Thursday, July 31, 2025

#212 / Write On!

  

Time Magazine printed a fairly dramatic evaluation of ChatGPT, as that "Artificial Intelligence" program is related to education. Click here for the entire article, which is pretty brief. The statement I want to highlight is reproduced below:

Virtually all experienced scholars know that writing, as historian Lynn Hunt has argued, is “not the transcription of thoughts already consciously present in [the writer’s] mind.” Rather, writing is a process closely tied to thinking. In graduate school, I spent months trying to fit pieces of my dissertation together in my mind and eventually found I could solve the puzzle only through writing. Writing is hard work. It is sometimes frightening. With the easy temptation of AI, many—possibly most—of my students were no longer willing to push through discomfort (emphasis added).

Victoria Livingstone. who is the author of the article just quoted, holds a doctorate in Hispanic literature, and was a Fulbright scholar in Brazil. She is currently the managing editor of MLN, a peer-reviewed journal of literary scholarship. Most recently, Livingstone was teaching doctoral students at a "technical college" (unnamed). Her students largely refused to do their own writing, relying on ChatGPT instead. As a consequence, Livingstone quit.

I have been writing in this blog since January 1, 2010. One post every day. I write this blog, essentially, as a way to "think" about what is happening in this "Political World" that we inhabit, and it is my belief that the thinking I have done, in the course of writing all those individual blog postings, has paid off in my own self-education. I am writing, in other words, not to tell anyone who reads these postings what they should think, but as a way to figure out what I think. 

I recommend this method of writing in order to "learn" - as opposed to the idea that a person should write in order to "teach" others. This idea of daily writing (in order to understand the world) is something like the idea that we might - each one of us - "journal" our daily lives, as a way to come to grips with the significance of our lives, and thus with our own significance. 

"Thinking" - all types of "thinking" - is highly recommended. We are seeing a lot of evidence that our politics would be better if more "thinking," by more people, were brought to bear on the politics of the day. That's my view, of course, and views may differ. 

Still, I say: 
Write On!


Wednesday, July 30, 2025

#211 / I Am Still Not Biting

   

 
Recently, The Wall Street Journal ran a story by Gregory Zuckerman and Vicky Ge Huang. They are telling us that "The Hottest Business Strategy This Summer Is Buying Crypto."

I have a thought: Don't!

I haven't tallied up the number of times that I have inveighed against "crypto" in my daily blog postings. Here is a link to a sampler of my warnings against "investing" in something that has no genuine "investment" value. Where "crypto" is concerned, the word "investing" should be translated as "speculating," or "betting." The future value of an "investment" in cryptocurrency, in all its forms (the most recent form is "tokens"), is determined by what other people are willing to pay for it in the future. Maybe, people will be willing to pay more tomorrow than they would have had to pay today. 

Maybe not, too!

If you want to "bet," step right up! Just don't fool yourself into thinking that what you are doing is making an "investment" decision. 

https://www.wsj.com/finance/currencies/crypto-treasury-e7ae573c

Tuesday, July 29, 2025

#210 / Do You Remember The Tik Tok Ban?

  

 
Glenn S. Gerstell, an American lawyer, technology writer, and former government official, is asking whether anyone remembers the "Tik Tok Ban." Gerstell poses this question in the headline to an opinion column that was published in the July 28, 2025, edition of The New York Times. After posing this question in the initial portion of the headline, The Time's headline ends with a further, and plaintive inquiry: "Does Anyone?" I am referring, as I usually do, to the hard copy edition of the paper. Online, the headline is a bit different. The question, though, is definitely the same!

If you click the above link to "Tik Tok Ban," you will find a discussion made available on the website of the Brookings Institution. That discussion makes clear, with citations - and just in case you don't remember - that the United States Congress has passed a law that currently prohibits the Tik Tok website from operating in the United States. Despite that law, Tik Tok is continuing to provide such services at this time. And why? Tik Tok is still providing its services, despite existing federal law, because our current president says it's ok for them to do so. This is, of course, consistent with our current president's proclaimed approach to government (I, alone, can fix it).

Were our current president a "monarch," it would be just fine for him to wheel and deal with Tik Tok (and with the Chinese government), despite what the law says. However, just in case you have forgotten, the President of the United States is NOT a monarch. But if neither Congress, nor the citizens, whom Congress is supposedly representing, does anything about it when the president presumes, unilaterally, to "suspend" the laws that he has sworn "faithfully to execute," he might just as well be. 

