Iran and the State of the Union

 I wanted to speak about our attack on Iran, but I also had some thoughts about the State of the Union earlier this week so I wanted to start there.

As I watched half of Congress stand and cheer for practically everything Trump said, as I watched their smiling faces, I found myself thinking...

They honestly don't seem to see anything wrong.

Yeah, yeah, okay... that might seem obvious to you. But these days I categorize Trump supporters in one of two ways - cynical manipulators who know they're lying and just don't care, and gullible fools. 

It's like those conservative radio hosts who died of Covid - they honestly believed all that crap and died for it, but there wouldn't have been so much misinformation without at least a few cynical manipulators deliberately spreading lies.

And I generally considered the most powerful politicians to be those cynical manipulators. They must know they're spouting bullshit, and I figured they just didn't care.

Watching them at the State of the Union made me reconsider that. 

Maybe they genuinely believe everything they're saying. That's actually scary in a completely different way, since it shows they're making decisions without any grounding in reality, but let's leave such complaints for another time.

What I most wanted to talk about was that moment when Trump tried to shame the half of Congress that wasn't constantly standing and cheering.

The Democratic side was sitting throughout most of his speech, and you could tell that it bothered him. Finally, at one point, he said this:

If you agree with this statement, then stand up and show your support: The first duty of the American government is to protect American citizens, not illegal aliens. 

 Obviously, this is the kind of statement that you would expect everyone to agree with. Except that it also is a clearly manipulative statement. Why did he have to tack on 'not illegal aliens' at the end? It's like all those memes that start off sounding great, and then add something manipulative at the end, like "only a few will respond" or "if you don't share this you hate puppies."

Like, let me make a more blatantly obvious equivalent - "Stand up and show your support if you love puppies, not murderous criminals." 

Miss me with that manipulative bullshit, I won't share anything that tacks that crap on even if I agree with most of it. 

I suspect the Democrats in Congress felt the same, since they refused to stand.

This triggered the 'trap', as many media liked to call it. Because Trump refused to move on with his speech, making 'can you believe this' faces and directing attention at them. 

He didn't say it in so many words, but he was making the argument "they love illegal aliens, and love them even more than the American citizens they are supposed to be protecting." 

After that, the dam was broken, and some Democrats would stand for parts of the speech that sounded good and others continued to sit.

But let's step back for a moment. 

Because this was, as I said in my comparison above, some highly manipulative bullshit. 

There were layers to that little interaction, and only the first and most obvious layer was about what Trump was implying.

The second layer was that part he tacked on "not illegal aliens". All throughout his speech he made references to illegal aliens. He had guests whose family members suffered and died because of illegal aliens (and the way Trump gave graphic details of their deaths was pretty darn grotesque imho, but moving on).

The problem with all of this has to do with one of the problems with human nature. Basically we love stories and anecdotes, and we will remember and be influenced them far more than we are by dry, dull facts.

It's like if you were shopping for a car, and you went and really did your research. You looked up statistics on how reliable a particular make and model is, what the customer satisfaction rate is, it's mileage rate and how much square footage the trunk has - 

And then someone you know tells them about how they bought that particular make and model and had car problems within a month. 

It doesn't matter how much the statistics support buying that car, odds are you're not going to. 

One story, one personal connection, one anecdote is enough to get you to ignore all the facts and figures.

And the same is true when we start talking about illegal immigrants. Honestly, I'm not even sure how many of Trump's listeners even distinguish between 'naturalized citizens', 'legal immigrants', and 'illegal immigrants'. 

He makes them ignore and tune everything out just by throwing in words like 'professional agitator' like he did in his Truth Social post after the Rachel good shooting:

 I have just viewed the clip of the event which took place in Minneapolis, Minnesota. It is a horrible thing to watch. The woman screaming was, obviously, a professional agitator

There was nothing in that video to indicate she was a professional agitator, it was too early in the story for any such claim to be proven, but that didn't matter did it? 

His gullible fools will repeat that claim and insist that's the case even if there isn't any evidence ever presented. And if you do somehow get them to admit it (or if they're the cynical manipulators I mentioned earlier) they'll still shrug it off as either 'typical Trump' - who they never seem to expect any actual truth from - or think that it's justified in order to defeat the liberals, or who the hell knows. Certainly not me.

It's honestly just ramping up the same narrative about the horrible crime rate. A crime rate that experts have been puzzling over because we've had a 30 year decline in. It spiked up a bit around Covid, but seems to be back to normal now. It's hard to say for sure since there's always a bit of a delay between the event and when it's reported, but we're definitely not seeing a crime wave.

