchor” was naturalized in the U.S., it can make a difference exactly when that happened, because Canada allowed dual citizenship – or didn’t – at different times in the past. So the date of U.S. naturalization may make a difference. And if your “anchor” ancestor expressly renounced their Canadian citizenship or status as a British subject, either during their U.S. naturalization or at some other time, this is probably disqualifying.

    If you want to be certain, I’d recommend contacting an immigration attorney specifically familiar with the implications of Bill C-3. Be prepared to describe your ancestral connection to the potential “anchor” ancestor in some detail. If the connection seems positive, you’ll eventually need documentation (birth certificates, marriage licenses, parish records, and so on) to establish your right to Canadian citizenship.

    Last year, the Canadian Parliament passed Bill C-3, which amended the country’s Citizenship Act. This was a major change with broad implications. Previously, citizenship by descent was limited to the first generation born outside of Canada. Bill C-3 removed this limitation. This means anyone with an ancestor born in Canada is not only likely to have Canadian citizenship, but for the purposes of the new law, has in fact always been a Canadian citizen. Bill C-3 took effect on December 15, 2025.

    According to the Canadian government’s official website:

    There are two key items in that statement: First, you’re automatically a citizen. This isn’t an opportunity to apply for naturalization; anyone who meets those requirements is, by law, a Canadian citizen.

    Second, and this is the part I missed the first time I read it a couple of months ago, the new law also applies to people who were born to someone who “became Canadian because of these rule changes.” This is what allows tracing back to a more-distant Canadian ancestor.

    Here’s an illustration of how this changes the status of potentially millions of Americans:


    		OLD LAWBILL C-3 CHANGES
    1st GENERATION
    (born or naturalized in Canada)    		Canadian citizen 🇨🇦Canadian citizen 🇨🇦
    2nd GENERATION
    (born outside of Canada)    		Canadian citizen 🇨🇦
    (also likely a citizen of their birth country)    		Canadian citizen 🇨🇦
    3rd GENERATION
    (born outside of Canada)    		Not a Canadian citizenCanadian citizen 🇨🇦 because their parent was a Canadian citizen
    4th GENERATION
    (born outside of Canada)    		Not a Canadian citizenCanadian citizen 🇨🇦 because their parent is now considered to be (or to have been) a Canadian citizen under Bill C-3

    And so on, and so on. Bill C-3 grants de jure citizenship to every descendant of a legal Canadian citizen.

    Of course, you have to be able to prove your lineage back to a Canadian citizen, but for many Americans who qualify, those ancestors are only two, three, or four generations back, meaning they were born late 19th century into the 20th century. Birth records are not difficult to find these days, especially with sources like Ancestry.com available.

    Also note that the website states that the change “made you a Canadian automatically,” and if you don’t want that citizenship, you “can apply to give up (renounce) your Canadian citizenship.”

    Do I have to do anything to make this official?

    Not really. You’re just Canadian. Congratulations!

    But you can apply for a Certificate of Proof of Citizenship to make sure. The application is available at this link. Once you have the certificate, you can then apply for a Canadian passport.

    Why did Canada make this change?

    In December 2023, the provincial Superior Court of Justice in Ontario declared the one generation limit unconstitutional. The federal government then came up with interim rules to take care of people who were affected by that judicial decision, then Parliament came up with a permanent solution (or at least as permanent as any law is) in the form of Bill C-3.

    I also think the Canadian government is motivated by demographic changes in the country and in much of the Western world. Birth rates have dropped significantly and populations are aging. While immigration from underdeveloped countries is also necessary in Canada and other Western nations because of these trends (despite opposition to such immigration in many places, including the U.S.), making it easier for people to emigrate to Canada is another way to offset some of the demographic challenges. I suspect Canada will not be the last Western nation to consider loosening their citizenship by descent laws.

    Both my wife and I are now Canadians by descent. My great-great-grandfather was William Henry Bailey Quantz, who was born in Markham, Ontario in 1840 and moved to Michigan, where my great-grandmother, grandmother, and my mother were born.

    My wife’s great-grandmother, Anna Margaret Plewes, was born in Simcoe, Ontario in 1877. She moved to Michigan when she married, and her descendants were born in Michigan and Indiana.

    So our children are also Canadian, since my wife and I are now considered to be Canadian by descent.

    A caveat: Bill C-3 treats anyone born after December 15, 2025 differently. Their parent, considered to be a Canadian citizen under the new rules, must also have spent at least 1,095 days (three years) in Canada before the birth. So new descendants that date likely would not automatically be considered Canadian citizens.

    Another caveat: I am not an immigration attorney. In fact, I’m not an attorney at all, though I did play one on stage once. I’m just relaying what’s on the Canadian government’s websites and what’s been reported in several articles, such as this one yesterday from the Associated Press.

    I can’t express how happy this makes me. This isn’t anti-American feeling at all; while obviously things have been insane in the U.S. for almost a decade, causing many people to consider living somewhere outside of the country, my fascination with Canada goes way back. My senior essay in high school was about Québec separatism. I chose French as my required language not because of any interest in Paris, but because of my interest in Québec and Canada. I’ve lived on the U.S./Canadian border for over 30 years; I can walk to the end of my driveway, look east, and see Ontario across the St. Clair River. I’ve done theater in Sarnia, Ontario, just across the Blue Water Bridge from Port Huron, Michigan. I love hockey and curling. I grew up watching the Maple Leafs and le Canadien on Hockey Night in Canada on the CBC station in Windsor, along with The Friendly Giant, Mr. Dressup, and Canadian Sesame Street. I can name all of the provinces and territories and their capitals. I watch Canadian election results as intently, if not more, than I do American ones. My blood has traces of maple syrup and poutine gravy (my doctor isn’t that happy about that last one).

    I was pretty much already an honorary (honourary?) Canadian. This just makes it official.

    And yes, I will be applying for my certificate of citizenship today, merci beaucoup.

    And now, the national anthem!

    O Canada!
    Our home and native land!
    True patriot love in all of us command.
    With glowing hearts we see thee rise,
    The True North strong and free!
    From far and wide,
    O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.
    God keep our land glorious and free!
    O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.
    O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.

    Ô Canada!
    Terre de nos aïeux,
    Ton front est ceint de fleurons glorieux!
    Car ton bras sait porter l’épée,
    Il sait porter la croix!
    Ton histoire est une épopée
    Des plus brillants exploits.
    Et ta valeur, de foi trempée,
    Protégera nos foyers et nos droits.
    Protégera nos foyers et nos droits.