Fascinating and Thought Provoking

https://www.humansontheloop.com/p/rent

Fits the Last Theme

Love is definitely missing here, and what perversion to twist the words of the Bible around like this. 

https://ewerickson.substack.com/p/the-midwestern-fuhrerbunker-driving

Sometimes... 

I think people are just looking for an excuse to hate. Even better with a side of moral justification.

Where is the Love, III

 I saw something today which reminds me again why I am struggling to love my neighbor.

Let me back up a second.

I periodically cross check posts I see on Facebook - like a post claiming that feral cats were feeding mice to a mountain lion in a junkyard, supposedly so the mountain lion would deter people.

I don't know if you should sit down for this, but it was fake.

Not true.

I've checked a couple of other posts like this, especially those cutesy little political memes, and frankly you're better off assuming they're all false.

Don't trust anything you see on social media, not unless you see the same information coming from a more credible source.

And what is a credible source? While there are guides online, this is another thing that has been politicized and people will pick the guide that lets them continue believing what they want, so I'll give you a few heuristics.

Your source needs to have consequences for making shit up. The media, for example, will put their spin on things and may influence our views by deciding what to report in the first place, but for the most part if they say "a person was shot" then they have done their journalistic duty to verify that a person was actually shot. And if they didn't, they will be discredited and can lose their jobs. And since there are news agencies across the political spectrum, if media on the right and the left are saying something happened then it's got a pretty good chance of being true.

The framing and spin is an entirely different thing.

Ideally, your source will also be easy to verify. Like, scientific and academic studies will often give you the details of exactly how they collected their information, what processes were used to analyze it, etc.

Scientists are human too, so there's still room for bias and human error to creep in, but in theory someone else could do the same study or analyze their data and come to the same conclusions.

So my first two heuristics are this - consequences for lying and transparency about the source data.

I'll throw in a third one, though there are people pushing misinformation who will deliberately falsify this, so it's not the most useful one - the report will reflect the complex, messy, and contradictory elements of reality.

I got that description from The Hedgehog and the Fox, and basically what I mean is that reports and studies that are trying to be accurate are going to read like they were written by a Fox. There will be caveats, there will be references to how statistically significant something is, there will be words of caution against using the results for things beyond it's scope. If the report was created by someone concerned with giving you a real result, they are not going to simplify it into a tldr like a Hedgehog. Unless they're turning it into one of those cutesie memes for social media, of course.

But that is all backstory, and that's backstory that I want you to understand because - as I mentioned in another post - we are now six years after Covid first hit, and we can see the actual evidence for how effective the Covid vaccines are.

Barring some decades long consequence that we haven't seen yet, the evidence is clear. If you take the county vaccination rate and compare it with the death and hospitalization rates, people who refuse to get the vaccine are for more likely to die or be hospitalized than those who do not. 

You might even see one talking about the vaccine causing heart problems, but in true hedgehog fashion it also notes that getting Covid without the vaccine is even more likely to do the same. (It also talks about the likelihood of that happening, but I'll leave it to you to decide if even a 0.006% chance is more than you want to take, especially when getting Covid unvaccinated carries a 0.06% chance of doing the same.)

But if that's all true, then why do we keep seeing anti-vax sentiment?

And not just for the Covid vaccine, now we're seeing people upset about measles and TDAP and all sorts of vaccines that were commonly accepted when I was growing up.

So this is where I'm going to throw out a little conspiracy theory of my own. One that I hope is not true, hope that anyone involved with would have had the courage to speak out against, but one that fits the evidence better than the rampant misinformation I keep seeing about vaccines.

That conspiracy theory?

They're trying to kill you.

Sure, some people are easily manipulated or gullible fools who honestly believe that vaccines are bad for you. 

But I do not think these beliefs would persist for so long, with so little evidence, if there weren't interested parties pushing these beliefs for reasons of their own.

Ones who know better, who know that the vaccines work, and are trying to convince people they don't anyway. 

What do they get out of convincing a mass number of people not to take one small action that would easily prevent disease and death?

They get disease and death.

It's not just that they're parties to mass murder, though. Or rather, they're not trying to have indiscriminate mass murder.

It's mass murder that is targeting the gullible, the poor, and the disadvantaged.

Take Trump's recent push to change the MMR vaccine schedule, breaking what had been one shot for Measles, Mumps, and Rubella into three separate vaccines.

I was kind of wondering at first why they were even doing this. As in, why are they using up precious political capital to push for this? Especially with the situation in Iran, and Trump's constant attempts to waste government resources on unnecessary monuments and renovations? Why take time from blaming his enemies and threatening Canada and Greenland to push for a change that isn't actually about dropping the vaccines entirely? Just breaking it up into three different ones?

But if you look more closely, you'll see that this change is far more likely to hurt people who are poor and disadvantaged.

If  you have a hard time affording a trip to the doctor, or if you have difficulty getting time off work to go to the doctor, then the more visits you have to make the more likely that you're not going to do all of them.

Maybe you would have been protected from mumps, measles, and rubella if you got one MMR shot...

But taking time off to get the mumps shot, and again later to get the measles shot, and again to get rubella... 

and then do it all again, because most of these take multiple doses to be fully effective.

That change means it's far more likely that some people will not be fully vaccinated. And that 'some people' is most likely going to be poor people. Or disadvantaged people, since the same logic holds true for people with handicaps.

Now, I say this is all a conspiracy theory because we haven't actually had anyone outright say that's the goal here. And I think it would take multiple people working together to push for this. Or rather, multiple people 'in the know'. I don't think it would take just one person manipulating some gullible fools. 

And I like to think that if there are multiple people involved, that there would be at least one person who would realize how absolutely evil it is, and would speak up. 

In case I need to explain why this is evil - not getting fully vaccinated doesn't just threaten the health of the person who isn't vaccinated. It also reduces the effects of herd immunity, and puts at risk all the people who legitimately can't get vaccinated. That newborn who died of measles? The baby was too young to get vaccinated. People with weakened immune systems can't get it. So not getting vaccinated doesn't just put yourself at risk, it puts all those other people at risk, too.

