Category: Blogs

Be complacent about AI at your own peril

Technology has improved human productivity and well being. AI is the latest technology. But AI is being pushed with unprecedented force, comes with significant concerns, and offers infinite power to its producers. We are accepting the prospect of living on welfare (guaranteed income) in exchange for a refrigerator that orders our meals.

We are in the midst of the AI revolution, and like the Industrial Revolution before it, the AI revolution has the potential of improving the human condition.

Also, like all economic and societal disruptions, AI comes with concerns. In AI’s case very big concerns that we ignore at our own peril.

The hard sell.

Everywhere we look, something about AI is there – events at work, the news, ads, posts on social media, YouTube.

Radios, TV, calculators, personal computers were marketed by their producers, of course, but were not shoved down our throats to the extent AI tools are today.

The hard sell is understandable. Older technologies aimed for smaller, faster, cheaper; while AI is OK with gargantuan and exorbitant to go faster. That requires investor and adoption frenzy exceeding the level of Beanie Babies.

So, no time for thoughtful deliberation.

  • Latest in AI news is Mythos’ surprising abilities as described in Anthopic’s Project Glasswing website. Mythos Preview discovered high-severity vulnerabilities “in every major operating system and web browser.”

Those abilities would be great, except that patches will not be available as fast as Mythos’ capabilities proliferate, “potentially beyond actors who are committed to deploying them safely. The fallout—for economies, public safety, and national security—could be severe.”

The diagnostic was a success, but the patient died.

  • The Internet is a messy place. It contains digitized great books, as well as all manner of eye-ball catching content. Massive amounts of that stuff is scooped by web crawlers and scrapers, given some clean up (removing HTML tags, duplicate entries, ads), dumped into pre-training buckets, then made available to Large Language Models to train on. LLMs can then be fine tuned into an agentic juggernaut like Mythos, or into an application that keeps track of the yogurt supply in our refrigerator.

All good, except that the old saying garbage in, garbage out comes to mind, most obviously in LLM bias and sycophancy. Bias comes from who/what groups/what gender/what races are most likely to end up on the Internet, from where LLMs are born. Sycophancy comes from today’s tendency toward personalization, which creates perfect echo chambers in chatbots, AI assistants, and social media.

AI interactive applications are made to please, not challenge or speak objective truth.

  • Generative AI like ChatGPT or Gemini can significantly increase productivity and ease of work. Such applications can generate writing, images, code, analysis and summary of data, information. As of early 2026, chatbots were primarily used as writing assistants, planners, and information searchers.

Concern arises when this technology is often and consistently used with minimal or biased prompts (loaded questions), resulting in little or no engagement from the user. The user will learn nothing from this practice, fail to share personal well-thought-out ideas, and risk cognitive atrophy. Here is an interesting response to those who compare AI chatbots with earlier technology like calculators.

“The calculator analogy is comforting—it was received with panic that eventually proved unwarranted—but may not hold. Calculators automate computation, which is mechanical. AI chatbots automate reasoning, argumentation, synthesis, and creative expression, the cognitive activities that are the skill rather than a means to it. When a calculator does your arithmetic, you lose arithmetic; when AI does your thinking, you lose thinking.” What the Studies Say About How AI Affects Your Brain: A (Very Big) Compilation, April 15, 2026.

  • Yes, there is a potential that AI robotics will take over most jobs. The solution touted on what to do with a superannuated population is to devise some form of guaranteed income – form, source, responsible party, distribution method all yet undecided.

Elon Musk suggested guaranteed income be distributed via government checks. Sam Altman prefers a wealth fund seeded and managed by collaboration between policy makers and AI companies.

Just trust. They are from tech, and they are here to help.

  • Equally unclear is quality of life under the AI scenario. In the past, there have been societies in which the few educated affluent enjoyed a life of study, philosophy, political discourse, and art. Such life style was made possible by the work of a vast population of slaves.

It is tempting, therefore, to visualize robots as the new slaves, and humans as the happy wealth-receiving few. Let that sink in.

The vision merits caution.

A plethora of robots, welcomed by humans and performing better than humans, could generate significant wealth through productivity.

Problem is, the AI elites are framing that rosy scenario in a vacuum, where ordinary things do not exist. Ordinary things — like events in history and human nature — need to be included in the scenario.

Remember the Industrial Revolution back in the 18th – 19th centuries? Factories sprang up, production of goods increased, and theoretically abundance for all should have followed.

It did not. What did happen was the industrial elites (John D. Rockefeller, Andrew Carnegie, J.P. Morgan, Cornelius Vanderbilt, Henry Clay Frick, Jay Gould, and Andrew W. Mellon) grew enormously wealthy, and most everybody else lived in great poverty. (What lifted people from that level of abject poverty is a related subject for another day).

Today, the elites are still with us generating great wealth for themselves. The poor are also still with us. So, talk about tremendous wealth arising from AI productivity needs to include talk about distribution of that wealth in specific terms.

Human nature is what it is. Those more blessed with brains and motivation rise to the top, get rich, and choose how they will use their wealth. The rest do the best they can. This is asymmetrical power that must also be included in the AI scenario.

The Wired Belts could push for more transparency.

At this point, some might say that accepting the thin scenario of ubiquitous AI robotics and human dependence on the unholy alliance of government/AI elites might be glaringly unsound.

There is some grumbling from displaced workers. There is also resistance toward the obscenely resource and land-intensive data centers inserting themselves in neighborhoods. Not to speak of these massive centers floating around in a low Earth orbit.