I never get tired of that Bob Dylan advisory that I have written about before. When our system of self-government is demonstrably breaking down, before our very eyes, there isn't any use waiting around for someone else to do something about it. We all need to remember Dylan's refrain: "I guess it must be up to me." 

https://www.npr.org/2024/09/16/g-s1-23194/tiktok-us-ban-appeals-court

Monday, July 28, 2025

#209 / Rebutting The Case For Monarchy

 

 
Our current president, who appears to have monarchial ambitions, has supporters who are ready unabashedly to advocate for monarchy, out loud and unrestrained. One of those advocates for "monarchy" is Curtis Yarvin. I was pleased to see that Danielle Allen, a professor at Harvard, has been willing to take on Yarvin and his argument in favor of jettisoning our system of democratic self-government in favor of a frank, out-front "monarchy." The New York Times had a nice write-up on the debate.

Does this seem outlandish to you? I mean, advocating for "monarchy" in America? Well, maybe we should take seriously the idea that some people are willing to mount a revolution in favor of "monarchy." Professor Allen certainly takes that possibility seriously!

I am providing you with a link to Allen's May 7, 2025, column in The Wall Street Journal, "Why I Debated Curtis Yarvin At Harvard." If you can't get access to that column in The Journal, paywall protections being what they are, try this link, which will take you to a website maintained by Harvard. Allen says, among other things - I am citing to the column in The Wall Street Journal - that "we have allowed political parties to capture our institutions, and to govern for their own sake rather than the public good." Supposing that this is true (and there is some legitimacy to such a claim), "Monarchy" is not the answer - at least according to Allen. Instead, she says, "we need to renovate our democratic institutions, starting with party reform." 

Allen and I, in other words, are singing the same tune. I published a blog posting just a few days ago that I titled, "Is The Party Over?" We can't expect the Democratic Party, or any other political party, to carry the full weight of what we generally call, "Democracy," though I like to call our system "Self-Government." I think my phrasing sends the right message. If we want to preserve the kind of democratic self-government established after the American Revolution - our "Democracy" - we need to get involved in government "ourselves." 

Here is another way to put it: "We, the people," are supposed to be "running the place."

WE are supposed to be in charge, not some "Monarch!"

If we aren't "running the place," or if we aren't doing that in any effective way, then that's on us, and we'd better hop to the task of getting on top of our responsibilities. If we don't.... Well, check that image at the top of this blog posting. Somebody who looks just like that might want to fill the vacuum.
 

Sunday, July 27, 2025

#208 / A Love-Your-Neighbor Church



 
Today, I am providing those who read my blog postings with the full text of a column written back in April by David French. French is a columnist for The New York Times, and is pictured above. Wikipedia tells us that French is "an American political commentator and former attorney," and that "he was formerly a fellow at the National Review Institute and a staff writer for National Review from 2015 to 2019." That makes French a political "conservative," but the column I am sharing here is all about "religion." 

Personally, I think that "religion" and "politics" are best not conflated, and that it is a mistake to allow one's religious inclinations (if any) automatically to define the kind of politics that one practices. Having attended a lot of different church services in my time, I was struck by the distinction that French makes between a "Love-Your-Neighbor" church and a "Fear-The-World" church. 

French is an advocate for the former kind of "religion," and I want to suggest, by providing a copy of his column, that for those who think in "political" terms, not "religious" terms, the same kind of judgment should apply. Our politics is best practiced when it is an exercise that "loves" and "respects" those with whom one differs, politically. In other words, the kind of "politics" we need to shoot for is the exact opposite of the kind of politics advocated and advanced by our current president and his supporters, and that is also advanced and advocated by many on the "other side." 

See if you think the distinction that French makes, with respect to "religion" has an analogue in the kind of "politics" we need to establish as we move forward to our next election. 

oooOOOooo

Choose A Love-Your-Neighbor Church

By David French, Opinion Columnist
April 21, 2025

Have you ever seen a person come back to life?

I don’t mean literally. The Easter miracle of nearly 2,000 years ago is not so easily replicated. We don’t have the power to physically raise the dead. Instead, we Christians have faith that death is nothing more than a temporary separation from the people we love. The pain we feel at a funeral is a pain of absence, not the pain of permanent loss.

No, I’m talking about something else — the resurrection and redemption when we see a person who is lost to darkness return to the light. It’s the dazzling smile when a young woman gets her one-year coin at an Alcoholics Anonymous meeting, or it’s in the tears of joy when an estranged husband and wife finally embrace again after repentance and forgiveness.

Or it’s in a moment like I experienced in a small church in Kentucky. One Sunday evening, our pastor was preaching about the prodigal son, Jesus’ parable about a young, ungrateful man who left his home, squandered his fortune and returned home completely broken, expecting to face anger and retribution — only to be greeted by a father who ran to him, embraced him and declared, “My son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found.”

The pastor concluded his sermon with an altar call. “Some of you here are dead — you’re lost in a life you don’t want — but you can live again.”

It was a simple call, one that pastors have made countless times in countless churches. Often they’re ignored. The congregation sings its final song and files out. But this time someone answered.

From the back of the church, a young man choked out a single word: “Pastor?”

