#1 I think that the land that is above the craton in the USA is arable. — Agree-to-Disagree

#2 The Rocky mountains also run down the west coast of the USA. — Agree-to-Disagree

Both of these observations are correct. Very good.

The depth of soil covering much of the US (let's say north of the Ohio and Missouri Rivers) has been accumulating since the retreat of glaciers from this area about 10,000 years ago. Over that time, between 20 and 100 inches of topsoil has formed (figuring an inch ever 100 to 500 years depending on specific conditions). Across large areas, the topsoil accumulated on top of various subsoils left by the receding glaciers forming soil with very good structure.

Northern Canada consists of tundra which is a treeless biome characterized by cold temperatures, short growing seasons, and permafrost, typically found in Arctic and alpine regions. Tundra is not "soil"; the plant matter hasn't been warmed up long enough to decay into humus. Further, the tundra does not have the firm structure of soil which would allow it to be cultivated, even if other factors (like temperature) allowed it. When tundra thaws, it becomes soft and squishy and will produce tons and tons of methane which will add to global warming.

There are large swaths of Canada covered by boreal forests. Leave the trees alone.

So, even if the average daily temperature of the tundra is the same as central Kansas, it will take a very long time for the tundra to dry out, decay, and become tillable fertile soil. In addition to that, there is no certainty that the temperature so close to the North Pole will ever be warm enough to grow whatever you want to plant.

Our best bet is to grow food for direct human consumption (no large animal feed; maybe no animal feed at all) wherever there is already good soil, sufficient water, and tolerable climate. If we can't grow enough food on the good land that exists now, then the population will shrink. I don't like that, but it seems inescapable.

There have been more than 50,000 heat-related deaths and more than 200,000 related to cold in England and Wales since 1988, new official figures show. — Agree-to-Disagree

200,000 people were suffering from hot weather. Then they took shelter in aggressively air-conditioned offices. All dead within hours.

Won't Canada and Russia gain a lot of arable land? — Agree-to-Disagree

Canada will not gain a lot of arable land, even if its territory warms up. What are the obstacles?

a) The Canadian Shield, for one. The Shield is the craton or hard rock core of North America and most of it is either exposed or very close to the surface.



b) the Canadian Rockies. Wheat doesn't grow well on mountain sides. Much of western Canada is mountainous.

A lot of Canada is flat, wet, and forested. It won't become good farmland.

The parts of Canada that can be cultivated are being cultivated.

Prosperous individuals can reduce consumption across the board. Live in less space; heat less; cool less; drive less; fly less; eat less (meat from big animals); buy less clothing; buy less furnishings; buy less appliances. Walk more; bike more (using your own power); use public transit more; neglect your lawn more; garden more; read more; socialize more; pray more (it might help).

A lot of people will be on the move to escape the severe downsides of global heating. Climate refugees will find a cold welcome in the territories into which they move. Good luck on making peaceful, equitable adjustments.

The globe will experience a population loss across many species, including our own. Fresh water is already one of the choke points. Paradoxically, there will be far too little clean drinkable water in some places, and far too much fresh water in other places. Salt water is already encroaching on coastal cities.

How do you think we can reach more people with this idea? — Alonsoaceves

Many people are willing to donate their time and energy to civic projects. Research on volunteering finds that "over 28% of Americans formally volunteering through organizations and over 54% informally helping their neighbors. The kind of volunteering found in this research is not the same as volunteering to serve full time in some form of civic service for one or two years.

It might be the case that Peace Corps, VISTA (Volunteer In Service to America), or Americorps requires an "historical moment" where young people want to delay college or career in order to work on meeting neglected civic needs. The material benefits of participating in these programs are not very great, but the personal rewards can be quite high. I don't know how to create the desired "historical moment".

Another approach used in some countries is to have 1 or 2 years of mandatory national service, either in military or civilian service. I'm not enthusiastic about mandatory military service, but certainly civilian service would be helpful for many countries, including the United States. However, as @Count Timothy von Icarus points out, "voluntary" would be better than "mandatory" in terms of commitment.

The volunteers are the primary beneficiaries of these programs, because they arrive; they do their thing; they gain experience; they leave. There might well be zero follow-up. The recipients of volunteer services benefit, but it often takes long term input to make significant changes.

0

I wonder whether ADHD is a disorder at all. — Tzeentch

That's a good question, and one which could be asked about a number of disorders. Homosexuality, for instance, used to be a very serious problem (still is in some places). For a long time smoking was not considered a problem. Now it is. Cannabis used to be a big problem in many places. Now it's not.

"Time makes ancient good uncouth" the poet said. And the uncouth can become good.

Good idea but not new and it is entirely do-able.

I was in VISTA for 2 years, back in the late 60s. It's now part of Americorps. It was a very good experience. Participants probably get more than they give, depending on where they serve and what their skills are. Young people usually don't have a huge stock of technical knowledge to share, but they do have enthusiasm, energy, and open minds. However, older even 'old' people can participate and they bring a different set of skills and capacities than young people.