Which means if there is a group of people deliberately pushing anti-vax views, they're a party to mass murder. 

Since nobody has publicly come out and admitted as much, I put this firmly into 'conspiracy theory' territory.

But every time I see some anti-vax nonsense - especially when it comes from family members that I don't want dying from something easily preventable - I feel anger and hatred at whoever is knowingly and deliberately pushing this crap.

One of the ten commandments prohibits murder, and while the commandment prohibiting false testimony seems focused on lying in court I think that commandment was because you can't build a very good society if people will lie and make up false testimony in order to get rid of their enemies... and I think if the ten commandments were written today it would also prohibit deliberately spreading misinformation.

So to summarize - I think anyone who knows vaccines work and tries to convince people they don't have broken two of the ten commandments and will be dealt with by God however he deals with such sinners.

And I don't know how to love neighbors like that. 

 

 

Where is the Love?, Part II

 I realized my last post is... incomplete. Let's see if I can organize my thoughts a little more, and explain.

 In my last post I said:

...sometimes the most loving thing you can do is make it clear that certain behavior is unacceptable.

 I feel I need to explain this a bit better, though as always it's complicated.

First - people naturally get defensive when they get negative feedback. All too often it feels like an attack, even when it's not meant to be.

Yet we know that top performers need it. That honest feedback is how we improve. That, for example, a star athlete that never has a coach point out where they can move more efficiently will never reach their full potential.

This is part of why in the Army we always had After Action Reviews (AARs), where we were supposed to note what went wrong, what went well, and what we can do better next time.

To get that top performance, you need a certain level of maturity and understanding from all the parties involved.

The person hearing a critique has to be mature enough that they don't take it personally. That people are not saying "you're a failure", but rather are giving them critical insights that they can use to do better.

The person giving the critique has to trust that their critique will be taken as intended, too. Because if they think the person they're critiquing will feel attacked and get defensive than they may create an enemy they didn't need to.

That's part of why good leaders absolutely have to set the right tone. They have to make it absolutely clear that they want the unvarnished truth.

More importantly, they have to demonstrate, over and over again, that they really mean it.

Because if they react poorly even once - everyone who saw that or heard about it is unlikely to risk telling them the truth a second time.

 At the same time, I use the word 'critique' because it absolutely should not be an attack, or personal. It's the difference between "that was foolish" and "you're a fool".

These are all things we generally suck at, tbh. All too often people stifle themselves until they can't any longer, and then when they speak it's a storm of emotions and everyone winds up feeling angry and hurt.

Sometimes it seems like it's an impossible thing, if not for the many real world examples where I see people doing better. 

But let's get back on track.

It's hard to explain how or why this can work to people who have significant experience with it failing, especially when we're talking about human interactions. Body language makes up 80% of that, and people are often not self-aware enough to realize what signals they are sending. Which is why someone can claim that they are being calm and logical, while the other party sees them getting defensive and angry.

However, if you figure it out, miracles can occur. Because in some ways we all crave having a true friend. 

Someone who knows us inside and out, sees us with all our strengths and weaknesses, and loves us anyway.

And when someone is able to offer feedback, loving feedback, that doesn't carry an undertone of attack implying that "I hate you for doing this" or "I can't love you when you do this", then it's more likely to be listened to and heard.

It's moments like that which make people truly feel connected, and as studies repeatedly show - human connection is the primary source of happiness.

To expand on this a bit more -

This is why there's such a trope of the 'poor little rich boy'. Over and over again it seems like the rich and powerful just naturally find themselves surrounded by 'yes men'. And women. People who don't give honest feedback, who hide away their true opinions and true selves, because their position and power comes from pleasing that person. They have to make a very concerted effort to prevent that, and not everyone understands why it matters or how to do it - or even has the maturity to do so.

So we see the rich and powerful start living in bubbles, surrounded by liars and sycophants, and they lose touch with reality. 

Negative feedback is watered down or even hidden away completely. Nobody wants to tell them that their idea or project isn't working out.

And I think, on some level, the rich and powerful feel this. They know that these relationships are empty and hollow, the junk food of the soul.

(I will not claim all of their relationships are like this, though. I hope they've got at least one good one somewhere).

 You and I can say the things we wish they would hear, but they have no reason to trust us or believe us, and have a whole posse of people willing to soothe away any doubts. Tell them that "it's just sour grapes". That they're special - smarter and better than the rest, and that the opinions of nobodies don't matter.

I'll also admit that they're not always wrong. Not so much about the 'smarter and better' because really, arrogant much? But there are people who are just jealous of success, and will criticize and tear you down.

Which is another reason why it's so important to have those trusted relationships. They can help you sort out what's valid and what isn't.

Anyways, I could go into the things I personally wish they would hear, but... it feels like quite a bit of this blog has already done that. 

Actually give a shit about people - not just your privileged buddies. Everyone. And if you're not mature enough to listen and learn, then quit trying to control everything. 

You're just making things worse. 

 

 

Where is the Love?

 While I do like the Black Eyes Peas song, the title of this post isn't because of that.

Rather, it's because of something my father said in passing. Iirc he was talking about how people interact on social media, how they talk about politics, and he commented that the arguments and criticisms were being said without love.

Sometimes Dad has a perspective that is far different from everyone else, and when I thought about it I had to admit - he's not wrong.

I do not consider myself very religious, yet I know and accept that much of my world view was shaped by 11 years of Catholic schooling. That plus being raised by pretty devout Catholic parents. And Dad's comment about love reminded me of the old church song I heard growing up. The one that says "and they'll know we are Christians by our love."

Yeah... is there any wonder I question the 'Christianity' of Trump supporters? Not seeing the love there. Or if it is, it's a small and pitiful thing that is only for those like them.

But many people have pointed that out already, and the ones I'd want to hear it have so far seemed unwilling to see it.

