“Misinformation”

 There is a lot of discussion of “misinformation” in the press these days.  Governments are trying to come up with legislation that would curb it and social media platforms are constantly talking about how they seek to minimize it.  What is misinformation?  The dictionary tells us that misinformation is “false or inaccurate information.”  I contend that too many of us have broadened the working definition to include ideas and theories that we do not like, and the result is massively detrimental to society.  Groups of us shun those that we disagree with about whatever and vote for politicians that are willing to work for the political utopia that our team champions.  Our press has joined the fight and is no longer neutral (if it ever was).  Social media companies cater to specific political groups and throttle dissent from their brand of truth.  Individual citizens reflect these differences in varying ways and to varying degrees, but we are all in the fight for truth as we understand it.  Few of us go out of our way to understand those that disagree with us.

I suspect that this is as it has always been and I ask myself why it seems so different now as compared to when I was a kid.  I believe that technology explains much of the difference.  Back when Neanderthals roamed the earth as the dominant species, communication was limited to very small groups of individual humans.  Truth and falsehood was defined by the strongest members of the group and the complexity of the issues discussed was very basic.  Today, communication is a network of conversations that stretch across continents and oceans.  The exact same principals are applicable, but the groups are infinitely larger and, because of their very size, are more important and powerful.  Here in this country, we have been taught to hold democracy and free speech to be sacrosanct, and we vehemently oppose dictatorship and censorship, so we define ideas that we dislike as misinformation and charge those that hold them with wanting to establish a dictatorship.  In the process, we are, of course, working to establish the very dictatorship that we claim to abhor.  Today’s version of the argument is MAGA versus WOKE and MAGA appears to have just won a battle.  WOKE is licking its wounds and attempting to mount its resistance.  In the tactical back and forth, we argue about misinformation rather than specific problems facing all of us - MAGA and WOKE alike. 

“Advances” in technology spread our message far beyond family groups to people living in technologically “advanced” countries all over the globe.  Western Europe is engaged in many of the exact same disagreements as are plaguing us here in this country, and we are letting our philosophic argument blind us to the intensifying danger that we all face -WOKE and MAGA alike.  I don’t mind using the exact same bathroom as a woman uses.  The bathroom in my own home is gender neutral.  I think that the childish argument about bathrooms is symbolic of the utter stupidity that has seeped into virtually every facet of modern life.  We ignore real problems because they are too big for our small minds and scratch around until we find alleged problems that we can better “understand.”  “Misinformation” is one of the more important tools that we use.  If you think too deeply about what we humans are doing to ourselves, it is embarrassing to be alive at this point in the devolution of the species.

The global climate conference in Baku, Azerbaijan and nuclear war.

 According to NPR, “negotiators at a global climate conference in Baku, Azerbaijan, struck a last-minute deal for wealthy countries to help their poorer neighbors deal with global warming, saving the annual meeting as it verged on collapse.”  I am a strong supporter of wealthy countries helping poorer countries improve their economies, but I believe that this is the absolute wrong way to do it.  Large amounts of money transferred with little to no control over how it will be spent.  This wastes resources, fails to help economies, and discourages everybody with the wherewithal from trying to help their poorer neighbors.  Our own AID program suffered the same fate earlier.  Following WWII, the American people were willing to help poor countries, but we soon became disillusioned by our failures and turned against the fundamental concept of foreign aid.  “None of our business.”  “Too many problems here at home.”  “Foreigners need to help themselves.”  Etc, etc, etc…. The thinking behind the Mega movement is the logical result.

I contend that economic underdevelopment leads directly to war.  The details are always unique, but underlying them is the constant of economic inequality.  In the past, war was an acceptable solution.  One side eventually dominated the other and a new world order emerged.  That restructured the world economy and a fragile peace emerged that lasted for some period of time before being challenged by a new combination of political and economic factors upset the existing order.  We are in that cycle right now with China challenging our domination of the world economy.  Assuming that we continue along the historic path, we will eventually see war between ourselves and one or another other nuclear power.  I can not see the precise trigger for that conflict, but I do see its inevitability unless we figure out how to help all humans live a decent life.  Just giving poor people money clearly does not work internationally, just as it does not work here at home.  It is merely a miserly attempt to salve a guilty conscience, and feel a bit better about ourselves.