It sounded like a question, as if he was asking for permission to come forward. When we looked back to see who’d spoken, I heard a gasp. The young man was a deacon’s son who had abandoned his faith long ago. He’d become angry and violent. He bullied kids in the church’s youth group. It was shocking that he’d even shown up at church.

But he said it again, choking out that same word between his sobs. “Pastor?”

And then he came forward, but not in the usual way. Usually a person steps out into the aisle and walks forward. But not this person. He was so desperate to go forward that he stepped over the backs of the pews. And when he got to the altar, it wasn’t just the pastor who greeted him but many of the kids he’d bullied. They had left their pews when he did, and they were waiting for him at the front of the church.

They all embraced him. At that moment, I watched a person come back to life. It was its own kind of miracle.

When I talk to Christians who are struggling with their faith, one of the first things I ask them is, “Were you raised in a fear-the-world church or a love-your-neighbor church?”

Most people instantly know what I’m talking about. The culture of the church of fear is unmistakable. You’re taught to view the secular world as fundamentally a threat. Secular friends are dangerous. Secular education is perilous. Secular ideas are bankrupt. And you’re always taught to prepare for the coming persecution, when “they” are going to try to destroy the church.

The love-your-neighbor church is fundamentally different. It’s so different that it can sometimes feel like a different faith entirely. The distinction begins with the initial posture toward the world — not as a threat to be engaged, but as a community that we should love and serve.

To better understand the distinction, it’s worth remembering the Christian reaction to the “He Gets Us” ads that you might remember from past Super Bowls. I know there are secular readers who saw the ads as annoying, or perhaps part of a stealth Christian nationalist agenda.

But did you know that there were Christians who hated them even more? The images of Christians loving and serving people on opposite sides politically was deeply triggering to the most pugilistic Christian voices online.

Last year, for example, they were particularly offended by ads that showed a police officer washing the feet of a young Black man, an older woman washing the feet of a young woman outside an abortion clinic and a priest washing the feet of a gay man.

The ad ended with provocative words — aimed at Christians as much as anyone else: “Jesus didn’t teach hate. He washed feet.”

You see the contrast in the first days of the Trump administration. When President Trump dismantled foreign aid, he defunded a host of Christian ministries that had been welcoming refugees in the United States and doing lifesaving work abroad. We’ve seen Trump’s Christian allies directly attack the religious liberty of religious institutions that serve and care for migrants.

To be raised in a fear-the-world church is to experience a Christianity that declares with its words that the Resurrection is real, but seems incredulous about the possibility of a resurrection within its heart. If Christians truly can declare: “Where, death, is your victory? Where, death, is your sting?” then why is there such pervasive fear?

Another way to describe a love-your-neighbor church is to say that it embraces a resurrection faith. Its aim is to follow Christ’s consistent pattern of moving to the suffering, the alienated and the sick, all to bring life from death.

We cannot, of course, exercise Christ’s literal power over death. We cannot declare, as Christ did to Lazarus, “Come forth,” and watch our loved ones walk out of the tomb. But we can try to heal, to care for the physical needs of suffering people, and we can be instruments of grace to those dying from different kinds of deaths — spiritual, emotional and social.

We live in a time of great anger. We live in a time of great pain. And everywhere we look we seem to see people of faith stoking anger and inflicting pain.

But a resurrection church that follows a resurrected savior should be a balm, not a blowtorch. It will never be perfect, of course, but its fundamental orientation isn’t toward protecting itself, but toward serving others. Its default posture toward difference isn’t suspicion, but affection.

It’s easy to look at a politicized faith and despair. My church — the American evangelical church — is the pillar of Trump’s political strength. As countless Christians cheer, he’s wielding the weapons of government to hurt many of the most vulnerable people in the world.

But there is another faith — one far removed from the headlines — that is doing something else entirely. Quietly and patiently, person by person, it does exactly what those young people in my church did for the young man who came forward, sobbing in sorrow for his anger and violence.

This faith loves its enemies. It mends the broken heart. And it declares, by word and deed, that no one is too lost to experience the love of God.



Saturday, July 26, 2025

#207 / Too Powerful?



 
The image above accompanied a "Guest Essay" column in The New York Times. The column was written by Jack Goldsmith, and was titled as follows in the online version: "We Have to Deal With Presidential Power." Goldsmith currently serves as the Learned Hand Professor of Law at Harvard Law School. This means that he does know something about the Constitution, and how it has been, and is being, interpreted by the Supreme Court.

Goldsmith's point is that we should not think that our current political problems - and the dangers that go along with them - are simply just a "personal" problem. Our current president is, absolutely, a "danger to democracy," and to the kind of democratic self-government that is the amazing inheritance that we have received from the American Revolution. 

