I Felt Like a Pinball

I got rear ended last night.  I was driving in the left lane of a 4 lane highway with a concrete dividers.  As I was driving, I saw congestion ahead in both lanes, and a police vehicle on the shoulder at the intersection ahead.  I took my foot off the accelerator so that I could smoothly and safely slow to a stop at the congestion point.  I believe I was close to or at a complete stop, but I'm not 100% positive.

Suddenly point, my vehicle was struck from the rear by the driver behind me.  She collided with the right rear of my car, spinning me to the left and into the concrete divider.  At this point her vehicle collided with mine a second time,  in the front left quarter panel.

I distinctly remember the instant of the collision, experiencing a split second of disorientation as I wondered what just happened, and instantly realizing Oh shit, I've been rear-ended.  This realization hit me as my car hit the center divider -- I was looking directly at the concrete divider.  It then registered that I had been hit a second time (broadside) while still I was going sideways down the highway, and in a detached manner, I thought something like Oh shit, I've been hit a second time, broadside.  I wonder how this is all going to play out.

Shortly after coming to a stop, I felt pain in my ribs on the right side, about in the middle.  The pain was caused no doubt by the seat belt.  I also noticed a puffy feeling in my left cheek.  I touched both locations and concluded there were no serious injuries.  In the back of my dazed little brain housing group, I kind of wondered if the Nissan logo from the steering wheel was imprinted on my cheek.  I then realized that my air bag hadn't deployed, ostensibly because of the angles at which the collisions occurred.

I distinctly recall thinking about how well the safety aspects of the car performed... I was rear ended, but had no neck pain at all, because of the headrest design.  (I'd previously disliked it when the new headrest design was released, because I couldn't effectively use it as a headrest anymore, but when I'd heard it was about preventing whiplash, I begrudgingly accepted the design change.  After the accident, I thought "that was pretty cool.")  I looked around and the cabin was fully intact.  The seatbelt held me in place.  If the airbag had deployed, wouldn't have hit the steering wheel, and I wouldn't have this bruise on my cheek accompanied by a black eye, but geez... in the grand scheme of things, that's insignificant.

After the collision, when the police arrived, I saw that the young woman who had hit me was quite rattled.  I asked her if this was her first accident.  She said it wasn't her first accident, but was the first time where it was her fault, and she apologized repeatedly and profusely.  I told her that it was okay.  We're both alive and we walked away from the collision, so no worries.  I had a a choice between being a dick and being kind, which was no choice at all.  Kindness is always the best way forward.

The cops were good too.  They saw that the young woman was rattled and operated in a professional yet compassionate manner to calm her down.  At the end of the event, one of the cops handed me the driver information sheet and started saying that this contains personal information.  When he said that, I replied that I'm an IT Security guy and that I really appreciate him saying this.  He followed up by saying that the sheet had the necessary insurance information, so there was no need to contact the other driver directly.  As a girl dad, I appreciated that he said this in order to protect the young lady driver.

It was a crappy situation, but everyone involved performed as their best selves.  Even though I went in feeling like a pinball, I came out feeling the overall good of humanity.  Now, if you'll excuse me, I need to go stretch my neck. 

Buh-Bye Nancy

 I've spent a lot of time and energy bashing on the current administration.  I'd like to take a moment to divert your attention to a recent announcement that Nancy Pelosi is not running for re-election.  Good!  While I respect the fact that Pelosi broke the glass ceiling and became the first female Speaker of the House, she's also a partisan shill.  She is one I've raged against previously, because she puts party over people.  She's long since passed her expiration date, and held onto power just for the sake of power.  Now, if only we could get all of the other old guard politicians to stand down... (But I'm not holding my breath.) 

Export Restrictions

I'd like to take a little time to talk about how the current administration has handled export restrictions.  To ensure we're on the same page, let's start by explaining what they are, and why they exist.  In a nutshell, some technologies and products have government-imposed export limits.  These controls are generally imposed to achieve national security, foreign policy or economic objectives.  Export restrictions are not universally bad based on this rationale.

Earlier this year, the current administration prohibited Nvidia and AMD from exporting chips to China, with the stated reason being that China doesn't play fair.  China has a long history of reverse-engineering cutting-edge American technology, and then selling essentially the same product at a far lower cost.  This is achievable due to China's centralized control of the economy.  (AKA communism.)  In other words, the administration's allegation is reasonable.

