Friday, February 6, 2026

#37 / The Third Civil War

 


Pictured above is Thomas Friedman, a columnist for The New York Times. In his column published in the December 13, 2025, hardcopy version of the paper, Friedman characterizes what is going on in American politics as a "Third Civil War." That characterization is highlighted in the hardcopy headline - "The United States Is Entering Its Third Civil War." Online, Friedman's headline reads this way: "Trump Isn’t Interested in Fighting A New Cold War. He Wants A New Civilizational War."

What quickly attracted my attention to Friedman's column was this statement, contained in a pull-quote (again, I'm citing to the hardcopy version of his column): "Trump wants to define the American homeland, and determine who belongs in it." 

In thinking about who "belongs" in the United States, Trump and J.D. Vance, our current Vice President, both have a hang-up about "race" and "ethnicity." Both of them suggest that our national definition is both linked to, and properly limited to, those whose progenitors came here from Western Europe, and who are, for the most part, both White and from a Judeo-Christian background. 

In fact, and to the contrary, the greatest thing about the United States is that our "nation" has never been defined by a shared racial or religious legacy. We are, to use that now-suspicious phrase made famous by John F. Kennedy, a "nation of immigrants."

What does, then, define an "American," if it is not race, religion, or origin? 

What defines an "American" is the fact that Americans are self-selected and self-designated by having pledged their lives and fortunes to the proposition that "all persons are created equal," with an equal opportunity to act both individually and collectively. This means that our national identity is connected to our acceptance of the "political" definition of who qualifies, as specified in both the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution. 

And who are those who qualify? Who qualifies is anyone who accepts what the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution say about how we will live together, and build what I try to get people to understand is a "political world." 

As I bring this blog posting to its finish, let me quote from Friedman's column (emphasis added): 

To me, the deep backdrop to Trump’s National Security Strategy [is that] he is not interested in refighting the Cold War to defend and expand the frontiers of democracy. He is, in my view, interested in fighting the civilizational war over what is the American “home” and what is the European “home,” with an emphasis on race and Christian-Judeo faith — and who is an ally in that war and who is not. 
The economics writer Noah Smith argued in his Substack this week that this was the key reason the MAGA movement began to turn away from Western Europe and draw closer to Vladimir Putin’s Russia — because Trump’s devotees saw Putin as more of a defender of white Christian nationalism and traditional values than the nations of the European Union. 
Historically, “in the American mind,” Smith wrote, “Europe stood across the sea as a place of timeless homogeneity, where the native white population had always been and would always remain.” However, “in the 2010s, it dawned on those Americans that this hallowed image of Europe was no longer accurate. With their working population dwindling, European countries took in millions of Muslim refugees and other immigrants from the Middle East and Central and South Asia — many of whom didn’t assimilate nearly as well as their peers in the U.S. You’d hear people say things like ‘Paris isn’t Paris anymore.’” 
Today’s MAGA-led American right, Smith added, does “not care intrinsically about democracy, or about allyship, or about NATO, or about the European project. They care about ‘Western civilization.’ Unless Europe expels Muslim immigrants en masse and starts talking about its Christian heritage, the Republican Party is unlikely to lift a hand to help Europe with any of its problems.” 
In other words, when protecting “Western civilization” — with a focus on race and faith — becomes the centerpiece of U.S. national security, the biggest threat becomes uncontrolled immigration into America and Western Europe — not Russia or China. And “protecting American culture, ‘spiritual health’ and ‘traditional families’ are framed as core national security requirements,” as the defense analyst Rick Landgraf pointed out on the defense website “War on the Rocks.” 
And that’s why the Trump National Security Strategy paper is no accident or the work of a few low-level ideologues. It is, in fact, the Rosetta Stone explaining what really animates this administration at home and abroad.

Let us use Friedman's "Rosetta Stone" to understand what political proposition is being suggested to us. 

When we have understood that, when we are clear about what is being proposed to us, let us then reject that proposition - outright and unequivocally - since it is clear that this proposition is so profoundly "unAmerican!"   

Thursday, February 5, 2026

#36 / The Mitford Sisters (And Equality)

  


An article in the December 1, 2025, edition of The New York Times provided an in-depth look into the life of Jessica Mitford, who is best known, I believe, for having authored The American Way of Death

But did you know she was a communist? Well, I didn't, or had forgotten that fact, if I ever knew it. 

The recent article in The Times is titled this way: "The High-Born Rebel Who Took Up the Cause of the Commoner." It provides a lot of background on Mitford, known to her family and friends as "Decca," and the article includes the picture above, in which Jessica/Decca is at the far left. That picture also appears in an earlier Times' article, "The 6 Mitford Sisters, Their Jewelry and a New TV Series." That article was published on May 25th of last year.

Oddly enough, The most recent Times' article made me think about our Declaration of Independence, and particularly its claim that it is "self-evident" that "all [persons] are created equal." 

I know that the Declaration actually says that it is all "men," not all "persons" who are created "equal," but I think we now all believe that the 1776 expression was certainly intended to apply to everyone, not just males. Of course, there may be an argument to the contrary, since if it was truly "self-evident" to our Founding Fathers (and to those who came after them) that men and women were "equal," politically and governmentally speaking, then it is a little difficult to explain why women didn't get the right to vote, as our nation came into existence, and why the Constitution was amended to give freed [male] slaves the right to vote in 1870, but women only got the right to vote in 1919, almost fifty years later.