I believe that there are a multitude of ways in which a catastrophic nuclear exchange could come about, but I see Beijing as being the most likely antagonist to provoke such because of the economic issue.  Teheran and Moscow are indeed also threats, but they are primarily motivated by different immediate rationale.  Were I influential enough, I would partner with China to help other countries develop economically, instead of trying to compete with them for control of the world economy.  My objective would be to improve the lives of all humans inside and outside of our non-existent borders.  I am not deluded as to Beijing’s intentions and would insist that they approach the problem in the same spirit as are we.  I would offer all out war as being their only other alternative.

I do not expect any national politician to have the gumption necessary to advocate this approach to the problem.  They will explain that it is naive and unworkable and does not have the support of the American people.  That unfortunately ensures that we will continue to focus on the minutia that we can get our feeble heads around and continue to live on the cusp of nuclear obliteration.  I suggest that we actually think that nuclear war is so horrible that it is not a real threat and the most important choice that we have to make, is to either make America Great Again or invite the rest of the world to come live with us here in America.  We do not need to worry about the internecine slaughter that is going on in underdeveloped countries all over the globe.  We can deal with it by pontificating about the rules of war rather than getting our hands dirty improving the lives of seven, going on eight, billion people on a spinning rock of finite dimension and limited resources.

We are stupid.

President Xi laid down four red lines in his conversation with President Biden.

According to Business Insider, President Xi laid down four red lines in his recent conversation with President Biden. The four hot-button issues are Taiwan, democracy and human rights, China's path and system, and the country's rights to development.  I do not claim to understand exactly what any of these lofty pronouncements really mean, but I believe the essence of Beijing’s position is that the United States does not have the right to tell China how to define and organize its own country, nor to thwart it’s development.  In principal, I actually agree with that position, but the problem arises when China’s objectives threaten our own, and I believe that they constitute a major threat, not only to our objectives, but to our very existence.

American leadership is intent on maintaining American dominance of the way in which the world organizes itself.  We don’t like the term dominance and refer to it as world leadership, but many of our foreign friends see it differently, and are increasingly open to Chinese initiatives that appear to offer a better way forward.  Combine this with the ongoing breakdown of American society and you have a formula for World War III.  Too many Chinese and American politicians are too intent on quarreling with one another over issues that should be resolved through negotiations.  The fundamental problem facing us is how to transform that hostility into problem solving solutions that benefit all.  We can’t even do it domestically, so I am not surprised that we have trouble developing a foreign policy that can accomplish it out in the world.

As I have said repeatedly in previous articles, the problem is in us - you and me.  I suggest that we are more interested in maximizing our individual personal advantages than we are in helping our fellow human live a better life.  We scoff at those like myself, that argue that it is in our own narrow interest to look out for our neighbor, and insist that we will only help those that agree with us about everything that we deem “important.”  Were I influential enough, I would reestablish our military dominance and reintroduce our effort to improve the lives of all humans clinging to this increasingly small rock spinning aimlessly in space.  My pessimism derives not from Xi, Putin, or the Ayatollah, it arises because of what I see here in America, where you and I are tearing ourselves apart in a rich person’s argument about the sign on the bathroom door, the price of whatever, and our precious feelings.  You and I do not give a fig for the lives of the millions of people that are living miserable existences outside of our non-existent borders and we refuse to see the relationship of that to the growing foreign threat that exists.

We pretend to be ignorant of the fact that nuclear weapons have fundamentally changed things.

American manufactured long range missiles in Ukraine's war with Russia.

