Pres. Tr$mp's view and understanding of science is akin to that of Pope Urban VIII, the pope who persecuted Galileo Galilei during the famous Galileo affair that culminated in Galileo's trial and condemnation by the Roman Catholic Inquisition in 1633. In such a world, to be inquisitive or to promote independent learning runs the risk of punishment.

Similar outcomes in socioeconomic policy and foreign relations are to be expected from this aggressive cabal of the ignorant, who manifestly know little of society or history and seek only raw power for their own self-interest.

One might well ask how knowing less can achieve more.

Sidenote: 1975 film Galileo starring Topol et al. is excellent.

Sources (Warning: Partial paywall; scroll down for content.)

Just for kicks, I ran the following question through a new AI search engine* I've been evaluating:

"What is the general opinion among economists worldwide of the effect of tariffs on both international trade and national economics?"

It evaluated 52 sites devoted to economic topics and answered as follows. (Ed. note: Be sure to read the comments, where the author links some other experiences with AI, starting with the widely cited ChatGPT.)

"The general opinion among economists worldwide regarding the effect of tariffs on international trade and national economics is largely negative. Here are some key points:

### Impact on International Trade
- **Disruption and Retaliation**: Tariffs often lead to trade disruptions as countries retaliate with their own tariffs. This can create a cycle of tit-for-tat measures that reduce global trade volumes. For example, when the U.S. imposed tariffs on Chinese goods, China retaliated with tariffs on U.S. exports, affecting industries like agriculture and manufacturing.
- **Increased Costs and Prices**: Tariffs raise the cost of imported goods, which can lead to higher prices for consumers and businesses. This inflationary effect can reduce the purchasing power of consumers and increase production costs for businesses. A study found that tariffs on washing machines led to an aggregate increase in consumer costs of over $1.5 billion.
- **Supply Chain Disruptions**: Many modern industries rely on global supply chains. Tariffs can disrupt these supply chains, forcing companies to find alternative suppliers, which can be costly and inefficient. For example, tariffs on steel and aluminum increased input costs for downstream industries, leading to a net decrease in manufacturing employment.

### Impact on National Economics
- **Reduced Economic Growth**: Tariffs can slow economic growth by reducing trade volumes and increasing costs. A study estimated that tariffs could reduce U.S. gross domestic product by 0.6%. Another analysis found that reversing the 2018–2019 tariffs would increase U.S. output by 4% over three years.
- **Job Losses**: While tariffs may protect certain domestic industries, they can also lead to job losses in other sectors. For example, tariffs on steel and aluminum led to a net decrease in manufacturing employment, as the benefits of increased production in protected industries were outweighed by the consequences of rising input costs and retaliatory tariffs.
- **Inflation**: Tariffs can contribute to higher inflation rates, as businesses pass on the increased costs to consumers. This can erode consumer purchasing power and lead to a weaker economy. For example, tariffs on Chinese goods were almost fully passed through to U.S. import prices, resulting in higher consumer costs.
- **Uncertainty and Investment**: The uncertainty surrounding tariffs can deter business investment and job creation. Companies may delay or cancel planned investments due to the unpredictability of trade policies. This can have a negative impact on long-term economic growth and productivity.

### Exceptions and Specific Cases
- **Short-term Gains for Protected Industries**: In some cases, tariffs can provide short-term gains for specific domestic industries by reducing foreign competition. However, these gains are often outweighed by the broader negative effects on the economy.
- **Strategic Protectionism**: Some economists argue that tariffs can be used strategically to protect nascent industries or to address unfair trade practices. However, this approach is controversial and can still lead to retaliation and trade disruptions.

Overall, the consensus among economists is that tariffs generally have a negative impact on both international trade and national economics, leading to reduced growth, higher prices, and increased uncertainty."

It would seem that only a government whose intent was to foment such negative impacts would instigate a large program of tariffs, whether functional of punitive.
One might almost conclude that the objective was to weaken the national economy so as to create anxiety leading to acceptance of even more expanded government control — including non-economic aspects of society — as a "remedy" for the very issues the tariffs might have caused. Who woulda thought?

* The search AI was kimi.ai, another Asian import this week. Fast (time on task < 30 seconds), comprehensive (reviewed 52 sources), and created a comprehensive bibliography of annotated sources complete with key passages used in the report, but with less elegant output than some I've explored. I've omitted the bibliography here. My current favorite for content development is Perplexity.