Anyway, here is how the recent article mentioning all of the Mitford sisters made me start thinking about the Declaration of Independence, and its claim that all persons are created equal. There were six sisters, and they were all quite different in their political preferences, not to mention in other things, too. 

The oldest sister, Nancy, became a novelist and parodied the upper classes. No real political involvements are mentioned. The next oldest sister, Pamela, went into seclusion at an early age, and it is intimated that she lived as a lesbian - again, no real "political" views are mentioned. Diana, the next in line, called the "great beauty of the family," was a bonafide Fascist, who got married at the home of Joseph Goebbels. Unity, the next sister, went to Germany to pursue a romance with Hitler, and ended up as one of his inner circle. Then came Decca (Jessica), who became a Communist. The youngest, Deborah was a Duchess, with "royalty" her seeming political preference. 

I have always thought that it is critical to understand that "Equal" does not mean "the Same," or "Similar," and this listing of the different political affiliations of the Mitford sisters made me think about it again. If, in fact, if we are "all Equal," as the Declaration claims is "self-evident," this is obviously not because we are similar, or are in any way "the same." We are, all of us, totally "different" from one another. We are not created "the Same." If there is anything that is "self-evident" that's it. The Mitford women illuminate how true that is. 

But what, then, does it mean to affirm that it is "self-evident" that all of us are "created equal"?

That language in the Declaration, it seems to me, is the strongest possible affirmation that we are absolutely "Equal" in our rights, and privileges, and in our absolutely proper demand that we receive equal treatment by our government, despite every possible difference that might be cited to divide us. 

What about "transgender" persons, to pick a "hot topic?" Transgender persons, like women, like person with dark skin, like everyone in all their manifold distinctiveness are totally and absolutely "equal" to everyone else with respct to their claim upon the society, which is to be enforced and enabled by our government. 

Why the article on the Mitford sisters made me think of this is not completely clear, but that single family, in its differences, does illustrate how we need to understand that our society and our government is committed - must be committed - to treating everyone "equally," no matter how "different" they may be. 

Isn't that a wonderful understanding of what it means to be alive? 

We live in a nation that has been founded on what we have claimed as a self-evident truth that we are "Equal," and that this radical equality of all humans, everywhere, is the only relevant thing when it comes to government. Our "differences," so often held to be of such importance, have no real relevance, at all, when we consider our government, and how it is supposed to act.

Despite differences, we are "all in this together." Once we think about it, that is, indeed, "self-evident." All different. All "Equal." All "in it together." 

How great!

Wednesday, February 4, 2026

#35 / De-Skilling America - And The World Entire

   


Natasha Singer has told readers of The New York Times that "Tech Giants" are "Racing To Add A.I. To Schools Around The World." Just click that link to read all about it. 

Let me tell you, however, before you do click that link, that the Natasha Singer who wrote the article I am linking is a technology reporter, and is not the vocalist from the Dominican Republic, who is, I am betting, considerably more "famous" than The Times' reporter. Let me also say that while the hardcopy version of The Times' headline is different, The Times reveals in its online headline that not everyone thinks that adding A.I. to schools is a great boon to humanity. "Skeptics Raise Concerns," is how that web-based headline puts it. 

It will be no surprise to anyone who regularly reads my blog postings that I am personally skeptical of the benefits of A.I.. In fact, "largely opposed to," instead of "skeptical of," is how I would chart my thoughts about disseminating A.I. to schools - or to anywhere else, for that matter. My blog posting yesterday discussed that very topic.  

Here is an excerpt from the Times' article that reflects the kind of concerns I have: 

A recent study from Microsoft and Carnegie Mellon University found that popular A.I. chatbots may diminish critical thinking. A.I. bots can produce authoritative-sounding errors and misinformation, and some teachers are grappling with widespread A.I.-assisted student cheating. 
Silicon Valley for years has pushed tech tools like laptops and learning apps into classrooms, with promises of improving education access and revolutionizing learning. 
Still, a global effort to expand school computer access — a program known as “One Laptop per Child” — did not improve students’ cognitive skills or academic outcomes, according to studies by professors and economists of hundreds of schools in Peru. Now, as some tech boosters make similar education access and fairness arguments for A.I., children’s agencies like UNICEF are urging caution and calling for more guidance for schools. 
“With One Laptop per Child, the fallouts included wasted expenditure and poor learning outcomes,” Steven Vosloo, a digital policy specialist at UNICEF, wrote in a recent post. “Unguided use of A.I. systems may actively de-skill students and teachers.”

I think that using A.I. will not only "de-skill" students and teachers; it will "de-skill" anyone who relies on A.I. in connection with trying to "think" about something. A.I., in fact, deemphasizes the need to "think" in the first place. Want a poem to serenade your sweetheart? Want to find out how inflation has affected the nation, over the years? Want to...... whatever? If all you need to do is to ask your friendly A.I. Chatbot, you will never have to comb through obscure reports, or think about how to make your verses melodious.

