Anthony Dattorro

9-21-25

As a member of America’s fractured political landscape, I tuned into the memorial service for Charlie Kirk with a mix of curiosity and dread. What I witnessed was our president—once again—declaring open war on dissent, as if the First Amendment were some fleeting privilege rather than a foundational right. For now, expressing opposition isn’t illegal, but the rhetoric suggests we’re inching closer to that dystopian edge.

Media coverage, predictably, split along partisan lines. CNN framed the event as a heartfelt celebration of faith. Fox News, on the other hand, hailed it as the dawn of yet another crusade against the left, fueling their audience’s perpetual outrage machine. It’s a stark reminder of how Republicans play to win at all costs, while Democrats seem content to merely sustain the status quo—conducting themselves with a decorum that does little more than oil the gears of the existing power structure.

If there was one glaring misstep at the memorial, it was allowing Donald Trump to take the stage. The man is pathologically incapable of stepping out of the spotlight or offering genuine comfort to the grieving. His presence turned what could have been a moment of reflection into yet another episode of his unyielding megalomania.

That said, as the event inevitably veered into a rally for Christian Nationalism—an ideology far removed from the secular principles America was founded upon—Erika Kirk managed to inject some humanity. She did an admirable job of humanizing her late husband and espousing true Christian values, such as forgiveness toward his killer. Do I fully believe she harbors no resentment toward the person who gunned him down? It’s hard to imagine, given the raw pain of such a loss. But her words, at least, elevated the discourse beyond Trump’s self-absorbed spectacle, serving a nobler purpose in a sea of opportunism.

In the end, this whole affair leaves me yearning for a bolder political movement. I long for the day when so-called “squishy” liberals stop prioritizing civility and deference to capital’s overlords, and start fighting fiercely for real change—be it economic justice, civil liberties, or dismantling the systems that perpetuate inequality. Until then, events like this memorial will continue to expose the chasm between performative politics and genuine progress.

9-13-25

On September 10th, 2025, Charlie Kirk, 31, was assassinated at a college campus speaking event while advocating for conservative political ideas and engaging with supporters across the political spectrum. This act of violence was politically motivated, and there is no justification for it.

The FBI described the weapon used as a high-powered bolt action rifle — in other words, a weapon of war. Violence like this doesn’t resolve conflict; it fuels retaliation, leading only to more death, destruction, grief, and sadness.

There is never a justification for taking another person’s life for exercising public, ideological, or persuasive political speech. Likewise, there is no justification for dehumanizing others based on immutable characteristics such as race, religion, sexual orientation, gender, or gender expression. Being uncomfortable with learning a new perspective is your problem. One act destroys a life in an instant; the other slowly erodes someone’s sense of worth. Both, in different ways, are a form of murder.

A society that settles its disagreements with bullets instead of words, ideas, and policy is not a society worth living in. To prevent tragedies like this, we must build a fair and just society — one where pressure is released through equity and opportunity, not violence.

Politics, government, and laws are human constructs — tools, not truths. At the core, human beings are simply human beings. Everything else is a structure handed down by generations before us.

A better world is possible. But are we willing to admit that someone’s starting point in life has a profound effect on their trajectory? Are we willing to recognize how upbringing shapes opportunity, psychology, and achievement? Would universal access to healthcare, education, mental health care, and housing reduce suffering? Yes. But it would also mean accepting that no one individual can be the richest person in the world.

The choice is ours: pursue force and repression, which breeds only more violence, or confront the root causes through real societal change.

9-13-25

On Friday, August 22nd, I had the joy of adopting two wonderful kittens from Alabama. After a 24-hour journey, I met them at a PetSmart in Rhode Island. As the transporter carried them from the truck in my cat carrier, their soft but curious meows filled the air — a sound that gave me a nervous yet heartwarming feeling.

With nearly 94 million households in America owning pets, I could finally say I was one of them. My new companions are a bonded brother-and-sister pair that were born on May 5th, 2025. The boy, a gray tabby American Shorthair, I named Kendrick Meow — after Kendrick Lamar, who I consider one of the greatest artists of my generation. To me, Kendrick Lamar represents meaning: someone who uses his voice to advocate for issues that matter deeply to himself, his family, his fans, and the community he loves, while creating music that sounds incredible and comes from a place of vulnerability and intention.

The girl I named Olive. The name came to me shortly after I met her — her petite frame, sleek black fur, and the way she could nearly curl into the palm of my hands reminded me of a little olive.

Every time I watch them playfully wrestle around my apartment, my heart swells. They give me a glimpse of the joy and responsibility of parenthood, and while that day may come in the future, for now, I’m grateful to experience it through them.