However, it seems the hard sell continues, love of AI tools is omnipresent, job losses are largely dismissed, and there is little demand for hard data to back up what the AI elites say is good.

No lessons learned from history?

Did we learn anything from the Rust Belt era of America’s deindustrialization and financialization? Could today’s Wired Belts of tech hubs and university towns call for more unified descriptions, transparency, town hall discussions of what exactly the average Jane and Joe want out of life?

Picture: Humanoids, unlike specialized robots, can be made capable of doing various tasks, like people. This picture is from an earlier article on AI, Why your new work colleague could be a robot, February 17, 2020.

Recommended documentary: The Fog of War

Robert S. McNamara served as US Secretary of Defense under Presidents Kennedy and Johnson from 1961 to 1968, administrations consumed by the Vietnam war. In The Fog of War he talks in hindsight of lessons that should be learned. Have we learned them?

There is no better time to revisit this American documentary than today, when our leaders seem to be under the impression that the US is so powerful that a little excursion here and a little killing there is all it takes to make America and the world safe again.

War has existed since time began, is likely to remain a part of human experience, and will always entail death and destruction. As such, war is possibly the most complex of human actions. There is no such thing in war as a “little excursion” to “get rid of some evil,” as President Donald Trump described the current US-Israel war on Iran.

Robert S. McNamara, Harvard-bred technocrat, original Whiz Kid from the Ford Motor Co., hand-picked by President John F. Kennedy as Secretary of Defense, talked about the complexity of war in the documentary The Fog of War – Lessons from the Life of Robert S. McNamara. He made a credible point: we are human, make mistakes, often fail to fully understand the situation we are in, but must nevertheless make decisions on “how much evil must we do to do good?” And he offered the hope that we acknowledge these shortcomings and learn how to do better after each mistake.

By way of background, The Fog of War is a 2003 interview with then 85-year-old Robert McNamara, accompanied by archival footage and recordings of conversations from the 1960s. The film won the 2004 Academy Award for Best Documentary Feature, and in 2019, it was selected by the Library of Congress for preservation in the United States National Film Registry for being “culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant”. The film’s director was Errol Morris, and its original score was composed by American composer Philip Glass.

Director Morris divided the documentary into 11 sections representing his interpretation of what Robert McNamara was communicating in the interview. Morris labeled the sections “Lessons.”

The lessons of war from The Fog of War were the following:

Lesson #1: Empathize with your enemy.

McNamara makes clear that empathy is not sympathy, but understanding what your enemy really needs and acting accordingly. He gave an example.

After the failed Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba, President Kennedy chose diplomacy instead of escalation. He promised Nikita Khrushchev the US would not invade Cuba and would establish a special “hot line” to Moscow. Khrushchev withdrew the Soviet missiles from Cuba, a nuclear war was avoided, and Khrushchev happily took credit for keeping the US from invading Cuba.

Lesson #2: Rationality alone will not save us.

Although Kennedy, Khrushchev, and Fidel Castro were presumably rational individuals, they came very close to annihilating themselves and possibly the world during the Cuban missile crisis. The complexity of rationality and the possibility of nuclear conflagration did not end with the Cuban crisis.

Lesson #3: There’s something beyond one’s self.

We are individuals first, but we are also social beings with responsibilities to others and to society. McNamara gives the example of how he discussed with his wife and 3 children the turmoil that would come into their lives and his significant decrease in income if he accepted the job of Secretary of Defense. He says it was a mutual agreement all around to accept the job.

Lesson #4: Maximize efficiency.

McNamara applied his analytical skills to bombing operations, and replaced the B-17s with B-29s, which promised to destroy targets more efficiently.

Lesson #5: Proportionality should be a guideline in war.

This section is possibly the most riveting in the documentary. McNamara explains the magnitude of destruction caused by US aircraft dropping napalm incendiary bombs in Tokyo – a prelude to Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Proportionality was not taken seriously, he says.

Lesson #6: Get the data.

Speaking like the Ford Whiz Kid he was, McNamara states that decisions must be made based on hard data.

Lesson #7: Belief and seeing are both often wrong.

“We see what we want to believe.” Thus, we “saw” North Vietnamese torpedo boats attack US ships, Congress passed the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, and the US entered a war that lasted nearly 20 years and caused 47,000 combat deaths.

Lesson #8: Be prepared to reexamine your reasoning.

“if we can’t persuade nations with comparable values of the merit of our cause, we better reexamine our reasoning.” The US is powerful but must not use that power unilaterally – simply because it can.

Lesson #9: In order to do good, you may have to engage in evil.

McNamara saw killing for what it is – evil – but at times necessary. So, when avoidance is not viewed as possible, the next best option is minimizing.

Lesson #10: Never say never.

War is way too complex to feel smug about any judgment or prediction.

Lesson #11: You can’t change human nature.

In the fog of war things only become clear in hindsight.

Do these lessons still apply?

Yes, of course they do. But that is not to say anyone today is necessarily following those common sense guides, no more than these guides were followed in Robert McNamara’s time, or perhaps any time.

The complexity of war involves an infinite number of variables – those who benefit and those who suffer, those who decide how many is OK to let die and those who want to “make love not war,” those who want to believe causes are just and those who feed the narratives, those who refer to war as little excursions and those who return home in body bags.

The complexity of war extends not only to things readily seen, but also to things often unforeseen. Was the widespread destruction of Middle East assets following the February 28, 2026, US/Israel attack on Iran anticipated? Did American families foresee price increases at the grocery store due to Iranian disruption of petroleum supplies affecting production of fertilizers?