 I have absolutely no information as to why President Biden just authorized Ukraine to use American manufactured long range missiles in its war with Russia, but Ukraine President Zelensky has taken the public position that it will force Moscow to negotiate an end to the fighting.  Biden is making the argument that it is a counter to Moscow’s hiring North Korean mercenaries.  Putin is arguing that it risks precipitating the use of nuclear weapons in the fighting.  All of this in the context of former President Trump’s reelection.  My assumption is that neither Putin nor Zelenskyy see Biden as any longer being relevant to their conflict.  Both men are looking past Biden to Trump with hope and trepidation.  It would not surprise me if Putin suspected that Biden’s decision was aimed at helping Trump, but I am jaundiced enough to discount that possibility.  I can see an equally tempting argument that Biden wanted to go out of office as the tough guy that stood up to Moscow, while Trump is the one advocating for giving Putin what he wants at the expense of Ukrainian sovereignty.

As I have argued ever since before Moscow invaded Ukraine this time around, this conflict is massively harmful to the world order and to this country, and Biden should never have permitted it to happen.  The time to stop it was before it happened in our relations with both Moscow and Kiev.  Putin remembered that Biden had been part of the Administration that permitted him to take Crimea and assumed that Biden would acquiesce to his taking Kiev, but his military failed him when their blitzkrieg literally ran out of gas on the way to Kiev.  Had that not happened, I believe that Biden would have indeed permitted Putin to have all of Ukraine.  Our policy during the subsequent fighting has been equally stupid in that it prolonged the killing, spread the destruction across too much of the country, and adversely impacted far too much of the world economy.  Both Kiev and we have grown tired of the war and are now faced with stopping the killing and cleaning up the mess without either side being able to claim victory.  It is a situation where neither side is going to be content with the decisions made at the negotiating table.  Unlike Biden, Trump can be counted on to sincerely try to end the conflict and, although I believe that he has an excellent chance of success, it is equally certain that nobody is going to be satisfied with the results of the negotiations.

I want to add that these kinds of situations are bad enough, and there are presently far too many of them throughout the world, but we must understand that if any one of them goes wrong, we will be faced with nuclear war and it really does not matter very much who “wins” a war that involves the massive use of nuclear weapons.  You and I have grown numb to the violence that is plaguing far too much of the world and far too many of us assume that we can continue to ignore it unless it bothers us in our own city streets.  That ignorance results in our freely electing inadequate leadership that is attentive to our inane domestic squabbles concerning the proper use of pronouns, the sign on the bathroom door, and the price of whatever, but are grossly inadequate with regard to the issues that stem from too many human beings competing for a fixed supply of resources on an increasingly crowded sphere of fixed dimensions.

President Trump likes tariffs.

President Trump likes tariffs.  I am less enthusiastic than is he, but I see their usefulness as long as they remain a tactic and not a strategy.  China produces a number of goods for much less than it costs to make them in this country.  An argument can be made that placing tariffs on their import hurts the American consumer because it raises the price of the goods that were being imported and are now made locally.  The counter argument is that buying goods from China weakens the American economy and hurts American companies and workers.  This, in turn, spins the domestic economy down, weakening the country further.  Both arguments are valid.  Proponents of tariffs also point out that permitting China to produce things that we need gives them leverage over us should our diplomatic relations sour.  Pharmaceuticals being an excellent case in point.

My own view of the issue goes far beyond the dangers inherent in a trade war.  Fundamental to my world view is the need for all people, everywhere in the world, to have a decent standard of living.  Trade wars are the last thing that we need, if we are to promote a decent standard of living for all people in an effort to avoid conflict.  The theoretical solution touted by economists is for America to innovate and streamline its’ own production so as to compete more effectively.  Maintaining a decent standard of living while competing with an economy that pays its workers far less money is difficult, very difficult, particularly when you also have different environmental standards.  That leads inevitably to consideration of tariffs.  The idea being to raise the price of the imported good sufficiently to permit domestic production to compete.  

Trump, during his first term, did, indeed manage to bring much of our economy back home, in part through the use of tariffs, and he is indicating that he intends to do it again.  While I support this tactic, I fear that it will inevitably morph into a strategy, unless we manage to do the hard work necessary to make our economy more competitive.  Once again, I see the problem not being political as much as it is societal.  I believe that you and I have gotten fat and lazy and used to being the world leader.  We no longer have the drive that made us the country that we once were.  If I am right, and if you and I do not change, I continue to believe that we will eventually end up exchanging nuclear tipped missiles with one or another foreign antagonist.  Where we purchase our aspirin will be far down the list of problems that we have.