Rather, I find myself pondering my own attitudes and beliefs here. Because even without going to church regularly, I do try to do love my neighbor as myself. And if I consider my father's point about how we talk to each other, I have to admit I'm not exactly showing the love either.

I am, in fact, struggling to feel it right now. Emotionally, I would put it like this.

The United States has been the shining city on the hill, one that casts a deep and dark shadow. Both are true about this nation I have loved. It has valued some grand ideals, and it has fallen horribly short of actually living up to them.

But right now, it's as though someone has started pouring a greasy, filthy, rank coating of oil over that shining city. It's dimming the parts that used to shine, and deepening the gloom in the shadows.

And as the lights keep going out, one by one, too few seem to even try stopping it.

Those so-called Christians? They're helping pump the filth in.

And I have watched as Trump politicizes... everything. There isn't even an attempt at being president for all of us. He is petty and vindictive and withhold aid from blue states, block normal procurement procedures so he can funnel resources to his allies, and basically make everyone around him angrier and smaller and pettier. 

And people cheer.

But I do feel like responding with the level of venom and hate that I have seen just exacerbates the problem. It's the Sunni and Shi'a spiral in Iraq all over again. And it also feels like Trump and his allies want that to happen. It gives them an enemy to point at, someone to blame and justify cracking down on his opponents even harder.

So I am trying to reconcile these very different points of view. I'm not sure I would even call them that, as they're not necessarily very coherent. 

Love thy neighbor.

Forgive each other.

And yet, I don't want the harm I see go unaddressed. I don't want that 'forgiveness' or 'love' to mean just ignoring it as ICE disappears people, and blocks any oversight of what's going on in their detention centers.

I don't want us to just ignore the completely unnecessary (and illegal) bombings of boats in the Caribbean.

I don't want all the slimy and disgusting filth to be covered up in some desperate bid to pretend everything is fine. 

Yet I also don't want things to turn into a witch hunt. Or rather, I don't want the pendulum of crazy to swing the other way.

 I want actual nation-wide healing. Some resolution. Some movement towards cleaning up that shining city, and even putting in some street lights so there aren't so many shadows.

And so I think a bit more, about what those Catholics schools taught about the sacrament of Reconciliation. 

Forgiveness and spiritual healing. The whole sacrament is not about pretending you never did anything wrong. It's about helping you address those wrongs, so you can reconcile with God. If you're given a penance, it's not about punishment or discipline. It's about helping you make reparations.

(You can see some similarities to discussions of our criminal justice system - and the debate over whether it's purpose is punishment or reparation.)

What I want, impossible as it seems right now, is for those who have been pouring out and spreading that rank filth to repent. And if they can't see the harm they are doing and repent - which I admit seems highly likely - I want society to have the political willpower and resources needed to address that.

Not in a "now we're the top dogs and we can punish you" way. That just makes the whole filthy mess continue, especially if it allows all this misinformation to continue. 

More in the 'Nuremburg trials' way. Something that gets at the real truth, in as open and fair and honest a way possible. One that holds people accountable, not out of hate or anger, but because sometimes the most loving thing you can do is make it clear that certain behavior is unacceptable.

That spreading misinformation (as one example) is one of those things, and that there are consequences to knowingly doing so.

That threatening to withhold resources simply because you don't like the governor of a state is another.

That nobody is above the law - something I used to think we all agreed on, but apparently do not. 

And we definitely need to address the abuse of power the current interpretations of executive privilege are enabling.

Maybe...

Maybe, if we can find the political will to address these things, we can recover from this disastrous administration.

It's hard to see it happening right now, though. 

 

Predictably Irrational - Thoughts

I'm reading a chapter exploring market norms vs social norms and it hit me-

People have described certain individuals as 'transactional'. Often with a negative connotation. (Trump is, ofc, the primary and most common example)...

And the reason for that, I think, is that it's obvious he's applying market norms even to things that normally are social norms.

Like marriage.

It also reminds me of stories I've heard about the 1% regarding things like splitting the check for dinner. 

I suspect that part of what we're seeing is a culture of market norms. One that is, frankly, horrifying to those of us who know the joys of social norms. Of friendship and community and connections that aren't all about 'what's in it for me?'.

Strictly a theory of course. Some days I think I'd like to win the lottery, just so I can mingle and rub elbows and sort of make a personal study on the different cultural norms.

For my own curiosity - I'm definitely not going to be writing up proper scientific studies or anything. I just feel like I'm guessing at why they do the (short sighted and foolish) things they do, and it's mostly by trying to read between the lines of various reports and things. Not really reliable. 

Seriously, though. Why do we consistently see the rich and powerful grow arrogant, out of touch, selfish, greedy, and controlling?

Is it truly inevitable? Human nature? The natural corruption that comes with power?

Enquiring minds want to know.

Vaccines, Mid-Terms, and Other Things

My parents taught me without saying a word, that while we may be part of society and share a culture and history with society, we can pick and choose which parts we want to keep for ourselves.

For Halloween, for example. My parents didn't like the phrase "Trick or Treat'. I forget the exact way they phrased it, but basically you're threatening to trick people unless they give you candy. So they taught us to always say "Happy Halloween" instead.

Oh, they also never taught us to believe in Santa Claus. 

They didn't like black comedy. Mom didn't like us having the TV on when we ate together, and they didn't have cable TV.

So we were part of society, but we were also sometimes different. Maybe even a bit nerdy and weird.

And that's okay. For the most part I kind of liked it. Sure, it's a bit weird to have everyone talking about a show you've never seen. But years later I saw an episode of that show (Beavis and Butthead) and tbh I don't really understand why it was that popular in the first place.

The point of all that is to say this:

While I would not say I'm completely independent, that I never follow a crowd or do things without thinking, if I have decided something than it's decided. 

And I don't really care how many people disagree.

 That's kind of where I am with regards to vaccines, and with regards to Trump.

