Last word on the subject of the week: If you're voting to put the fox in charge of the chicken coop, and if you're doing this to please a relative, spouse or friend who consistently tries to dominate your life, remember that you possess one of the world's greatest powers, the Secret Ballot. No matter what scoundrels trying to undo our civil rights and liberties may tell you, no one will ever know how you voted. This would be a good time to look into your own soul.

Dear "Build the Wall" people: About your dumb idea...

To enter the US illegally one needs a guide, transportation and a chunk of money.

The money is not trivial but it's within the means of millions of would-be US residents who are well heeled or are willing to sell all they have. (https://adnamerica.com/.../coyotes-now-guiding-higher...). Cash problem: Solved.

Let's assume for a moment that the average illegal immigrant weighs less than 300 lbs. Transportation is not a problem if you have a friend with the right equipment. (E.g., https://www.rmus.com/prod.../rmus-heavy-duty-police-drone...). A "coyote" could recoup his investment with the fourth successful hop over the border. The migrant would no doubt be scared witless for a few moments, but who cares after all? Transport problem: Solved.

As for the guide, with the simple GPS controls inherent in the mini-copter a migrant could be airlifted at night to any destination within a few miles of the border and whisked away in a waiting car.

If I, who am not interested except as a thought exercise, have thought of it, surely some coyote is already experimenting.

Let's consider who else built "the wall." The first who comes to mind is Maginot, who persuaded France that a row of artillery platforms along the borders with Alsace-Lorraine and Luxembourg would keep the Germans out. Do a web search to learn the result.

Next comes a certain A. Hitler, a strategic thinker much admired by the current wall-builder in chief. AH built his wall along the Atlantic coast of France, comfortable that no one could invade across the English Channel.

Side note: Walls are nothing new. Hadrian built one to keep the Scots out about 1700 years ago. However, since 1762, nine Scots have risen to prime minister in the British government. Works pretty well.

It has been suggested that one cannot fairly compare Trump to Hitler or call him a fascist. As St. Ronald would say, Well...

What part of "Hitler did some good things" as reported by former White House Chief of Staff Gen. John Kelly fails to suggest affinity with things Hitlerian or fascistic?

It instantly calls up memories of Trump's Charlottesville comments that "very good people" were parading through the town carrying torches and shouting Nazi slogans.

Trump is responsible for the mindset of his followers. There are no speakers at anyone else's rallies calling to wild applause for the expulsion, incarceration, or outright murder of their non-Trump-loving neighbors. Much of the rhetoric of the rumbling Trump Train could have come straight from the pen of Joseph Goebbels, and along for the train ride go the world's Putins, Kims, Erdogans, Orbans and others who lean so far to the right that the whole train is unbalanced.

Dictators invariably claim affinity with the masses. Last week's performance at a McDonald's restaurant in which Trump attempted to play the role of a fry cook and counter clerk was laughable. Nearly all news outlets (except Faux News and its emulators, of course) were within hours running footage of a bare-chested Benito Mussolini harvesting wheat around 1930.

A much better term for this political stance is "totalitarianism." In totalitarian systems, whatever the Fuehrer says is gospel, and anyone can be punished for the crime of not going along with whatever nutty notion that "leader" pulled out of his ear that morning — be it useless tariffs or injection of bleach to cure disease.

The fact is that Hitler never did anything even temporarily good that did not serve his yearning for self-aggrandizement. The Trump Agenda and Project 2025 are in no uncertain terms schemes to achieve that same end, concentration of wealth and power ever further into the hands of the already wealthy and powerful.

Sounds like a quacking duck to us.

Just read a soc med post by some true believers arguing over whether adding hydrogen to conventional fuels would solve the energy crisis.

These technical arguments matter not one iota. Our 19th Century fuels, as improved more recently, are an extremely efficient way to create goods and services and move them around, and those of us who have the option will not easily give them up.

Now raise the fuel consumption of the whole world to that of the USA and Europe, and it becomes impossible or at best improbable that we could run the system without massive heating of the atmosphere and seas. Sadly we are like the fabled frog in the warming pot of water, who never imagines his ultimate fate.