Here is a quote from 19th century French economist Frédéric Bastiat that should place doubt on statements like “The United States is the largest Oil Producer in the World, by far, so when oil prices go up, we make a lot of money.” (Post on X White House 03/12/26).

“In the department of economy, an act, a habit, an institution, a law, gives birth not only to an effect, but to a series of effects. Of these effects, the first only is immediate; it manifests itself simultaneously with its cause — it is seen. The others unfold in succession — they are not seen: it is well for us, if they are foreseen. ” (That Which is Seen, and That Which is Not Seen, July 1850)

Robert S. McNamara would agree with Frédéric Bastiat. In life, in war, in economics, it is better to acknowledge complexity and try to foresee consequences of actions, whether those actions are viewed as necessary or not.

Anthropic said the quiet part out loud: ” No!”

The US Department of War designated AI company Anthropic a risk to national security. Why? Anthropic said “No!” to the possibility of the US government using Anthropic products for mass domestic surveillance or military unmanned targeting.

On Tuesday, February 24, Department of War Pete Hegseth threatened the private AI company Anthropic with terminating its contract with the Pentagon if Anthropic did not acquiesce to Pentagon demands. At issue was Anthropic’s refusal to remove its restraint on using Anthropic’s products for mass domestic surveillance and military targeting decisions without human input. The deadline for acquiesce was Friday, February 27.

The threat to Anthropic went further. Non-compliance could result in Anthropic being labeled a supply chain risk, and the invocation of the Defense Production Act to force Anthropic’s compliance (an obviously illogical contradiction).

On February 26, Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei responded with an unequivocal “No.”

  • AI makes it possible for government to assemble masses of scattered information and produce a comprehensive picture of anybody’s life. This use of AI is incompatible with democratic values.
  • At present, AI systems are just not reliable enough to power autonomous weapons. Anthropic will not provide a product that will put American fighters and civilians at risk.

Dario Amodei further maintained that the law has not caught up with AI’s capabilities and potentials. Therefore, Pete Hegseth’s statement that the Pentagon will only do business with companies that accede to any lawful use of their products does not reflect reality.

So, Dario Amodei took a leap of faith. He made a public statement that he was saying “No”and why he was saying “No.” The kernel of his statement on this short sentence:

“Regardless, these threats do not change our position: we cannot in good conscience accede to their request.”

Predictably, all Hades broke loose, President Donald Trump directed all government agencies to stop using Anthropic’s AI systems, and Pete Hegseth proceeded in labeling Anthropic a supply chain risk to national security.

It will be interesting to see what AI company steps in to supply the federal government with AI capabilities without any red lines; like domestic surveillance of US citizens and unmanned military targeting totally fine – no worries.

Rockbridge Network: an aristocracy if they can keep it

We have a group of extraordinarily wealthy, successful entrepreneurs/investors determined to stamp on the nation their view of a beneficent agenda via their wholly-owned “political venture capital firm,” The Rockbridge Network. This level of power, that is so far obscure, needs especially high vigilance from the governed. Will it get it?

As of today, don’t bother to look for The Rockbridge Network website. They don’t have one. But back in 2021, the Network circulated a brochure among the qualifying elite, and the brochure ended up in Document Cloud. That brochure is all you need to start getting worried.

Why worry?

It is not that The Rockbridge Network is wrong in stating that “the nation is in decline.” It is, given unsustainable national debt, disappearing manufacturing potential, significant economic inequalities, and sharp polarization.

It is not that The Rockbridge Network is wrong in stating that more effective leaders and policies are needed. Needed they are.

Where the Network becomes worrisome is 1) who is behind it, and 2) how it views itself.

By way of quick background: The Rockbridge Network was founded in 2019 by J.D. Vance (current US Vice President) and Chris Buskirk (venture capitalist and author, it seems). So far, the most conspicuous member/donors in the Network are Peter Thiel, Rebekah Mercer, Donald Trump Jr., David Sacks, and Marc Anderseen. They all have a couple of things in common: they are all very smart and very rich.

They have another thing in common – they wish to be viewed as beneficent aristocrats, who will populate seats of political power with other beneficent aristocrats.

Here is what journalist Elizabeth Dwoskin says on Linkedin, referring to her article, The secretive donor circle that lifted JD Vance is now re-writing MAGA’s future.

“This week I published my piece on the secretive world of donors around JD Vance that is now key to MAGA’s future. This network is led by Chris Buskirk, an Arizona insurance entrepreneur who quietly put tech elites at the center of power in Trump’s Washington. His efforts are grounded in a controversial theory: He believes a benevolent “aristocracy” is needed to move the country forward.”

So, we have a group of folks that are very smart, very rich, very exclusive, and very determined to do us the favor of picking for us our administrators and our rulers. What could go wrong?

Piles of money influencing politics.

Wealth has been a principal determining factor in modern politics. This has been especially apparent in the wake of 1) “irrational exuberance” (when assets are priced by public enthusiasm, not fundamental value), which helped populate the super wealthy class, and 2) the Supreme Court’s 2010 ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which removed pretty much all restrictions on wealthy corporations and other groups to spend unlimited amounts of money on elections.

We should expect The Rockbridge Network to exercise an outsized influence in who gets elected and what legislation is passed.

Vertical integration enabled by money

The Rockbridge Network is not a regular think tank or political PAC. It functions on a centralized, top down concept. The wealth of its members enables the Network to develop vertical integration. Instead of supporting like-minded, independent entities, the Network establishes its own laser-focused entities. The brochure in question makes that concept clear.