Wasn't there an effort, one time, to get people to understand that the following phrase was actually the right way to think about using drugs:



This is, in my opinion, exactly how to think about the "usefulness" of A.I..


Image Credits:

Tuesday, February 3, 2026

#34 / Sam (B.S.) Altman

   


The title on my blog posting today was stimulated by a column by Michelle Goldberg, who writes for The New York Times. My title, implicitly, accuses Sam Altman of "bullshit," to spell it out for you. That's Sam Altman, pictured above. 

I, personally, think that it is pretty clear that the deployment of Artificial Intelligence, or AI, as that deployment is currenty underway, raises hugely important questions. I also think that these questions are properly catagorized as "political" questions, and they are of consumate importance. Frequent readers of my blog will not be surprised by this assertion. Senator Bernie Sanders spells out a number of these political questions in the video below: 


Michelle Goldberg, in the column I have linked in my first paragraph, also spells out important reasons to question the deployment of AI. Her column focuses on "which party" will lead anti-AI efforts, but her concern about that question stems from Golberg's contention (agreeing with Sanders) that we are "sleepwalking into a dystopia that any rational person can see from miles away." 

If you haven't spotted that upcoming dystopia yourself, do listen to what Senator Sanders has to say in his video, and read Goldberg's column, outlining her thoughts (The Times' paywall permitting, of course). 

As Goldberg properly notes, AI "obviously has beneficial uses." However, she says, "the list of things it is ruining is long." Goldberg's list of things being ruined by AI includes (1) Education; (2) Employment; (3) The environment; (4) Privacy, and (5) "Our remaining sense of collective reality." Again, Goldberg and Sanders are both pointing to REAL threats and concerns. 

And what about Sam Altman? Altman began his involvement with AI by helping to set up a nonprofit corporation dedicated to preventing the potentially negative impacts that AI might have. Time having passed, Altman has transmuted his nonprofit into a for-profit company, and he is a "booster." Here is how Goldberg describes the trajectory of Altman's "changing views" (emphasis added):

In “Empire of A.I.,” Karen Hao’s book about Altman’s company, she quotes an email he wrote to Elon Musk in 2015. “Been thinking a lot about whether it’s possible to stop humanity from developing A.I.,” wrote Altman. “I think the answer is almost definitely not.” Given that, he proposed a “Manhattan Project for A.I.,” so that the dangerous technology would belong to a nonprofit supportive of aggressive government regulation
This year Altman restructured OpenAI into a for-profit company. Like other tech barons, he has allied himself with Donald Trump, who recently signed an executive order attempting to override state A.I. regulations.

Goldberg's column goes on to raise a question about "what we get in return for this systematic degradation of much of the stuff that makes life worth living," and in looking for an answer to that question, Goldberg quotes Sam Altman, directly: 

The rate of new wonders being achieved will be immense,” he wrote in June. “It’s hard to even imagine today what we will have discovered by 2035; maybe we will go from solving high-energy physics one year to beginning space colonization the next year.” 

Altman's answer to the concerns being raised is that what we're going to get from AI will be "immense, hard even to imagine." Let's not try to avoid saying it. This is nothing but promotional bullshit, intended to keep investors willing to put their money into Altman's corporation, hoping for a big win, moneywise. Altman and those who are funding his efforts are aiming to make billions, and there is no substantive discussion about the very real concerns that Goldberg and Senator Senators are enumerating. In fact, as Goldberg says in her column, "the most high-profile innovations that OpenAI’s ChatGPT has announced in 2025 are custom porn and an in-app shopping feature."

I am always promoting "self-government," which means that we, the ordinary people of the nation, who will be directly affected by what happens, should be having a direct impact on that "what happens" question. We should be "running the place," not acting like spectators at a tennis match. That idea about self-government is what got us started almost 250 years ago. 

To be in charge, we need to confront the hard questions, and then figure out what to do. 

Bullshit does not assist us!


Image Credits:
(2) - https://youtu.be/K3qS345gAWI?si=1CYaM9PqZliBFa3A 

Monday, February 2, 2026

#33 / Curtains For The Movie Theater?

 


In an "Upward Mobility" column in The Wall Street Journal - a column that appeared in print on December 9, 2025 - Jason L. Riley opined  that it would "soon be curtains for the movie theatre." He could be right! As a "pull quote" in the hardcopy edition of the newspaper put it: "older generations can't be bothered to go, and younger people want to stream their films." Right at the end of his essay, Riley expanded on this "pull quote," as follows:

Younger generations raised on smaller screens can’t miss what they never experienced, and they seem mostly to enjoy staring at themselves on their devices, which is a topic for another day. In any case, streaming allows them to consume movies on their terms rather than the theater’s, and Netflix is giving them what they want.

Let me address Riley's "topic for another day" right here - and right now. As he notes, our relationships with truth and reality, are now most typically experienced as we gaze into a "screen" of some kind. That includes how we relate to the movies we watch, but the same phenomenon is evident in education, in business, in social interchanges, and in politics. A preference for human interactions mediated by our "screens," and by "online" exchanges instead of "real life" exchanges, has diverted a lot of real life political action into online engagement - when it hasn't switched it off, entirely.