When the restrictions were announced, AMD and Nvidia were justifiably concerned.  China has historically been a lucrative market for their technology, and there was a strong possibility that the companies would take a huge profitability hit.  It certainly made sense that they'd ask the Oval Office to reconsider.

In relatively short order, agreements were made that allowed Chinese exports to resume.  But there was a twist.  Nvidia and AMD agreed to give 15% of profits from Chinese sales to the American government. 

Historically, the government has rarely held a stake in private businesses, such as during wars, or when the government bailed out stressed businesses deemed too big to fail.  The government relinquished control once the crisis has passed.

What's troubling in this case is that Nvidia and AMD are giving up a portion of their profits in exchange for being able to resume certain exports to China.  This certainly gives the appearance that money is more important than national security.  In other words, it looks like pay to play.  This, of course, is counter to the premise of capitalism, where businesses succeed or fail on their own merits, and it brings up the specter of future conflicts of interest.  It's quite possible that future legislation grants these businesses an unfair advantage over real or potential competition.  (As I say this, I freely acknowledge this is nothing more than slippery slope speculation on my part.)

It's certainly interesting to see an administration that decries anything remotely socialist, taking action that could certainly be interpreted as a step toward a command economy.

The Downside of Large Companies

 There's a problem with our society that few people seem to discuss... large corporations.  While they can occasionally serve a purpose, I believe that, for the most part, they are a drag on our society.  Unfortunately, I don't see a way to fix this problem because of how much leverage they have on our economy and with the federal government.

Let me start by acknowledging what they do well.  By virtue of their size, large businesses are far better suited to undertake large research and development endeavors, because they have access to large amounts of human talent, labor and capital.  Furthermore, if an initiative fails to pan out, larger corporations are better suited to absorb the loss.  Larger companies are also able to operate more efficiently than smaller companies due to the economy of scale, because companies can spread fixed costs over a larger number of goods and services, and because they can take advantage of bulk discounts in purchasing.

The downsides of large corporations are myriad, but all boil down to one thing -- a lack of accountability.  If you go back to the days before the industrial revolution, businesses were small, and integral to their community.  Business owners had an incentive to produce quality goods, and to behave in an ethical manner because they directly interacted with their customers.  Seeing people face to face, and living in the same area as your clientele tends to keep honest people honest.  The consequence of dishonesty served as a strong deterrent back then, because being a crook could get you run out of town.  A similar relationship existed between employer and employee, for the same reason.  If the townsfolk found out that a business owner treated employees poorly, word spread quickly.

The industrial revolution changed all that.  In today's modern society, large business executives very rarely interact with their customers, and only with the upper echelon employees.  As a result, it's easier for top-level company executives to anonymize and dehumanize their customers and employees.  Human nature has demonstrated that it's easier to screw someone you never see.  To clarify, this screwing can take many forms, such as price gouging, poor quality products, toxic waste, and inhumane treatment of labor.

The funny thing is that America had learned this lesson, but we seem to have forgotten it.  The government created anti-trust and labor laws during and shortly after the industrial revolution specifically to address this problem.  Unfortunately, we seem to have lost the experience, because starting in the 1970s or so, we stopped enforcing these laws in the name of increased profits and efficiency.  I'd love to think that the pendulum will eventually swing away from consolidation, but I'm not going to hold my breath.  As I said at the outset, I understand that large corporations can serve a purpose.  But I believe that we've taken it too far by allowing companies to grow just for the sake of larger profits, where society in general gets nothing in return.

Why Is the Government Shut Down?

As requested by a reader, I'm going to briefly discuss why the government is shut down, and add my own observations.

The STATED reason the government is shut down is that Democrats oppose cuts to Obamacare and Medicaid.  Republicans claim that illegal aliens use these programs to receive free healthcare on the taxpayer's dime, though I have been unable to locate a single credible instance that corroborates this allegation.

I will say that federal law requires hospitals with emergency departments to provide essential medical care to all patients, regardless of immigration status or ability to pay.  (This is called the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act, also known as EMTALA.)  In certain circumstances, hospitals could receive reimbursement through Emergency Medicaid for the costs of care provided to people who would be eligible for Medicaid if they weren't illegal immigrants.