“One way to think of Rockbridge is as an investment manager, a kind of political venture capital firm. It is our job to leverage our investors’ capital with the right political expertise to ensure results. We are pursuing political alpha.

Rockbridge Network will replace the current Republican ecosystem of think tanks, media organizations and activist groups that have contributed to the Party’s decline with better action-oriented, more effective people and institutions that are focused on winning.”

The brochure identifies Network Projects tasked with specific mandates:

The Media Project is responsible for public relations and messaging, rapid response communications, polling, area-specific coverage, influencers, investigative journalism, documentaries, and “projects for cultural influence and renewal.

Lawfare & Strategic Litigation “will identify leverage points where the law allows us to hold bad actors, including the media, accountable.”

The Transition Project will gather the people and the plans supposedly perfectly aligned with the Network’s objectives, and “be ready to govern effectively with conservative goals, from day one.”

The Red State Project “is building a centralized, organizing force in each state by hiring staff to coordinate like-minded groups to ensure we win .”

So far these entities have not been visible to the public, no more than the Network itself.

An aristocracy, if they can keep it.

All forms of government need the vigilance of the governed to avoid – or at least delay – decay. Our Republic is no different, as Founder Benjamin Franklin succinctly warned: “A Republic, if you can keep it.”

Earlier, another great mind, the philosopher Aristotle, also pointed to such decay in his treatise Politics, Part VII.

“Of forms of government in which one rules, we call that which regards the common interests, kingship or royalty; that in which more than one, but not many, rule, aristocracy; and it is so called, either because the rulers are the best men, or because they have at heart the best interests of the state and of the citizens. But when the citizens at large administer the state for the common interest, the government is called by the generic name- a constitution…

Of the above-mentioned forms, the perversions are as follows: of royalty, tyranny; of aristocracy, oligarchy; of constitutional government, democracy. For tyranny is a kind of monarchy which has in view the interest of the monarch only; oligarchy has in view the interest of the wealthy; democracy, of the needy: none of them the common good of all.”

Channeling Aristotle, Chris Buskirk’s personal (if not public) perspective on rule by the few is nuanced. One example is his discussion with Annika Nordquist, of New Books Network, on May 22, 2024. In this interview Buskirk advocated for a rule of the exceptional few (“optimize for highly creative small groups”). But readily admitted that an ideal aristocracy “is rare.” “It is always been flawed even when good.”

Let’s digest this

We have a group of extraordinarily wealthy, successful entrepreneurs/investors determined to stamp on the nation their view of a beneficent agenda via their wholly-owned “political venture capital firm,” The Rockbridge Network. This level of power, that is so far obscure, needs especially high vigilance from the governed. Will it get it?

What could go right?

There is nothing inherently wrong with an aristocracy – rule by the best minds of good character. Chris Buskirk pointed out in the above-mentioned New Books Network discussion, early America was an aristocracy.

Indeed, our Founders were exceptional of character, well educated, and committed to preserving the Republic for future generations. Among them were members of wealthy families like John Hancock, middle-class merchants like Sam Adams, and self-made innovators like Ben Franklin.

So, there is precedent for an American beneficent (although “flawed even when good”) aristocracy; and therefore there is hope that prominent members like Donald Trump Jr, Peter Thiel, and David Sacks will put the well being of the Republic ahead of a – totally understandable – desire to preserve their substantial personal interests.

Picture: Official White House photo of President Donald Trump and Vice President J.D. Vance, with other administration officials posing in the West Wing Lobby, on June 5, 2025.

What happened to “domestic tranquility?!”

The Preface to the US Constitution mandates that leaders “insure domestic tranquility.” Not happening. The Constitution mandates a balance of power among the 3 branches of government. Not happening either. So don’t expect the rest of the mandates: unity, justice, security, well being, and liberty..

Do y’all feel tranquil these days? Like, waking up each morning confident your job is pretty secure, your children are learning essential skills in school, your savings are safe from devaluation and/or seizure, you are sure to return home safely after your day’s work, and WWIII is nothing but a conspiracy by negative people?

If the answer to such cogitation is “yes,” then our leaders are doing a good job abiding by their mandate as set forth in the Preamble of the US Constitution:

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

The key mandate in this Preface is “insure domestic Tranquility.” Without cool heads, capable of understanding challenges and picking best alternatives to fix them, union, justice, security, general well being, and most certainly liberty become difficult to achieve.

But, can the answer to the question be an honest “yes?”

Unfortunately, given our daily news, an honest answer should be “no,” we are not enjoying tranquil times.

Ideological polarization is ingrained, and therefore, radicalization is tainting our choices and our actions. We are confronted daily with demonstrations, allegations, judicial revenge, and violence. Our leaders are taking
extreme actions, not in response to foreign aggression (like Pearl Harbor or 9/11), nor in response to dire economic conditions (like the 1930s Depression). Extreme actions are being taken in attempts to quick fix ordinary problems that have been festering unattended for decades, and to satisfy wet dreams of imperialism.

Such radicalization often rises from an erosion of balanced powers.

The US Constitution dictates separation of powers, with the three branches of government possessing equal power. The legislative branch makes laws, the executive branch enforces laws, and the judicial branch interprets laws.

Founding Father James Madison described separation of powers succinctly in Federalist No. 47:

“The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.”

In this quote, Madison simply described human nature – power corrupts. Such corruption is not necessarily unlawful or unethical, but might be corruption of thought processes caused by intoxication with power.

The executive branch has enjoyed slow mission creep.