No doubt many children are spending far, far too much time looking at screens displaying content that was designed to engage and hold attention for purposes of commerce. So I'm happy to blame screens. However, when ADHD became a public / school health issue, there were only the big screens at movie theaters and the little screens at home.

In the late 1960s children already had access to sugar, caffeine, food dyes and other additives. Along with the bad stuff, poorer children did not have access to a high quality diet. It might be the case that highly processed food and lack of quality food plays a part. Unhealthy food is still plentiful and many children still do not have access to a quality diet.

Most of the suggested causes or contributors are environmental.

Are there aspects of home life, apart from diet and electronics, that might contribute to ADHD? Are there aspects of the classroom that might be causative?

Is it possible that ADHD is not new at all, but that long standing behaviors became incompatible with the way schools are operated?

Damned if I know what it is, but according to the American Psychiatry Association:

Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is one of the most common mental disorders affecting children. Symptoms of ADHD include inattention (not being able to keep focus), hyperactivity (excess movement that is not fitting to the setting) and impulsivity (hasty acts that occur in the moment without thought). ADHD is considered a chronic and debilitating disorder and is known to impact the individual in many aspects of their life including academic and professional achievements, interpersonal relationships, and daily functioning (Harpin, 2005).

ADHD became a "thing" in the 1960s. I first heard about it in 1969 when I was working at Boston State Mental Hospital; there was an investigation going on into whether giving stimulants to hyperactive children would work. At the time there were a batch of theories about why some children were hyperactive: eating too much sugar, too many soft drinks with caffeine, food dyes, too much television, chaotic home life, bad schools, and so on. Paradoxically, some stimulants acted like sedatives in pre-pubescent children.

Some of us (young idealistic radical types) at the hospital thought that hyperactivity was a diagnosis of black boys who didn't behave in school. We also thought it unlikely that wealthy white suburban boys would be given these drugs. But, what did we know?

55 years later, ADHD has become part of the furniture. There is still doubt about it. I notice that quite a few older people I know (i.e., people in their 70s) are good at sitting still, but they display a marked level of inattention. Their attention is scattered and their ability to concentrate is limited, yet they don't seem to have dementia. Dementia, of course, would degrade one's attention, concentration, memory, and other cognitive processes.

I wonder if adult attention deficits are often the result of poor mental hygiene -- that is, they have not recently disciplined themselves to pay attention, concentrate, remember important facts, and so on.

I also wonder if attention deficits are often the result of depression.

Quite a few people think the problem with young boys is that they are in schools where there are far too few opportunities to engage in uninhibited movement. Apparently many schools do not have recess periods where children are let loose to play outside or in a gym.

Then there is variability of behavior: is hyperactivity designed to account for children who don't fit into th desired mold?

Next.

Let's speculate about how victimized women were in the past, so we can project more original sin on men in the present. The lord of strife cares not whence the resentment flows, as long as it does. — Tzeentch

That does seem to be the case.

Even if people--males and females both--don't live in accordance with the rules of a Quaker Sunday school, people do behave reasonably well towards each other in most places most of the time, now and in the past. Civilization, let alone survival, requires too much cooperation for anything else to be the norm.

Then there is the fact that we are animals and part of nature, which offends some peoples' sensitivities.

If by "the distant past" you're willing to go all the way back to when everyone was of a hunter and gatherer tribe, all indications seem to suggest otherwise. As far as I know regarding what is known at large, not barring exceptions to the rule, these tribes tended to be (and tend to be) very democratic in their leadership by our modern standards. — javra

Based on what information? Were you there or something? — Outlander

Old as I am, I wasn't there either. However, I have objections to some of the claims about hunter gatherers:

a) Sometimes the remaining hunter-gatherer groups are taken as examples of what existed 100,000 years ago. It seems unlikely that over 100,000 years, there would be no change in the way hunter gatherer people conducted their affairs.

b) I very much doubt if there is a shred of archeological evidence demonstrating that a people who lived 90,000 years ago, or 40,000 or 25,000 were democratically organized. If stones were in a circle, would that be proof?

c) there is some tendency to project current ideals upon the long-gone people of the past--100,000 years ago or 100 years ago--just as long as they are all dead.

d) there is some evidence that ancient people (hunter gatherers, 100,000 years ago) were capable of, and performed violence. A survey of a substantial number of museum skulls found that quite a few of them had been bashed in.

e) vulnerable women: How vulnerable were hunter gatherer women for whom survival likely depended on a fairly robust level of strength?

Homo sapiens hunter gatherers weren't just like us -- because much of what we are depends on when, where, how, and by whom we are bred and raised. That idea should be at least somewhat acceptable to essentialists and constructionists alike.

It's difficult to talk about how often women were raped in the distant past when at this present time, it is possible to be convicted of raping ones wife, which presumably is not the same thing as a young man engaging in an urgent fuck with a young woman digging up roots and picking berries on the savannas.

