Not if - When.

 My thesis is that we need to discuss substantive subjects publicly and fully, but there is no forum that is open to do that today in this country.  All forms of public communication have been captured by partisans that rigorously control content and "curate" truth - right down to the community level.  If we were really concerned about the future of democracy we would not put up with this situation, let alone contribute to it.  You and I, not Trump or Biden, are the ones destroying democracy and it is way too bad.  We are indeed too stupid, too greedy, too cowardly, too self-absorbed, to live in a democracy, and we are hell bent on destroying it.  The only question I have is at what point, which foreign entity will decide to pull the trigger on a nuclear exchange.  Not if.  When.  

I repeat, it is not Putin or Xi, or Trump or Biden.  It is you and me.

I do not want Kamala Harris to be president because...

 I do not want Kamala Harris to be president because I believe her to be an inadequate leader advocating unrealistic policies that unnecessarily divide Americans.  Having said that, I respect her as playing the current tactical, political scene extremely well.  The "Brat" bit is a clever way to gain the support of younger American voters and characterizing Vance as a "weird" choice on Trump's part is as well.  Vance's "childless, cat lady" rejoinder, on the other hand, unnecessarily alienates far too many voters.  

I am not crazy about Trump either, even though I will vote for him as being the marginally better choice.  My principal concern with "The Donald" is his inadequate concern with the challenges facing people living outside of this country.  I actually agree with the bulk of his policies as regards internal American issues even as I criticize his gratuitous, ridiculous, political vitriol and find much of his persona to be distasteful.

As I have tried to explain in previous writing, my principal criticism is directed not at the politicians that we put up to lead us, but rather you and me for not living up to our responsibilities to each other.  I see both Trump and Harris as being your and my joint failure, not the mistake of "the other."  My argument gets absolutely no traction because you and I adamantly refuse to accept the responsibility that we currently shun.  My current appreciation of the situation is that you and I are going to continue to trash each other and this once near-great country and sooner or later, needlessly and stupidly, engage in a nuclear exchange with one or more of our foreign competitors.  Should we elect Harris, it will happen sooner rather than later, but Trump's "victory" will merely postpone our demise.  Given the control of too much of our social infrastructure by wishful thinking, I am pessimistic about the future.

America will not be saved by destroying the administrative state nor by inviting everybody to come live with us.  The only way we can do it is for you and me to start talking to each other about real problems civilly and realistically.  That can't be done with clever memes.  It takes extended, intelligent, patient, face-to-face discussion.  My pessimism stems from the fact that we are demonstrably failing to do that.

The first war that I paid any real attention to was the Second World War.

 The first war that I paid any real attention to was the Second World War.  I was still a child, but I grasped the magnitude of what was happening, even if I did not really comprehend it.  The first war that I got involved in personally was Korea.  I gave up a college deferment and joined the army out of old fashioned patriotism.  I came out of that war convinced that I was going to dedicate my life to making peace in the world.  I ended up spending thirty years engaged in a wide variety of war and near-war all over the world.  In the process, I have thought about war more than my average American neighbor.  It does not automatically make me smarter than my neighbor, but it does give me a viewpoint that is significantly different than the average American voter alive today.

A very, very important part of my backstory is my very minor role in the successful effort to defeat the Soviet Union.  Although I can readily point to a huge number of tactical failures along the way, I also note our ultimate success in the strategic destruction of the Soviet Union - without triggering World War III.  My thesis is that unlike the America that won the peace following WWII and brought Germany, Italy and Japan back into the family of nations, the America that defeated the Soviets permitted a two bit hoodlum to reconstitute a wannabe soviet state in the Federated Russian Republic.  Instead of working to incorporate Russia into the family of nations we stupidly permitted it to reestablish itself as a rogue nation.

In addition to the threat posed by Vladimir Putin, we have also seen a resurgence of instability in the Middle East, the Far East, Africa and the Americas.  Inevitably, these tensions interact in ways that multiply the dangers inherent in each.  An important common denominator in each is our ineffectiveness in dealing with the particulars inherent in that particular conflict.  Failure in quelling violence in one place literally encourages more violence in other places.  I find it fascinating that the exact same principal applicable to international violence is applicable to domestic violence as well.