For decades, Congress has been slowly abdicating its powers. First by not standing firm in requiring Congressional deliberation before sending our young to die in foreign wars, like Korea or Vietnam. Then by accepting barrels full of presidential executive orders and pretending they carry the weight of laws. Lately by failing to collaboratively deliberate alternatives, simply voting by party affiliation instead.

The citizenry, the media, think tanks, and sundry talking heads have also contributed to the imbalance of powers. These days, we often hear about the “RINOs impeding the President’s agenda,” referring to members of Congress who dare to question a presidential edict or action. On the other side of the aisle, we hear accusations of “stab in the back” when a Congress member breaks with his party and votes to curb some aspect of government spending.

Our current leaders are especially blind to separation of powers.

The current heightened power of the presidency has rendered the presidential agenda sacrosanct. The agenda has good objectives — cut government’s unsustainable spending, increase domestic manufacturing, grow the economy, ensure domestic security, prevent undocumented aliens from entering the US, deport criminal aliens.

However, implementation of the agenda has effaced the crucial Constitutional mandate of insuring domestic tranquility.

This is not to say that domestic tranquility was not seriously disrupted in the recent past. Particularly disturbing events were the race riots of the 1960s, and the Vietnam War riots that culminated in 1970 with National Guard members opening fire on student demonstrators killing four.

It is also not to say that the US has not engaged in executive foreign adventures and regime change in the recent past. A notable US invasion was that of Panama in 1989, ordered unilaterally by then President George H.W. Bush, resulting in the capture of Panama’s military leader Manuel Noriega under charges of drug trafficking. Notable recent regime change via support of coups occurred in Iran 1953, Guatemala 1954, and Chile 1973.

But today’s turmoil feels different, deeper, given Congress’ particularly evident inertia in the face of a particularly forceful President.

In the past, presidents have deployed military personnel to quell violence arising from disturbing events like the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. Presently, heavily armed personnel arrive in cities first with a mandate to round up illegal aliens; and then come the protesters and the violence. Congress could have prevented such topsy-turvy turmoil by passing credible, effective immigration-related legislation.

Congress is also largely missing in action when it comes to the executive branch’s daily pivoting on tariffs, running Venezuela, acquiring Greenland, and threatening sundry countries with military action. All such actions made in the absence of clear and present dangers to the US, and in the absence of deliberation of alternatives.

Support for “the agenda” will be measured in the midterm elections.

Hopefully, during the coming midterm elections, races will be relatively free of irregularities, voters will be thoughtful of candidate qualities and value of issues, and blind partisanship will not dominate voters’ choices.

If all those wishes come true, the midterms can serve as a report card of the current administration. A report card is always a useful tool to determine one’s path – doing good, so continue on the current path; or not doing so good, so adjust the path.

Picture: From the Guardian, Thousands protest against Trump’s war on immigrants after Ice raids, February 9, 2025. This article regards ICE raids in Denver, Colorado, 11 months ago. Note that no adjustments in policy to prevent further violence has happened.

In your palace warm, mighty king…

As those of us blessed with a warm home gather to celebrate, let us give thought to how we can aim for the essential ingredient for the prosperity that can provide a warm blanket for the shivering child in neighborhoods or conflict zones around the world.

At present there is celebration. Homes – big or small – are decked in pine and holly. Carols are remembered, if not sung.

One carol that might come to mind is Do Your Hear What I Hear. And one verse from that carol that might ring most deeply is,

Said the shepherd boy to the mighty king
Do you know what I know?
In your palace warm, mighty king
Do you know what I know?
A Child, a Child shivers in the cold
Let us bring him silver and gold.

As those of us blessed with palace or apartment warm gather and celebrate, let us for a moment give thought how we can aim for the essential ingredient in “silver and gold” – Peace. From Peace can come prosperity, and from prosperity a warm blanket for the shivering child in neighborhoods or conflict zones around the world.

But, the right kind of Peace.

The peace that comes from the barrel of a gun or from the stroke of a pen is a false peace, and does not last. Real Peace must come from all people’s hearts. It must come from the realization that making friendships and making love is infinitely more sensible than making war.

So, for another verse from the carol.

Said the king to the people everywhere
Listen to what I say!
Pray for peace, people, everywhere.
Listen to what I say!
The Child, the Child sleeping in the night
He will bring us goodness and light
He will bring us goodness and light!

Christian or not, believer or not, Peace be with you all.

Picture: From The Christ Child: A Nativity Story. This is a beautiful short film about the birth of Jesus Christ, produced in 2019 by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Paycheck to paycheck and waiting for SNAP

The furor over the recent interruption of SNAP food subsidies might be better placed on the unfortunate fact that 12% of US residents cannot afford groceries.

During the latest federal government shutdown, mainstream media has been awash with concern about families’ well being in the absence of SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, formerly Food Stamps). While that concern is valid, more significant would be the question why 12% of US residents can’t afford groceries.

SNAP is one of the several US Department of Agriculture Food and Nutrition services, intended to help US residents unable to ensure food on their table. SNAP is the largest of the Food and Nutrition programs, clocking in at 70.2% of spending. The other USDA programs are child nutrition, 20.2%; WIC (Women, Infants, and Children) 5%; all other 4.6%.

USDA data shows that in fiscal year 2023, children accounted for about 39% of all SNAP participants, adults ages 18–59 represented 42%, and seniors 60 and older represented about 19%.

Most non-disabled working age SNAP recipients do work, but in today’s many non-steady, low-paying industries. They are part of the growing numbers of workers in Paycheck to Paycheck America.

What is poverty in our Humpty Dumpty World?