In this last election, Trump received a considerable amount of electoral support from labor.  I agree with the political pundits that argue that this indicates that he has the support of working class America.  While that has resulted in a political victory for “conservatives,” the practical definition of “conservative” has changed dramatically.  The modern American conservative favors the protectionism that is the reflection of the economic problem that we face.  Trump understands this fact of life, while Biden/Harris and their liberal colleagues do not.  The domestic political and economic impact is serious enough, but the impact that it will have on our foreign relations is of even greater import, because it inevitably encourages us to continue a foreign policy that does not adequately address the needs of the rest of the world.  I see this as being extremely dangerous, because several of our major foreign antagonists possess nuclear weapons and the delivery mechanisms necessary to not only destroy our infrastructure, but also to poison the land on which we depend for our sustenance.

Trump and Negotiations in Ukraine.

 BBC has an article out today that claims that Ukrainian President Zelensky believes that the war will end “sooner” following Trump’s ascendency to the US presidency.  I believe that is a very real possibility and it is one of the major reasons why I voted for Trump.  It is definitely not a done deal, and the exact nature of the peace settlement has yet to be crafted, but I think that everybody engaged in this stupidity is tired of it, and is looking for some sort of solution.  My guess is that there will be a territorial shift favorable to Moscow, but supportive of Ukrainian sovereignty over the remaining part of present day Ukraine.  Trump will be castigated by his domestic enemies, but respected by his foreign adversaries for his role.  The aspect of the negotiations that interests me most is the effect that they will, or will not, have on the position of Russia in the family of nations going forward.  It is going to be extremely difficult to see through the clouds of ignorance that will color the dialog that emerges, but, while the end of the fighting in Ukraine is important, the future role of Moscow on the international stage is far more important.

We Americans out here in the hustings see the world very simplistically.  We have friends and enemies and we advocate strengthening our friends and weakening our enemies.  That approach to world affairs has been acceptable since humans managed to stand upright on two legs, but it is no longer an intelligent way forward because it inevitably leads to increasingly violent conflict, as humans continue to make technological “advances” in the technology of war.  What we have to get though our thick heads here in this country is that the sign on the bathroom door is not anywhere near as important as an acceptable life for every single person trying to live on this increasingly finite chunk of rock spinning aimlessly in space.  The challenge is made more difficult because too many of us see the parameters of our world fundamentally differently.  Those differences are the danger, unless we find ways to live with them harmoniously.  Trump is far better than Biden, but neither understand the challenge that I am here discussing, and, more importantly, the American people do not.  If I am right, and you and I do not understand what is at stake, how are we going to elect leadership that will guide us intelligently?

President elect Trump's New Cabinet.

 It is way too early to judge the quality of President elect Trump's new cabinet, but it is beginning to look as though he is doing his best to not have to argue with any of his cabinet about policy, or the way in which he functions.  There do not appear to be any independent voices in the group that is emerging.  All of the people he has selected to date are qualified and appear to agree with him about policy, but my suspicion is that a common denominator among them is agreement that Trump alone will do the thinking and enunciate all important policy decisions.  Their task is to implement those decisions, not contribute significantly in developing them.  I expect Trump's involvement in each area of governance to vary depending on his appreciation of its importance at the time a given question comes up.  I should hasten to add that I do not see any of this as being unusual as a new president approaches the presidency.

Trump's first term, combined with his banishment from Washington, has "educated" our next president and lessons learned will color his decisions going forward.  I expect him to try to purge WOKE thinking from all positions of influence within the entire federal government and reverse any and all policies that support it.  I expect this aspect of his presidency to fuel the "Resistance" that his Democrat antagonists are attempting to mount nationwide, but most of the yelling will be about global warming, democracy, and his gross insensitivity.  Specifics will be hard to find in any argument, at any level of society.  