That said, Goldsmith makes the case that we have a "systemic" problem, not just a "personal" problem - and I think Goldsmith is right. If he is, that means that we need to do something beyond just denouncing the president, name-calling him a fascist, and assuming that everything will be just fine, and that democratic self-government will be restored when the "MAGA hats" no longer have our current president to carry the flag. 

Here, in a short statement from Goldsmith, is how he describes the challenges ahead:

There is a clear case for imposing substantial limitations on the presidency. This effort must take us back not to the day before Mr. Trump’s second inauguration but rather back to when Congress and not just the president played a vital role in domestic policy and when law and norms checked presidents from grabbing everything they could in the short run.

As you will note, and as Goldsmith makes explicit, the path to necessary reform leads through Congress. "Representative" self-government means that we must mobilize our political power to insist that our elected "representatives" actually do "represent" our views in Congress. 

As someone has said, those who know that we are in a genuine crisis of democratic self-government might start thinking about "running for something." We are not going to have "self-government" unless we get directly involved in government, ourselves!


 

Friday, July 25, 2025

#206 / Thinking About The "F - Word"




Let's talk about the "F-Word." I am not thinking about the "F-Word" that rhymes with "Luck." I am thinking about the "F-Word" that more or less rhymes with "Desist."

The word "fascist" is being thrown around quite freely in our current political debates and discussions. In general, "Democrats," and "liberals," and "progressives" are being heard to complain that "Republicans," or "MAGA Republicans," or our current president and his political supporters, are "fascists." 

Here, for instance, is a quote from a substack blog published  by Lucian K. Truscott IV, with this particular posting titled, "Staying sane in a hurricane."

When Donald Trump appeared on a national television program and told “Meet the Press” host Kristen Welker that he does not know whether he is compelled as president to uphold the Constitution, America was hit with an unforeseen and unprecedented question: Just how far gone are we as a country? 
The answer is, pretty far.  
To be certain, it didn’t begin with this man who is at least willing to state out loud his utterly fascist leanings and it is not the first time we have been in this much trouble. We have been in the midst of a hurricane of lawlessness for more than 50 years, going back at least to the Watergate scandal, when another Republican president, Richard Nixon, attempted to steal an election by ordering the break in and bugging of the opposition party, the Democrats, who were in the midst of running a candidate, George McGovern, against him for the presidency (emphasis added).

Here is another example, this one from a blog published by Steve Schmidt, and titled, "When freedom meets fascism."

Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney landed at Joint Base Andrews last evening. He will meet with Trump later today. 
The American fascist in the White House is surrounded by a team of incompetents, extremists, sycophants and degenerates that mark all fascist regimes. The American regime is no different. 
The American economy is weakening every day. Soon the shock wave of the supply chain collapse will be fully felt. 
The Great Recession of 2008-2009 and the Covid debacle will pale by comparison. 
The same people who have vandalized the Canadian-American relationship are the same nihilists who are burning down the economy (emphasis added).

I would like to suggest that using the "F-Word," when we talk about and debate American politics today, is a practice to be avoided. Calling those with whom you disagree "fascists" is an argumentative technique that is properly denoted as "name calling." This is a kind of political argumentation that is not very persuasive to the "opponents" with whom you might think yourself to be arguing. It is, rather than an argument aimed at persuasion, an argument that seeks to consolidate one's own supporters, by putting opponents into a category that no reasonable person could ever accept. It is, thus, a way to "polarize," not "persuade." 

If, in thinking about our politics, we admit that we are "all in this together," as I often claim (and as I think is indubitably true), then we should be attempting to persuade opponents to change their ideas, and their actions. Helping to solidify the opposition by villifying them is contraindicated. 

The political actions taken by our current president and his supporters - and the policies they advance -  are, in my estimation, massively misdirected, and are hugely destructive of our ability, as a nation, to meet the manifold challenges we must confront. They are, quite simply, wrong, in many, many cases.

Let's take on the wrong-headed policies of our president, and his supporters, both in and out of Congress, by attacking his actions and his policies on the merits, and not spend our time attacking as "fascists" the people who are professing the opinions and taking the actions with which we disagree. 

This is my thought for the day (as I think about that "F-Word").
 
Image Credit:
Gary A. Patton personal image

Thursday, July 24, 2025

#205 / Is The Party Over?

  

If you click that big red arrow, above, you can listen to Willie Nelson sing, "The Party's Over." Click that title link for the lyrics. 

We can structure our "political world" any way we want to. There is nothing "inevitable" about the way we have, in the past, organized our politics. 

The Constitution, and you probably know this, does not mention "political parties." We sort of take political parties for granted, as though they are an inevitable and natural way for our government to work. That is not, however, what the Constitution says, and when you think about it, our political parties showed up (and they showed up early) as a kind of "convenience," as kind of a "shorthand," as a way to know who advocated what, in terms of both politics and policy. This "convenience store" brand of politics may not meet the needs of our current moment. Maybe some new approach is worth thinking about.