Next, I asked Kimi to translate the report into Spanish. It did so and produced the text in under 30 seconds. I speak Spanish well and was able to verify the content as essentially the same, but with adaptations to Spanish writing style and vocabulary; I indeed had to look up or confirm only a couple of words, which were superior to the way I would have translated the text. You can read it below.

Finally, I revised the query, this time in Spanish, asking the program to give special attention to relations among Canada, the US and Mexico. Kimi expanded the sources to 62 and replied in < 30 seconds again, this time with most of the same structural points but also with comparative statistics germane to the current dialog among the three countries.

In recent weeks, I've begun to use this technique to prepare factual elements of written work for various publications I work on. My position is that as long as the work is factual not interpretive, identified as AI-sourced, and reviewed by a human, the time saved in literature reviews and fact searching enables one to improve one's product. The risk, of course, is that some users will pass the results off as their own research, including those students who suddenly are writing term papers with knowledge and sophistication beyond their years.

I am impressed with Kimi overall. Of course it's not on par with an analysis by Tucker Carlson or the Very Large Brain; but thank God for that.



En español, sin formato.
La opinión general entre los economistas de todo el mundo sobre el efecto de los aranceles en el comercio internacional y la economía nacional es predominantemente negativa. Aquí hay algunos puntos clave:
Impacto en el Comercio Internacional
Interrupción y Retorsión: Los aranceles a menudo provocan interrupciones comerciales, ya que los países responden con sus propios aranceles. Esto puede crear un ciclo de medidas de represalia que reduce los volúmenes de comercio global. Por ejemplo, cuando Estados Unidos impuso aranceles a los productos chinos, China respondió con aranceles sobre las exportaciones estadounidenses, afectando industrias como la agricultura y la fabricación.
Aumento de Costos y Precios: Los aranceles aumentan el costo de los bienes importados, lo que puede llevar a precios más altos para los consumidores y las empresas. Este efecto inflacionario puede reducir el poder adquisitivo de los consumidores y aumentar los costos de producción para las empresas. Un estudio encontró que los aranceles sobre las lavadoras llevaron a un aumento agregado en los costos para los consumidores de más de 1.500 millones de dólares.
Interrupción de Cadenas de Suministro: Muchas industrias modernas dependen de cadenas de suministro globales. Los aranceles pueden interrumpir estas cadenas de suministro, obligando a las empresas a encontrar proveedores alternativos, lo cual puede ser costoso e ineficiente. Por ejemplo, los aranceles sobre el acero y el aluminio aumentaron los costos de insumos para las industrias downstream, lo que llevó a una disminución neta en el empleo manufacturero.
Impacto en la Economía Nacional
Reducción del Crecimiento Económico: Los aranceles pueden ralentizar el crecimiento económico al reducir los volúmenes de comercio y aumentar los costos. Un estudio estimó que los aranceles podrían reducir el producto interno bruto (PIB) de Estados Unidos en un 0,6%. Otra análisis encontró que revertir los aranceles de 2018-2019 aumentaría la producción estadounidense en un 4% en tres años.
Pérdida de Empleos: Aunque los aranceles pueden proteger ciertas industrias domésticas, también pueden llevar a la pérdida de empleos en otros sectores. Por ejemplo, los aranceles sobre el acero y el aluminio llevaron a una disminución neta en el empleo manufacturero, ya que los beneficios de un aumento en la producción en las industrias protegidas fueron superados por las consecuencias de los costos de insumos más altos y los aranceles de represalia.
Inflación: Los aranceles pueden contribuir a tasas de inflación más altas, ya que las empresas trasladan los costos aumentados a los consumidores. Esto puede erosionar el poder adquisitivo de los consumidores y llevar a una economía más débil. Por ejemplo, los aranceles sobre los productos chinos fueron casi completamente trasladados a los precios de importación de Estados Unidos, lo que resultó en costos más altos para los consumidores.
Incertidumbre e Inversión: La incertidumbre que rodea a los aranceles puede desalentar la inversión empresarial y la creación de empleo. Las empresas pueden retrasar o cancelar inversiones planeadas debido a la imprevisibilidad de las políticas comerciales. Esto puede tener un impacto negativo en el crecimiento económico a largo plazo y en la productividad.
Excepciones y Casos Específicos
Ganancias a Corto Plazo para Industrias Protegidas: En algunos casos, los aranceles pueden proporcionar ganancias a corto plazo para ciertas industrias domésticas al reducir la competencia extranjera. Sin embargo, estos beneficios a menudo son superados por los efectos negativos más amplios en la economía.
Proteccionismo Estratégico: Algunos economistas argumentan que los aranceles pueden utilizarse estratégicamente para proteger industrias nascentes o para abordar prácticas comerciales desleales. Sin embargo, este enfoque es controvertido y aún puede llevar a represalias y interrupciones comerciales.
En resumen, el consenso entre los economistas es que los aranceles generalmente tienen un impacto negativo tanto en el comercio internacional como en la economía nacional, lo que lleva a un crecimiento reducido, precios más altos y mayor incertidumbre.