But that doesn't make for a very good story, does it? And it's especially not the kind of story that gets people scared, and makes them vote for a 'law and order' kind of politician.

So all you have to do to convince people to disregard all those facts and figures is give them stories and anecdotes where someone is attacked by a criminal.

Yes, in a nation of ~350,000,000 you can always find someone to illustrate your point.

It doesn't matter if 99% of the population didn't suffer a criminal attack, if you make everyone aware of the 1% who did.

And Trump does that, not just to make people think there's a crime wave, but to make people think that any such crime wave is solely because of illegal immigrants.

Story after story has come out about regular Americans who are shocked, shocked they say! Because ICE came and rounded up the nice lady working as a waitress at the local diner. Or the Mexicans working at the local meat packing plant. Or the Mexicans working construction in Texas.

They seemed to actually believe Trump was only going to target those nasty, despicable, criminal illegal aliens. Whereas the rest of us are wondering how they didn't see that coming.

Why? 

Because it was obvious in all the narratives Trump chooses. Look at the people he chose to highlight at the State of the Union. Erika Kirk, naturally - widow of Charlie Kirk, whose assassination is being used to tell a story of the 'violent left' (while conveniently disregarding all the people from the violent right who have attacked others. Like those Minnesota legislators, or the plot to kidnap Michigan's governor). 

You also can't really criticize that choice without looking like you don't respect a grieving widow.

You had the heartwarming reunion between a Venezuelan politician and his niece (which was a bit like those marriage proposals at baseball games - a big dramatic event that the audience loves to see, but in real life it's not something you'd probably want to do. In the marriage proposal case, unless you know your partner would like it you're basically putting them on the spot and pressuring them to say 'yes'. Obviously that's not the case for a family reunion, but... surely they could have met earlier? It doesn't make sense to only let them meet right at the State of the Union, not unless you're trying to manipulate the audience with feels.)

It also, btw, reminding people of Venezuela in general and Trump's kidnapping of their president... which also has a ton of layers I won't get into right now.

We had the usual 'America is great, rah, rah, rah' types. Veterans and Olympic athletes.

And then we had the grieving families of murder victims that I mentioned earlier.

Add in all his attacks on the 'left' (which somehow seems to conveniently mean anyone who disagrees with him) and we can see the picture he's painting.

It's fucking obvious.

... and yet his supporters smile and cheer and refuse to see it.

Up is down, black is white, left is right... because somehow anything that would have been a horrible abuse of power in a Democrat is somehow a cunning move when it's done by Trump.

And anybody trying to point that out gets labels as a 'professional agitator', or called a criminal, or shamed because they didn't stand for a blatantly manipulative statement. Or they're somehow not caring enough about grieving families, or whatever.

It's pretty disgusting, honestly. He's cruel and divisive and he has no tolerance for dissent or disagreement, and all the leaders in his party (and the billionaires, and media moguls) are standing and cheering for it.

Oh... whoops. I just realized I got on a rant and didn't even talk about Iran yet. 

 So the thing about his attack on Iran (second attack, really), like his earlier attack on Venezuela, is that it's got a similar problem.

That is, Maduro is a piece of shit, Khomeini is a piece of shit, and if you don't cheer what Trump did then his supporters think you're unhappy that Trump is finally taking care of these pieces of shit.

However...

There are two main problems with what Trump has been doing here. 

1) The international agreements NOT to do such a thing came about for a reason. Generally speaking the reason is that what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Or rather, if you decide it's okay for one nation to assassinate or kidnap the leader of another then it's only a matter of time before your enemies will do the same to you. 

Which, hey... maybe that would actually be a good thing? Why let our poor grunts die in a war when you can just have competing special forces trying to kidnap and assassinate the opposing heads of state?

Except you all know it wouldn't go like that, and that it basically would just be a prelude to war. Like the assassination of Archduke Francis Ferdinand. 

Tolerate nation/states openly assassinating other heads of state and you're really just saying that you're okay with the inevitable war that's headed your way.

And oh, btw, other international standards developed for good reasons too, like all the laws of the sea. But who cares about that when Trump is attacking "narco-terrorists"? Are they actually narco-terrorists? You just have to take the word of a known liar, easy-peazee.

But let's move on to 

2) Trump seems to have jack-shit for his plan on what to do afterwards. 

Actually, let's just say he has jack-shit of a plan in general.

By which I am not just talking about Venezuela or Iran... the US only has so many soldiers, so many ships, so many planes, etc. We obviously have a very powerful military, but that only matters if we're not scattering our forces all over the place and going up against an equivalent number of enemies.

