The Personal Consumption Expenditures price index, the Fed’s preferred inflation gauge, notched a 0.3 percent monthly increase in the first month of 2026. Compared with the same time last year, prices were up 2.8 percent.  [https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/13]

Inflation is another way to say “shit happens.” It should not really be a campaign issue until it tops 5% annual or 3 percentage points over last year. But if it ticks up 0.1% the ruling political party will take the hit. Just like the Democrats did last year, and the Republicans will take this year.  Not controlling any level of inflation will sentence the Party to defeat, because the cost of just existing is already too high.

Rather than measuring the cost of living, inflation has become a rationale to explain why consumers can’t get ahead of expenses.  The citation of the “personal Consumption Expenditures price index” indicates that inflation for January  2026 reflects a 0.2 % increase over January of last year. That is a one-fifth of a percentage point, which could be explained by a panicky run on cars and costly 48-inch Super Bowl TV’s.

Yet it is not enough inflation to stagger the food budget or make this year’s car unaffordable. It is the feeling  of inflation that drives consumers crazy. The increase is inconsequential, but the burden of home expenses is undeniable, even if inflation is 0.0%.  The cost of living barely rises, but the need for a car for a teenager or the cost of maintaining a house that is older than you or the co-pay of a new blood pressure medication all pile on to the monthly budget. So inflation adds insult to previous injury.

If you are living paycheck-to-paycheck, it feels like inflation is killing you, but isn’t it the challenge of  balancing a budget that can’t level off, even at a ten percent annual increase? There are dozens of causes. Maybe they could be solved by better medical coverage or quicker home disaster reimbursement, but the simple fact is the cost of living never decreases in a voracious market and an anemic salary.

This is not to propose a new scapegoat for that sinking feeling of “not enough.” It is more an argument that tiny increments of  inflation is not the main cause of that insufficiency of income for living expenses—yet.  Any legislation that benefits middle class consumers will probably help. Any collective bargaining increase that exceeds the cost of living will help. Any price control on pharmaceuticals will help. Or college loan forgiveness. Or supports for everything that drives the cost of home maintenance upward. Lots of stuff. Not inflation.

Regardless of our many underlying expenses, inflation will continue to take the lash for middle class economic distress. It will be the number one campaign issue, even though politicians can not make it better. They can only make it worse–but worse enough to explain the pain of  surviving?  Not now. Not at this rate.

Every consumer knows that inflation is bad. Surviving the cost of living is complicated. A simple explanation will beat a complicated one every time. Inflation is the name given to the struggle to pay the bills.

Our final day at Spring Training had highlights and lowlights and some freak moments.

• In the seventh inning outfielder Josh Baez challenged the ump’s strike call twice and won both challenges. The use of multiple cameras to get an electronic strike zone has been featured this spring. The visual evidence on the scoreboard shows very tiny discrepancies, but even the slightest daylight between the plate and the ball in the visual, earns an overturned strike call. The challenge system, which entitles the team 2 failed challenges per game, will be implemented in MLB in 2026. Baez eventually walked.
• The offense featured Yohel Pozo for the second straight day. On Sunday both Pozel and rookie catcher Jimmy Crooks hit home runs. Monday Yohel Pozo delivered an RBI single in the seventh and then later scored the tying run on a sacrifice fly by Jeremy Rivas. Pozo and Crooks are battling to be back-up catcher on the club. Ivan Herrera remains an active option at catcher, but he is not a strong defensive presence.
• The anemic Cardinals offense gave the crowd a burst of adrenalin when Carlos Linarez was hit by a pitch and his pinch runner moved to second on a wild pitch in the bottom of the ninth.  With two outs Carlton Ledbetter fouled off a couple of pitches before lining to right, sending the pinch runner, Mike Antico, home. That climax was a small consolation for the uninspired crowd, denied the joy of offense most of the game.

The Cardinals won our final game here 3-2. The offense did not impress, despite the Monday outcome. Bruce Zimmerman pitched two impressive innings, putting him on the radar for the 2026 bullpen. The lefty could be another option out of the bullpen with Jo Jo Romero.

George Soriano pitched a scoreless inning and showed both power and control. With the pathetic state of right-hander Ryan Fernandez, Soriano should be considered for the bullpen as well. Fernandez was hit hard again today, getting three outs at the warning track.