If you're feeling that, you know, "big gub'mint," might not be the problem behind recent price surges, you're not alone.

The average royalty and lease costs for oil producers extracting petroleum from government lands have recently increased. As of 2025, the minimum royalty rate for oil and gas production on federal lands is 16.67%, up from the previous rate of 12.5%25. This change was implemented as part of the Biden administration's efforts to generate more revenue for taxpayers and better reflect the value of public resources.

In addition to royalties, oil companies must now pay higher fees for leasing federal lands:
Minimum bid price: Increased from $2 per acre to $10 per acre. Annual rental rates: Now start at $3 per acre for the first two years, increase to $5 per acre for the next six years, and then rise to $15 per acre afterwards. Bonding requirement: Increased from $10,000 to $150,000 per lease.

It's worth noting that royalty rates on state and private lands are often higher than federal rates, typically ranging from 12% to 25%1. For example:
• Texas has the highest royalty rates at 20-25%.
• Royalties in the Permian Basin (Texas-New Mexico) and North Dakota Bakken Basin range from 18-20%.
• Many western states charge royalties of 16.67%.

These changes aim to ensure a fair return to taxpayers for the extraction of public resources and to cover potential cleanup costs. The government projects that these new rules will result in approximately $1.5 billion in increased costs for fossil fuel companies between now and 2031.

Supporters of Big Oil will blame these fees for the high price of retail gasoline, etc. However, the profit motive remains the main driver behind short term pricing.

Bottom line, for every dollar received by the actual property owners of public land (just to be clear, that's the public), The producers take 83.3%. The 15% increase in royalties & leases under the Biden administration will amount to about $1.5 billion.

At the same time, based on recent data, oil companies have been earning substantial revenues from oil extracted from public lands, with significant profit margins.

Here are the key details:

Industry revenue for oil drilling and gas extraction in the US reached an estimated $488.5 billion in 2025, growing at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 10.6% over the past five years.

Profit margins for the largest companies in the industry are considerable:
The top company had a profit margin of 25.2% in 2025, with revenues of $31.26 billion and profits of $7.86 billion.
The second-largest company had a profit margin of 22.8%, with revenues of $26.26 billion and profits of $5.98 billion.
The third-largest company had a profit margin of 14.0%, with revenues of $23.02 billion and profits of $3.23 billion.

Specifically for public lands, revenues from oil and natural gas leases on onshore federal lands totaled $4.202 billion in fiscal year 2019, representing 86% of total federal revenues from these resources.

The oil and gas industry has maintained strong profitability despite fluctuations in oil prices. From 2014 to 2023, the industry saw a 7% rise in net income, even with an 18% drop in oil prices. Cue recording, "nice work if you can get it."

It's important to note that these figures represent the overall industry, including both public and private lands. The profitability of operations specifically on public lands may vary depending on factors such as royalty rates, lease costs, and production levels.

And there you have the facts behind "drill, baby, drill."

Yesterday in W. Washington, regular gas was $4.29.


(Footnotes omitted. ––RC)

Today's geographical analysis — by an actual PhD geographer: Fearless Leader's idea of incorporating "Canada" into the USA might not have the results he imagines.

A quick search of the WWW asking: "If Canadian provinces were states in the USA, which USA party would prevail in each?" — coupled with living within 150 miles of the Frozen North for about 40 years — can be summed up as follows.

First important fact not considered by the Very Large Brain: Canada is not a unitary state; it is a federation of (historically 10 now 11) provinces. Canada extends about 3,049 miles from St. John's, Newfoundland to a point at the intersection of Alaska, NW Territories and the Arctic Ocean, compared to 2,724 from Miami to Seattle or 2,696 from Bangor ME to San Diego or 2,613 from San Diego to Honolulu, with comparable differences in landforms, climate and society. (Of course I left out the 5,158 miles from Honolulu to Bangor, reasoning no one would choose that trip.)