I don't think this kind of approach to politics will "compute," to pick a verb. Effective political action requires real people gathering in small groups, meeting frequently and jointly working to achieve specific governmental actions - making our so-called "elected representatives" actually represent the people they are charged with representing. 

I recently had occasion to respond to a Santa Cruz County resident who is upset with a proposed development proposal in an unincorporated part of the County, and who had written me for encouragement, asking if she and her neighbors were, now, basically, "powerless." As I read Riley's observations about the movies, and thought about some of the political implications of the migration of so much of our lives, including our politics, "online," my advice to this county resident came to mind: 

I don’t really know anything about this proposed development. It’s in “the County,” not the City, so the land use policies of the County will apply, and the Supervisor who represents this District is, by reputation, pretty pro-development. State law is also very supportive of higher density housing developments, so I am sure this is an uphill battle. However, “powerless” is not the right word. 
The key thing, I believe, is to have an organized group in opposition. Such a group would need to meet, in person, on a frequent (probably weekly) basis, and learn everything that can be known about the project, and then build broad opposition to the project as now proposed, and then make the County Supervisor who represents this area know how much opposition there is, so the Supervisor starts working to respond to local constituents. 
Bottom line, local residents are not “powerless,” but they need to get organized to consolidate and maximize their power - they need to spend a lot of time (and probably some money) to impact governmental decisions, in an environment in which lots of residents are really “detached,” and in which the state government is now affirmatively helping development interests defeat local residents who [oftentimes quite properly] are opposed to a development proposal that might have very negative environmental and other impacts.

The need for "in-person" engagement is necessary for effective political action at all levels - local, state, and national. To be politically effective, in other words, we need to do it in "real life," not "online," and we need to reallocate our time so that "politics" and "political organizing" gets some increased and appreciable share of the time not already absolutely committed somewhere else.

Less "entertainment," and more "engagement." Whatever the future for the movie theater, that's the prescription that will keep our politics healthy.

Sunday, February 1, 2026

#32 / Our "God-Given" Right?

 

I learned, from the January 26, 2026, edition of The New York Times, that Republican members of Congress were "split in response to the shooting" of Alex Jeffrey Pretti, who was killed by a federal agent in Minneapolis on January 24th. 

I assume that those reading this blog posting will have heard of this killing, and will, probably, have already formed an impression about whether or not it was justified. The circumstances were a bit different from those present when a federal agent killed Renee Good, but in both cases, citizens who believed that they were exercising their rights, as American citizens, were killed by federal immigration agents. I have already commented, in an earlier blog posting, about the killing of Renee Good

Cited in the January 26th article was Representative Thomas Massie, a Republican from Kentucky. Here is what Massie apparently said, in criticizing what the federal agents dealing with Pretti did: 

Carrying a firearm is not a death sentence, it’s a Constitutionally protected God-given right, and if you don’t understand this you have no business in law enforcement or government.

I am not willing to go quite as far as Representative Massie. There is no doubt that American citizens have a Constitutional right to carry a firearm. The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution secures our right to do that - and it's clear. The Second Amendment provides that we have an explicit, Constitutional right "to keep and bear Arms."

Our Seconed Amendment rights, however, are not "God-given." The right to "keep and bear arms" was established by a political choice made at the time that the Bill of Rights was added to our Constitution. God was not directly involved. That right to "keep and bear arms" has been established by human (not divine) action. 

We could change that, you know! 

Let's not forget that fact!

 
Image Credit:
https://gundigest.com/handguns/best-9mm-pistol

Saturday, January 31, 2026

#31 / A Peace Action Questionnaire

  


I am a contributor to Peace Action, a nonprofit group based in Silver Spring, Maryland. Click the link if you'd like to become a contributor, too.

Peace Action describes its work as follows: 

Peace Action is the nation’s largest grassroots peace network with chapters and affiliates in states across the country. We organize our network to place pressure on Congress and the administration through write-in campaigns, internet actions, grassroots lobbying and direct action. Through a close relationship with progressive members of Congress, we play a key role in devising strategies to move forward peace legislation. As a leading member of various coalitions, we lend our expertise and large network to achieving common goals. 
For over 60 years, Peace Action has worked for an environment where all are free from violence and war. We understand that long-standing global conflicts require long-term solutions and that US foreign policy has a lasting effect on the world. We are working to promote a new U.S. foreign policy that is based on peaceful support for human rights and democracy, eliminating the threat of weapons of mass destruction, and cooperation with the world community. We organize against pre-emptive wars, and advocate for the withdrawal of American troops and contractors from the endless wars across the Middle East. 
There are still nearly 15,000 nuclear weapons in the world today. The U.S. and Russia have thousands of nuclear weapons on hair trigger alert ready to launch in minutes. While the Cold War may have ended, the nuclear threat has not. The only way to ensure that nuclear weapons will never again be used – whether purposefully, or accidentally – is global abolition.