I take it by this that you weren't there yourself. OK. Neither was I or any other living person. But then the same applies to all history a century old or longer. — javra

A century ago or longer? Hell, it could be an hour ago, and witnesses might not be at all sure, or in agreement, about what happened.

But reading - what we call literature - is as gendered as anything. Boys, for the entirety of my career, and per the literature I've seen, have been more likely to enjoy 'informational' or 'task-oriented' reading, which we often describe as 'not literature', whereas 'literature' - fiction - requires empathizing, provides no clear, tangible benefits (now I know how to ...) - things that girls are better at than boys — Jeremy Murray

If many boys lack social intelligence, the ability to express emotions, an interest in reading literature, and so on we should compare them to boys who demonstrate the possession of these features. We will find some level of class influence. The higher the boys' parents' class, the higher the likelihood of their sons possessing these features. Why? Because maintaining or improving one's class standing requires social and emotional intelligence, and collegiate competence, whatever the major. These skills require a model and instruction. Working class parents are less likely than upper class parents to possess these skills, and are thus unable to pass these skills on.

If there are people who seem to have been born with the skills to get ahead in society, most of us have to learn it. If we don't learn it, we're kind of screwed.

Girls are no more likely than boys to be born with the suite of skills that leads to success in life. They also have to learn the various skills, and clearly, some don't. If more girls than boys possess the suite of get-ahead skills, it's because schools have devoted a lot of time to the task.

It wasn't that long ago that boys out-performed girls in high school, and men outnumbered women in college, In 1960, a greater number of boys than girls dropped out of high school; but a greater number of men than women entered college from high school. In 1988, this shifted slightly in favor of women, and has continued on. [there are, of course, various caveats about such stats.]

Some marxists propose that the red brick school house education is no longer very important. Mass media are in a better position to teach people how to live, what to want, and what to buy. Beyond "BUY IT!" the messages we receive are somewhat chaotic; they beckon in several directions all at once. A big problem wit this theory is that in order to buy, one has to have money, which usually requires work. Mass media doesn't tell us a lot about successful work.

Actually, I don't generally think much of the state cause I do what I want regardless of the law because I'm generally not a malicious person. — DifferentiatingEgg

A pleasant, law-abiding person in a more-or-less democratic state can live without constantly worrying about the State and its malevolent agents. I also don't think about the State that much, either. I'm reasonably pleasant, and mostly law-abiding.

There are times when being pleasant and law-abiding are not enough. During periods of political upheaval, activities which are legal may become verboten, such as when Red Scares and various witch hunts have used the machinery of the state. Unionizing is legal, as are strikes. That doesn't prevent the State from employing police forces to help break a strike. Being a member of the Communist Party USA has never been illegal, but being a member could end one's career in Hollywood, government, or academia (during periods of anti-communist fervor).

The State might, but not always, object to disruptions of public order. For some odd reason, the state mostly put up with the disruptions of the Occupy Wall Street movement, probably because it was fairly good theater and no threat to business. ACT-UP got a much more negative response. It was also good theater, but the actors were diseased pariahs (to use one of their phrases) and was aimed at Big Pharma as well as at the State. j

Campus demonstrations against Israel's war on Palestinians (their phrase) have irritated agents and quasi-agents of the state. Campus demonstrations in 2025 are interfering with US policy no more than campus demonstrations interfered with US policy in 1970, but the State doesn't like it -- then or now. So, call in the police. State (and quasi-state) authorities don't like being contradicted, argued with, demonstrated against, or denounced.

It doesn't matter that the net effect of most demonstrations are pretty much zero.

Yes, the state enforces legal rights in land, which rights it has created itself. — bert1

When the United States was a brand new nation, it had possession of the land between the Atlantic coast and the Mississippi River, but it didn't really occupy all that land. State occupation of this territory had to await settlers. The Northwest Territory Ordinance was passed in 1787 and established the legal basis for occupation by settlers, and the eventual creation of territories and then states. Wisconsin, the most "northwest" of the NW Territory, wasn't entered into the Union until 1848.

The open land was surveyed, packaged, and sold. The Homestead Act of 1862 aimed at settling the much larger expanse of open land west of the Mississippi. Settlers (citizens or immigrants intending to stay) could acquire 160 acres of free land by living on it for 5 years and improving it.

According to the historian Oscar Handlin, the land-system of medieval Europe was much different. The 'state' might be no more than the local lord (strong man). There was no open land: peasants had developed an unofficial but binding system of land-and-labor sharing which prevailed for centuries, and was usually (but not always) productive enough to maintain a steady population of crop producers.

In the 18th century, for not altogether well understood reasons, the population of Europe started to grow and the old system of land and labor sharing proved insufficient, resulting in surplus population beyond its means to support. Then what? Westward Ho across the ocean to the unsettled land of the New World (unsettled by Europeans, that is).