Second: Based on the political leanings and characteristics of Canadian provinces, if they were to become U.S. states, most would likely lean Democratic. However, there would be some variations across provinces:

Quebec: Likely Democratic, but with a unique political landscape. Quebec's politics revolve around nationalism vs. federalism rather than a traditional left-right divide. The province's strong support for public healthcare and progressive policies aligns more closely with the Democratic Party.

Ontario: Strongly Democratic. As Canada's most populous province, Ontario's urban centers and generally liberal attitudes would likely translate to Democratic support.

British Columbia: Likely Democratic. The province's urban areas and environmental concerns align more with Democratic policies.

Alberta: Potentially Republican. Alberta's conservative leanings and focus on oil and gas industries might make it more receptive to Republican policies. However, it would still be more moderate than many current Republican states.

Saskatchewan and Manitoba: Leaning Democratic, but potentially competitive. These prairie provinces have a mix of rural and urban populations, which could lead to closer races.

Atlantic Provinces (New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland and Labrador): Likely Democratic. These provinces generally support social programs and have a history of voting for liberal parties.

Territories (Yukon, Northwest Territories, Nunavut): Likely Democratic, given their significant Indigenous populations and reliance on government services. (Note that the combined population of these territories barely sums to the 125,000 required by the Constitution for statehood.)

Third: It's important to note that Canadian political ideologies don't directly translate to the U.S. two-party system. Many Canadian conservatives would be considered moderate Democrats in the U.S. context. Additionally, about one-third of Canadians describe themselves as "political orphans" who find all parties too extreme, indicating a significant centrist population.

Overall, if Canadian provinces became U.S. states, they would likely add a substantial Democratic-leaning bloc to American politics, potentially shifting the balance in favor of the Democratic Party. Of course, many voters would retain their Canadian perspectives, possibly leading to a structural realignment of the continent's politics, and since only about 1/3 of US voters appear to be dyed-in-the-wool Trumpistas, one imagines that the current administration would have some 'splaining to do.

J.D. Vance, speaking with the Fox News host Sean Hannity, (recently, as quoted in The Atlantic) provided further "Catholic" reasoning for his administration’s approach to migrants and refugees, arguing that he thinks it’s “a very Christian concept that you love your family, and then you love your neighbor, and then you love your community, and then you love your fellow citizens in your own country, and then after that you can focus and prioritize the rest of the world.”

In fact, J.D., the Bible, a well known religious text to which many Christians purport to adhere, makes no mention of Jesus imposing a hierarchy of whom to love, the sole exception being God. To wit: Jesus provides several key teachings about loving one's neighbor in the Gospels:

"Love your neighbor as yourself." This is one of the most well-known statements Jesus makes about loving one's neighbor, found in Mark 12:31 and Matthew 22:39. In both instances, Jesus presents this as the second greatest commandment, after loving God.

In Matthew 22:37-39, Jesus says:
"'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'"

With regard to "strangers" — AKA foreigners as used throughout the New Testament — Jesus expands on this concept in Luke 10:27, stating:
"'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind' and 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'"

Additionally, in John 13:34-35, Jesus gives a new commandment to his disciples:
"A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you also must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another."

In Matthew 25:35-36, Jesus directly equates welcoming strangers with welcoming Him:
"For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you gave me clothing, I was sick and you took care of me, I was in prison and you visited me."

Jesus goes on to explain that when we treat "the least of these" with kindness, we are treating Him with kindness. This teaching elevates the act of welcoming strangers to a profound spiritual significance.

Now I frankly don't believe for a moment that these are direct quotes, as they were written decades after Jesus' death and likely mistranscribed over the centuries, but these teachings emphasize the importance Jesus placed on loving one's neighbor as a fundamental aspect of Christian faith and practice. One need not be a professing Christian to grasp the universality of such principles.

Vance in his "Hillbilly Elegy" alludes to the paucity of his upbringing and early education, and now he offers proof.

The US federal budget for 2023 was about $6,307 billion, yes over six trillion. That is the last year for which comparable statistics are available. The average taxpayer paid just over $19,000 in federal income tax in 2023. Most paid less, as outliers with immense incomes skew the statistic upward.

Some of this money goes to "foreign aid," which has been much in the news this week. For 2023, foreign non-military aid including USAID cost the average taxpayer about 40¢ per day. Depending on one's social and moral beliefs, either it was wasted or it paid for health, safety and economic well-being in some of the world's poorest countries.