I expect Trump's presidency to improve our economy, make significant gains in securing our cities, and reduce the amount of open warfare that is going on throughout the world.  How much success he has in each area depends on factors that I do not now understand.  I do not expect him to heal the ridiculous rifts that are destroying our unity.  At best, he will merely suppress one side of the inane internal argument.  Should his term be judged successful by the general public, his policies will be continued into a successor administration.  Should they be judged unsuccessful he will be replaced by those that he banished, and we will flip flop once again.  Trump will be blamed and cheered, but the real action is out here in the town square.  Unless you and I start thinking, we are going to be stuck with this ridiculous situation until one or another of us decides to blow the world up.

A Tidal Wave of Words

We are exposed to a tidal wave of words every day of our lives. Sometimes we let the jabber infect our minds and we forget, ignore, dismiss, and prevaricate, when we should hold fast to principal. The enemy is within. It is an amalgam of fear, greed, hubris and wishful thinking and it is a powerful force. We see it clearly in others and fail to see it in ourselves. There are going on eight billion of us living on this increasingly crowded rock spinning aimlessly in an infinity of emptiness, and the only ones that have figured it all out is "us." "They" are the problem.

North Korean troops in Ukraine,

The Hill has an interesting article highlighting the incongruity of Putin using godless North Korean troops in Ukraine, allegedly to preserve Russian cultural and religious values.  Most Americans scoff at the cultural rationalization for Putin’s actions, but I do not.  I am not naive enough to believe that it is the reason for his invasion of Ukraine, but I do believe that it is an important part of his explanation of that action within Russia.  In my view, Putin is attempting to stop the further deterioration of the Soviet model of domestic Russian governance and Russian foreign relations, and he is using Russian culture as a corner stone of his domestic political discussion within Russia.

Were I influential enough, I would be arguing that we should cold-bloodedly accept the cultural argument as being the root of the present war, and force Kiev and Moscow to negotiate an end to the fighting.  My objective would be to permit people living in Ukraine to choose between Kiev and Moscow.  My current understanding is that the Donbas Region of Ukraine is populated by a significant number of people who look toward Moscow more than toward Kiev for their cultural identity.  In return for that concession to Putin, I would hold out for Russian financial participation in the rebuilding of all of Ukraine, recognizing that Moscow, not only does not intend to do that, but even if they did, they would not have the resources to do very much more than repair the part of Ukraine that they gain control of in the peace negotiations.

This war was a serious mistake right from the very beginning and it is not going to magically be made anything else in the negotiations that end it.  I believe that Trump basically understands the unfortunate situation well enough to attempt some sort of resolution along these lines, but I do not see any evidence that he will go beyond ending the war to any of the things that need to be done to avoid future manifestations of the exact same stupidity on the part of Russian and American leaders.  We humans must find a way to live together peacefully, not because it is the right thing to do, but because we will destroy ourselves unless we do.   Were I influential enough, I would be arguing for a negotiation that brought Moscow into the family of nations.  Following that, I would invite Beijing, Pyongyang, and Teheran to join in as well - in that order.  I well understand that the problem grows ever more complex as we move through this hierarchy of intransigence, but we must do it successfully to avoid a massive nuclear exchange down the line somewhere.  Russian and Chinese communism is going to be difficult enough, but the apocalyptic leadership within Radical Islam may well be impossible.  North Korea should become manageable once we move away from the Kim Family's control of that benighted country.

Trump’s election is worrisome to Ukrainian President Zelenskyy and encouraging to Russian President Putin.

Trump’s election is worrisome to Ukrainian President Zelenskyy and encouraging to Russian President Putin.  Their war is draining both countries of resources, destroying infrastructure, killing and wounding far too many of their citizens, and the harm extends well beyond their two countries.  Both men are making statements designed to influence Trump in anticipation of his involvement in their dispute and American media are interpreting the various statements based on their opinion of Trump.  Liberal media is worried that Trump will force Kiev to give up territory and ultra conservative media suggests that it is time to end the financial drain the war is making on American resources, irregardless of Kiev’s political desires.