-Anthony

3-27-25

A Systematic Path to Authoritarian Control

For undocumented immigrants: The action is to deport individuals with limited legal proceedings. The mechanism involves utilizing policies that permit deportation without judicial hearings in certain cases. The goal is to set a precedent for swiftly removing individuals the government deems undesirable.
For visa holders (both non-immigrant and immigrant): The action is to revoke visas and deport individuals with minimal legal recourse. The mechanism relies on asserting that visa status is a privilege that can be revoked at the executive’s discretion. The goal is to expand unchecked executive authority over legally present individuals.
For permanent residents (Green Card holders): The action is to revoke Green Cards and proceed with deportation under restricted legal proceedings. The mechanism involves leveraging vague national security or public safety claims to justify these actions. The goal is to undermine the security of legal residency and reduce protections for long-term residents.
For naturalized citizens: The action is to strip individuals of their citizenship and deport them. The mechanism is to use allegations of fraud in the naturalization process as grounds for revocation. The goal is to weaken the permanence of citizenship for those who were not born in the country.
For natural-born citizens: The action is to suppress dissent without resorting to deportation. The mechanism includes intimidation, surveillance, or legal pressure to silence opposition. The goal is to curtail free speech by instilling fear, leveraging the consequences imposed on other groups.
Ultimately, the endgame is a shift toward authoritarianism, where the action is to systematically remove or silence groups with increasing levels of legal protection. The mechanism involves normalizing mass deportations, reducing judicial oversight, and fostering an atmosphere of fear. The goal is to establish a system where dissent becomes a direct risk to an individual's rights or status.

3-26-25

On March 15, 2025, the United States launched a retaliatory strike against Houthi rebels in Yemen, killing at least 53 people, including five children and two women. The operation, targeting Houthi military sites and leadership, came just hours after National Security Advisor Michael Waltz—former Green Beret, ex-congressman, and key Trump strategist—accidentally leaked the strike plans by mistakenly including The Atlantic editor Jeffrey Goldberg in a Signal group chat meant for senior officials. The attack followed a Houthi hypersonic missile strike on U.S. warships on March 13, part of the group’s ongoing effort to block the Red Sea in solidarity with Palestinians in Gaza.

Waltz’s mistake is alarming, but his reaction to it is even more telling. In the leaked chat, he responded to the unfolding crisis with emojis—simple, trivial symbols to express his feelings about a strike that had just killed five children in the poorest country in the world. The sheer detachment of it is staggering. This wasn’t just an operational failure; it was a moment that laid bare the cold, casual indifference of those in power.

How easy it is, from the safety of Washington, to reduce war and death to something that can be reacted to with a tap on a screen. If there is a higher power watching, what would it make of this? Perhaps nothing. Perhaps it’s only humans who must reckon with the weight of our own cruelty, the ways in which suffering becomes background noise in the corridors of power.

3-19-25

I do not believe that pure good or bad exists in today’s world. The human condition is driven by the need for safety. Both capitalism and socialism are human constructs.

Is it possible to provide high-quality socialist medicine to all Americans? Absolutely. Will it happen anytime soon? Probably not. That would require the wealthy and powerful to give up some control—something most would never do willingly without significant personal gain, as power ensures security.

Some individuals may have a predisposition for antisocial behavior, but most of the world’s problems stem from conditioning, not neurology. Power and control remain the only constants. After all, who would willingly play a fair game?

Why do nations fight? To be number one. True equality between countries does not exist—only strategic advantages.

Anthony John Dattorro

My name is Anthony John Dattorro, and this blog is a space for me to share my experiences as I navigate life in the United States as a 31-year-old man living in Rhode Island in 2025.

I’ve been fortunate to pursue higher education, earning a Bachelor of Science from Rhode Island College and a Master of Public Administration from the University of Rhode Island. My career in information technology has taken me through roles at Rhode Island College and The Kraft Group, and I now serve as an Information Technologist for the University of Rhode Island’s Graduate School of Oceanography.

The purpose of this blog is to serve as a reference point—a reflection of who I am, what I’m experiencing, and a historical record for my descendants. If you’re reading this in the future, know that I wish I could have met you. But even if I’m not here in person, I don’t need to be physically present to tell you how much you mean to me.

Politically, I identify as a Progressive. As I write this in 2025, the United States is in a period of deep political turbulence. Economic inequality is widening, the cost of living continues to rise, and fundamental rights are being debated and, in too many cases, stripped away. The country feels more divided than ever, with polarization fueling resentment rather than progress. The system itself is built to prioritize profit over people, and I believe that needs to change. It would be irresponsible for me not to advocate for what I believe in. You can’t stop existing just because someone or something tries to bully you into conformity. Progress has never come from silence.

The role of government, in my view, is to level the playing field so that success isn’t determined by the circumstances of one’s birth but by the aspirations and efforts of the individual. I want a world where no one has to question whether they are good enough. As Americans, I believe it is our responsibility to create a just and moral nation—one that does the best it can for every citizen.