For vaccines - and the Covid vaccine in particular - it has been six years since Covid hit. Almost six years since the vaccine was released. And unless there are long term consequences in twenty-thirty years that we won't learn about until we've reached that, we have pretty good data on it's effects and side effects.

There are studies now that are able to look, county by county, and compare the vaccination rates to the death rates and hospitalization rates.

It has been long enough that the data is available. We're not waiting for reports to trickle in.

And the evidence is overwhelming clear. 

Vaccines save lives.

This is not up for debate. This is not in doubt. 

And anyone trying to argue differently just makes me question their judgement.

Which, given the widespread anti-vax attitude, means that I'm questioning the judgement of quite a few people. Some of them even somewhat distant family members that I care about.

It's a similar story with Trump supporters. The fastest way to make me question your ability to make good decisions is to tell me you support Trump.

The fastest way to make me question whether billionaires deserve their wealth is to see them propping up and enabling Trump. (And see the way they treat their employees too, tbh.)

I don't really care how many people seem swayed, how many sing his praises, how many cheer. All it does is show how deep the rot has spread.

And right now, it's clearly spread pretty deep.

The problem, right now, is what we're going to do about it.

I don't want an America that makes people 'disappear', whether their immigrants or not. 

I don't want an America that bombs civilian boats, especially when their engines could have been shot and evidence collected. If they're drug runners doing something illegal, arrest them. Whatever happened to due process?

There's so many statements that start like that. So many things I thought we cared about, that apparently 'we' do not.

I am worried about the midterms. Not so much the votes themselves, since it seems quite clear that the midterms will go against Trump and his sycophants and manipulators.

I am worried because they've already proven they don't care about the rule of law. They're already continuing to lay the groundwork to sow doubts if they lose. To try to mobilize their supporters and overturn the results when they don't go their way.

These people are clearly the type who will keep pushing, and pushing, until someone forcefully makes them stop...

And I don't see the willpower to make them stop.

Not consistently, at least.

Not on the same level. 

 

AI

 I have described myself as AI skeptical. That was because I knew and felt the same frustration most people have had

 with AI, and yet I also see the potential.

I have long thought that computers and humans were... complementary. They're better at certain things than we are, we're better at other things, and I frankly look forward to dumping all the tedious, mind-numbing and boring work on artificial intelligence. 

At the same time, the term 'meatspace' has become common for good reason.

If you're using AI to read e-mails and articles, and then using AI to write a response, and all you're really doing is sitting at the keyboard as a meatsuit for the AI... what are you even doing here?

And don't get me started how tech companies have pushed AI on us. Foisted it. It's one thing to have a nice little icon on the menu bar letting you know it's an option. It's another thing to rearrange your entire website so that the only think you see is an AI prompt window. 

But that's all casual observation, as a customer or user and not as a coder or programmer. 

Ever since my company purchased a subscription to one of the major AI coding platforms, and I realized that (as we lost a team member, and there's only one other member of my team stateside at the moment) I needed someone or something to answer questions and help me resolve issues while I learn my job, I have been using it at work.

And...

It's been a bit like the Gartner Hype cycle, all happening in about a month.

It's a powerful tool. A really powerful tool. But it will also go off on wild goose chases and tangents unless I stop it.

I've also worked hard at creating a 'coding harness', though I didn't even really understand that term when I started. I just knew that I wanted it to remember important parts about how our self-service application worked, and that I didn't want it to keep all that information in it's context window if it wasn't relevant. So I had it create a 'lessons learned' document, and reference documents, and also added in some hooks and workflows to try to make it consistently perform well and not hallucinate or write some crappy slop.

I... am not sure about that last part. I am still learning our application myself, and it's been great at helping explain what the code is doing and how it's doing it, but when you have multiple steps in a flow where one function is calling another function which is calling yet another, I am not entirely sure the AI understands the full flow properly. But that's what code reviews are for, right?

Anyways, in terms of troubleshooting, it's really, really good. Almost scary good. I had it create a skill so it knew what logs to check to see how a request was handled (this took some work too, because I gave it about four examples of different types of requests and had it look for the log entries related to it... and at first it was like "I didn't find any results, expanding the search window from the last 30 days to the last 60 days" and I had to stop it very fast and point out that the examples I gave were all from the last couple of days. Basically if it's not finding results with it's query, the issue is with the query and not with the date-range.)

Anyways, once I got it all configured it proved it's worth. It actually proved it's worth while I was configuring it, as a help request came in while I was training it and I decided to use that as an example. It very quickly noticed that the reason our company's customer support person wasn't able to get an account on their client's instance for troubleshooting purposes was because the group we were trying to create their account in had another group with the exact same name in it, and the duplicate names meant it was erroring out.

The skill has been... a life-saver, tbh. It's helped identify root causes and find workarounds more than I want to admit.

However - it still needs human judgment.  Human involvement. If it starts going down the wrong track it just keeps on going. 

It reminds me a bit of Mickey Mouse as the Sorceror's Apprentice in Fantasia, when he got the broom to start carrying the buckets of water. Except that things soon got out of hand, the brooms multiplied and kept carrying water and kept carrying water and kept carrying water...

Because here's the thing.

A human would eventually notice that the water was overflowing, that continuing to bring buckets of water didn't make sense, and they would probably stop before things got out of hand. They'd at least ask you if you really wanted them to keep doing it.

That broom, however, did not.

And an AI will not. Not unless on some level it's programmed to.

Anyways, as I see the discussions of AI going around and look at what tech companies are doing and consider it's usefulness and it's challenges, I think the heart of the problem is this:

Some people are using AI as a replacement for real people. 

And that, at least at our current level of technology, is going to fail. 

Update

 It's been a while since I sat and typed out some long posts. I've mostly just been throwing in some quick links for articles that interested me.

I don't think I've really talked about my thoughts on AI since I started using it at work, for example. And of course I'll have to write something about current events.

But overall - things are going well. I still love my job, am still working remote, and if it weren't for the ongoing decline in *looks around and skims the news* pretty much everything else, I'd say things were going well.