Handlin's books on immigration treat the wrenching dislocation of people moving from nations where land, labor, and social mobility were fixed to the socially fluid conditions in cities and on the frontier.

There's not enough room! All the bits are taken aren't they? — bert1

There are many bits that have not been taken by private individuals, but the collection of bits -- taken or not -- are pretty much under the control of a state. And states jealously guard their bits.

I'm not sure why you blame the state more than you blame private interests. — bert1

Probably because @DifferentiatingEgg is "state-averse". He sees the state mainly as a burden upon the people, rather than a creation of the population. The state-averse do not see the predations of private individuals and corporations.

I can't tell what you are driving at.

There are two Declarations with which I am familiar. One is the Alma Ata Declaration on Health in 1978; the other is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights from the United Nations in 1948.

True enough, and beneficially, the text and thrust of the declarations has been copied into numerous national documents around the world. Why is that a problem?

The problem isn't that nothing "new" is created; the problem is that the text and thrust of the declarations is honored in the breach more than in the observance.

Here are links to the two Declarations:

1948 Paris Declaration of Human Rights

The 1978 Alma Ata Declaration on Health

These declarations are comprehensive, ideal, and sound -- except that the circumstances in so many places make the chances of success in many places like a snowball's chance in hell.

Still, the declarations are worthwhile, if only they are put into effect.

The conflict of interest is too great to leave it to the state. — Down The Rabbit Hole

You are talking about the UK. Similar problems occur in the US. But given the state's dominance, what is the solution?

Ineffective, abusive, and unresponsive behavior by agencies may be built-in by design. The behavior of ostensibly non-political agencies, such as disability, unemployment services, or food inspections may be strongly flavored by past or current political party agendas.

Socially conservative politicians tend to be suspicious of working class peoples claims, for instance. It's an old example, but in the 1980s, AIDS patients who were often in very bad health found it difficult to claim disability benefits, thanks to the frank hostility of the Reagan and Bush administrations. Or disputed unemployment claims tend to be resolved against the worker.

What Donald Trump is doing in Washington is aimed at crippling government programs, many of which deliver pretty obvious public goods, so that they will not be able to deliver effective services in the future, or function at all.

My point is that the cure for ineffective state services is political. At other times, it was political will that produced good-to-excellent state services. Elections have consequences.

"Administrative hearings" are not judicial, as I understand them. They are civil proceedings held by agencies. For instance, if you challenge a denial of unemployment compensation, a hearing will be held by the state labor department. Needless to say, the hearing officers are generally not on the claimant's side, but facts of the matter can still be established.

On the other hand the matter could be handled by a "small-claims court" -- a judicial unit that handles small cases, where people often represent themselves on both sides. Hearings are short, judgement is is usually swift. It's a low cost option.

Should the government suspect that some recipients have received too much in benefits, there are two obvious remedies:

The first is to improve the controls within the benefit-granting agency. Recipients are not 'guilty' of agency errors, but they might still be liable for repayment.

The second is to claw back the over-payment following due process. For instance, notifying the recipients of probable over-payment; providing a period during which the recipients can contest the probable-overpayment, and then an administrative hearing to determine whether an over-payment did occur. If it did, then the government can claw back the over-payment all at once or over time, whichever causes the least reasonable disruption to recipients' finances.

In the United States, RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) allows for seizure of any assets from those identified by law enforcement as having ill-gotten gains. It is carried out through court orders. It allows the government to more efficiently dismantle organized crime*** operations. There aren't many limitations on what can be seized, so it is critical to government legal creditability that the RICO case be very solid.

RICO would not apply to government payment systems which might result in over-payment in most cases, unless there was a 'conspiracy' to obtain inflated benefits.

***As mafia operator Bill Bonanno said, "Crime doesn't pay UNLESS it's organized."

I've ridden in 3 different Teslas owned by LYFT drivers. Don't ask me why someone who can afford a Tesla is driving for LYFT, but nonetheless... The first Tesla was a major disappointment. I thought it would be luxurious before I got in, but the back seat literally felt utilitarian. The driver said she sometimes used the self-driving feature on freeway straight-aways. It worked, more or less, but it could not manage in-city driving.

The second Tesla was a SUV model and it measured up to expectations. The driver told me that the self-driving feature cost $5000+, on top of $65,000 for the vehicle. He didn't have it.

Tesla #3 was the sedan with the glass roof. The driver hadn't been through a winter with it, so he didn't know how the glass roof would be in the winter--cold, snow, ice... In terms of crash-safety, I felt as exposed as I would in a convertible, layered safety glass or not. Tesla sells optional sun-shades, because sun + glass roof = heat, so what's the point?

The Chevy Volt Bolt is about as nice as a Tesla and much cheaper (rode in one once). The range of the Bolt battery is rated at 260 miles (418k), so it is best used in an urban setting where total daily driving distances are relatively low. A trip from Minneapolis to Chicago (400+ miles) might require two recharge stops.