As I have said, it is still too early to predict decisions about who makes the club, but it is fun to speculate. I think both Fernandez and Tink Hence have something to prove before they make this team.

The Cardinals have a super- abundance of catchers this spring with four qualified applicants. If they are certain about Jimmy Crooks, the Cards should consider trading the talented Yohel Pozo for some offense.  There are more strong catching candidates in the Minors.  They need some power in the line-up to score some runs this year. It is no fun to watch a team put runners on without scoring. That is the modus operandi for the Cardinals for the last two years and looks likely again this year.

Based on what we saw this past weekend, the Cardinals do not have a competitive team and is destined for the cellar in the NL Central Division. Chaim Bloom owes it to the fans to assemble an offense with some pop, so the team gives St.Louis something to root for.  This year may end with a lockout of the players. That is too much embitterment for one year.

I shouldn’t file this report three games into our visit to Jupiter, FL, but I have to face the dire straits that is the Cardinals 2026.

Prior to this  trip I complained to anyone who would listen that

• the Cardinals had no hitting after the Winter shuffle of players. They traded away two-thirds of their offense with Wilson Contreras and Brendan Donovan.
• They kept Alec Burleson, because he had three years before becoming a free agent. So good for Alec. He hit a three-run homer on Thursday in a split squad game with the Houston Astros.

The game with the Astros was very promising as the Cards hit four home runs in a 9-4 win. Besides Burleson . . .

• “The other home runs were hit by Yohel Pozo, Jimmy Crooks (a two-run shot) and
• minor-leaguer Jon Jon Gazdar … Gazdar also doubled and scored the go-ahead run as the Cardinals broke a 4-4 tie with a four-run seventh inning” (Five On YOur Side, February 27). It is fun to root for a player named “Jon Jon.” I was sorry he failed in his one plate appearance today.

From there Spring Training took a firm downhill trend.

“The Mets take the Cardinals by an 14-3 score. Cardinals use 11 pitchers to cover 9 innings, giving up 3 HR along the way, coupled with 9 walks.” https://www.vivaelbirdos.com/st-louis-cardinals-game-information/67619/st-louis-cardinals-game-recap-2-27-26-mets-at-cardinals.

One pitcher, who is supposed to be part of the bullpen in 2026 is Tink Hence, recovering from arm surgery. “Hence got in 27 pitches. Some hard-hit balls resulted in a not great line of 3 R, 1 BB, 1 K, 1 HR.” [https://www.vivaelbirdos.com/st-louis-cardinals-game-information/67619/st-louis-cardinals-game-recap-2-27-26-mets-at-cardinals].

• In the I-told-you- so department Nolan Gorman and Jordan Walker hit bupkus in the two games they appeared. Gorman did NOT strike out,  so I should be grateful. Walker looked helpless against the breaking ball and seemed to be in a trance in today’s loss to the Pirates. In this game the Cardinals amassed one run on one hit.
• Kyle Leahy, who was going to make up the pitching rotation, allowed four runs in three innings. Where are you now, Dustin May?
• We were unfortunately surrounded by Pirates fans, who reveled in the 7-1 Pirates victory.

In the Signs of Hope department,

• Nathan Church made a terrific catch in right field on Friday and hit the ball hard. He is definitely on the roster for 2026.
• The recently-signed Ramon Urias vacuumed up every grounder with Nolan-Arenado-efficiency at third base. He did not hit today, but neither did Gorman.
• Brycen Mautz pitched two innings of scoreless ball. He has not been on the radar for the roster, but he looks a lot better than Tink Hence.
• Jo-Jo Romero looked in mid-season form, except for one bad pitch.

Someone predicted Nelson Velasquez would make the team going north. Have not seen him, but he is supposed to have  power. I am desperately looking for power in this line-up, and I sincerely doubt it is coming from Walker or Gorman. Burleson could hit 25 homers this year, but we also need a guy to hit 30-40 home runs to have something other teams could respect.

Right now, the Cardinals are headed for the cellar of the National League Central. That is not a team worth the cost of a ticket. I am not happy with a “rebuilding” year when the home team resides in the cemetery.