I have long argued that we should never have permitted the war to start in the first place, but that is, today, irrelevant.  Biden permitted the situation to get out of hand long ago and Trump looks like he is going to try to clean it up.  I believe that the options are stark.  We have two choices.  Permit the war to continue without end and face the probability that it will eventually expand into a conflict that involves us in a nuclear exchange with Russia, or negotiate a settlement that involves conceding some territory to Russia in return for some sort of guarantee that Moscow will leave Ukraine alone in the future.  I understand that Zelensky does not like either option.  If I were a Ukrainian citizen I would agree with him.  I am not a Ukrainian citizen.  I favor a negotiated settlement that transfers some portion of Donbas to Russian political control in return for Moscow guaranteeing that it will leave the rest of Ukraine alone.  Hopefully, Trump can also get some sort of commitment from Russia to help in the rebuilding of Ukraine, but I am not optimistic regarding the prospect of this ever happening.

American public opinion is not going to like this solution, and it will further widen the gulf between liberal and conservative inside this country and internationally.  Trump is going to be blamed by liberals in Europe as well as here in this country for pandering to Putin, but that is an oversimplification of the issues involved here.  Foreign and domestic liberals demand that our foreign antagonists play by the rules, but adamantly refuse to engage in actual hostilities to ensure that they do.  Our negotiating position is seen to be hollow pontification and unworthy of consideration by the likes of Putin, Xi, and the mullahs in Teheran.  Our foreign antagonists see us spending our money on sex change therapy instead of military strength.  If we want the world to behave the way we think that it should, we are going to have to be willing to fight for it.  PS:  the same is true here at home.  If we want our streets to be safe, we are going to have to be willing to police them.

The Resistance.

 I spent a lot of yesterday in my car listening to an excellent local liberal radio station.  I devote my car time to listening to liberal interpretations of world events and trends.  Although I do not agree with much of it, I find it informative regarding liberal thinking about a wide variety of issues.  Yesterday’s commentary stressed the importance of what each of the commentators referred to as “the resistance.”  There was very little substantive content to any of the commentary, but the central message was that all liberal Americans .would, of course, resist the efforts of the president elect.  Each of the various commentators had a slightly different take on the exact nature of the resistance, but several speakers mentioned the possibility that California should seriously consider succeeding from the union.

I am not deluded as to the real significance of the jabber that is currently dominating liberal conversations, but I am seriously depressed by it, in that it reflects the degree of ignorance that plagues the thinking of too many of us.  I should be quick to note that ultra right conservatives that believe that Trump’s election is the solution to all of our problems are indulging in an equally ignorant appraisal of our current situation.  I am hopeful that Trump will improve our economy and immediate security situation, but I have little hope that he will be able to improve our societal cohesion.  Neither Trump nor Biden are the fundamental problem plaguing America.  The fundamentals are rooted in you and me.  Biden and Trump are merely the pawns that we select to carry our flag into the societal mayhem that is destroying our nation.

You and I want a good life, as we envision it, and each of us have different definitions of what that might entail.  We tend to associate with others that share our most important values.  This leads directly to political associations that tend to dominate the formation of national policy - both domestic and foreign.  All of this is as it has long been in this country and we have survived two world wars, but, as I have said many times before, there is an important change that has taken place.  We have invented nuclear weapons.  Nuclear explosions do not just obliterate people and things.  They also adversely change the chemistry of the air that we breath and the ground that we grow our food in.  I argue that we have an interest in not engaging in a nuclear war.  In order to avoid that stupidity we, you and I, have to start talking to each other rather than past each other about all manner of things.  Were we to do that, the leaders that we would select would find far more support and far less resistance.

It might well be that there are just plain too many of us on this finite rock spinning in space, but I see no advantage in reducing our numbers through the use of nuclear weapons.  I argue that we should get our heads together and see if we can not come up with a more intelligent solution to our various problems - to include the proper wording on the bathroom door and the proper price of whatever.

The Long Term Significance of the Trump Victory.