I don't drive, but in my never too humble opinion, Tesla isn't worth the cost. But then, in light of global heating, what car is worth that cost?

How old was Bernie? — ssu

83 -- not that old if you are still in good shape which Bernie seems to be.

At least he is articulately and energetically criticizing Trusk, the corrosive duo--something that few Democrats and no Republicans are doing.

Taking a page from the IWW: Now is the time to fan the flames of discontent!

Worth a try!

One of the worst things Trump has said:

Mr. Trump has claimed since taking office a second time that the European Union was formed in order to screw the United States.

It's rock-bottom bad.

It is nationalist paranoia. It's jingoism*** in the extreme. Is the EU a phantom in a capitalist nightmare of competition? (I thought competition was supposed to be a universal capitalist good. No?) It is irrational hostility towards our best friends. (Yes, I know, nations don't have friends -- they have interests. So: hostility towards the EU is not in our national interest.) It's crude thinking. But then, nobody has ever accused Trump of being refined. It's the sort of statement Trump fishes out of his gold toilet.



***The term "jingoism" comes from a British music-hall ditty during the Russo-Turkish War of 1877-1878.

When people started viewing other people as a disposable workforce in all areas of life — Christoffer

The Nazis called them "useless eaters".

Thinking of a nation as a business is as wrong as thinking of a business as a family. The scales are totally unmatched; the purposes are disparate; and only families are natural -- man + woman = children.

This means that the well-being of the citizens is at the heart of a healthy economy and national identity. Good health care, good social securities, good security from crime, good infrastructure, good funding of culture, taking care of the sick, weak and old etc. — Christoffer

Absolutely!

They simply aren't wise enough to be able to improve society for the people. — Christoffer

Politicians actually have been able to improve society for the people on numerous occasions. Examples: Social security law; auto safety laws; civil rights laws. So have cement workers, civil engineers, farmers, agronomists, weather forecasters, people who dance in the chorus line, professors, elementary school teachers, et al.

The US is pretty much doomed to fall as a nation eventually. Under its own weight of misunderstandings of what a nation and society actually is and what it needs. — Christoffer

Well, Christoffer, in the fullness of time all nations are doomed; everyone is going to die, much sooner than they imagined, quite often. Ultimately, in the very long run, all our efforts are futile. What we do, how we do it, to whom, and why DOES MATTER a great deal in the short run--this year, this decade, this century.

One of the lessons of history is that things go haywire much of the time. But people carry on. They get things done, bring the crops in, cook meals, make clothing, keep society humming along.

All the "states rights" stuff is what? — Paine

"States Rights", to my mind, is all about any mandate from the Federal government -- SCOTUS, COTUS, OR POTUS that seems to correct inequity / discrimination / institutional disadvantage propagated by one group of more powerful citizens against less powerful citizens. States Rights was the shield raised against SCOTUS's Brown vs. The Board of Education which declared racial segregation in education unconstitutional.

Southern states are the natural home of states rights, but a liberal northern state might start thinking about states rights if a liberal northern ox is gored by the feds.

Who or what are you quoting from? It is not in the graph page you posted. — Paine

The address on which the graph is located is https://usafacts.org/explainers/what-does-the-us-government-do/agency/us-department-of-education/ The graph is located a ways down the page.

Edit to add: You were not quoting but speaking for yourself? — Paine

Speaking for my self, of course, but reflecting various pieces I've read. For instance Geoffrey Canada's program for young children in Harlem New York City shows both how language deficits affect performance in primary school, and how the deficits can be prevented IF intervention begins very early. Numerous reports show wealthier school districts performing better than poorer ones.

It looks like the plan to shut down the Department of Education is going forward. It was funny to hear the T complain about U.S. school rankings during the State of the Union address when he has already killed the means of knowing what those numbers are (as I reported earlier.), — Paine

The budget for the Department of Education was $268 B at the end of the Biden Administration. HERE IS A GRAPH of how the money was spent. $161B, the largest expenditure, is for Federal Student Aid. Elementary and secondary education gets $83B, and $21B goes for special education and rehabilitation services.

States and local governments, on the other hand, spend 756 billion on education in 2021. I do not know whether that is an over- or -under estimation.

One thing is certain: K-12 education is a vital function, but it is also a long-standing can of worms. What different segments of the American population want from K-12 education in the thousands of school districts varies a lot. A lot of money is spent by schools, but results tend to be disappointing for many parents.

My sense is that perhaps 10% to 20% of parents get the kind of education they want for their children: Children in the top 10% of income earning families tend to live in better environments where the benefits of good performance in school and higher education are not open to question. They tend to go to (usually public) schools where the ethos of education is more or less common property.

Children in progressively lower categories of income tend to do progressively worse. Of course there are some significant exceptions, but as a general trend, this seems to be the case.

If schools are not performing well, this probably isn't something the Department of Education can do much about.