Some of the challenges in Paycheck to Paycheck America come from an ever-changing meaning of words. In Alice in Wonderland, Humpty Dumpty helps us understand that situation:

“When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean. Neither more or less.” Alice responded to Humpty Dumpty, “The question is, whether you can make words mean so many different things?” Humpty Dumpty retorted: “The question is, which is to be master? That’s all.”

The word “poverty” seems to fall into the Humpty Dumpty category of meaning what “masters” want it to mean.

In the very old days poor people were just that – poor, and they made do with what goods or services they and their children provided to others. In the 1960s, a poverty threshold was developed, people below that threshold became entitled to taxpayer assistance – and the “poverty rate” decreased. In 2011, the Supplemental Poverty Measure, which took into account all sorts of variables, was implemented – and the “poverty rate” decreased some more.

However, regardless of official statistics, folks remain poor. Decrease in poverty since the 1960s does not mean folks make more money for themselves. It means folks receive more money from public assistance.

Thus, the dire situation brought about by an interruption in SNAP subsidies.

In an ideal world, SNAP subsidies would not exist

In an ideal world, efforts would not be placed in ensuring lower-income individuals receive public assistance, but ensuring those individuals did not need public assistance, at least not to the extent that is needed at present.

A good start would be looking at prices vs. wages increases.

Here are numbers quoted by the Ludwig Institute for Shared Economic Prosperity:

“… from 2001 to 2023, the cost of affording basic economic security doubled, rising 99.5%, 38% faster than the Consumer Price Index. Housing costs soared 130%, healthcare 178%, and the savings required to attend an in-state, public university 122%.”

Meanwhile, the Economic Policy Institute says,

“… new data on wages through 2024. Cumulative median wage growth was just 29% since 1979—or less than 0.6% per year on average.”

Efforts like minimum wage, rent control, government-controlled healthcare, taxing the rich have been tried. Results have been to allow the poor to live a little better, but seldom move up an economic ladder.

So, we might look at other variables

* Price inflation: Government prints money faster than it increases gross domestic product. National debt to GDP is now 125%. This causes the proverbial too much money chasing too few goods.

* Housing shortage: In the old days people built houses when they needed houses. These days, regulations, union demands, environmental concerns, not-in-my-backyardness, monopolistic corporate ownership of rentals, all conspire to greatly increase the price of housing.

* “Healthcare” today is not what it meant in the past: Prior to the 1960s, those lucky enough to be insured through their employer, union, or privately received coverage for hospital stays and needed surgeries. Urban as well as rural doctors, nurses, midwives, and even pharmacists did the rest. Pharmaceutical companies had not yet developed drugs for every malady. And there were a lot of healthy young people around. Today, insurers and providers of medical care deal with an aging population, higher incidences of chronic diseases, a vast array of prescription drugs, new procedures like sports medicine and gender-affirming care, and the ever-present threat of medical law suits.

* College tuition: The answer to why college tuition increased so significantly since the 1980s will depend on who you ask. But there are a few reasons that are generally accepted. Competition based on costly amenities. Increase in administrators, counselors, and other non-teaching staff. Increased perception that a college degree is essential to success. Reduced federal funding of grants. There is one reason widely quoted but often denied – In 1978 federal student loans became available to all students regardless of income, and colleges took advantage of that largess to increase tuition.

Addressing these variables

Rather than focus on extending public assistance like SNAP, it might be more productive to focus on the variables that likely make individuals and families dependent on public assistance.

The recent furor over the suspension of SNAP serves as a reminder of the old saying:

“If your government is big enough to give you everything you want, it is big enough to take away everything you have.”

Picture: From the website of the US Department of Agriculture. USDA has 29 agencies administering programs like Agricultural Research, Animal Plant Health Inspection, Food Safety and Inspection, Farm Services, Food and Nutrition, and several other services.

A new Middle East Peace Plan – Again?

The asymmetry between Israel and Palestine is a fatal flaw always present in Middle East peace plans attempted by Western officials. The current plan is no different.

President Donald Trump, in his apparent effort to establish a new global order, is devising peace solutions to the world’s hot spots. The Middle East “20-point Peace Plan” is receiving the most press, possibly because the world would like to see an end to 77 years of lives destroyed or lost in conflict between Israelis and Palestinians. Most unfortunately, this plan suffers from the fatal flaw present in plans going way back to the end of World War I.

The fatal flaw is the asymmetry between Israel and Palestine. The Jewish State has the cultural, political and economic support of a world-wide Jewish community; and Israel has worked hard to be the Western presence in the Middle East. In contrast Palestine suffers from divergent factions, lacks a world-wide community as focused in unity as the Jewish community, and is perceived as anti-Western. Understandably, “peace plans” devised by Westerners will favor Israel.

Thus, we now have a peace plan on the table that includes disarmament of Hamas (understandable given Hamas’ horrific actions of October 7, 2023, but how realistic?), a dependent Palestinian population subject to whether Israel allows food into Gaza or not, an unclear deployment of “international security forces” to ensure success of the peace plan, and no acknowledgment in the plan about Islam’s discomfort with the existence of Israel or Israel’s desire to accommodate its growth via expanding settlements.

Time, effort and treasure spent by government officials in numerous Middle East peace plans have not yielded any peace so far. At this point, one might wonder whether peace through adult negotiation is really the heart-felt objective, or whether annihilation of one side or another is the endgame.

Also at this point, one might be reminded of the 1960s Vietnam Era embrace of a collective unconscious conceptualized in the adage “Make Love not War.” The 20-year carnage of the Vietnam War did not really end with official peace plans. It ended when peace started with a collective “Meh” directed at useless destruction. Obviously for such blessing to occur, individuals and families on all sides need to come to the conclusion that they are better off making love not war.