 I am conservative with regard to economic, security, and social matters.  That gets me in trouble with all of my liberal friends.  I am an internationalist with regard to foreign policy.  That gets me in trouble with a very large proportion of my conservative friends.  My view of nirvana would be a wealthy America leading an equally wealthy world.  A world without conflict.  In order to achieve such a world, I would need a strong military and a strong domestic legal system, because far too many human miscreants exist inside and outside of our country.  I would also need a justice system that is equitable and free of manipulation, an education system that is free of political bias, and a population that is capable of thinking.  We do not have any of this at the present time and the world around us has, during my lifetime, gotten far more complex and dangerous than ever before in human history.  

As I see it, our political system rests on top of, and is entwined with, our social system.  Accurately understand our society and you will understand our politics.  As I see it, our society is in constant change and always has been.  Several hundred years ago we were colonists invading a foreign land that was underpopulated with relatively small groups of people possessing less advanced technology and organization.  We invaded and conquered, and then explained what we had done in ways consistent with the maintenance of our domination.  John Wayne was the hero and the redskin was the villain.  Once we had things under control across s continent, some of us began questioning the narrative and we ended up with Indians taking over Alcatraz.  Other Americans questioned the morality of slavery and asked what we should do about it now.  At one point, that crack in our social facade led to open war which ended without resolving the underlying issues.  In the period following Antietam, these issues resurfaced in a wide variety of ways.  Today, some us suggest that we make a financial settlement with the progeny of slaves, as though that would make up for injustices done centuries ago.  

We also argue among ourselves about all manner of other unresolved issues, in most cases because we can, rather than a pressing real need.  Never before in our history has the argumentative nature of humans gone this far.  Today, we are ever more intensely arguing about absolutely everything imaginable, including our sexuality.  Literally from soup to nuts across the board.   In times past, foreign threat brought us back together long enough to cooperate sufficiently to win a war with whomever was threatening us at the moment, but today we have technology that moves us from threat to total destruction in the blink of an eye.  The amount of time that we have to procrastinate has been dramatically reduced and the destructive power of the threat has been massively increased.  Satellite guided ballistic missiles carry multiple, independently targeted nuclear warheads, each of which is capable of erasing entire cities.

So, here we are arguing with each other about physical men that believe themselves women being permitted to compete in sports with physical women who believe that they are women, while simultaneously ignoring the threat that is closing in on us from abroad.  I oversimplify when I credit WOKE thinking as being the most fundamental crack in our social fabric, but I honestly believe that it is the best way to envision the problem that we have.  I see Donald Trump’s re-election as recognition of this fundamental point by half of the country and I fear that he will mismanage the opportunity that he has - not just because he is a mere mortal, but because the opposition is so formidable.  In football, one of the tactics used to evade a tackle is to permit your body to momentarily go slack.  I suggest that the liberal side of our internal debate is in the process of going slack.  The long term significance of Trump’s second shot at the Oval Office is how well he handles the social challenge and whether Vance can carry it forward into the future.  War in wherever is an important immediate problem, as is the price of groceries, but the long term viability of America will be determined by how well we, you and I, handle our relationship with each other.  I am frankly worried that we are not proving to be up to the challenge.

The Election.

Various news organizations have declared Trump to be victorious.  Given recent history, I expect that now we will enter a period dominated by challenges to various State election results, but it would appear that The Donald’s electoral victory may well be solid enough to withstand legal challenge.  I presume that his political opponents will resort to the same kind of contrarian activity that they did during his first term and the public discourse will remain in the gutter.  I sincerely hope that I am wrong here, but I fear that I am not.  I voted for Trump because I feared Harris more, not because I liked the man.  Hopefully, he will restore our ailing economy, strengthen our defense posture, reduce international tensions, and close the border.  All of that is well and good, but I fear that he will be unable to restore unity here at home and I do not expect him to initiate the kind of economic outreach to the rest of the world that is so badly needed.  In order for that to happen you and I will have to change our ways and I see absolutely no evidence that we are smart enough to understand that need.  In my view, we have dodged an immediate political catastrophe by not electing another sham president, and we have a shot at improving our short term economic situation,  reducing international tensions, and slowing the drift away from the societal traditions that made America the greatest nation in the world, but I see no evidence that we, you and I, will wake to the need to improve the standard of living of all peoples, not just those that live inside our non-existent borders.  In a nuclear world, that remains a serious problem.