There is some research that indicates 5 to 6 year old students who arrive in the first grade with significant deficits in pre-school development (all sorts of skills) are usually not able to successfully overcome the negative consequences of poor home environments in the years ahead, especially in verbal skills. This group is a minority of students one hopes, but it does seem to be getting larger.

Remediating the environments in which children are raised is difficult because it means changing the lives of parents, and that may just not be practically possible. It would take a Defense Department-sized federal department of fairy godmothers with magic wands to solve the problem.

Project Management — Paine

Here's an old comedy bit

I kept clear of the news for some time, ever since the US electio — Amity

I look at the news every day, but I think it was Emerson -- might have been Thoreau -- who said that reading a newspaper once a month was sufficient. Times have changed so maybe catching up on the news once a week is enough.

I find that a lot of the news that the New York Times sees fit to print is not all that useful. Outrage here, stocks up there, self-obsessed Hollywood remains self-obsessed, war goes badly, the poor getting poorer in lock step with the rich getting richer, etc. Too many zebras to keep track of.

Then why don't the US citizens who don't want this... do something about it? — Christoffer

An entirely appropriate question.

Massive mobilization (spontaneous / organized) takes time, focus, and energy. Trump began his current maladministration only on 1/20/25--so about 45 days ago. His fast and furious demolition activities affect opponents the same way zebra stripes confuse lions: It's hard to lock on a target. It takes 10 times as much energy to resist the government as the government spends fucking us over.

"Elections have consequences!" Once in power, all sorts of advantages are acquired. This is true for Democrats and liberals as well as Republicans and reactionaries.

Trump is a hateful bastard surrounded by goons and morons and we can count on them making things progressively worse. We don't want "worse" but we are going to get it. We'd better not waste it. The opposition must capitalize on and fan the flames of discontent. The opposition must "get into every space" -- be it bars, union halls, churches, schools, neighborhood organizations, civic clubs, board rooms, congressional offices, the sidewalks surrounding the White House, the pentagon -- EVERYWHERE. Be polite as necessary, but not more so. Be as forceful as required, and not less so. Hammer the message home, again and again, about the very real damage Donald Trump et al are doing to the body politic and institutions of government.

Should the opposition take my sage advice, it won't produce results overnight. It needs to produce significant results by November 3, 2026 -- the next congressional election. And November 3, '26 is not the end game. Trump must not attempt to run for a third term and J. D. Vance must be tarred with the same brush as Trump. Maybe more tar and hotter. He's not as close to death as Donald.

There is, of course, no guarantee that anyone will take my sage advice. Perhaps the opposition will fold up, dig a hole, and bury itself in it. Perhaps Donald Trump will bring about full-fledged fascism. Bad things can and do happen to good people.

when the South Korean President tried to go unconstitutional, the Army just refused to obey his orders — Ludwig V

In a top-down response, the military could refuse to obey an illegal order. It could conceivably refuse to obey a legal but unpalatable order. We don't have enough contemporary experience to judge how likely it is that the military will reject a civilian-originated order. The military does have some autonomy; after all, they are THE FORCE, so who would stop them?

Do you think it will work out in the end? — Ludwig V

It will absolutely "work out" in the end, for better or worse. I don't know whether bad resolution will come about or not, or how bad "bad" might be.

I hope there are some people who are thinking long-term about this — Ludwig V

There are people who have been thinking about this. Unfortunately, the thinkers haven't been in a position to do much about it. For example: Noam Chomsky has been thinking about this stuff for a long time, but Chomsky has never run a campaign to put his observations into effect -- or to even suggest what 'we the people' listening to him ought to do. Some scholars of fascism have published important books; it's up to the readers to act, or not.

if authoritarianism sets in, there will be some dreadful decisions to be made by each citizen? — Ludwig V

It has already set in, and not just in the last few weeks. We have seen drift towards authoritarianism in various parts of our culture. For instance, there are workplaces that are run under authoritarian terms. Police forces are more and less authoritarian depending on the demographic being policed. United States History reveals numerous episodes of tyranny conducted by supposedly democratic agents and agencies. On the list: enslavement of Africans; genocide of aboriginal people; the entire confederacy; post-reconstruction vengeance on blacks; Jim Crow laws; ruthless suppression of labor and unionism; McCarthyism; COINTELPRO (FBI infiltration and disruption of leftist organizations); Watergate; and on and on.

You are quite right: Citizens will have to make inconvenient to dreadfully difficult decisions. I am grateful that I am old and may die of natural causes before I am asked to make dreadful choices. On the other hand, I might not die quite quick enough.

Revolution, even by force, does not have to be bloody. The force can also be not to comply with what the enforcers of the people in power inflict on them. Just look at Gandhi's revolution — Christoffer

Remember that Gandhi began his non-violent efforts in South Africa in 1906, and in India in 1920, achieving success (in ending British rule of India) in 1947. It took time and on-going efforts. Even fairly small-scale domestic resistance in the United States has been spasmodic, without successfully building any sort of on-going resistance movement.