Picture: Sep 1, 2025 Al Jazeera
“Gaza’s beaches, once popular destinations for leisure and relaxation, have been transformed into makeshift refugee camps … Thousands of displaced Palestinians now seek shelter on the very shores that were once symbols of joy and respite.“

Our kids’ brains, fried on social media

Frequent use of platforms is crucial for the generation of profits. Therefore, algorithms aim for what amounts to addiction. And social media addiction is associated with negative changes in brain structure, especially in young people.

One of our Founding Fathers, James Madison, said “A well-instructed people alone can be permanently a free people.” So, what are our chances of eventually not falling into the hands of masters when our kids’ brains are being fried by social media?

No, this is not hyperbole. Frequent use of platforms is crucial for the generation of profits. Therefore, algorithms aim for what amounts to addiction. And social media addiction is associated with negative changes in brain structure, especially in young people.

What studies say.

Many studies have associated changes in specific areas of the brain — especially young people’s brain — with frequent use of social media. Areas negatively affected regulate thoughts, emotions, judgment, decision-making, higher-order thinking, impulse control, attention.

Here are excerpts that explain the harms.

“Internet addiction can also cause changes in the prefrontal cortex and lead to an imbalance in the frontostriatal pathway, which increases sensitivity to stimuli and reduces inhibitory control, thus influencing decision-making and emotional changes. In adolescents and young adults, impairments in cognitive functions, such as self-monitoring, memory retention, organizational skills, and time management, are commonly seen in cases of internet and smartphone addiction.” Social Media Algorithms and Teen Addiction, January 8, 2025.

“Social media platforms, by design, tap into our neurobiological vulnerabilities, particularly the mesolimbic dopamine system, creating cycles of craving and satisfaction. People’s tendency of addictive behavior with smartphones is not merely a matter of willpower but a neurological phenomenon with far-reaching consequences on attention, memory, and overall cognitive function.” Likes, Loops, and Limbic Systems, November 28, 2024.

“Upon exposure to rewarding stimuli, the mesolimbic system releases dopamine into specific target nuclei … Social media systems are taking advantage of the system by increasing dopamine release via digital footprints and machine learning algorithms that flash personalized content. This reinforcement motivates extended use, while users find it harder to unplug due to the expectation of rewards.” Social Media Algorithms and Teen Addiction, January 8, 2025.

So, is freedom in peril?

Judging by the excerpts above and the widespread use of social media by children and young adults, it appears we may be raising a generation lacking essential characteristics necessary to maintain a functioning republic.

In his “farewell address,” President George Washington listed many things necessary to preserve the republic. One of those things was a populace blessed with knowledge and enlightenment.

“Promote then, as an object of primary importance, institutions for the general diffusion of knowledge. In proportion as the structure of a government gives force to public opinion, it is essential that public opinion should be enlightened.” George Washington’s address.

His point was obvious: Our republic is based on the public’s will. If our populace suffers from “impairments in cognitive functions, such as self-monitoring, memory retention, organizational skills,” then the republic cannot endure.

In such scenario we will have “more need of masters,” as Ben Franklyn predicted. And the frightening part of this scenario is that the helpless populace will not know what kind of masters they will end up getting!

What to do? Here are laypersons’ suggestions.

If you are waiting for government to “do something,” you may be out of luck. Social media moguls donate tons of money to political campaigns. If you want your children to have healthy brains, you will have to take matters into your own hands.

* Whether your family dinner is pheasant on tarragon cream or beans and rice, the kids will benefit from sitting with you and learn to converse. No cell phones, no television, just sharing how the day went and how it could have gone better.

* Visit your school board (try to make time, even if you work two jobs) and insist that cell phones be in lockers during class time (yes, this is getting to be a dangerous world where cell phones might be considered a safety tool, but are they also contributing to violence?)

* Bed time is sleep time, not text time. Taking a book to bed might work. New readers might love traditional comic books. Once kids get hooked on reading the good stuff, they are on their way to being lifetime readers instead of texters.

A Republic, if you can keep it.

It is up to We the People. Do we want a populace with fried brains in need of masters, or a nation of readers and problem solvers capable of maintaining a functional free republic?

Picture: From Freepik, a creative suite with a treasure trove of free images.

The news everybody knew: plastics make you sick

Medical journal The Lancet just published a straight-up report on plastics: they make you sick. Is your baby chewing on plastic teething rings? Is your tween’s room filled to the rafters with Barbies? Choose healthier.

On August 3, 2025, the Lancet, a well-known medical journal, published a report that went straight to the point regarding plastics. The Lancet Countdown on Health and Plastics, says:

“Plastics are a grave, growing, and under-recognised danger to human and planetary health. Plastics cause disease and death from infancy to old age and are responsible for health-related economic losses exceeding US$1·5 trillion annually.”

There has been enough talk about plastics harming our environment.

We have all seen the ubiquitous images of the mountains of plastic containers clogging waterways, decimating oceanic health, and blighting landscapes. What we have not seen or heard enough is talk of the health hazards caused by rooms full our children’s plastic toys, refrigerators with plastic containers, pantries with plastic-lined food cans, doors and windows encased in polyvinyl chloride (PVC, an acknowledged toxic plastic), and water pipes made of PVC.

So, lets talk about the human danger of plastics.