All of this leads me to conclude that America should step up to the challenge and actually lead the world to a better future as being the only way that we will be able to ensure our own future.  I suggest that you and I are not now thinking in these terms.  The only thing that unites us, left and right, is our disinterest in other people's problems.  We are convinced that  our internal arguments are the preeminent threat facing us.  The sign on the bathroom door, the age of the fetus, the price of gasoline, our precious feelings.  What passes as an internal discussion of important matters is nothing more than a urinary exercise by mindless children.  

Ultra conservatives are just as wrong as are ultra liberals, but the thing that is destroying us is our inability to talk to each other about the real world in real terms.  The principal reason that we do not do that, is that we have lost touch with the real world.  We exist in self-imposed fantasies made possible by the very wealth and power that we endanger with our stupidity.

The Donald faces The Brat.

Barack Obama is now reluctantly endorsing Kamala, and the left leaning elements of the press are firmly engaged in supporting her.  They still have to manage the convention, but I assume that, contentious or not, they will confirm her nomination as the Democratic candidate for president.  I assume that she will select one or another governor to be her Vice President.  The left leaning press is excited about her candidacy and the right leaning press is dismissive of it.  The polls indicate that the electorate is sufficiently split that she has an excellent chance of being elected.  (The emerging "brat" strategy is politically brilliant and is obviously attractive to a significant percentage of younger voters.)

As I watch all of this unfold, I am struck by the shallowness of the American voting public.  The two leading candidates are massively flawed to be sure, but the idea that we, you and I, are putting inadequate thinkers forward to lead us is my principal concern.  Trump's MAGA philosophy is just as inadequate as is Harris's naive brand of socialist wishful thinking.  Given the state of the world today, Trump is the lesser immediate danger, but the principal problem is that Harris's obvious limitations are blighting the need to embrace more concern for our fellow human.  If we are to prolong the human experiment, we need to have much more concern for people - inside our non-existent borders and outside - even if they do not see the world the same way that we do.  That is not a moral judgement.  It is the only practical alternative to nuclear obliteration.

I do not underestimate the difficulty in doing what needs to be done and fully understand that it may be beyond our abilities, but that does not change the situation and pretending that it does is foolhardy. 

Joining in other people's ignorance is obviously much easier.

 I see the current demonstrations in this country against Israel to be acceptable in principal, but disgusting in the form that they are taking.  I do not see Americans demonstrating against a government policy, I see foreigners and mindless American sympathizers vandalizing property and endangering American lives.  Were I in a position of authority, I would take much stronger action against any and all property damage, while simultaneously engaging in discussion of the issues stimulating the unrest.  Foreign students that are engaged in illegal activity would be expelled from their schools and from the country.

The issues underlying the struggle between Hamas and Israel are very real and far more complex than the vast majority of Americans understand and they have been intensified by millennia of killing.  Resolution of those issues will require superhuman efforts that may not be attainable, but very clearly will not take place through more killing.  It is right that Americans show an interest in the plight of people living outside of our imaginary borders, but it is not intelligent for Americans to resort to violence against one another because none of us have a viable solution to the underlying problems facing any group of foreigners.

It would be much better if we focused much harder on resolving our own differences.  A united America would be in a position to provide one heck of a lot more help to all peoples living on this increasingly overcrowded chunk of rock spinning in space, but then joining in other people's ignorance is obviously much easier.

It was bad enough when the choice was between Trump and Biden.

 It was bad enough when the choice was between Trump and Biden.  I thought that we had reached the nadir of our political life, but alas, I was wrong.  Half of us are now in the hilarious, embarrassing, ridiculous process of championing a person that was yesterday, repeat yesterday, a near universal laughing stock because half of us fear, hate, loath the orange-haired alternative.  I am disturbed by the choice that is emerging, but even more disturbed by the absence of a moral rudder in American society today.  We are fixated on the age of the fetus, our political allegiances, the price of gasoline and our precious feelings when outright war is ravaging humanity in far too many places in this shrinking world.  

War is a bad thing.  It is not a movie.  It wastes resources, kills and maims innocent people, destroys the infrastructure of civilization, and makes cooperation between people impossible.  Cowards attempt to avoid it with appeasement.  Blowhards relish it as a way to dominate others.  Virtually no one, today, attempts to find middle ground that all can accept and even fewer are willing to spend the resources necessary to ensure the military dominance that is the only proven way to eliminate war as an acceptable alternative to cooperation.  Right now, we are in the process of criticizing the Israelis for their persecution of the war against Hamas.  We claim it is killing too many civilians.  I note here, that, not all that long ago, we aggresively fire bombed German and Japanese cities in an admitted effort to encourage the citizenry to accept surrender.