Generative Artificial Intelligence

 Generative Artificial Intelligence is not really changing photography so much as adding to the ways in which photography is manipulated.  It is the logical extension of a process started long ago when photographers dodged and burned prints in a very dark room.  I presume that the process will continue to evolve and continue to amaze, but I don’t believe that it will ever replace the role of the photographer or the artist. Their fundamental role is to see and then create.  AI can not do that.  It is but one more very powerful tool in the human’s creative tool box.  How it is used is still the purview of the human.  I fully expect most of what is produced through the use of AI to be banal, just as most of our other efforts at expressing ourselves and describing our world are less than exhilarating.  The complexity that it adds to the task of understanding what we see is, however, going to be an interesting challenge.  My guess is that it will take time for us to fully adapt to it and I see the possibility that it might actually be beyond the ability of a significant proportion of us.  The underlying question in my mind is whether humans can ever fully adapt to having invented computers.  I admit to being extremely skeptical, but I also understand that I am too old to be relevant.

Is Musk talking to Putin?

There is a growing suspicion within anti-Trump political circles that Elon Musk is collaborating with Vladimir Putin to undermine democracy here in the United States, and the concern is not just among left-leaning activists.  Some of the loudest voices are within anti-Trump conservative circles.  I am not a legal expert, but, because Musk is not a government official, I see no legal bar to his talking to whomever he wants - inside or outside this country.  Given the ongoing back and forth over Twitter and free speech, I presume that Musk does not see any legal bar to it either.  I leave the legalities to the lawyers, but I side with Musk on the issue of free speech, and I see no reason in the world for him to not talk with Putin, if the two men decide it is in their interest to chat.  I hasten to add that I am not here necessarily agreeing with what either man is saying.  I, of course, have no way of knowing what that might be, or for that matter, whether a conversation is, in fact, even going on.

I see the hoopla that is being stirred up to be an updated version of the anti-Trump rhetoric that led to the earlier Russian collusion charges.  I see absolutely no evidence that Trump or Musk are in Putin’s pocket, nor that they are attempting to subvert democracy here in this country.  In my view, those charges have been thoroughly debunked.  This is not to say that I necessarily agree with what either man is saying to Putin, or anybody else for that matter.  My point here is that we, you and I, should be focused on the substance at issue, rather than the personality of the individuals engaged in the conversation, or the form of that conversation.  Specifically, I don’t give a rat’s posterior how we talk to Putin about Ukraine or anything else, but I do care about what we say in those conversations and I am thoroughly disappointed with what various American and foreign leaders have said to one another recently.  The conversation, in my opinion, is leading us in the absolute wrong direction everywhere in the world and I blame you and me for not insisting that the substance of the conversation be improved.

We continue to insist on being number one, but we fail to understand that position can only be maintained if the rest of humanity sees it to be in their interest to follow our lead.  Good hearted Americans on the left side of our internal conversation believe that we can welcome the rest of the world to come live with us, but we are not strong enough to solve the world’s problems that way, even if the other half of us agreed to it.  Rightly or wrongly, the other half of us believe that we deserve to be number one and the rest of the world will just have to accept it.  That used to be a viable thought, but the proliferation of nuclear weapons puts paid to that line of reasoning.  Now look at what you and I are arguing about and how we will move forward.  We are going to elect our next leader based on how he or she makes us feel.  We care not about any substantive issue, except as it impacts our feelings.

Musk talking to Putin is not the issue.  The issue is that you and I are not only not talking to each other - we are not even thinking.  This is still a democracy, so our foreign policy reflects our stupidity.  We just argue about which side of our inane, internal argument will represent us for the next four years, while too many humans argue with each other about how they will feed themselves.