I can’t count the number of times people in my life have said, “I wish I had your faith!” I wish I had it, too! Too often my faith was a performance for my own or for someone else’s satisfaction. My friends knew it was a role. They just didn’t have the rudeness or honesty to say it.  It’s like saying, “I wish I had your good taste” while thinking, Where did he get that ugly tie? Faith can become a polite fiction.

I am pretty sure I brandished Christianity for about forty years, because I took faith as the one certainty in my life. Hearing myself say that now sounds nonsensical.  Why do you need faith if you are certain? Yet some Christians take pride that they know their certain future, their questions are answered, and they have no doubts— or they are backsliders.

The Heidelberg Catechism states

True faith is a a sure knowledge whereby I accept as true all that God has revealed to us in his Word.

1 At the same time it is a firm confidence

2 that not only to others, but also to me,

3 God has granted forgiveness of sins, everlasting righteousness, and salvation,

4 out of mere grace, only for the sake of Christ’s merits

These may be articles of faith, but there is nothing about faith that is “sure knowledge” or “firm confidence.”  By definition we have faith in something that is not certain. It is only by our craving for absolute truth that we pervert faith into something that is without any doubt or uncertainty. Rather than a tendency, doubt rises to the level of sin.

I was taught that Peter lacked faith when he stepped out of the boat, walked on the water, and then was afraid of the waves. That was the definition of faith: trusting Jesus no matter what.  Nobody asked what kind of faith was expressed by the disciples who never got out of the boat. That would have been me in that boat! But we assumed that we could learn from Peter and not make the same mistake. We would trust Jesus under any circumstances.

Here’s my version:  Faith is an unnatural act, a shimmering gift–you have it —and then you don’t. You keep reaching for it out of hope– a hope that all you believe is true. Sometimes it is true when you look back and realize it. Sometimes you just forge ahead, understanding that life is a meandering path where you don’t get to see around the corner. Sometimes you are disappointed and cynicism takes hold.  Sometimes you  commit to a belief and your hope is restored.

When Jesus said faith is like “a grain of a mustard seed,”  he wasn’t saying, “A little bit goes a long way.” He said, “It is like a mustard seed, which a man took and planted in his garden. It grew and became a tree, and the birds perched in its branches” (Luke 13:19). Sometimes that tree is blighted and sometimes it gets a growing spurt. Faith is organic.

The only definition of faith in the scriptures is “faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see” .  (Hebrews 12:1, New International Version.) How you understand faith depends on which words you emphasize:

• on the one hand “confidence” and “assurance,” sounds like faith is certainty
• on the other hand, “hope for” and “do not see,” sounds like faith is vulnerable to doubt

You can not choose which part of  a definition you agree with. You have to take the whole thing.  So faith is

• “confidence” as well as “hope;”
•  “assurance” as well as  “what we do not see”

Two things are true at the same time. If you want a water-tight definition of faith, this is not it. Yet it makes sense, because faith can  leak. You may have to bail; you may have to patch. We are in this boat together, along with the rest of the disciples. It’s not so bad when you realize doubt is part of the process, and we all doubt at some point.

The Apostle Paul says,”Who hopes for what they already have?” (Romans 8:24). Now it seems obvious. Who needs faith, when they are already certain?  Faith in a loving God is a comfort, but it is also a risk.

Doubt can be good for faith. Uncertainty can be good for the soul. Both are good for honesty—and humility.

I am not a betting man, but since you can bet on anything that happens in the course of a day, I am going to imagine a bet that the President doubles down on tariffs tonight.  And it is not only because he is a protectionist in his soul, but because he loves to control things.

The power of levying a tariff (unconstitutionally) is so intoxicating that the President will not give it up that easily. You can  push prices higher, you can sink in the polls, you can offend your allies and devoted members of Congress, but you will not give up tariffs, because they feel so good. Nothing since the joy of saying, “You’re fired!” gives that kind of hit, but a public execution of his appointees reflects badly on him. So that particular kick has lost its pleasure.

But not the thrill of socking it to China or Canada or France or any nation that might cross his will. The President doesn’t hide his motives to punish a country, because of some offense, maybe the thwarting of his intentions to annex Greenland, maybe questioning his good faith in negotiating a peace in the Russian-Ukrainian War. Maybe they countered his tariffs in kind. Tariffs on top of tariffs.