The solution to our transportation problem does not lie in the type of engine used, but in elimination of individual vehicles driven short distances and parked to await the owner's pleasure.

A permanent solution will require that all vehicles be almost perpetually in motion and not used only at the whim of the owner. This is how airlines can afford aircraft worth hundreds of millions of dollars; they are almost never still, pausing only for loading and unloading or for maintenance. Profitability depends on full occupancy.

Try to imagine vehicles of several sizes, from single-occupancy to hundreds of passengers, in almost constant motion, with through and local pathways all managed by computerized switching. "Seat density" — the number of passengers per mile of roadway — and the number of destinations reached could be many times current levels.

Using a handheld or wall mounted device, a traveler would define a trip, and a vehicle would be routed to the origin and take the person to the destination or to a transfer point, where the vehicle or seat would be released to the next person. Presumably one could opt for a single or small-group seating arrangement if desired or for security reasons.

In this scenario, the number of vehicles moving during any given period would be greatly reduced, and the total investment in vehicles could be shifted to better infrastructure, both of which would lower energy and manufacturing costs.

The fundamental power generation would be overwhelmingly electric, based on heat-sink technology in lieu of batteries. Such power plants already exist and will only get better. Fueled vehicles will probably not go away for a very long time in remote regions with low population density.

The only losers would be the man-children who live only to race their engines at traffic lights to impress the other boys.

We have the intellect and are acquiring the technology to solve the conflict between energy and environment, so the question is: Do we have the will?

Let's suppose for a minute that a newly elected president of the US has been elected and is able to get Congress to
• pass legislation expanding health care, including confirming the principles and major provisions of Roe v Wade, rendering the Supreme Court irrelevant in the matter
• pass a plan for loans (or grants or tax offsets) for first-time home purchase and small business startup
• pass the border reform act that was both introduced by Republicans and then killed by that same party
and
• pass a constitutional amendment abolishing the Electoral College in favor of direct popular vote for president and vide-president and sending it to the states
• letting justice take its course regardless of political considerations in the matter of persons who have conspired or acted against the Constitution or have been convicted of other crimes
• accepting blame and being willing nto change course when policies misfire.

Now let's suppose the other person is elected, whose program would include
• reducing benefits, excluding participants and transferring public funds from Medicare and Social Security, principally to reduce taxes, including creating laws on female health care that are solely pro-natal and assign all medical decisions to unelected, politically appointed bureaucrats with no scientific training
• using police and military power to round up people based on their appearance, accent or name
• separating families based on their ability to provide ad hoc documentation of their nationality notwithstanding that they had been seized without warrant
• deporting those who cannot satisfy politically appointed bureaucrats of their right of residence with consequent loss of property and civil rights
• attempt to manipulate voting rights and procedures to insure continued power of a minority
• pardoning persons based on political considerations of persons who have conspired or acted against the Constitution or have been convicted of other crimes
• blaming every misstep on the actions of others.

Which of those sets of policies is likely to harm you or your family, and how?

Which of those sets of policies is likely to benefit you or your family, and how?

Which set is most consistent with American values?

Which of those platforms are you going to vote for this fall?

Personalities are transient; policies affect generations.

If you liked George III, you'll love Donald XLVII.

A close friend's spouse was in his final years afflicted with "sundowner syndrome," a condition in which as the day wears on and the individual wears out, some of the worst manifestations of senility come to the fore.

By late afternoon, this person would become agitated, often concerned at the prospect of missing an important call or message from a key person in his life, who was supposedly due to make contact that afternoon. The problem was: That other person had been dead for many years and estranged long before that.

That memory has been replaying itself as I've watched former president Trump exhibit ever more bizarre behavior this summer. His tendency to ramble and inability to follow a conversation or stick to the point should be worrisome to anyone who understands the enormous power that can be wielded by a US president. And it seems to get worse in the afternoon and evening, based on news reports and television interviews.