Why?  Americans are good people.  A lot of them have read a lot of books.  Why are we such a stupid people?  I continue to believe that it is because we have constructed an imaginary world that, amazingly, we actually think that we live in.  If I am correct, the prospect is for us to continue to implode as the world deteriorates around us.  As specific disasters take center stage, we will attempt to ineffectually deal with them until one or the other "new" disaster emerges as being more immediate.  It can be argued that the world has always been such, but I suggest that there is an extremely important difference - nuclear weapons.  How do imperfect governments, once engaged in a shooting war, disengage before the use of nuclear weapons, and once those weapons are used, how does the other government avoid using them in retaliation?

Lest you think that nuclear weapons are too horrible to be used, please remember that the only country in human history to actually do so was us.  A people that thinks that Biden, Trump, Harris is acceptable national leadership is perfectly capable of believing that our nuclear weapon is better than "their" nuclear weapon.  

Wake up folks!  Please.

 President Biden has dropped out of the race.  What is going to happen now?  I have not got the faintest idea, but here is what I think some of the most powerful people in the Democratic Party are trying to do.

Put Kamala up for failure as a candidate sooner rather than later and replace her with someone who has a better chance of beating The Donald, the challenge being to make the switch in time to organize a real electoral effort.  The question being "WHO?"  

My guess continues to be Michele Obama, with the understanding being that Barack would be just off stage right.

I'm not claiming that I have any specific information suggesting this.  It is based entirely on guesswork and there is absolutely no reason to believe that it would be easy to do, even if my hunch were to be correct.  I should also add that I would not see the development as being a good one for the country.  I remain a severe critic of the Obama years, not because Obama is a bad man, but rather because his policies are not good for the nation.

Why I stopped writing.

 A friend asked me why I stopped writing.  It is a question that I think about a lot.  I can easily argue that I need the time to address other, more immediate challenges, but, while true, that is clearly a cop out.  The more probable answer is that I have concluded that today's humans are incapable of rational thought, purposely blind to what is happening all around us, and the ultimate reason that the world is needlessly in such a mess.

Humanity 3.0

We are currently asking who was responsible for the breakdown in security that led to the near death of a prominent politician and the very real death of an innocent bystander? It is an appropriate question, but there are other, even more relevant questions, that remain unasked.  My guess is that we will eventually satisfy our curiosity with the chastisement and/or firing of one or another official and some pontification about how we need to cool down the political rhetoric, but we will not come close to addressing the more fundamental issue, because it is too difficult and frightening for most people to even conceive it's nature.

The Trump assassination attempt is far too rich in peripheral facts to encourage a deeper consideration of the conditions that generated it.  An amateur assassin brings his gun, his rangefinder, and a ladder to a building that the police were inside of, climbs to the roof, where he has a line of sight shot at the president, is seen with his weapon by multiple people in the crowd before he opens fire, cops are told about him before he starts shooting, one of them actually confronts him, and on and on...  The specifics are far too rich for anyone to think about the deeper problems that remain with us.

Lest anyone be confused, I am a supporter of all of the men and women involved in providing security to politicians and other prominent people.  They have a difficult and dangerous job.  In this particular case, it would appear that serious errors were made by people at all levels and I expect that the incident has attracted enough attention that punitive measures will be taken.  I am less optimistic that any thought will be directed at resolving the basic problem.

The fundamentals involved in the Trump shooting are exactly the same as those underlying Putin's invasion of Ukraine, the October 7 Hamas attack on Israel, and most if not all of the remaining horrendous stupidities that currently blight lives all over the world.  The only difference is scale.  Too many humans actually think that they can convince/coerce their fellow humans to live according to their set of rules, while simultaneously creating technology, so complex and powerful as to ensure that will never occur.  Back in the day, when weaponry was limited to what an individual could carry to the fight, our "reach" was sufficiently limited that we could pretty much ignore the danger to humanity as a whole.  Today, we have an imperfect, massively overcrowded world full of small minded humans possessing horrible weaponry that will almost certainly eventually destroy humanity as we know it today.  While I am curious as to what humanity 3.0 will look like, I am not at all desirous of experiencing it firsthand.