Also, Vietnam proved that bombing a nation into the stone age is not enough to win. 

Trump is currently able to get away with all this insanity - perhaps because other nations really do hesitate to go up against us militarily. At least, if they're not China or Russia (and with Russia in the state it's at, maybe it's just China... and really even China seems willing to wait a bit. Given how Trump is weakening us day by day and alienating all our allies, that's probably a good call on their part. For now.) 

But let me get this out - you can not take over Greenland, and Canada, and Venezuela, and Iran, and wherever the hell else he's decided is his pet project of the day, without allocating our military forces accordingly. And I really don't think we have enough to be in five different places at once.

Now, you may say "but he's not actually putting troops on the ground in those places". 

Yeah... he seems to think he can do like he did in Venezuela I guess? Take out a president, pressure the survivors into doing what he wants, and claim some sort of great victory?

He doesn't seem to want to get embroiled like we did in Iraq, but like... are those nations really going to just go along with whatever he wants? 

Is he going to kidnap another Venezuelan president if he's unhappy with the results?

Dude is insane. He just does shit, whatever catches his fancy, and nobody seems to be able to put a halt to it...

And if you can't predict that all of this is a recipe for some serious overreach, severe isolation, and eventual blowback...

Then I guess you're a gullible fool too. 

 

 

Team Human

https://rushkoff.substack.com/p/my-dinner-with-jeffrey

Fascinatingly Horrifying

There's so much to unpack here I honestly don't know where to start

https://harpers.org/archive/2026/03/childs-play-sam-kriss-ai-startup-roy-lee/

A Decision Making Framework

https://shopify.engineering/make-great-decisions-quickly-with-tomasp#

The Universality of the Human Condition

 I was thinking about the state of America today, and about whether we are in a place where our differences are irreconcilable.

Obviously, that notion is almost the exact opposite of the title I gave this post, so let me walk you through my thought process.

I was thinking about whether our differences are irreconcilable. Poking away at it like a child with a loose tooth, wondering if there was even any point to posting since (as I've said before) you either already see it and I'd just be preaching to the choir, or you don't and probably aren't going to change your mind no matter what I say.

And this reminded me of the deep, aching, anger and frustration that comes in certain circumstances. One that never fades, and can only be ignored for a time. The one that I believe is the basis for our declaration that we are entitled to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

The same ache and frustration that I think forms the very basis of our nation.

So I think I need to explain that feeling a little more. While the examples I use are not the only ones, I think you should be able to see the connection once I'm done.

A long, long time ago I made friends with a few fellow officers who graduated from West Point. Women - smart and funny and talented and beautiful - all of whom experienced the same thing at West Point. 

All of whom had learned that the men they studied with  categorized them as either a bitch, a slut, or a lesbian.

There were no other choices.

There was also some mystical perfect female figure that their male cadets would deign to date, but they were always civilian women and never a fellow cadet. In today's terms I would call her a 'trad-wife'.

But let's leave that aside, and let's talk about how these amazing women - women who often graduated with a deep level of insecurity, btw - and talk about what it's like to be put into a box. To be labeled in a way that you couldn't really fight or argue with.

Too argumentative and you were just a 'bitch'. 

Too accomodating and you were probably a 'slut'.

Too distant and you were probably a 'lesbian'. 

There was no way you could ever be considered as a whole, entire person in your own right.

This, btw, really resonated when I read that series The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. You see that same mentality at work. Not in all men, of course. But you can see it the cop who was overly hostile when he interrogated Lisbeth's friend. 

And his behavior is the kind of thing that often leads to one of two reactions - you either nod in recognition, or you think it's unrealistic and makes cops look worse than they are.

But I will come back to that.

What I want to talk about is that particular anger and frustration that comes from someone trying to make you be something you're not. When two people interact, there's a give and a take and when there's a real connection it's fun and engaging and just beautiful.

But if one person is unwilling to see the other person for who they are, if they project and image that doesn't match the reality, it's the opposite. It's frustrating and isolating and disengaging and painful.

It's a bit like you're being forced to act in a play, and the other actor gets upset when you're not playing they gave you. 

You may refuse to accept that role, that projection of who they expect you to be, but it's hard to do so without risk. The other person may get upset when you don't play along, and try to pressure you into playing the part they've given you. Or you can get so caught up with saying you're 'not' whatever it is, that you focus too much on who you're not and lose track of who you are.

This pressure, this misalignment, this disconnect is maddening - and many people struggle with how to deal with it without just making things worse. 

That feeling comes not just when a man is labeling a woman a 'bitch' and expecting her to play into his expectations. 