I think it's pretty clear that the Republican Party of Reagan and the Bush presidents doesn't really bear much resemblance to the MAGA-hat Republicans that have propelled our current president into office. And query whether the Democratic Party hasn't kind of gone off the rails, too. 

It could be that it really is time to reconsider the whole idea of political parties - and certainly the ones we have now. "Reform," if nothing else, seems well-advised.

Is there another way to do politics that might work out better in our current conditions? I'm feeling ever more certain that virtually everyone is going to become increasingly appalled by what the Trump-version of the Republican Party is doing to the country. But is the Democratic Party that lost the 2024 election an attractive alternative?

I think I just said this, but it's worth thinking about. It could really be that it's time to reconsider the whole idea of political parties - and certainly the ones we're dealing with now.
 
Image Credit:
https://youtu.be/EWWFmES4MJI?si=R5Y-j-VcoHAwzhah 
 

Wednesday, July 23, 2025

#204 / A Thought I Had About Immigration

 


One of the Little Free Libraries I frequent, as I walk around town, gifted me with the Pulitizer Prize-winning book, by Sonia Nazario, whose cover is pictured above. Here is a description of the book, as found on the back cover of the paperback edition that I can now claim as my own: 

In this astonishing story, award-winning journalist Sonia Nazario recounts the unforgettable odyssey of a Honduran boy who braves unimaginable hardship and peril to find his mother in the United States. Eleven years after his mother is forced to leave her starving family to find work, Enrique travels through hostile worlds full of thugs, bandits, and corrupt cops, often clinging to the sides and tops of freight trains, and with little more in his pocket than a slip of paper bearing his mother's North Carolina telephone number.

Based on the Los Angeles Times newspaper series that won two Pulitizer Prizes, one for feature writing and another for feature photography, Enrique's Journey puts a human face on the ongoing debate about immigration reform in the United States. 

Speaking of the "human face," here is how ICE agents are now often appearing, as they go about enforcing our current president's demand that Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents must round up and deport 3,000 immigrants every day




If there are non-citizen criminals living in the United States, who entered the country illegally (and there are), it is hard to argue against the legitimacy of efforts to apprehend and then deport them. That said, law enforcement efforts need to be carried out in a way that is consistent with the constitutional and due process standards that apply to all law enforcement efforts undertaken in the United States. Law enforcement agents must - almost always - have a warrant, signed by a judge, before placing someone (even an immigrant) in custody. Such law enforcement agents must also identify themselves, and show their credentials upon demand. Masked and unnamed men, armed with guns, arresting people without a warrant, and shipping them overseas to a prison in El Salvador, are acting illegally.

The thought I had, though, when I started reading Enrique's story, was not, really, focused on his illegal entry into the United States, and about the legitimacy of efforts to apprehend him, and all those others who have come to the United States without the benefit of any official action by some governmental agency that could sanction their presence. 

As I read about Enrique, my thoughts turned to Enrique's personal qualities. 

Isn't it true that we, as American citizens, should want to attract people with the courage and initiative shown by Enrique? Wouldn't the immigration of people like Enrique be advantageous not only to them, individually, but to all of us who are already citizens? Don't we all benefit from the contributions of those unsanctioned immigrants who are making a new life here, and who are picking our food from the fields, helping to built our homes, laboring in our factories, mowing our lawns, and working in the restaurants in which we dine? This is to list only a few areas in which we know that so-called "illegal immigrants" are working.

Historically, a welcoming approach to immigrants has, of course, often been our official position. Welcoming immigrants has been one of the most important of our contributions to the world. The moving poem by Emma Lazarus, "The New Colossus," explains the meaning of the Statue of Liberty, which has long been seen as a symbol of welcome to immigrants.

Lazarus alludes, in the title of her poem, to the Colossus of Rhodes, a statue that celebrated the defeat of those attempting to invade the city. It celebrated the act of preventing new people from coming. Our statue, though, to the contrary, names a "New Colossus" that raises a welcoming torch: 

Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
“Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!” cries she
With silent lips. “Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

My thought is that we need to organize, beginning right now, a political movement to enact an immigration law that seeks not to expel and repel those who come here, like Enrique, with hope, and talent, and determination, but  that puts in place a law that will welcome them, with all their their talents, and abilities, and aspirations. 

And we need to do that for the benefit of those of us who are here now. For "us," the already privileged.

We are, in fact, doing it all wrong, right now, to our immense detriment, and to our great shame!


Tuesday, July 22, 2025

#203 / What About Win-Win, Worldwide?

 


On July 7, 2025, The Wall Street Journal carried an article by Lingling Wei, the newspaper's China correspondent. In the hard copy edition of the paper, flung onto my front lawn in the early hours of the morning, the Journal's article was titled as follows: "Xi Prepares For A Cold War With The U.S." Online, the headline is a little different: "Xi Has Spent Decades Preparing For A Cold War With The U.S."