From my perspective, the policy above is reasonable, because it's unfair to require a business to provide a service to any and all, without any expectation of reimbursement.  Furthermore, in true emergency, seconds can mean the difference between life and death.  Let me clarify: On one hand, the hospital takes the time to determine the immigration status of an ER patient before rendering life-saving aid.  That additional time will inevitably cost the lives of Americans.  On the other hand, the hospital provides life-sustaining assistance to everyone, yet the government will only reimburse the cost for Americans.  This choice puts the hospitals in a no-win situation.  I agree that Emergency Medicaid is the least offensive way out.  While it is theoretically true that illegal immigrants receive some amount medical aid on the taxpayers' dime, I suspect the rate is relatively low, and it's certainly less offensive than letting low-income Americans fall through the cracks.

If I were forced to pick a side in this dispute, I would stand with the Democrats, because I generally believe that human life is worth more than money.  (That's a very simplistic statement worthy of a separate post discussing the cost of healthcare, but it's adequate for my point in this article.)  I would choose to stand with the Democrats here because the Republicans have had over ten years to refine Obamacare and Medicaid, and they have produced no realistic plan, other than to say 'Obamacare Bad' and attempt to repeal it.  Realistically though, both parties suck!  They've had over a decade to behave like adults, but consistently choose to act like spoiled little children.  And THAT -- their entitled, selfish, uncompromising action -- is the reason the government is shut down.  And as I said in an earlier post, that behavior is a reflection the American public.  WE collectively elect partisan shills who place party over people.  In other words, it's OUR fault the government is shut down, because we keep electing representatives who refuse to compromise.

Flawed Logic

 I've recently seen a meme running around conservative circles on Facebook, saying something along the lines of 'This is why the government shouldn't provide food aid.  The government that provides food can also take it away.'  The statement is ostensibly referring to how SNAP benefits are in danger of being interrupted due to the government shutdown.  I submit for your consideration that the logic in this statement is flawed.

While the statement is technically factual, it overlooks a couple of facts, which I will quickly point out...

-The government isn't exactly taking away food aid.  It's more accurate to say there's a lapse in aid during the shutdown.  To use a crappy analogy, it's kind of like having two angry parents in a heated argument, meanwhile the kids are in the living room, really hungry and waiting for dinner.  It's not like the parents plan to stop feeding the kids permanently, they're just being stupid and focusing on their petty argument.

-The logic of the original post implies that it's less offensive for the government to let people starve than it is to provide sustenance for the hungry, because later on the government could take it away sometime down the line.  I don't know about you, but if I'm hungry, truly hungry, I don't care where the food comes from.  Whoever came up with this concept has quite obviously never had to worry about missing a meal.

-As an extension of the same logic, maybe I should stop my charitable giving, because that puts me in a position of power where I could stop giving.  Oh wait, that's circular logic.

Let's Talk About Why I'm Back

I'd like to dedicate today's post to a discussion about why I'm once again writing my blog.  Before I do that though, I'd like to go back to the beginning, and talk about why I started in the first place.  If you look, you'll see that my blog goes back to 2005, which means I started over 20 years ago.

When I started, blogging was a reasonably established way to publicly write, and to directly engage with readers.  MySpace was the big social media platform of the day, and Facebook was in its infancy.  I originally envisioned this space as a pseudo-diary, where I could share my thoughts and interact with like-minded, intellectually curious and socially aware individuals.  I secretly held the delusion that my ideas, thoughts and words were somehow enough... that my words were uniquely profound, and if I were to publicly share them, I would magically rise to my deserved level of notoriety.  This statement is, of course, a bit of hyperbole, but it's not completely inaccurate if I'm honest with myself.

Time passed, and reality settled in as it always does.  I didn't become famous.  However, I found a small but relatively tight-knit group of fellow bloggers, and we fed off of one another.  Some of us had never met in the real world, but I knew enough about them that I cared about their well-being, and I believe they cared about me.  I continued writing because I enjoyed the creative process.  I started a personal journal in 1995, and moving to a blog seemed like a natural progression.  It allowed me to share my intimate thoughts and feelings with a select few people.  I still kept the journal, and I still write in my journal to this day, but my original scope and aspirations changed based on the reality of life.

Then came Facebook.  I skipped out on MySpace because that platform was really geared toward teeny-boppers.  Facebook was a different animal, because it wasn't about flashy backgrounds, ugly fonts, and over-the-top attention-seeking.  It was about social contact.  I found myself posting on Facebook because I had a group of individuals who seemed to care about me, and I cared about them.  This blog was not abandoned, but my posts certainly cratered.