The President will not readily return this power to its rightful owners (Congress), because it feels so right to wield it himself. He already responded to the Supreme Court’s decision against his authority to levy tariffs with more tariffs. He also took offense that his appointees  (i.e. Amy Coney Barrett and Neil Gorsuch) had ruled against  him, creating a 6-3 majority in favor of returning his presumed power to Congress. He took the ruling quite personally.

If the Supreme Court takes the front row at the State of  the Union Address tonight they will be right in the line of fire. They will be lucky to avoid a round of buckshot or two. The President does not graciously take slights, justified or not.

I’ll take the odds of 6-3 that the President will insist on his power to levy tariffs tonight. He will struggle against the Constitution and, if he sinks, he’ll take his partisans down with him. Or will a few Republican rebels abandon ship and finally draw the line at “Un-Constitutional?”

Look for the next volley to defend the tariff  against all enemies, foreign or domestic.  As Steven Decatur once said, “Our Tariffs!  In [their]  intercourse with foreign nations may [they] always be in the right; but right or wrong, our Tariffs!” Or something like that.

Suggested  Reading:  I Samuel 8:10-22; II Samuel 12:1-17

Optional:  The Tears of Things, Chapter 4

When the church gets too cozy with political power, it loses is prophetic voice.

Interview with James Talarico, State Representative, candidate for U.S. Senate, February 17, 2026.

Along with Moses, Nathan is the archetypal prophet in the Hebrew scriptures. He is most famous for challenging David for his adultery with Bathsheba and the murder of her husband, Uriah the Hittite. Uriah was known for his extreme loyalty to Israel, despite his nationality.  David arranged for him to die in battle, so that David could marry Bathsheba. It seemed like the perfect cover-up. However, . . .

“The thing that David had done displeased the Lord, and the Lord sent Nathan to David” (II Samuel 12:1). Nathan cleverly tells David a parable of a rich man who compels his poor subject to sacrifice his beloved lamb for a feast honoring a traveler in the king’s court. When David exclaims, “As the Lord lives, the man who has done this deserves to die,” Nathan declares, “You are the man!” David immediately confesses, “I have sinned.” Then Nathan details David’s punishment: his son conceived with Bathsheba will die; he will suffer violence within his own family. Both judgments come to pass in the next chapters of II Samuel.

Many scholars regard this story, among others, as a critique of the role of kings and a check on their authority by the words of the prophet. Earlier, when the people of Israel ask Samuel to anoint a king, he gives a speech about the dangers of giving authority to an earthly authority (I Samuel 8:10-22). Still, the people demand a king, “so we also may be like other nations” (8:20). The follies of King Saul and the sins of David prove the foresight of Samuel when he warned the people about the consequences of forming a monarchy with a political head.

The suspicion of political power permeates the Hebrew scriptures. In the western tradition political power corrupts the spiritual, aesthetic, pedagogical and other idealistic institutions. Only in the Hebrew tradition do we see a spiritual power overruling the political one. The prophet speaks the truth; the king ignores him at his peril. Political domination, then spiritual checkmate.

In the Hebrew tradition the lone prophet seems preferred over the collective of prophets, from the time of Samuel to Elijah and Elisha. If there was a cabinet of prophets, they usually gave the king what he wanted to hear. The lone prophet told the king what he didn’t want to hear. The solo voice was usually the legitimate one, but often dismissed, and sometimes persecuted. Elijah had to deal with the prophets of Baal, Amos had to deal with the priests of “the king’s sanctuary,” Jeremiah was thrown into a cistern by officials of King Zedekiah and left to die.

Jonah, a native son of Israel, predicted the good news of military conquests of King Jeroboam (II) around 786 BCE. He appears only as a vindicator of Jereboam.