The basic message of the article - as presented under both headlines - is that China has learned something from the failure of the Soviet Union to win the "Cold War" that followed up on the end of World War II. Let's remember, the United States and Russia were allies in that war! According to the article, Russia tried to "win" the Cold War too soon. Instead, the United States "won." Xi is not going to make that mistake (at least not according to The Wall Street Journal):

Xi is entering trade negotiations with a grand strategy he has prepared for years—one that, according to policy advisers in Beijing, is inspired by his understanding of what the Soviet Union got wrong during the first Cold War. 
Well aware of the U.S.’s continued economic and military superiority, the advisers say, Xi is seeking to avoid direct confrontation, while holding China’s ground in a protracted, all-encompassing competition
Xi aims to achieve what Mao Zedong used to call a “strategic stalemate”—an enduring equilibrium where American pressure becomes manageable and China buys time to catch up to the U.S. 
“For China, ‘strategic stalemate’ is the most realistic and preferred outcome in the foreseeable future,” said Minxin Pei, a Claremont McKenna College professor and editor of the quarterly journal China Leadership Monitor. “Strategic patience, conservation of resources and tactical flexibility will all be critical in achieving this stalemate.” 
In some ways, Beijing is pursuing a sort of guerrilla warfare, sparked by Henry Kissinger’s analysis of the nature of asymmetric conflicts: “The conventional army loses if it does not win. The guerrilla wins if he does not lose” (emphasis added).

This article made me think. I came up with a different way that we could define our relationship with those nations with whom we are currently in conflict and competition. What if we found an alternative to defining our relationship with China (and other nations) in terms based on "War"? Instead of defining our relationships in terms of conflict and competition, in terms of "winners" and "losers," what if we announced a different foreign policy approach, to be presented by the United States to the world at large? What if we announced that we were now going to focus all our efforts on achieving a "Win-Win World Order"?

We would still need to be prepared to defend ourselves, I think, in case other nations didn't want to join this parade, but our announced foreign policy objectives should be defined in terms of establishing "Win-Win" achievements, involving every nation we can enlist, to: (1) bring an end to global warming, (2) restore our now-threatened natural environment, worldwide, (3) achieve food security for the entire world, (4) ensure health care for all nations, along with housing, education, and beneficial employment for every perrson in the world; last, but definitely not least, (5) start eliminating the nuclear threat that hangs over every person in the world who is alive today.

It would take a while for these objectives to be achieved, of course, and we would have to redirect our economy to focus on these collective goals, instead of aiming our economy at allowing a small number of individual persons to achieve great personal wealth. Still, in terms of being clear about what we want to do, working with others, such a "Win-Win" agenda for the world makes a lot more sense to me than continued warfare while the planet burns up. 

After World War II, the United States assumed a global leadership position, and a lot of good things happened - things of which we can be justifiably proud. Now, how about shifting gears, leading the world to work on what every human being alive would like to see?

I am no foreign policy expert. Still, if the biggest country in the world (China) is planning for a decades-long conflict with the United States, with the objective of "winning," why don't we propose collaboration instead of conflict, and try to work out international arrangements what are aimed at "Win-Win"?

This is sort of the opposite approach to that now being taken by our current president, and it's just a thought - but it's a pretty good thought, and we could do it!

Monday, July 21, 2025

#202 / "Fake News" About Heat Waves Everywhere

 

 
The cover of the July 21, 2025, edition of The New Yorker is reproduced above. It's HOT in the Big City! The latest edition of the magazine is "hot off the press" in more ways than one.

It's hot in India, too, by the way, as reported by The New York Times. To quote from the July 1, 2025, article that I have just linked, "In some parts of the country [India], daytime temperatures have hovered close to 50 degrees Celsius, or 122 degrees Fahrenheit." 

Those who have followed my earlier recommendation, and have read Kim Stanley Robinson's book, Ministry For The Future, will probably remember that Robinson's story begins with a heat wave in India. As I recall, the heat wave Robinson describes (in what is, so far, a fictional account of what global warming is doing) killed something like two million people, in just a few days.

Our current president, as we all must know, has opined that what the scientists have called global warming is just some sort of "fake news," an "evil" plot by Democrats and environmentalists. More offshore oil drilling, oil and gas development in the Arctic, and similar efforts to boost the use of fossil fuels of all kinds is a prescription for disaster (at least if you believe Kim Stanley Robinson, or take seriously flash floods in Texas and the kind of heat waves, almost everywhere, memorialized by The New Yorker's cover).

If we believe Robinson, when the death toll reaches a million, or more, in a single incident, THEN the world will start doing something about global warming. Think about Robinson's title (I like to think about grammatical construction, personally). His "Ministry," which is intended to mobilize resources, worldwide, to confront global warming, is a ministry "For" the future, because if we don't have a worldwide, coordinated and collective response to the forces we have put in motion there isn't going to be a future.