It was painfully if amusingly clear in the recent Pennsylvania rally, hosted by SD Gov. Kristi Noem, who was obliged to accede to his increasingly odd requests to play music of past decades and centuries and to forego the questions from the audience that had been the ostensible purpose of the gathering. She literally had to appease and calm him. The growing incredulity of the small group of spectators seated on benches behind Trump was palpable, as they began to show their discomfort and to start fidgeting, looking at phones and scanning the crowd. Trump kept calling on the stage manager to play more music, but the wrong tracks got played to Trump's consternation; I find myself wondering what part of Siberia that poor man is in today.

This is all coupled with his interview this week with John Micklethwaite of Bloomberg News. Ostensibly a discussion of economics, Trump's comments revealed his lack of understanding about the impact of tariffs on national economies. His approach to international trade is all stick and no carrot, which corresponds to his "get off my lawn!" approach to any person or any idea he does not favor.

Forgive the distraction, but the parallel between Trump and George III leaps off the historic page. The Boston Tea Party that we all study in school was in fact a revolt against a tariff! King George and his ministers imposed the tax to keep out tea that was not delivered by their favored sellers, whose tea was accumulating in British warehouses while colonists bought from other sources, the very definition of a tariff. The Tea Tax was levied to force the price of that alternate supply above the tolerance of the colonists, in order to increase revenue to the king and his military, which revenue could be used to enforce other even more punitive laws. Trump apparently wants to return to the pre-Tea Party world. That goal is at best uneconomical and at worst un-American.

One notes that the play and movie "The Madness of George III" was about the monarch's decline into insanity. George III was 38 at the time of the Declaration of Independence and later actually recovered from a period of dementia caused by a medical condition, after which he lived on to age 81. Would-be King Donald is 78, and he is unlikely to be 38 again, or even 78.

(Here endeth the history lesson. Amen.)

Of course, I'm only a lay observer, but by a quirk of fate I've been around more than my fair share of senior citizens, and I've read my share of history. This is a pattern I recognize.

Donald John Trump is not a person whose late night tweeting, anger, incivility and vitriol should inspire confidence in his stewardship of the US or its 330 million residents.

Like Gov. Noem, we are called upon to help him go gently.

There's more in the linked video; judge for yourself. (PS: This site is not responsible for the advertising that accompanies the linked material.)

Read more and watch the video

The increasingly incoherent ramblings of the "Get off my lawn!" candidate — are our current manifestation of "The Emperor's New Clothes" by H.C. Andersen. My guess is that virtually all of the US population has heard or read the story. How can it be that so many did not grasp the moral?

Someone has to come forward and speak the truth. It cannot be a political opponent; it must, as in the fable, be someone pure, innocent and without purpose or guile.

Brothers and sisters, if you need an excuse, vote for VP Harris and Gov. Walz as mere caretakers and earn another choice in 2028, proposed by an embarrassed but reawakened and honest (R) Party. The clearly unprepared JD Vance is not qualified to step into the presidency, and the likelihood of Tr*mp making it to 83 having resumed speaking in complete sentences are not great.

(Image: Former president D. Tr*mp, indicating to rally participants where to look at the Sun during an upcoming eclipse. Courtesy Creative Commons.)

Three faces of conservatism, in order of threat to survival:

1. Neutral: Preserve things as they are.

If it isn't broken; don't fix it. This is a reasonable position regarding an untested proposition.

2. Nostalgic: Preserve things as they were.

Comforting, but staying the same when the world is changing around you is the strategy that has been employed by all extinct species and societies.

3. Nonsensical: Preserve things as I think (wish, believe...) they were.

Relying on incomplete, incorrect, imaginary or insane history of past glories that never were is like rolling infinite dice with infinite spots, all but one of which will kill you.

Well, perhaps 4. Non compos mentis: Making up stories of bogeymen to frighten the population into acceptance of extreme measures against a purported foe.

Tried and true, going back to devils, demons, witches, Commies and now migrants, none of which posed any particular danger to anyone — or in some cases never existed — but make convenient foils for demagogues.

J D Vance is an unmitigated toady, unwilling to chastise even the most unworthy candidate with an (R) after his name.