Recently, as a past contributor, I received a questionnaire from Peace Action, a "2026 Campaign Priorities Survey." I was asked for my personal views about what Peace Action should be focusing on during this year just now beginning this January. Peace Action asked some specific questions, and then also for any general "feedback I might have about the orgnization's programs and strategies." Peace Action provided me with a half-page space to write down my thoughts. Here's what I wrote: 

We need, as a nation, to inspire young people, particularly, to see their personal lives not from the perspective of how can I get ahead/survive individually, but from the perspective of what we can each do, individually, to help bring about, together, the huge economic, social, and political changes that will allow us - and the whole world - to survive. In other words, we need to find an effective means to encourage and allow concerned people (and especially young people) to reallocate their time, moving away from individual career and entertainment activities as the most important priority to activities that will promote environmental protection, economic and social justice, and genuine peace, on a worldwide basis.

Time reallocation. That's what I am advocating as a major need. And I think that is true for all of us. For we "old folks," too - as well as for young people. During the 1960's, people redirected their energies from inidividual efforts to "get ahead" to engage in joint and collective efforts to stop the war then proceding in Vietnam, and to end the centuries-old regime of racial injustice that has afflicted our nation from its beginnings. We changed the world - and for the better - though backsliding has definitely occurred.

Today, global warming and the increasing threat of nuclear war loom over every one of our lives. And while some progress has been made on racial, economic, and social justice, I do believe much more work is needed. 

My "old folks" view is that "time is short." 

Time reallocation - for all of us. That can help us meet this moment! For those who follow my blog postings on a more or less regular basis, you will see that I am reiterating, as this first month of the year comes to an end, what I said as this month began!

 
Image Credit:
https://www.peaceaction.org/who-we-are/

Friday, January 30, 2026

#30 / Could, Should, Might, Don't!

 


I heard about the book pictured above from a review in the "Bookshelf" column in The Wall Street JournalAndrew Stark's review was headlined, "A Profession Of Prediction." Stark says that the book he reviewed, Could Should Might Don't, by Nick Foster, is an examination of "how we think about the future." 

Let me weigh in with a personal observation, which is directed at a slightly different, though clearly related, question. "How should we think about the future?"

My comment here replays comments I have made before, in earlier blog postings. I continue to be concerned that we not see ourselves mainly as "observers" of reality, but as the "creators" of reality. That is even more important when the "reality" we are thinking about, and discussing, is a "future" reality. 

"Observation," telling us "what is," makes the most sense when we are talking about current conditions. When we think about the future, though, I suggest that we need to think in terms of "possibility," not "observation." Thus, any discussion of what the future "could" be, or what the future "should" be, needs to include a focus on our own ability, by our personal action, to "make it so," to use the language notably employed by Jean-Luc Picard, in Star Trek.

Based on the review, it looks to me like Nick Foster's book is mainly focused on how we might best "predict" the future, and that, of course, is important. It's important to plot the trajectory of events and to know what "might" happen in the future. It's also important to consider those "don't do" actions and activities, too, as we contemplate what sort of a future we might have to confront. Here, for instance, is one of my favorite "don't do" actions: Don't ever use nuclear weapons again, ever! Click right here to see what I said about that topic last Wednesday.

When we "think about the future," though, what is most important is to think about what we want the future to be, and then about what actions we need to take to create that future. 

Our "real" future - the future "reality" that we will confront (starting with tomorrow, and moving forward from there) is not properly understood by looking ahead at what "might" happen (including all the bad things that "might" happen if we undertake some of those "don't do" proscriptions). 

What is the best way to "think about the future?" 

What "could" we do? What "should" we do? Those are the questions we need to focus upon, as we think about the future, and what we really need to do is to start is by thinking first about what we "want" to do. 

Then, we all need to turn into Star Trek fans, and follow this famous admonition: 


 
Image Credit:
https://us.macmillan.com/books/9780374619350/couldshouldmightdont/

Thursday, January 29, 2026

#29 / With More Tragedy And Stupidity

 

 
The image above depicts Holman W. Jenkins, Jr., a member of the editorial board of The Wall Street Journal. Below, I am providing you with a copy of his column dated January 28, 2026, so you can read it in its entirety. I think it's worth reading. 

The column is particularly worth reading if you know something about the editorial positions that have typically been taken by The Wall Street Journal. The Journal is (or has been, perhaps) extremely supportive of our current president - at least, that's the way I read it. The column below, though, is different. It claims, for instance, that "Fight, fight, fight isn't a presidential coalition built to achieve anything." The title of the column implicitly calls our current president "mean," and the column states that our current president is repeating a [failed] pattern with respect to his "deportation binge," but that he has done so "with more tragedy and stupidity." 

Now, do you think that there is any chance that Republican Members of Congress might start doing a little "truth telling" of their own? 

We can only hope that they'll start doing that - and/or we can replace them this coming November. Let's not forget that option!

oooOOOooo

Trump’s Regression to the Mean

By Holman W. Jenkins, Jr., January. 27, 2026

Only with more tragedy and stupidity, Donald Trump repeats a pattern. Like every other president’s deportation binge, his is ending in a backlash while producing no meaningful effect on the large U.S. illegal immigrant population.

Take the headline on this column as a double entendre but today’s subject is the conventional meaning of regression to the mean, the statistical phenomenon whereby extreme outcomes are followed by more typical or average outcomes.

To give the most obvious indicator, the betting markets have signaled for months that Republicans in the fall are likely to lose the House and perhaps the Senate. 