Oh, and I might have a business trip to Poland soon. I haven't been to Poland yet, so I'm looking forward to it. 

Weeds

If you plant a garden and then say 'I'm not going to remove anything or water or prune because I believe in survival of the fittest'

you will soon find yourself growing weeds.

Predictably Irrational

A conversation a few weeks ago convinced me to pick up Predictably Irrational. It fits rather well with things I already knew, and definitely goes far beyond. 

I was reading the chapter on market norms vs social norms, basically pointing out that people act differently depending on which set of norms are in play. We don't charge friends for moving their couch, for example. And we don't work for free.

The examples he used also show another norm. Something I thought pretty obvious, but hard-hearted business leaders seem to forget - when market norms are in play, the quality and quantity of work depend on how much you're compensated for it. (This is also probably why they try to shift the situation to a social norm, by building a sense of community, etc - but given they don't actually act like a family since everyone knows they will fire you in a heartbeat, going beyond the typical office norms just seems pretty fake.)

Cheap out and pay people poorly, and you get what you paid for - a bare minimum of effort.

Too True

It's from a fictional story, but I think it applies just as well to building a nation. And the decay I see - the resentment at doing needed maintenance, the unwillingness to create the conditions that make a place worth coming to - I get why people liked the slogan to "Make America Great Again" because we sure can see the slow rot settling in. I just wish they looked for a candidate that was actually interested in doing such a thing, instead of believing the words of someone who clearly doesn't.

But I'm getting away from the quote that started this:

"The road. The water. The shelter. The welcome. These were the conditions. The people are what the conditions produced. You cannot make people come. You can make the place worth coming to. 

"And when the place is worth coming to," James said, "it makes itself." 

"Not without maintenance," the elemental said, with the precision of something that understood what happened to springs that were not tended. " The conditions require attention. The welcome requires renewal. A place that stops being made is a place that starts to be unmade."

James thought about the list on his wall. About the road and the cistern and the market day proposal under the rock on his table. About Ren walking the perimeter twice daily and Eletha tracking the game population through the winter and Herbert with his accounting of iron stock and Bogrog with his bark-mark system keeping the agricultural record. 

About Caroline keeping rooms ready. 

"The maintenance is the work," James said.

 "The maintenance is the love,"  the elemental said, with the specificity of something that meant the word precisely.  "You do not maintain what you do not love. What you love, you maintain without being asked."

Yep

I keep wondering when people will get tired of all the lies and insanity.

https://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2026/07/new-frontiers-in-sanewashing

I generally believe that "you can fool some of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all the people all the time" but...

It sure is taking people a long time to wise up.

Always Rewriting History

https://www.thebulwark.com/p/why-stone-faced-fascists-keep-getting-antiquity-wrong-x-twitter-elon-musk-ancient-greece-roman-empire

The Flood

I have been thinking about the Biblical story about the Flood.

Or rather, I have been thinking about God wanting to wipe the world clean and start all over.

It reminds me, sometimes, of the urge I get to wipe out some coding project and start all over. Which, sometimes, is the right call. Let's you do a reset, take all your lessons learned, and rebuild without having to figure out how to update however many lines of code you'd have needed to before.

Most of the time, however, it's not actually a good idea. It basically makes you redo work you'd already done, creates new bugs that you'll have to solve, removes the solutions you found in the previous code so that you have to solve them all over again... and it basically means that a lot of time that urge is more about emotional satisfaction than something with real, practical benefit. (One could say the same about accelerationists wanting to speed up the collapse of society in hopes of being able to influence the rebuild).

But this isn't just about the pros and cons of rebuilding some large, complex project. I think about God, and the Flood, because my childhood upbringing has imprinted on me the idea that God loves us. That he realized wiping the world clean wasn't going to fix anything, and so He works in subtler ways. 

And we keep on being stubborn, stiff-necked fools.

Which is sometimes kind of admirable, often quite frustrating, and right now - where poor judgment seems everywhere and all sorts of foolishness is causing misery and suffering - I have a hard time appreciating.

I want to. I have often despised the arrogant elitists who think they're somehow special, that see how the masses are so easily led astray and look down on them - as if they are any better. (Every story of every billionaire throwing yet more money at the Trump administration shows that they really aren't. They  just have a ton of money that insulates them and makes it easier for them to force their bad ideas on everyone else.)

But that means that I don't really want to say the same things. I don't honestly want to believe that everyone who still supports Trump is a dumbass, or a gullible fool. Or someone too lazy to do real research. Or someone who has never learned how to get past their own biases and preconceptions, and has no incentive to, and therefore doesn't question the nonsense being thrown their way.

If I thought that, I'd have to reconsider the idea of democracy as a whole, and frankly given the elitist support for these assholes I have no reason to believe they're actually better. Given the way they're actively blocking anything that would help improve this messed up system, I'm pretty sure they'd actually be worse.

But then, where does that leave me? How do I still believe in democracy, believe in America, love my fellow Americans... and still value every single one of the dumbasses who are either passively or actively enabling this disastrous administration.

And it is a disastrous administration. It is maddening how much that gets glossed over and overlooked. I know most people don't pay attention to dry and boring policy, or the intricacies of legislation, or the historical reasons for various things... but I still think that Jan 6th should have been easy enough to demonstrate the threat.

People seem to ignore Trump's bluster and consider his attacks on the election as an attack on Democrats, rather than an attacking on the foundations of our country itself... 

And I don't know if that willingness to overlook things is a sign of ignorance, selfishness, short-sightedness, cynicism, or what.... but I do think people have forgotten just why we value self-determination, truth, and the rule of law so much.

I look at story after story of yet another government institution corrupted, and yet another abuse of power, and yet more degradation of the rule of law and democracy and I see the many Americans who just ignore it, if not outright cheer for it, and I find myself wondering 'how does God keep on loving us when we're like this?'

Because this isn't just us being ridiculously foolish. It's not just a one-time thing. It seems like this is something humanity does to itself, over and over again.

Stiff-necked fools. 

I know I'm supposed to love my neighbor, and not judge, and that really we're all products of our environment and if I was born and raised like those I am commenting on here and now that I would probably be just like them...

But some days it's really hard.

Especially when that foolishness is likely to destroy things I care about very much.

Like the rule of law, which I think protects all of us, and helps mitigate the politicization and pointing of fingers that are hallmarks of a system that is incapable of excelling.

Like the dream of what we could be, of an America where anyone and everyone truly can succeed if they're willing to put in the work. (And there's at least a bare minimum so that people aren't starving in the streets.)

I could probably leave this here, and perhaps write another post for the next bit... but they're related enough that I'll continue.

I think about how God can possibly love us - foolish, stubborn, spiteful, prideful, as we are.

And I think about cats.

Yes, I know... that sounds like a ridiculous non sequitur. Bear with me.

When pet owners talk about why they love their pets, you'll get statements like "And he's a dumbass, but... "

"That dog runs into walls."

"That cat hoards socks."

Sometimes we love a cat for being selfish and not taking any shit. Sometimes we love them for how they comfort us and adore us. Sometimes it's for doing something stupid...

But we adore the little fuzzballs. You can say something similar about dogs too. If you're a pet owner, you probably have at least one anecdote of some silly or stupid or funny or annoying thing your cat or dog does, and you adore them and when they're gone if something reminds you of it you'll miss them.

And we love our furballs no matter what they look like. Sometimes even because of it.

We love our big fat cat, or our three legged dog, or the way one floppy ear turns inside out, or the ridiculous underbite, or when a big dog thinks he's a lapdog or a tiny dog acts like she's the pack leader.

Love, in many ways, is not actually because of any of that. Not because of the floppy ear or the goofy behavior. Those things we talk about the things we mention, are not the reason we love our pets. The love comes first, and those things just are associated with what we love.

And I think we should apply that to people. Maybe from God's perspective, he looks at us and he sees that goofy person who failed a test and it's just like the foolish cat that misjudged a leap. And maybe that ruthless billionaire looks like the irritable cat that will take a swipe at you if you try to pet them the wrong way.

Perhaps part of the reason He doesn't actually get involved in our petty little disputes and fights is that it's like a pet owner whose cats are fighting. There is no 'right' or 'wrong', He just doesn't want either to get hurt.

And perhaps from His perspective it's alright. I mean, if He exists and if there's an afterlife than even death isn't truly the end. And He's got time for us to figure things out and get it right...

From that perspective nothing is really that big of a deal.

But that's not a perspective I can share. Not truly.

I see the people murdered when our Navy blows up a boat rather than shooting out the engine and taking everyone into custody, and I know that people died without any real justice. Because of the orders this administration made.

I hear about the unusual number of deaths among people detained by ICE, about pregnancies in detainees that were separated by gender and shouldn't have even been able to get pregnant unless one of the guards or people working at the facility had sex with them, and I know - again - that people are dying because of this administration.

They are dying... and too many of my fellow Americans just don't give a shit. 

Then there's all the anti-vaccine crap, and an administration that it honestly wouldn't surprise me to learn is made up of eugenicists.

There's the petty vindictiveness of this administration. The attempts to abuse their power to hurt anyone that opposes them, like trying to take aware Senator Mark Kelly's retirement. 

It's disgusting. I hate it. I loathe what this administration is doing to the country I loved.

And so I wonder, yet again, how God is able to keep on loving us when we're like this.

Interesting

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/trained-me-disappear-inside-dennis-hofs-world-ground-truth-freedland-syonc?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_android&utm_campaign=share_via

Overextension

 I once took some classes on Tai Chi and learned about the training practice called Push Hands:

 

While I can't say that I practiced it for long, or ever became an expert in it, the concepts resonated with me. Especially when I realized that you can apply the physical concepts to... well, everything.

Let me give one small example. In Push Hands, the main goal is to make your opponent lose their balance. Force them to take a step. And our instructor pointed out that if someone loses their balance... the other party is able to control them, and direct them wherever they wanted.

If you overextend, if you move too far from your center of gravity, a trained opponent can help nudge you just that little bit further. Then you've completely lost control, and they're able to direct you into a throw or a fall or a joint lock or whatever.

I wanted to talk more about what that means on a more meta level. 

Like war, for example. When generals overextend, their forces are so far forward that their supply lines and support can't keep up, and their forces are then vulnerable - to encirclement, to starvation, to any number of things that a are smarty enemy can take advantage of.

Sure, in the short run you can sometimes take a gamble. You can overextend, if it's fast and quick and your opponent doesn't have the time to notice and take advantage of the opening. But you can't make overextending a consistent strategy, or you're  basically just asking to be defeated.

I think this also applies to nation building. You might be able to do a blitzkrieg and take control of a large swath of territory, but those gains can also fall apart as easily as they were won. Consider Napoleon and his Russian campaign. Or Alexander and how all that territory he conquered fell apart after his death. 

I think that's part of how the Ottoman's expanded in Central Europe - they exploited grievances and offered something better. 

For a time. 

Gaining control temporarily is one thing, maintaining and consolidating it is something else entirely.

I brought that up because it's kind of the foundation for something I've said before - I honestly believe that doing the right thing is the smart long term strategy.  That doing anything else is building your house on sand.

It may seem like a good idea. Your house is getting built in record time, faster than anyone else...

But you're taking shortcuts that undermine the effort as a whole.

And let me bring that more directly into our current political situation -

If you have to bury the truth, manipulate voters with cynical lies, and make stuff up in order to get the power you want - you are building your house on sand. If you can not win elections by being honest and transparent about what your goals are, and how you intend to achieve them, you deserve to lose. And, eventually, will. 

I know some people convince themselves that what they're doing is a necessarily evil. 'But they started it!' or 'They lie so much that we have to lie in order to counter them.'

Bullshit. If they're lying, learn how to expose those lies so that public opinion turns against them. Their lying and your lying just makes everything more confused and muddled. 

I especially find this attitude annoying when it comes to so-called 'Christian' conservatives, because they're supposed to know better.

God didn't say "don't lie and bear false witness, unless the other side does it too. Then lie as much as you want."

A win that involves compromising on what you know is right isn't a win at all. It also shows that you don't honestly believe you can win by doing what God says is right, which shows a rather significant lack of faith. 

 I don't think any 'victory' achieved by justifying doing things you know is wrong is any sort of victory at all, or will build anything lasting and worthwhile.

I do wonder sometimes, what it would be like to have a society that actually lived up to it's ideals. What would happen if our powers-that-be honestly believed in the Sermon on the Mount, who loved their enemies and gave to the needy. Who believed that they should be good shepherds, instead of the kind that kill their flock. Who sincerely thought that the first shall be last, and the last shall be first.

Alas, all I see are people who claim to love Jesus and claim to read the Bible and yet hate their neighbors, think lying is justified, think a 'win' matters even if that win comes from lying, even when it demonstrates their complete lack of faith and lack of understanding...

It's very depressing, to be honest. Makes me have my own crisis of faith... not so much that I've decided I was wrong. It's more like... how long will it take before the problems with building a house on sand become undeniable?

How long until the incompetence, the failures, the inability to truly take care of their 'flock' become undeniable? 

How long will people persist in thinking they can build houses on sand?

When will the tide sweep in, and wash it all away? 

And how many will suffer when that inevitably happens? 

 

 

 

The Thing About the Democratic 'Autopsy'

Is that, as gas prices soar and support for Trump crumbles, success is in sight and yet it feels like Democrats are once again determined to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. 

This analysis seems pretty close to the truth, to me. Though given some of the voter targeting I heard about in the last presidential election, it does seem like there were some things that could have been done to help. 

It's just that overall Democrats no longer really seem to fight for the little guy. (That, and I personally believe they haven't done near enough to educate voters on just why January 6 was so awful. And how every time Trump undermines trust in our voting process - without actual proof - he's attacking America, and the Constitution, and he should be called out on that. As well as how running his mouth directly led to Jan 6, even aside from the fake electors and other blatant attempts to change the results. But then, clearly I care more about this rule of law stuff then many of my fellow Americans,so maybe I'm just being overly idealistic here.)

Conscientiousness

My thoughts on this tied in with something else I'd been thinking about. 

Okay, I also thought it a rather sad look at how miserable these ultra wealthy people must be, considering all the research on how happiness comes from connection, but I wanted to focus on something else.

I have realized that I have always been conscientious. When our parents gave us chores while they were out and my brothers always argued that they should be able to go play because they'd just do them later (which we all knew meant never) I wanted to do the chores first - because I didn't want that obligation hanging over me. I wanted to play knowing there was no task waiting to be done later, wanted to be free and clear.

That obligation is of course entirely mental, and I have come to realize not everyone feels that way.

And not just my brothers.

One example that struck me was the problem with antibiotics. Or rather,that apparently so many people will stop taking them when they're feeling better even though the doctor said to take them for a set period of time.

Mostly the shock was because in our family you did what the doctor prescribed, and if they said take the pill for 14 days you take the pill for 14 days. (Barring the he occasional forgetfulness, ofc. But you don't just stop).

And the thing of it is, and the reason I used this example,is that I know if I really wanted to I could ignore that and stop - but why would I?

Doctors prescribe them long enough to hopefully kill of the infection, if you stop taking the antibiotics too soon you risk making things far worse when the more resistant bacteria survives and grows back.

Like - it's not just being conscientious, it's doing so because it's really rather stupid not to.

Which is mostly the point I wanted to make. There are a lot of social norms and rules and sometimes they're inconvenient. And sometimes it's worth breaking them. But you have to understand them enough to know when and where and why you're breaking them, and honestly for the most part they're there for a reason and it's better to follow them. (Barring situations like when the rules are made by Nazis and the like where they enable mass murder. Blind obedience is not conscientiousness.)

And what that article about consequence free wealth indicates, to me at least, is a careless attitude that means they don't really care about the rules - which means they're breaking them just because they can, and not with any real understanding of why those rules exist or when they should or shouldn't be broken.

It's people who decide to throw out the antibiotics as soon as they feel better, because they think they know better than the doctor and don't want to deal with the inconvenience any more than they have to.

It's kind of a shame that the predictable consequences of such foolishness are so delayed, because they're unfortunately in a position to make the rest of us suffer before they learn better.

Very Nice Summary On Managerial Mistakes

https://yanivpreiss.com/2026/03/29/9-stupid-power-moves-managers-make-and-the-damage-they-leave-behind/

Recognition

I have not seen the movie discussed here, and yet I found the discussion fascinating. Or rather, I recognize who they are describing and it's every online edgelord. 

It also captures that frustrating feeling where you see the potential for something great, and yet that greatness is sabotaged by the person themself before they can even get anywhere.

I don't think I'd ever watch the film, because it sounds like an exercise in frustration where I want to ask the character 

"Can you just - not?" 

I'll Have to Investigate This More

A tongue-in-cheek article on private equity that's disturbing if the facts check out - https://www.bitchesgetriches.com/private-equity/

Really,it reminds me of the parable of the many monkeys - though this version is not quite how I recall it. 

Thought Provoking

I'm not sure I fully agree, but they're definitely on to something 

https://weeklysift.com/2026/03/16/the-longer-view/

Preserving for Posterity

https://www.nybooks.com/articles/1995/06/22/ur-fascism/

How Can a Pundit Propound If a Pundit Punts Political Principles

Yes, I had fun writing that title. Some of the analysis here is so basic that I'm shocked anyone who doesn't know them would be considered a credible expert 

https://thecycle.substack.com/p/six-things-pundits-still-dont-understand

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.)

And Yet It's So Hard to Convince Them...

https://www.tumblr.com/seananmcguire/806151980047269888?source=share

Venezuela

 I feel obligated to write something about the latest bit of insanity, though I'm not sure where to start.

There is a certain viewpoint I have debated with myself off and on over the years, regarding power. Some people believe that underneath our civilized facade, underneath the ideals and morals and principles, is a simple and brutal calculus.

That ultimately power decides who gets what, and any softening or benevolence is either due to the charity of the powerful or due to some calculation where that softness benefits the powerful more than brutality.

It is... hard to argue with, though I think it's the type of thinking that is self-referential. I.e. if you believe it, everything you see will provide evidence supporting it... and if you don't, no evidence will be persuasive, but that reflects more on your subjective judgement than any objective reality.

I know that could just be my own unwillingness to accept such a brutal calculation, but my own rejection of the idea says something too, don't you think?

I can understand that states may, perhaps, need a monopoly on violence. That there is an element of hard power that underlies the ability to wield soft power. That for example perhaps MLK, Jr was only successful because of the fear of Malcolm X.

And yet I think that is insufficient. To focus only on that hard power, to focus solely on gaining 'strength' and 'power' that allows you to dictate the results you want reveals... only a partial understanding.

I have pondered this, and I'm not entirely sure if it's instinct or emotion or if I'm really on to something, but I think of a couple of things.

First of all, that such power and strength generally requires cooperation. That is, a brutal dictator is only able to dictate things when their followers obey. It's kind of like how Trump repeatedly 'orders' insane things, only a fraction of which is actually followed up on. Some of it just gets dismissed as his typical bullshit, and goes nowhere.

A brutal ruler can rule through fear... if they have someone willing to follow through and enforce that rule. (This is generally why said dictator has a group of loyalists they try to maintain control of through some combination of carrot and stick.)

Too brutal a ruler risks winding up the way Caligula did, assassinated by his own guards.

So if cooperation is required, and 'strength' often means having more people cooperating... then who we choose to cooperate with can dictate who is 'strong'.

Okay, okay. I know that sounds twisty and complicated and perhaps even a bit self-referential. Let me back that up and try to explain why it matters.

We each help decide what world we live in. Sort of that 'be the change you want to see' concept. If we choose to support a brutal dictator, then we live in a world where brutal dictators are strong. 

If, however, we choose NOT to support such a ruler, then we live in a world where the 'strong' are the ones who aren't brutal dictators.

I'm basically saying that strength in this case comes from strength in numbers. In how many people support your cause.

And that if we choose to support someone who rules through fear, than we make it so that ruling through fear makes you strong.

If, however, we choose to consider that a sign of foolishness and poor leadership and only support leaders who refuse to use such tactics, then the ones who grow strong and gain numbers are the ones who rule through other means.

In other words, brutality is not actually strength. It can seem like it, especially when it appears to work. When people are terrified and go along with it, it definitely seems like they're strong. And that the strong rule.

But the reality is more subtle than that. Especially because ruling this way comes with a lot of negative consequences, such as poor decision making and difficulty in using people's talents effectively.

I'm not sure if I've explained that very well, but spending more time on it probably won't make it any clearer.

The main point was to say that hard power calculations are not always the full story, and can even lead you astray.

Furthermore, I mostly agree with the Russell Kirk's second conservative principle. Custom, convention, and continuity matter. These customs and conventions developed for a reason, and while we should never be so ruled by convention that we stick with them even when they stopped serving their purpose, we should understand that purpose  before we go changing them willy nilly.

In this regard, Trump and his supporters are definitely not conservative. Honestly, we shouldn't be applying that term to them because they aren't conserving shit. They have thrown out all custom and convention, they aren't ensuring any sort of continuity, and they are doing whatever the hell they feel like.

Especially when it comes to Venezuela, where they have thrown out all we ever understood about international law.

I get why some people find this appealing. All too often it seems like we are bogged down, tied up in a plethora of customs, conventions, and laws all telling us why we can't do one thing or another. It paralyzes us, makes us unable to do little more than wring our hands and say 'oh no! That's terrible'.

And yet... actually taking action comes with long term consequences we don't really seem to understand. Like invading Iraq, and then not being prepared for the instability unleashed or the resentment we created.

There's a reason Trump's critics keep comparing his rule to that of a toddler. He throws out norms and conventions and does whatever the hell he wants, and doesn't seem aware of or care at all about the messes he makes in the process.

So to get back to Venezuela - I could go into the long and boring arguments about why what he did went against international law, and set dangerous precedents, and all these issues that will probably take a while before the negative consequences show.

But at the same time, going back to a hard power analysis - who is in a position to stop him? Who will enforce that law? 

Russia?

China?

NATO?

I suspect it will seem like Trump got away with it, at least in the short term, even as I believe it will have long term consequences that we'd have been better off avoiding.

I am not sure yet what will happen in Venezuela - it does sound like Trump did it all for oil, and intends to be more actively involved in the country, but that makes it more likely we'll face resistance and perhaps even a homegrown insurgency not too different from what we saw in Iraq. Or maybe he'll be more hands off, but then what happens if Venezuela doesn't go along with whatever the hell he wants them to do?

Oh, and this whole Trump Corollary shit seems on the surface like a logical extension of the Monroe Doctrine and Roosevelt Corollary, except that despite the hard power elements of those concepts they rested on a deep American belief in the right to self-determination. The Monroe Doctrine was supposed to protect the rest of America from European colonialist powers, after all. Honestly I think part of why we created our own immigration problem and failed so miserably with the 'red scare' was because we let our fear of communism sway us into policies that completely disrespected that right to self-determination. Trump is continuing down that path, and it could easily lead us from a soft sphere of influence to a harder sphere of direct control... a path we have shied away from (more or less) for very good reasons.

I have given up truly trying to predict what this administration is going to do, or what the consequences will be.

I am not sure there's any coalition of power willing and able to force a hard stop. 

I also do not believe there will truly be no consequences, nor that this is setting a good precedent.

God help us get through this, because it's probably only going to get worse.