Old as I am, I continue to be "future oriented." If you'd like to get out ahead in favor of the inevitable need for a massive human response, coordinated globally, along the lines that Robinson writes about, you should definitely consider how you can free up some of your personal time to start working towards a solution. This is, essentially, what Greta Thunberg* has done. How much of her personal time has she mobilized?

I'd say, maybe, about 100%, in her case, just based on what I read. If you can't do that much, you can still start figuring out what you can do - and you can start doing it!

Really, that's a choice for all of us. We can either dedicate our lives to perpetuating the possibilities that human life can continue on Planet Earth. Or, we can forget about all that, and call the reports of global warming, and its effects, "fake news."

*Greta Thunberg
 
Image Credits:
(2) - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greta_Thunberg 

Sunday, July 20, 2025

#201 / Ecce Homo




The title of my blog posting today, "Ecce Homo," is meant to refer to the picture above, which appeared in an article in the March 31, 2025, edition of The Wall Street Journal. The title of my blog posting today is intended to reflect a sense of irony. If you will click here, you can read a Wikipedia write-up that discusses the origin of this phrase. Or, you can avoid the need to click if you will be satisfied with this somewhat truncated version: 

"Ecce Homo" are "the Latin words supposedly used by Pontius Pilate, as he presented a scourged Jesus, bound and crowned with thorns, to a hostile crowd shortly before Jesus' crucifixion (John 19:5)."

The article that stimulated today's blog posting (and that is associated with the photo I have used) is titled, "China Cranks Up Humanoid-Robot Effort." That is the hardcopy version of the headline. As is not unusual, the online version is different. The Wall Street Journal article outlines efforts in both China and the United States to create more or less life-size humanoid robots that can be substituted for genuine human beings, with respect to various "applications." Why do that? Well, why not? It's pretty clear that the robots will end up outpacing and outperforming humans, so why settle for second best?

It currently takes two robots around 12 seconds to load a container onto a truck together, compared with three seconds for human workers.... The robots are expected to get faster—and they can work around the clock. Zeekr, the luxury carmaker, said that the tests were carried out in nonproduction areas and that the development of humanoids was in the early stages. 

Several American producers of humanoids are experimenting with robots in industrial settings. One of them, the Amazon.com-backed startup Agility Robotics, has been testing the ability of its humanoids to sort and move parcels in Amazon warehouses since 2023. 

This being a Sunday, I have thought that my Biblical reference, and a little "theological" reflection, might be in order. If you do read the Wikipedia write-up, you will learn that the words of Pontius Pilate were intended to mock Jesus, who claimed to be the Son of God. In a similar way, those promoting the development of robots, to replace humans, are mocking us (the humans) for our inability to deliver what the robots can, while still, somehow, thinking ourselves "superior" to the robots. Are we "superior"? Well, it seems to me that the answer to that question depends, entirely, on what you think is the correct way to measure us. Loading boxes into trucks? We're going to end up on the losing side. Love, empathy, and creativity? Well, we might be the winners, there. 

The thought that came to my mind, as I read The Wall Street Journal on Monday, March 31st, is that the rush to create "robots" that can outperform us should be seen, "theologically" speaking, as a human effort to substitute our own creation for what God has created. Of course, this observation is based on the idea that we are living, ultimately, in a world that we did not ceate ourselves, and that the phrase "the world that God created" is reflective of a meaningful truth. 

Those who have read the Bible, and who have believed, or who have otherwise come to believe, that there is a God, and that God is the ultimate Creator of everything, understand that Jesus was not simply a "man," as Pontius Pilate proclaimed, but, actually, was (and is) "God with us." The whole story of Jesus' birth, life, death, and ressurection is to make clear that this is true, and that we are beloved of God. However, to accept that message we need humbly to recognize that we are "creatures," and not, ultimately, "creators."

Of course, we ARE "creators." In fact, the "Human World," in which we most immediately live, is a human creation, and we have an almost plenary ability to construct it as we choose. The "World of Nature," though, upon which we are ultimately dependent, is a world into which we have been, rather mysteriously, born. That world, the world that sustains us, and everything we do, and everything that we are, is the "World That God Created." 

Our failure to recognize this truth can lead us to reject or depreciate ourselves, in favor of our own creations, as when we choose robots over humans as we build a future for ourselves and our children. That's a mistake, and another one is to ignore the limits that are inherent in the "World of Nature," the "World That God Created." 

The picture below is a "Climate Clock." Time is running out! 

End of theological lesson for today!



Foundation of Freedom

Saturday, July 19, 2025

#200 / Warm Cookies Of The Revolution

 

 
Does anyone reading this belong to a health club? You do?