Lacking in last week’s Davos hysteria was any sense of politics. Mr. Trump’s address was a stump speech for channel flickers at home, on the way to dropping the Greenland threat that he so typically parlayed into global attention.

Guess who else is a politician? Every national leader in the room in Davos, who all have voters back home. Mark Carney could have not bothered getting back on his plane unless he found a suitably viral way to express what Canadian voters were feeling about Mr. Trump in that moment.

And yet NATO will survive. Quite obviously it will become only a more attractive U.S. partner as Europeans shoulder more of the cost and responsibility. 

Say what you will about the Davosites, they are worldly types who understand regression to the mean. The next U.S. president won’t be anything like Mr. Trump, most importantly lacking the license he gave himself to behave the way he does by being Donald Trump in public for 40 years before becoming president.

Nor will the next president’s way be paved by the political gold that Mr. Trump got from the idiocies of Adam Schiff, Rachel Maddow, James Comey and the Bidens Joe and Hunter, who might as well have been on the Trump payroll.

Nor will he or she benefit from the nakedly commercial, ratings-based codependency of Mr. Trump and his cable TV detractors, also a product of his unique career path.

At every opportunity, headline writers define Mr. Trump as an outlier, a norm breaker, an offender against all that is holy. That is, until he opens his mouth at Davos. Then he becomes, alarmingly, synonymous with “the U.S.”

Davosites aren’t fooled. They know Mr. Trump is not a country of 340 million. They may even know a bit of electoral history. Nationalist, Midwestern, isolationist, culturally conservative America gets its hands on one party or the other’s nomination every 60 years or so: William Jennings Bryan, Barry Goldwater, Mr. Trump.

I would add another reversion to the mean. An OECD study finds a measurable increase in the stupidity of U.S. and other Western publics in the social-media age. Politicians speak frankly of a post-literate electorate. A practicing psychotherapist pointed out on these pages that Trump derangement syndrome is actually a bipartisan affliction. You suffer from it when your self-esteem is threatened by somebody saying something positive about Mr. Trump. You’re no less afflicted if you’re a supporter who feels threatened when somebody says something negative about him.

There’s only one way for the pendulum to swing: back toward adulthood, or what our therapist contributor calls proper psychological distance.

How will you know? When one of those serious, lauded Democratic governors, the kind always being cited as a future president, decides it’s safe to give an adult speech about Ukraine. Or when there is a sudden abatement in the panting ambition of Sen. Chris Murphy of Connecticut to be this cycle’s Adam Schiff.

As for Mr. Trump, he has three years to change the story line, but the provisional epitaph has been written. He is failing to expand his coalition. He shrinks it with reckless gestures aimed at keeping his name in the news. He had the AI wind at his back, the post-Covid recovery, a business and investment community united in revulsion at the fake moderation of his predecessor Mr. Biden. Mr. Trump could be building a pro-growth legacy like Ronald Reagan’s, leaving his mark on both parties by reviving Americans’ faith in themselves as a free and enterprising people.

What is Reagan not remembered for? Deportations. He put his effort into legalizing people already here—nearly three million, the largest such legalization in U.S. history. He made a point of promoting and signing a law with increased enforcement powers but barely used them. He deported in eight years fewer people than President Obama did in six months. Reagan understood the purpose of prosecutorial discretion. America had failed so long and so consistently to enforce its own immigration laws or make them sensible. It owed better to those now here than to treat every undocumented grandmother and restaurant worker as the equivalent of a Tren de Aragua gangster.

This even Mr. Trump has repeatedly given an impression of understanding.


Wednesday, January 28, 2026

#28 / Thinking About The Unthinkable (Update)

  

That is Herman Kahn, pictured. Kahn was an American physicist and a founding member of the Hudson Institute. He is regarded as one of the preeminent futurists of the latter part of the twentieth century. Kahn originally came to prominence as a military strategist and systems theorist while employed at the RAND Corporation. He analyzed the likely consequences of nuclear war and recommended ways to improve survivability, positing the idea of a "winnable" nuclear exchange. I am citing to Wikipedia in describing Kahn's background and bonafides.

What I remember best about Kahn is his book, Thinking About The Unthinkable, which was published in 1962, and which I think I read during my freshman year in college. I never bought into his idea that we could wage and win a nuclear war, and for most of my lifetime, nobody has really taken that idea very seriously, or has suggested that we should think about putting Kahn's theory to a real-world test. 

Our current president, though, is now proposing that the United States should start a whole new round of nuclear weapons tests, sending a different signal to the world. The way I read that message, our current president is suggesting that we should be looking backwards, to the days of an all-out nuclear arms race, and he wants us to get going right back in that direction! Our current president, in other words, is once again suggesting that we should be "thinking about the unthinkable." I am still not sold. 

Also not sold on this idea, I note, is Sojourners magazine. A recent article by David Cortright and William D. Hartung is suggesting how we should be reacting to what they identify as a resurging nuclear threat. Click the following link to read their article, "People Of Faith Helped Stop Nukes Once; Let's Do It Again."

Really, I am absolutely certain in my own mind that we have a lot better things to think about than how to "Make America Great Again" by ramping up efforts to prepare to fight and win a nuclear war.