Of course, we all know what happened with Facebook.  It's now turned into a toxic cesspool, an ugly reflection of our society at large.  There's no room for nuance, and there's no room for discussion.  One person makes their point with a pithy meme, and people love or hate it, and those of us in the middle are excoriated by people on both sides.  Most of the anger and vitriol are due to political tribalism.  Democrats think I'm a Nazi, and Republicans think I'm a hippie.  I haven't deleted my Facebook account primarily because I have a select few people I really enjoy interacting with.  By and large though, I spend a few minutes a day there, and that's it.  I can't tolerate more.

That brings me to today.  This blog allows me to say things I feel that need to be said publicly, while allowing me a low level of readership, the space to discuss nuances, and the anonymity to share my thoughts without the vitriol of modern social media.

You will notice that my recent posts are highly political.  You will likely notice as well that they're not in support of the current administration.  I will freely admit that I do not support the Trump administration.  He behaves like a spoiled rich kid.  He claims that he's smarter than he is.  He lies more than he speaks truth.  He bullies those who don't fall in line with his topic of the day, while simultaneously being unable to tolerate truth to power.  I can't just sit in silence.  I have to speak.

As I say this, please understand that I also believe that his political opposition is just as bad.  I'm back because I am angry at the system as it exists today, and I cannot remain silent.  However, I don't have the stomach for those who are unable to consider positions outside of their insulated echo chambers.  I need to speak, even though my words will likely be unobserved by the world at large.  I stand like a man alone in the desert.  I know I will not be heard, yet I cannot remain silent.  I find it objectionable to be shut down by the partisan masses.  I would rather speak where none hear my cries than to be stoned by partisan idiots.  This is my soap box in the wilderness.

I hope and expect that one day I can get back to sharing mundane thoughts.  I also anticipate that I will share those thoughts here, because social media has failed as a forum for advancing human connectivity.  But for now, I'm going to focus on political stuff, because it's the one place where I can do so without being excoriated by everyone around me.

Science and Politics Should Remain Separate

The last few years have been a wild ride when it comes to politics and science.  I believe that COVID is what really caused things to go sideways.  Before COVID, the public generally trusted the scientific method (notwithstanding the conspiracy theorists.)  COVID brought about a clash between politics and science, primarily because our personal autonomy was infringed upon as a result of quarantine requirements and vaccine mandates.

Let me start by reminding readers that the CDC (Center for Disease Control) and the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) were created to keep Americans safe from diseases, and from snake oil salesmen.  The FDA came into being to combat unsafe food and medical products.  The CDC came into being to combat infectious outbreaks.  Since their creation, these entities have served as gatekeepers, ensuring safe food and medicine, and acting as a command and control center for disease outbreaks that could cause widespread loss of life.

COVID threw the system into chaos because of fear, uncertainty and doubt, all of which resulted from the unknown.  We were scared of widespread death, and we were told to isolate ourselves.  From a scientific perspective, this makes perfect sense!  Isolation is the single best method for containing contagion.  From there, the world started collectively working on a cure, though "remediation" is likely a more appropriate term.

The problem is that humans are social, short-sighted, and stupid.  We had too much time on our hands and access to too much incomplete information.  We forgot that the CDC's primary mission is to keep us safe.  They recommended isolation because they knew it would work.  They knew that COVID was lethal, but otherwise had precious little information.  Furthermore, scientists are a conservative bunch, and they want indisputable facts before reaching a conclusion and recommending a course of action.  One of the great things about scientists though, is that they are willing to revise their position based on additional information.  Unfortunately, that information came too slowly for the comfort of the spoiled, entitled American public.  It's also unfortunate that we realize in retrospect that we were unnecessarily cautious.

But it was too late.  The public rebelled.  We wanted to go out and play.  We wanted to socialize.  And we didn't want to inject an unknown magic cocktail into our bodies.  Sigh.  And, of course, the politicians and media had a field day!  A single swan song event undermined America's trust in science.

As a result, the current administration has installed a conspiracy theorist as the head of Health and Human Services.  He's saying that Tylenol causes autism, after he said that vaccines cause autism.  He claims that wireless technology causes cancer.  He claims that fluoride causes diseases. He claims that mass shootings are linked to prescription drugs.  He claims that seed oils are inherently unhealthy.  There has been study after study after study on all of this, and every... single... claim... has been debunked by science.  RFK is not a scientist.  He is an attorney.  Taking his word with zero skepticism is no different than listening to your doctor over your mechanic about a car problem.