Between 500,000 and a million people demonstrated against the Vietnam war on November 15, 1969 in Washington (I was there). It was peaceful, orderly, brief and inspiring. President Nixon was reportedly enraged by the demonstrations, but not so disturbed that he moved to end the war (which ended in 1975 in defeat).

The American Civil Rights movement started in 1954 and achieved legislative success in 1968. This was a more sustained, intensive effort than the anti-Vietnam war movement.

Point is: focussed resistance takes years to achieve success. Had anti-Trumpist organizing began in 2015 and continued, we'd be farther ahead in the game. Instead, a lot of us figured Trump was a one-off aberration who was finished well and good in 2020. Alas...

So their power just came down to respect for rule of law? What about the National Guard? — frank

Well, the National Guard is there, along with other parts of the civil and military establishment constituting the government, but it is part of the executive branch of government, which is the branch which might be presently willing to flout the judicial branch.

Some actions of the Trump administration may be unconstitutional, and challenges have been filed in various lower federal courts and they in turn have issued decisions. BUT, that's just the first step in judicial action. Court decisions in these matters will be appealed to higher courts, on up to the top.

Chaos was intended here, and there have been so many questionable actions, so many suits filed, that it is difficult to determine where we are at this point. Trump has currently been in power for only 40 odd days, so clearly his demolition operation is just getting started.

As you know, the Republican Party has majority control of both houses of congress. That's another factor limiting intervention. Not at all incidentally, Trump isn't the only destructive actor here. Senator Mitch McConnell engineered the senate's refusal to take up Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland to the SCOTUS, claiming it was too late in the administration to act on it--an entirely specious refusal. McConnell helped create the conservative court majority.

Then, of course, the voters who put a conservative majority in both houses of Congress and a loose cannon in the Presidency, are also responsible for where we are.

If the goal is to pave the way for greater authoritarianism, the judicial branch would have to be rendered powerless. — frank

It wouldn't be all that difficult to render the judicial system powerless.

First, the legal system is effective when the people agree to follow it.
Second, the judicial system has (had?) great authority, but it doesn't have great power.

If an executive at the federal or state level decides to carry out unconstitutional acts, a court can not summon the army to force them to cease and desist. The court has federal Marshalls, and possibly local police, and sheriffs. True, there are sanctions, contempt of court declarations, and so on but these substantially depend on willing cooperation.

Some conservatives (Trump allies) have floated the idea that not all court injunctions have to be obeyed. That marks a real crack in the system.

Civil society, law, democracy, reliable money, God, etc. all depend on faith--belief, confidence--in the system. We have had these things because we believed these good things were valid and acted accordingly. If everyone with power to act agrees that a court decision is valid, it will be enforced. If that agreement falls apart, then perhaps it will not be enforced.

At the moment, all sorts of executive actions have taken place in the Federal Government, and a lot of them have been challenged in court. But a court challenge is only one step -- it has to work its way through the appeals system on its way to the SCOTUS. The Supremes may turn out to be supremely disappointing, allowing what were previously unacceptable actions to proceed.

And if the Supremes rule against the executive branch, and the executive branch ignores them, then we're screwed.

Does this morning's meeting between Zelenskyy and Trump / Vance, which amounted to an ugly (and highly undiplomatic ) ambush -- on air, no less -- represent how the administration will respond to representatives of the EU? Emmanuel Macron and Kier Starmer were received in the normal diplomatic manner, as representatives of France and UK, not as representatives of the EU, at least as I saw it.

Is the administration's foreign policy becoming as far outside of previous norms and as bizarre as R. F. Kennedy Jr.'s approach to disease control and prevention? Kennedy cancelled an important meeting where virologists zero in on the strains of influenza to target in the next batch of late 2025 flu vaccine. Kennedy considers the measles outbreak in Texas (among Mennonites) as 'normal'. No, it isn't normal. Measles had been eliminated in the US 25 years ago. And he has NOT backed off the erroneous claim that vaccinations cause autism.

your role as a member of your country to become opposition, distinction, and separateness — kudos

I've always been opposition, distinction, and separateness, chosen and otherwise. I was an early conscientious objector in response to the Vietnam draft; I'm gay; I've never had very high material aspirations; I'm a socialist (covers a lot of territory); I have difficulties with authority figures; now I'm old, on top of everything else.

Rawlsianism is a political and economic theory of justice that advocates for equal rights and opportunities, and prioritizing the well-being of the least advantaged.

I quote this, because I haven't read Rawls (shame shame); just wanted to know if we're on the same page.

Yes, the well-being of the least advantaged. I've spent quite a few years working with this group. The advantaged sector of the population, let's say 20%, are perfectly capable of providing for their own well-being, whatever happens to them (within limits, of course). The bottom 20% has difficulty providing for their basic needs, never mind more expansive 'well-being'. The 60% in between the top and bottom have progressively more difficulty providing for their well-being, as they descend the income ladder.