If you have a contrary view, maybe the link you need is the one to that book by Herman Kahn!

 
Image Credit:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/notable-quotable-herman-kahns-deterrence-1479679722

Tuesday, January 27, 2026

#27 / A Dependence On The People

  


My title is quoting James Madison, one of our Founding Fathers and the fourth president of the United States of America. Madison was popularly acclaimed as the "Father of the Constitution" because of his pivotal role in drafting and promoting the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Here is what Madison said in The Federalist No. 51:

A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.
I came across this quotation not from my own reading of The Federalist. Rather, I have copied it out from a newspaper column by David French. French's column appeared in the January 21, 2026, edition of The New York Times, and here is the title of that column: "An Old Theory Helps Explain What Happened to Renee Good." 

If you click on the link, you should be able to read the entire column - and I encourage you to do that! Renee Good, as I assume those reading this blog posting will know, was killed on January 7, 2026, in Minneapolis, Minnesota, by a United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agent named Jonathan Ross.

A main point of French's column (perhaps the main point) is that there is not, really, any effective remedy when an agent of the federal government (like Ross) violates your rights, and damages you. This effective immunity, says French, extends even to instances in which you are unjustifiably killed by a federal agent. 

While there can, undoubtedly, be a debate about whether Ross's decision to kill Good was "justified" (I, personally, don't think it was, and it seems that French doesn't think it was justified, either), French's point is that this question is really irrelevant. If federal agents are immune from prosecution or penalty when they kill people, as they act in their official capacity, it actually doesn't matter whether or not there was any "justification" for what the agent did. 

Are you a federal agent, acting in that capacity? Well, if you are, it appears that you can feel free to kill people as you go about your duties. That is really the existing situation, as outlined by French. 

Because this is so antithetical to everything we believe in - and specifically to our belief that no person should be above the law - French's column explores the topic. That is where his citation to The Federalist comes in. Madison, the "Father of the Constitution," was clearly worried about this topic, and about the possibility that government officials might abuse their power. If they do, says Madison, it is "the people" who have the ultimate responsibility to make sure that justice prevails. Of course, as Madison properly notes, "auxilliary precautions" should also be in place. 

Reading French's discussion, it becomes clear that our current president, and his administration, have helped strip away any kind of legally-enforceable restraints on the power of government agents, giving rise to a situation in which they are, effectively, able to do whatever they want, including murdering people they decide they don't like. If they do that they will be, in all practical senses, "immune" from any consequences. 

However "wrong," and unjustified, and outrageous Renee Good's conduct  may have been (as some claim it was), an extremely strong argument says that shooting Renee Good in the face, three times, was totally unjustified, even if she was, in fact, "impeding" ICE's legitimate work (which I really don't think was true). But whatever Good's conduct, that doesn't matter. The federal agent who killed her will bear no penalty.

This is what French reports. There are no effective limits that can be used to penalize an ICE agent for the agent's conduct, even if that conduct is ultimately found to have been completely unjustified. 

Well, if that is the actual legal situation (and French makes a very strong case that this is, in fact, the case), then where does that leave us? If French is right, and any "auxilliary precautions" that used to exist no longer do exist, and have been stripped away, then what we have left is "the people." 

This is where we all have to ask ourselves (because you and I are, in fact, "we, the people") what can we actually do? 

Well, we will have to do something different from what we're doing now, right? Do we care enought to do that - to "reallocate" our time? Once you start thinking about it, it is clear that this is what is absolutely necessary. Are we willing to continue to be "the led," even if that ends up meaning that federal agents can murder people that they get irritated with, with no effective penalty?

If "you," as an individual, or if "we," getting together to act collectively, want to change our current situation, then we will need to organize to take back the political power that we have ceded to an authoritarian president and a heedless Congress, and to state and local officials who aren't, lots of times, fighting back in any strong and spirited way against the totalitarian and authoritarian claims made by the federal government.

There isn't any other way. As I said in an earlier blog posting, it's pretty clear to me that we, as a nation, have made a "mistake." If we don't like where that has put us, it's going to be up to us to rearrange our lives, and to organize to return effective power to "the people," to whom it rightfully belongs. If we reacquire actual control over our government, we can then set up rules that do make sense. 

A legal situation that permits any federal agent to murder anyone that the agent gets crosswise with, with no consequences for the federal agent, is absolutely "ripe for review."

At least, that's what I think!


Image Credit:
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/18/opinion/renee-good-ice-immunity.html

Monday, January 26, 2026

#26 / What Is The Truth, Exactly?

 

That image, above, came from a column in the October 21, 2025, edition of The New York Times. In both the hard copy and online editions, the column, by Bobbie Johnson, was titled, "What Is Sora Slop For, Exactly?

Anyone who read my earlier blog posting ("Who Needs The "Real World"?) will probably remember that Sora is an online AI program that allows users to place themselves into created videos that seem to depict "realities" that aren't, in fact, "realities" at all. Johnson indicates that such fake "realities" are "slop." Here is his statement about Sora: 

At a time when we are surrounded by fakes and fabrications, Sora seems precisely designed to further erode the idea of objective truth. It is a jackhammer that demolishes the barrier between the real and the unreal. No new product has ever left me feeling so pessimistic (emphasis added).