The human danger largely comes from two sources: (1) From inhaling chemicals that emanate from building materials like PVC, furniture made of engineered “wood,” and products — from toys to medical equipment — made from plastics. (2) From ingesting microplastics that enter our bodies via water, food, and breathing.

These foreign substances wreck havoc in endocrine and neurological systems, especially the systems of fetuses and children. Such disruptions increase risks for obesity, diabetes, lower fertility, and ADHD.

The remedy discussed in the Lancet report?

The several authors of the referenced Lancet report must be commended for sounding alarm in a popular journal, the publications of which are often picked up by the general media.

They must also be commended for starting a serious effort to track amelioration of harms done by plastics. The tracking – or “Countdown” — will begin after member states of the United Nations finalize a global plastics treaty during meetings in Geneva, Switzerland from August 5 – 14.

A press release dated August 5, 2025, on the The UN Environmental Programme website defines the objective of the upcoming sessions on global plastics:

“… to develop an international legally binding instrument on plastic pollution, including in the marine environment … to finalize and approve the text of the agreement and forward it for consideration and adoption at a future Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries.”

What was not discussed in the Lancet report?

Understandably, the scope of the Lancet report does not include two questions that hopefully will be addressed by ordinary concerned individuals.

* Have the climate change global agreements worked as expected? Some will say “yes” judging by the proliferation of laws regarding oil production, transportation, and infrastructure. Others will say “no” judging by the fact that climate continues to present increasing challenges since the Paris Agreement was signed in 2015.

* What will replace the innumerable plastic products in the market today? Some will say not to worry because that will be solved once enough plastics are banned. Others will say that the sheer volume of replacements needed requires that consumers become convinced that plastics threaten their health, start purchasing the alternatives that are already in the market, and producers reach economies of scale to make alternatives to plastics affordable to everyone. In other words, where mandates, like those made as a result of climate change treaties, do not work, consumer awareness might.

Replacement products must precede or accompany reduction in plastics.

In the old days, children’s toys were made of wood, cotton and wool, straw, paper, tin and other products derived from nature. The same with household products.

In 1907, the first completely synthetic plastic, made from phenol and formaldehyde, was developed. It was named Bakelite. Its many uses, including the manufacturing of colorful bangles, helped propel the development of more plastics.

As development and production of plastics grew, economies of scale made plastics cheap compared to naturally-sourced materials. New technologies made plastic products in all kinds of shapes, sizes, textures, strengths, and colors. And omnipresent advertising and powerful lobbying succeeded in selling plastics like polyvinyl chloride as safe for our water infrastructure (like PVC pipes), our homes’ building materials (like “luxury vinyl”), our children’s toys (like the plushy ones), and containers of things we put in our bodies (like IV bags).

Given such universal use of plastics, talk of reducing use via government mandates – as the UN global efforts seem to advocate – is unrealistic.

More realistic would be to increase consumers’ awareness.

To reduce the use of plastics, consumers must (1) become believers in the health hazards of plastics, and (2) become comfortable with using plastics alternatives, many of which are already in the market today.

Here is an example of the effectiveness of strategy (1).

The public’s awareness that cigarettes were deadly and not the safe glamorous indulgence they were portrayed to be helped to lower smoking addiction. Cigarettes were not banned, they just became yucky in the eyes of a lot of people.

The same could happen to most plastics. The environmental lobby has already succeeded in developing some distaste for plastics by publicizing realities like the island of plastic garbage located in the North Pacific and sea creatures helplessly tangled in plastic containers’ packaging yokes.

Now health enthusiasts could make inhaling the volatile organic compounds (VOCs) off-gassed by luxury vinyl, plushy toys, and the innumerable other plastic products in our homes and workplaces equally undesirable. Even easier to make unpleasant is the ingestion of micro plastics.

Strategy (2) is seen in trends like the general public of the 1970s feeling comfortable using computers or using recycling bins.

Some statistics show that demand for alternatives to plastic products is increasing. Maybe selling “sustainability” works, maybe plastic teething rings became a bridge too far for some, maybe more people now know that most plastic products are not recyclable and end up in landfills.

That trend could accelerate with clever promotion of alternative products that already exist, appeals to “early adopters,” encouraging the purchase of less but healthier stuff, support of politicians that advocate using petroleum (the raw material of many plastics) for essential industries and transportation not vinyl doors and Barbies.

Find out about the interesting plastic alternatives!

An online store (Impack, with no connection with this blog) selling non-plastic packaging has a good chart of alternative materials and their relative cost. The two more interesting products are glassine bags and mushroom cushioning.

Glassine bags are resistant to grease, air, and water vapor. They are also biodegradable, translucent, cost effective, and not coated with anything. Glassine is a healthy way to wrap food.

Mushroom cushioning is made of mushroom roots combined with agricultural waste like corn husks. It is a highly effective protective material for expensive fragile products like electronics and high-end cosmetics.

Choose healthy.

What keeps people from moving away from plastics is feeling comfortable with plastics’ image of trustworthy useful affordability. That image was carefully curated to consumers.

A 4th of July checkered tablecloth made of PVC looks just like grandma’s oilcloth made of cotton and linseed oil. Vinyl sheet flooring comes right up when you Google “linoleum,” also mostly of linseed oil. Parents and children are constantly fed images of happy kids surrounded by piles of cute and colorful plastic.

Pulling back the curtain on plastics, as the Lancet report has just helped do, and making people feel even more comfortable with natural alternatives to plastics is a good way to make us all much healthier.

Picture: Disney Princess Gourmet Kitchen sold at Target. 42.32 H x 49.37 W x 12.59 D. Material: Plastic.