Part of the problem here is that the pressure to consume stuff is constant and the rewards are often minimal. Not talking about consuming healthy food or basic clothing here, but more buying the glittering plastic schlock which is on offer everywhere all the time.

One of the features of Trump's MAGA (Make America Grotesque Again) is that he is slashing a lot of government programs that aim to assist the least advantaged to achieve--not well-being, but something more than the flat-out minimum. Landing an apartment in public housing, for instance, is a huge step up from living on the street, even if it is a but spartan, The minimal welfare payment for single, childless adults is painfully low, but if one can qualify for other programs (like Medicaid, public housing, and food assistance) it doesn't lead to lavish well-being, but it's better than untended disease, living in a box, and eating from garbage cans.

We CAN do better than this, without having a revolution. It requires a redistribution of wealth -- something the United States has actually done in the past. The main tool is taxation. The wealthy have been taxed at much lower rates in the last 45 years than what they were paying in the 40 years before 1985. Indeed, it is a low tax rate that is partly responsible for the top 20% being as rich as they are.

Wealth can be redistributed downward, and to be honest, there isn't quite enough wealth to satisfy the needs and wants of everyone. One can live a quite decent life on a relatively low income, but it requires a focus on the basics and discipline. The least advantaged people in the United Stats are not suffering because of a lack of focus and sloppy indiscipline -- they are suffering because they do not have anywhere close to enough money to make ends meet.

The Trump administration sent out 5800 emails to agencies today cancelling contracts which provided polio vaccinations, AIDS treatments, Tuberculosis drugs. malaria control and prevention, nutrition programs for underfed mothers and children, and so forth. If that was not bad enough, the emails began with the crass statement that this was for "the convenience of the United States Government"!

The programs of USAID that were cancelled uniformly target urgent medical needs around the world. Cancelling urgent health programs on the other side of the world can come back to bite us. There is nothing about the US that provides eternal protection from Sexually Transmitted Infections, Tuberculosis, AIDS, Polio, and many other not-so-famous fatal infections.

Surveillance and statistical keeping is important, but as a health administrator in Africa pointed out, funds to count the dead were also cut.

New MAGA hat: Make America God Awful

On top of that, it is a good cause this is happening for, as in stopping real racism, so this cashing out on principle turns something good into something wrong — kudos

The left uses the phrase "systemic racism". I'm not fond of the term "systemic". I prefer the idea that racism has been "structured" -- meaning built. Slavery, of course, then decades of Jim Crow law, the Klan and all that.

The modern structuring of racial segregation began during the 1930s --1950s when the Federal government resolved to expand its long-term housing renewal program. Federal backed loans, zoning rules, location of cheap land, covenants, transportation patterns, and yes, racial prejudice, resulted in a major serration of urban / suburban space, with blacks being kept out of suburbs. What blacks received out of these programs were public rental housing. In time the public rental housing became extremely problematic (for the residents, certainly) because administration and maintenance went to hell. The quality of the public housing buildings were really fairly good, but renters do not accumulate equity in their apartments.

So, segregation of urban spaces led to segregation of school systems, since schools have been funded locally out of city / school district property taxes. Increasingly poorer cities could not provide the same level of quality which the increasingly prosperous suburbs could afford. Not initially, but over time some percentage of employment opportunities became distributed into the suburbs. Again. limited transportation options made it difficult for urban residents to conveniently (or even inconveniently) reach these locations.

All this resulted in physically excluding racial minorities from the means to advancement through quality education, equity in property, and improved employment--all factors that can lead to an upward spiral, or in their absence either a downward spiral or flatlining of income growth.

The downward spiral has, in turn, led to a reduction of 'cultural capital' in minority neighborhoods which makes it more difficult to progress economically and socially.

So, to make a long story short, that many people who are minorities are disadvantaged is true. What to do about it? Two approaches: "pull in" and "push in". 'Pull in' is the DEI EO approach: The agency or firm sets a goal for minority presence, and then goes out to find and pull in enough minorities (however defined) to meet the goals. The other approach is to wait for minority group members to agencies or firms they want to work for, and present their credentials, whatever they might be. If there are DEI / EO targets, they might or might not be met.

There are two things people on the job tend to dislike about DEI / EO programs: One is the reality or the suspicion that 'pull in' efforts hired less trained / less capable people. The other disliked feature is the training of existing employees to acquire the "proper attitudes" about minorities. The training programs can be overbearing, heavy handed, tediously obvious, and so on.

So if that doesn't work, what should be done? What should be done is the very difficult job of long-term economic development among disadvantaged people (minority or majority) to enable them (and future generations) to compete in the open markets of society. This is not an easy, quick, or cheap approach, and it is much more complex than just handing out money to people that don't have much of it. It addresses material conditions, not symbolic issues.