Later, around 760 BCE Amos came from Judah to prophesy in Israel. Amos brought the unlikely background of a shepherd and vinedresser from Judah in the south, attending the court of Israel with a very successful king. Moreover, Amos gave this unwelcome message:

See, I am setting a plumb line in the midst of my people Israel;

I will never again pass them by;

the high places of Isaac shall be made desolate,

the sanctuaries of Israel shall be laid waste,

And I will rise against the house of Jeroboam with the sword.  (7:8,9)

This warning from Amos announced the judgment of both church and state in the corruption of society.  The “high places” would he recognized by the readers of Amos as illegitimate locations for worship.  The plumb line identifies the standard against which the corruption of the “king’s sanctuaries” is measured.  This prophet brings what Richard Rohr calls a “holy disorder,” or what Senator John Lewis called “good trouble,” against the establishment. Both King Jeroboam II and his complicit priest Amaziah fall under the same judgment.

Amos envisioned what the historical Jonah, son of Amittai, did not: the judgment of Israel for their injustices toward the widows, orphans and aliens. Jonah of the eighth century advocated for the state, while Amos spoke against power.

I saw the Lord standing beside the altar and he said,

Strike the capitals until the thresholds shake,

And shatter upon the heads of all the people;

And those who

are left I will kill with the sword;

not one of them shall flee away

not one of them shall escape (9:1)

Imagine a shepherd and vinedresser speaking to a celebrated king in this manner! We hear nothing of the fate of Amos. At best he said his piece and returned to Judah, where he could no longer harass the king and his priests. Jereboam II’s endorsement of the “high places,” a worship site for cultic gods, echoes with each of his successors over the next 24 years. During that period several Hebrew kings offered bribes to the Assyrian kings of the encroaching army, so they would relent in their inevitable march to Samaria.

The judgment sounded by Amos was fulfilled when the capital city, Samaria, was taken by the Assyrians in 722 BCE. Amos had challenged the king, the enabler of injustice.  He followed in the tradition of Nathan, Elijah and Elisha speaking truth to power. Richard Rohr says the role of a “licensed critic” is uncommon in most cultures. “By nature, civilization is intent on success and building and has little time for self-critique. We disparage the other team and work ceaselessly to prove loyalty to our own” (xiv).

To what extent does Western culture follow this pattern? Do we recognize any prophets today? What prophet challenges the powerful on behalf of the weak? In most Western nations, the spiritual leaders are complicit with powers that be.

How about Bishop Mariann Edgar Budde? She spoke directly to President Trump in a worship service at the National Cathedral, January 21, 2025.  “The president later condemned her as ‘nasty’.” https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/jan/24/bishop-mariann-edgar-budde-sermon-that-enraged-donald-trump.

Let me make one final plea, Mr. President. Millions have put their trust in you. As you told the nation yesterday, you have felt the providential hand of a loving God. In the name of our God, I ask you to have mercy upon the people in our country who are scared now. There are gay, lesbian and transgender children . . .

And the people who pick our crops and clean our office buildings; who labor in our poultry farms and meat-packing plants; who wash the dishes after we eat in restaurants and work the night shift in hospitals – they may not be citizens or have the proper documentation, but the vast majority of immigrants are not criminals . . ..

Have mercy, Mr. President, on those in our communities whose children fear that their parents will be taken away . . .

Is this the pleading voice of a prophet or disrespect for authority? Who speaks to our leaders, like Nathan the prophet to King David or Amos to King Jeroboam II, to give them a perspective on leadership? Who speaks truth to power?

The President’s Legal Strategy might be described as throwing charges against the wall to see what sticks. It matters less whether it sticks than the splat it makes. After all, judges can lie as much as the next person, so don’t take them seriously— unless they rule in your favor.

In November a group of six U.S. Senators, former military or intelligence officers, posted a video reminding those presently in the service that they were obligated to refuse illegal orders. Senator Elissa Slotkin of Michigan, a former C.I.A. analyst who served multiple tours in Iraq, mentioned in testimony that she was afraid the President would deploy people in the service against American citizens. “Our laws are clear,” said Senator Mark Kelly of Arizona, a Navy veteran and former astronaut. “You can refuse illegal orders.”

“SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH!” Mr. Trump wrote on his social media site. He shared another person’s post that said, “HANG THEM GEORGE WASHINGTON WOULD !!”

The six were charged with “seditious conspiracy,”  a federal crime involving two or more people agreeing to use force to overthrow, hinder, or oppose the U.S. government, its laws, or seize its property.(18 U.S.C. § 2384).