I have written a lot of blog postings about "truth," including a very brief reference to the question posed by  Pontius Pilate, just before he turned Jesus over to a mob to be crucified. "What Is Truth?" was the question posed.  I think, though I do not guarantee it, that clicking on this link will give you a listing of a number of my past blog postings on the topic of "truth." 

I have a good bit of skepticism about claims, by anyone, that they know "the truth." On the other hand, the implication of what Pilate said is that there may not, in fact, be any "truth" at all. Sora, the way Johnson sees it, will lend credence to such a worldview. 

On the one hand, we determine, in many ways, what our "reality" will be - what will constitute "truth" in the world that we create. In the social, political, economic, and even physical world that we collectively construct, "truth" is subject to change - though not by simple assertion, to be sure. On the other hand, there is such a thing as "objective truth." For instance, I am, objectively speaking, about 5'4" or 5'5" in height, not six feet plus. I am "short," in other words. Perhaps I would have been happier, I sometimes think, to have been six feet plus. I gather that Sora could demonstrate that I actually am, perhaps as I am depicted in a video that I have created, using the program to show me racking up multiple points in a pickup basketball game against Victor Wembanyama, who is reliably thought to be 7'5" in height.

I continue to believe that my "Two Worlds Hypothesis" points to an important insight about "reality," and thus about "truth." In the world that we human beings create, through our collective activities, we can determine what the "truth" will be. "Possibility" is the category that rules the human world - what I call the "political world." In "our" world, we can create "the truth." This provides us, obviously, with an incredible opportunity for us to create the kind of world that most of us might agree we want. 

In the "World of Nature," on the other hand, or in "The World That God Created," as I sometimes call it, "reality" and "the truth" precedes us, and that reality, and that "truth" is not something that we can reconfigure or ignore. Our so-called "Climate Crisis" is a demonstration that there are "realities" that will determine our fate, as we interact with the Natural World. If we ignore the fact that human activities are heating the earth, and that this human-caused global warming will lead, inevitably, to consequences to which we will have either to adapt, or perish, then we will (collectively) be opting to perish.

As for Pontius Pilate, his question actually asks whether or not we should give credit to claims (like the claims made by Jesus) that all of what we do, ultimately, is in the hands of a God who loves us, and that we live, ultimately in a world that God created. 

We have a choice about how we handle our response to that basic question posed by Pilate - "What is Truth?" However, if we ignore "Truth" as the presiding reality in both "our world" and the "World of Nature," we are consuming cans of "slop," not substance. Thanks to Bobbie Johnson for pointing this out. 

He is not the only one doing so, of course!

 
Image Credit:
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/10/19/opinion/ai-sora-slop.html

Sunday, January 25, 2026

#25 / Great 2025 Essays

   


David Brooks (who is not the guy pictured above) writes columns for The New York Times. Brooks' column that was published in the Sunday edition of The Times, on December 28, 2025, was titled, "Let's Celebrate These Great 2025 Essays." Actually, that is the "hardcopy" version of the title. Online, which is where you'll find the column if you click the link I provided, the title is less "professorial" and more "political." Online, Brooks' column is titled this way: "Sick of Trump News? I’m Here for You."

Well, I am definitely "sick of Trump News," and I am happy to report that the Brooks' column does have a number of good suggestions for some other things to read about and ponder. Among those other things, Brooks is suggesting that we all read an essay by Christian WimanThe Tune of Things.” It is Wiman, not Brooks, who is the person pictured at the top of this blog posting. I knew nothing about Wiman until I read what Brooks had to say:

The Yale poet Christian Wiman is one of my favorite essayists. His essay “The Tune of Things” in Harper’s Magazine walks us through some spooky phenomena. “Trees can anticipate, cooperate and remember, in the ordinary sense of those terms,” he writes. He continues: “Some people revived from apparent death report confirmable details they could not possibly have observed, at times far from their bodies. Cut a flatworm’s head off and it will not only regrow a new one but remember things only the lopped-off head had learned.” 
Across the essay he mentions some more: Ninety-five percent of the past century’s Nobel Prize-winning physicists believed in God. If no one is watching, a photon behaves as a wave, but if someone is watching, it behaves as a particle. When scientists in the Canary Islands shot one entangled photon, it behaved as a wave. Then they went to a different island and shot another entangled photon, and it behaved as a particle. When they returned to check on the first photon, they found it had gone back in time and acted as a particle. 
Wiman is saying the world is a lot more mystical and more fluid than we think. When you acknowledge that fluidity, some of our inherited dualisms don’t make sense — between reason and imagination, mind and body, belief and unbelief, consciousness and unconsciousness, even past and future. The kind of thinking you need to understand the ineffable flow of spooky reality is not contained in the linear, logical, machinelike process we call rationalism. Perhaps the kind of thinking we need to understand a fluid world is radically different, a kind of thinking that artificial intelligence will never master.

Well, I am not advocating artificial intelligence, period, and I am quite prepared to contemplate a reality that is "spooky" in the extreme, though the use of the word "spooky" doesn't fully do justice to the immense beauty and grandeur of what I guess 95% of the past century's Nobel Prize-winning physicists would be happy to call "God's Creation."