What about belonging to a "civic health" club?

In my daily blog postings, I have been known to claim that we can both protect and advance democratic self-government by going out and "finding some friends." I have added, once in a while, the suggestion that we should also "Join A Club." That's where you're likely to make some friends, right?

It is my strong belief that if we are interested in defending and advancing "democracy," as self-government is most often called, we will definitely need to have hooked up with some "friends," and I do think that "joining a club," a club devoted to our "civic health," is a really good way to think about the kind of friends we need!

Once we've got that club, of course, we will probably need to "swing that club," too!

As it turns out, there is a website specifically dedicated to helping us hold on to "democracy" by connecting us up with some "friends" who are similarly inclined. "Warm Cookies Of The Revolution" is the website I am talking about. They're the ones who are advancing the idea of a "civic health" club, which I do think is a pretty neat idea.

Click that link I provided above - or this link -  to check it out.



Friday, July 18, 2025

#199 / Forget The Frog

 


It’s safe to say that President Trump and the Republican Party are deploying a new form of political propaganda, updating a dark art for the platform era. But it’s also a signal that a new kind of political style is enveloping conservatism — one that is ruthless, inflammatory and designed for maximum viral reach. 
It’s a style of politics that has been honed by the party’s young, extremist fringes for years. With Mr. Trump’s blessing, or indifference perhaps, this faction is emerging as one of the most influential forces in the party. These radicalized conservatives, some of whom are working as junior staff members and political operatives across the G.O.P., are showing us the future of conservatism, one demented post at a time.
-- New York Times, "Trolling Democracy"
The quotation above has been captured from an article that appeared in The Times on Sunday, July 13, 2025. In the hardcopy version of the paper, the title of the article was different from the "Trolling Democracy" title that headlines the online version. In the print edition, the article, which was authored by Nathan Taylor Pemberton, follows this headline: "The Rise Of A Toxic Online Right." 

A major focus of Pemberton's article is the growing celebration, from within the Republican Party, of media content furnished by "Groypers." His use of this term, which he did not define, made me aware that I am not exactly up on what I guess is the "cutting edge" of our modern media. I had to look up this term, and I found, from Wikipedia, that "Groypers" are "a group of alt-right and white nationalist activists led by Nick Fuentes. Members of the group have attempted to introduce alt-right politics into mainstream conservatism in the United States and participated in the January 6 United States Capitol attack and the protests leading up to it. They have targeted other conservative groups and individuals whose agendas they view as too moderate and insufficiently nationalist. The Groyper movement has been described as white nationalist, homophobic, nativist, fascist, sexist, antisemitic, and an attempt to rebrand the declining alt-right movement."

Pemberton warns us that what began as an attention-grabbing effort by disaffected young people is starting to precipitate into an actual political ideology that is building real political power, and that calls for a fundamental restructure of our form of democratic self-government - pretty much as outlined in the Wikipedia article I just cited. "Pepe The Frog," as seen above, is the movement's mascot.  

The Pemberton article particularly struck me because I had just read a similar analysis, presented in a much more scholarly form by Roger Berkowitz, the Founder and Academic Direction of The Hannah Arendt Center at Bard College. Berkowitz' article also appeared on Sunday, July 13th and was titled, "Arendt and MacIntyre on Corruption And Power." If you click that link, I don't think any paywall will prevent you from reading what Berkowitz has to say. 

Here is how Berkowitz concludes his article, calling upon us to "act together."

Arendt offers a different response to the unmasking of moral hypocrisy and the descent into the fascination and justification of power. Her approach is not to limit power, but to remind us that human beings are political, that the search for meaning is necessarily collective. If we want to build a meaningful world, we need to act together, and power, Arendt understands, is “acting in concert;” it aims not simply at actualizing our individual wants but at building a meaningful public world
To build power does not mean to impose or import a moral order. Rather, power comes from speaking and acting together. In talking with others, we confront not only the reality of disagreement but also the possibility of a world held in common. It is easy to forget that while disagreement is a real fact of life, so too is agreement; in fact, we agree on more than we disagree. 
Arendt reminds us that politics begins not in the glee of unmasking others, nor in the vulgar satisfaction of exposing hypocrisy for sport, but in the dignity of being recognized and approved when we appear before one another, in word and deed. Against the seduction of power unbound by truth, she offers a more demanding freedom: the freedom to build a world with others, bound not by ideology but by the fragile, plural, and persistent effort to understand and be understood. In an age addicted to performance and cynicism (not to mention the seductions of artificial intelligence), this kind of power — rooted in mutual recognition rather than domination — offers our most radical hope (emphasis added).

Let's focus on this prescription. The necessary elements are: (1) action, (2) together, to (3) build a meaningful [political] world. 

We do live, as my blog title proclaims, in a "Political World." Let's shape it together! Forget that Frog!
 

Image Credit: