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#