In several interviews with a variety of reporters, he could not bring himself to withdraw his support for NC gubernatorial candidate M. Robin-sin. His and Tr*mp's tippy-toeing around the issue of the state (R) candidate's manifest unsuitabilty for office — which remarkably exceeds even that of our former Insurrectionist in Chief — marks Vance himself as morally unfit to sit a heartbeat from the presidency.

If he were to waffle as he has this week over the NC election, what would he do as president if Russia invades NATO, another Katrina invades the Gulf Coast, or another gang of thugs invades the Capitol?

A man who stands for nothing and excuses any any offense by a sycophant in exchange for a vote or just a pat on the back will waver then falter in the first real crisis he faces.

When someone extolls false colors, choose another palette.

This looks like one to watch. Some cable companies are showing it in their listings as "The Rachel Maddow Show," but it's actually a documentary on the cast of characters in the first Tr*mp impeachment. Mark your calendars!

Advance word suggests that the "Burisma Scandal" was largely a Tr*mp campaign scam.

Watch the trailer: From Russia with Lev

Every party in a political year claims to be the one that will boost employment.

The adjacent graph shows unemployment rates for the USA by year for 1901-2021. Blue indicates Democratic (D) rule and red indicates Republican (R). Darker colors show years in which a ruling party experienced rising unemployment.

Unemployment declined in 76 of 121 years, 43 times under Democrats and 33 times under Republicans.

Under Democrats unemployment declined 43 times and rose 13 times. Under Republicans it rose 32 of 65 times.

Thus rising unemployment in any year was over twice as likely under Republican administrations (32:13), and Democratic eras experienced employment gains three times as often as losses (43:13 vs 33:32).

Unemployment fell in 43 years of (D) administrations compared to 33 years of (R) administrations, a difference of 30%.

In sum, claims that Republican policies are conducive to lower unemployment are not supported by these 121 years of data.

All employment analysis should consider ratios, not workforce size. The number of employed persons tends to grow by the addition of new workers through population growth and immigration regardless of government policy. In addition, it is likely that non-political factors influenced employment at least as much as government decisions.

The Tr*mp Campaign has neither confirmed nor denied that the following is an accurate transcription of a recent strategy session with advisors.

Advisor: After these few weeks of Harris as the new nominee of the Democrat Party, some polls say she's ahead nationally. (Republicans always omit the adjectival ending of Democratic, which makes the authors feel this is authentic.)

Tr*mp: We could say she's a woman.

Advisor: Actually, that's fairly self-evident, and her pitch so far is oriented toward really delivering on family-oriented service economic policy.

Tr*mp: We could say she's Black.

Advisor: Actually, she is half Black, via Jamaica, and half Indian.

Tr*mp: We could say she's not Black enough.

Advisor: Actually she seems to respect both her parents' ancestry and culture.

Tr*mp: We could say she flip-flops on her race.

Advisor: Actually, sir (Tr*mp loves it when they call him "sir"), her Indian mother brought her up in a mostly Black city in part so that she would be OK with that background.

Tr*mp: We could say she's confused about race.

Advisor: Actually, sir, the polls say that younger generations care much less about old racial stereotypes and don't think it matters as long as they're being told the truth.

Tr*mp: We could say she's black.

Advisor: Well...

Tr*mp: Let's move on: I'm having trouble choosing a humiliating nickname. How does "Colored Kamala" strike you?

Advisor: The Base will love it, sir. Screw the election; say what you feel!

Tr*mp: Did you notice how many people were at the rally? I loved it when Hannibal Lecter led the torch parade. The torches gave off a lot of light. Many people are saying the border is scary. I had an uncle who was a famous scientist; he could explain why the light shines. Did you catch the rack on that receptionist?

Former losing presidential candidate Donald Trump has continued to double down on his promises to deport millions of immigrants and to separate families at the border.

Keep this handy; you'll need it before November 5.

If necessary, click image to enlarge for printing or sharing. Click again to maximize.

In 1773 the Tea Tax was easily recognized as a trick to force colonists to buy the product of a single company whose inferior goods were overpriced. This led to rebellion and set off the 200 year decline of the British Empire, which was then at its peak.

Now, if you liked George III, you'll love Donald XLVII, whose tariff plan could have the same effect.

Consider this...