It also comes when a white person expects a black person to be 'lazy', or uses other racist stereotypes to cast the people around them in the roles they expect.

That feeling of frustration when you're not allowed to be who you are is universal, I think. It's probably the same feeling of anger and resentment peasants felt when some aristocratic asshole acted as though they were inherently superior. 

I cannot be who I am, because you are trying to make me play a role that isn't me.

I cannnot live to my full potential, cannot show my talents, cannot live my life... because you have decided I am something else. Something I'm not.

When our Declaration of Independence said these words - 

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

They were drawing on a rich tradition that understood that universal anger and resentment, and knew that the only path forward is to accept that everyone deserves to be treated as the beings with infinite potential that every single person is.

We are not all the same - we speak different languages and have different traditions and food and clothes. Some people expect the bride to wear white on their wedding day, others red. Some wear black to funerals, others white...

But all cultures have some tradition for how to deal with the common threads of life - birth, death. Some tradition of love and marriage (even if not everyone experiences it the same). 

When I went to an Indian religious event with some of my Indian coworkers, there were people talking and children playing and honestly it was much like what I saw at church events at the Roman Catholic churches my parents took us to. The languages and clothing and appearances were different, but aunties were cooing over babies and children were playing and it had the same feeling of community. 

The best of our American tradition is the understanding and awareness that infringing on that breeds the anger and resentment I talked about above. That when you try to tell someone they can't participate in their community, they can't go to their church services or can't share their cultural stories or can't speak their language of choice that you are trying to make them be someone they're not. You are trying to force them into a role of your own choosing (and it's generally a shallower, more limiting and superficial role, too. One that makes them less than they are, simply because you have a limited understanding of them.)

That anger, that resentment - it will never go away. You can suppress it, for a time. With brute force, and a boot to the neck. You can make people swallow their anger and pretend to play along.

But so long as you're unwilling to see people for who they are, unwilling to let them bring their full selves to the act, and keep trying to force them into the roles of your choosing - you will continue to find resistance and resentment. 

Great Commentary

https://www.readtpa.com/p/this-is-literally-the-job?publication_id=2282&post_id=185980222&isFreemail=false&r=bzxnl&triedRedirect=true

On Unfulfilling Fantasies and Sexbots

There's... A lot going on in the world today. And while I could, and maybe should, talk about it I'm reluctant to. Mostly because I don't think I would contribute anything new or that's likely to change anybody's mind. 

Instead I want to dig a bit deeper, look at something that could be an underlying cause.

And let me come at it sideways by saying - sexbots might be a good thing.

Hear me out.

Sexbots just do what they're programmed to. They have no will of their own. No desires.

Nothing to take away from the fantasy.

Which is apparently what a significant number of people want.

They want the fantasy. Like the trad-wife. The woman who never talks back, never disagrees, never refuses. And always has the house clean and dinner ready exactly when you want.

Someone who isn't a fully actualized person with wants and needs of their own.

So instead of learning how to build a relationship with a real person, instead of learning how to walk the tightrope between your needs and theirs, instead of learning how to communicate your desires and listen to theirs and work your way to some sort of solution...

You can just ditch all that messy and complicated work and get yourself a sexbot.

It's like having an AI in a sexy robot body.

You get your fantasy, you get everything you want, and you're not trying to force a real woman to play pretend.

Obviously, this post isn't actually about sexbots. Rather, it's about people avoiding the messy and complicated business of living with other people.

And maybe, hopefully, pointing out how bland and unfulfilling that 'fantasy' is. 

Well... Unless it's about control. Unless you don't want a sexbot and don't want to learn how to be in a relationship with a real person, presumably because you like the idea of making them go along with things they don't want to.

But let's go back to just why the fake relationship with a programmed fantasy is so bland and unfulfilling.

It won't ever challenge you. It won't make you take responsibility for yourself. 

It won't let you grow. Not really.

It's not going to enthusiastically introduce you to music that doesn't fit your normal interests, or make you watch that movie or TV show you hadn't really considered.

It's not going to complain about a bad day at work. Nor see and buy some silly thing just because it reminded them of you.

There's a certain mindset that seems to chase after the fantasy...

And in the process they miss all the fun, quirky, weird things people do. The things that make life truly fun and interesting and sometimes maddening or sad but all of it truly lived.

And while I feel sorry for them, for losing sight of what's important in chasing their unfulfilling dreams, I kind of wish they could have their sexbots...

So they could live out their stupid fantasies somewhere private and quit ruining things for all the rest of us.

(This applies to fantasies about world domination too. The 1% living in their little bubble wouldn't be too bad if they didn't have to ruin everything for the rest of us.)