For comparison, the U.S. military budget for fiscal year 2023 was approximately $820 billion, which accounted for about 13.3% of the federal budget. The average taxpayer paid about $13.99 per day for defense, or $14.40 per day if we include aid to allied military forces.

For example, about $3.3 billion went to Israel, or about $412 per Israeli or 68¢ per square foot, or 4¢ per day per US taxpayer, which roughly quintupled the following year due to the war in Gaza.

In other words the Pentagon's budget is about thirty-six times the foreign aid budget.

Completely eliminating "foreign aid" would save the average taxpayer about $0.80 per day, or, for example, just a bit less than a daily ration of therapeutic pediatric survival food** (photo). Happily for certain leade(R)s, the impact — increased poverty, disease and conflict — would be felt by people who are far away and powerless.

If the overriding goal is really to save some money, consider this. Each year recently something in excess of 40,000 people have died in firearms-related incidents — usually for no good reason. If we assume that each of them loses 20 years of adult life during which they would have produced $100,000 worth of goods and services annually (an amount far below actual US productivity), then the annual loss to the economy is (40,000 X $100,000 X 20 =) $80 billion per year and compounding, which this writer estimates to be much more than the foreign-aid bill of $71.9 reported by Pew Research Center for one recent year.

(It's important to note that estimates of foreign aid range from about $50 million to about $100 million, usually with the clear sound of an axe being ground in the background. We've used median values in this analysis, and we could be off by a factor of two either way, but that does not change the overall trends.)


Sources: (URLs responsive as of 2025-02-07)

** https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plumpy'nut

* https://taxsummaries.pwc.com/united-states/individual/taxes-on-personal-income

* https://www.atf.gov/resource-center/docs/undefined/fy2023congressionalbudgetsubmission508cpdf/download

* https://www.nationalpriorities.org/interactive-data/taxday/average/2023/us/receipt/

* various additional government documents

They came for civil servants, health care and public safety workers, but I was not among those, so I said nothing.
They came for public assistance, but I was not poor, so I said nothing.
They came for workers' compensation, but I was self-employed, so I said nothing.
They came for early childhood education, but my children were grown, so I said nothing.
They came for women, but I was not a woman, so I said nothing.
They came for Medicare and Social Security, and because I am old I spoke up.
They came for me, and no one dared speak.

(Apologies for appropriating allusion to much worse events.)

Most of the conspiracy theories about vaccines, which seem to drive most of K's thinking and that of others of his ilk, are not based on science or statistics.

In the past, for example, smallpox killed between 1/3 and 1/2 of all who contracted it. At the time most people lived in small villages. Because nearly every American child born before 1971 was vaccinated as part of a national program, with the world following suit, humanity has destroyed smallpox. It took 200 years of incessant human effort. Those now over 55 stood in line for their inoculation at about age ten in schools across the world for decades.

For those too young to remember, "Smallpox was an infectious disease caused by variola virus, which belongs to the genus Orthopoxvirus. The last naturally occurring case was diagnosed in October 1977, and the World Health Organization certified the global eradication of the disease in 1980, making smallpox the only human disease to have been eradicated to date." (Wikipedia)

How bad was it? Donald Henderson — who directed the WHO’s program to eradicate smallpox worldwide — reports that during the 20th century alone, "an estimated 300 million people died of the disease" in his review paper “The eradication of smallpox — An overview of the past, present, and future.”

The estimated population of the world in 1960 was 3,015,470,894. If we use that as the est. average population of the century, then the death rate from smallpox was about one percent. Applying the historic death rate to the current world population, a pandemic in an unvaccinated world (the RFKJ model) would see four billion deaths from smallpox and an unknowable number from the strep and staph infections that would accompany the impossibility of burying the dead.

The virus is still out there, lurking in dark places and in sample vials in labs in Russia and the US. It could be unleashed by an accident or a madman, and as a Russian scientist told a conference in 1982 (UPI) about nuclear war, "the living will envy the dead."

Scores of other less virulent diseases are on their way to oblivion, and we're on the cusp of being able to develop preventive measures, as shown by the Covid19 experience, in short order.

The downside, which is real, is the possibility that in any effort to eradicate a disease, a minority of the population will instead find the cure worse than (the absence of) the disease. The statistical probabilities as well as historic experience, however, are clearly in favor of the vaccination concept, and like it or not, the preservation of society, not of the individual, must be the focus of government.

You might want to write your senator about this and other pending appointments.

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.)