Senator Kelly was targeted by Defense Secretary Pete Hegstheth, who called for a review of his retirement grade, which could lead to a demotion in rank and reduction in retirement pay. Turning the tables, Senator Kelly asked a federal judge to grant an injunction against Secretary Hegseth’s plan to demote him.

Judge Richard J. Leon of the District Court for the District of Columbia barred Mr. Hegseth and the Pentagon from taking any steps to reduce the senator’s retirement rank and pay, or using the findings against Mr. Kelly in a criminal proceeding. [ https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/12/us/judge-blocks-kelly-punishment]

On some occasions judges cannot resist ruling on the merits of such charges thrown up against the wall. Such was the case of Judge Richard J. Leon of the District Court for the District of Columbia.

He wrote in a 29-page opinion that the Defense Department’s move to discipline Senator Mark Kelly, a retired Navy captain and former astronaut, ran roughshod over his freedom of speech.

Rather than trying to shrink the First Amendment liberties of retired service members, Secretary Hegseth and his fellow Defendants might reflect and be grateful for the wisdom and expertise that retired service members have brought to public discussions and debate on military matters in our Nation over the past 250 years,” he wrote. “If so, they will more fully appreciate why the Founding Fathers made free speech the first Amendment in the Bill of Rights!” [https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/12/,etc.]

Whew! That sounds like a lecture on the U.S.Constitution delivered to the sitting Secretary of Defense, who is supposed to know better.   Judges are not obliged to comment on the merits of charges, let alone lecture the Secretary of Defense on his knowledge of the Constitution. Judge Leon couldn’t resist.

Bravo, Judge Leon!  Someone needs to observe how weaponizing Naval law abuses the spirit of that law, even tramples on the Bill of Rights.  Someone should express the frustration of dealing with bogus charges  that insults the judiciary and are thrown up just the “splat.”

It is not enough to enjoin Secretary Hegseth from assuming disciplinary action against  a retired officer for exercising freedom of speech. A few words of discipline are appropriate.  Lawsuits are more than a splat on the wall. They are sincere attempts to enforce justice. Even a sitting President knows that.

So the next time a judge has to rule on another frivolous lawsuit manufactured for retribution, an appropriate lecture on the Constitution should be appended, along with the words, “Reflect and be grateful.”

Even though no one asked, I am glad to offer my offense(ive)  strategies for the Patriots for the Super Bowl. They have no chance against Seattle if they use a conventional plan, since they are going to lose the battle at the line of scrimmage. What they need to do is the opposite of what would be expected on any down.  In some cases, the opposite of the opposite that will be expected.

The philosophy of this is be patient. Accept short gains Don’t allow big losses.

1. Don’t run on first down. A short pass would be confounding, even if it gets just four yards. A quick look-in or a turn-out would give the linebackers frustration.
2. Second down might be a running play, but not to the middle where Seattle is invincible. Bring in an extra tight end and attack the outside. Once they get wise to that, try something else.
3. Misdirection: fake the run and toss a screen pass to the opposite side. Misdirection is the key. Or roll the quarterback to the opposite side.
4. Fake the run and throw long. Like Kyle Williams on a fly pattern. If you throw deep enough it will just be a foot-race for the ball.
5. Send one receiver deep, one button-hook to the sidelines, and hit Stefan Diggs over the middle.
6. Give Stevenson a blocking assignment and then pass to him in space.
7. Designed quarterback draw. After a deep pass, fake the same pattern and send the quarterback up the middle.
8. Fake double reverse.  Get  Rhamondre Stevenson and TreVeyon Henderson in the backfield and fake one of them in a double reverse, sending the first ball carrier around end.
9. Fake one rusher off left tackle and Mayes keeps the ball and rolls to the right and keep rolling.
10. After trying at least two of these options, run off tackle.

I like anything that is not predictable. Lots of misdirection, passing on first down. quarterback options, flea flicker, anything to keep Seattle defense off balance. Never run off-tackle on first down. Find lots of short passing routes. Bring the running backs out of the backfield. Throw long on first or third downs. React to whatever the defense gives you.

Some of this is obvious, but I have had enough of running into the line on first down, as if this time you will gain four yards. I have had enough of getting greedy on third down, as if that will surprise the safeties. Do the opposite and then do the opposite of the opposite.

I’m pretty sure the offensive coaches have thought of these ideas, but this time, do them!