At the end of the day, we, the American people, somehow lost our collective way and started listening to politicians over scientists in this arena.  And we're doing this with the full understanding that politicians lie to further their self interests.  Politicians will do anything to get re-elected.  Meanwhile, scientists are pursuing a lifelong passion.  I encourage you to ask yourself who you should believe, and I exhort you to advocate the concept that science and politics should remain separate.

[EDIT:] I'd like to also point out that the US considered the measles eliminated in 2000, yet here we are a mere 25 years later, experiencing multiple outbreaks.  While I am not an epidemiologist and cannot validate causation, I must admit that I find the correlation noteworthy.

This Isn't War

Using warships and military aircraft to blow up cigar boats, then bragging about it and saying they're drug boats without providing proof, is not war, it is execution without due process.  It is murder.

I'd like to share an article that indicates this is an unnecessary escalation of conflict. The article discusses our previous approach, which has historically been to intercept a boat, fire warning shots if needed, and then fire to disable the outboard engines if the warning shots didn't work.  The article claims the approach was 90% effective at stopping the boats, was non-lethal, allowed us to prosecute drug runners according to the rule of law, and enabled us to gather evidence for the prosecution of higher-echelon traffickers.

At best, this new approach is a mistake.  At worst, it is a cynical, self-serving disregard of life, pursued in an attempt to divert the public's attention from other inconvenient issues facing the current administration.  It isn't war.

Government Agencies Should Remain Apolitical

 According to the U.S. Office of Special Counsel, the Hatch Act is a federal law passed in 1939 that limits political activity of certain federal employees.  The purpose of the law is to ensure that federal programs are administered in a nonpartisan fashion, to protect federal employees from political coercion at work, and to ensure that employees are advanced based on merit, not political affiliation.

To translate, federal employees are prohibited from engaging from partisan activity while at work.  For example, you can have a bumper sticker on your personal vehicle that supports your favorite elected official, but if you use that vehicle for work, you need to cover up or remove that bumper sticker.

To rephrase the reason for the law, it's there to make sure that employees don't feel coerced to do things out of fear for their job, and to ensure that Americans are free to engage with the various agencies of the government.

When the government shut down at midnight September 30, 2025, many government workers were furloughed.  This resulted in government services being reduced due to lack of funding.  Various departments wisely put up notices saying that the government shutdown is impacting available services until the government reopens.  This type of notice is sensible.

What is NOT sensible is the partisan spin that some agencies have placed in their notices.  To wit:

State Department
Due to the Democrat-led shutdown, website updates will be limited until full operations resume.

HUD
The radical left in Congress shut down the government.  HUD will use available resources to help Americans in need.

USDA
Due to the Radical Left Democrat shutdown, this government website will not be updated during the funding lapse. President Trump has made it clear he wants to keep the government open and support those who feed, fuel, and clothe the American people.

Department of Justice
Democrats have shut down the government. Department of Justice websites are not currently regularly updated. Please refer to the Department of Justice’s contingency plan for more information.

All of the above notices are clearly partisan in nature. 

The Hatch Act applies to all federal civilian executive branch employees, except for the President and Vice President.  This ostensibly includes the heads of each of the above departments.  Furthermore engagement in in political activity that is "directed at the success or failure of a political party..." is expressly prohibited.  It's also illegal to "post a comment to a blog or social media site that advocates for or against a partisan political party.."

Based on my reading of what's prohibited by the Hatch Act, the people who ordered the statements on the web sites mentioned above are in direct violation of the Act, as are the people who carried out the order.  Government agencies are here to serve the public, not a political party.  Government agencies should remain apolitical.

 

Gerrymandering (or, Where Politicians Select the Consituents)

Though the phrase did not originate with Abram Lincoln, he's credited with coining the phrase "of the people, by the people, for the people."  He didn't create the phrase, and what I wrote is a paraphrase of a paraphrase.  The point stands, nonetheless.  "Of the People" essentially means that government's authority originates from us.  It's not a rule imposed by external power.  "By the people" means that we choose our leaders.  "For the people, means that government exists to serve OUR needs, such as promoting our rights.

Somewhere along the line, our elected officials succumbed to the trappings of power.  The outcome of this capitulation by our representatives was that they manipulated this power to perpetuate and enhance their control and increase their leverage.

Gerrymandering is a wonderful example of how this power corrupted the government. For those of you not familiar with the concept, Gerrymandering is the manipulation of one or more boundaries in electoral districts to favor one political group.  Gerrymandering works in two ways: One method is to "crack," or spread a group of voters across multiple boundaries, thereby artificially reducing their influence.  The other technique is to "pack" a group of voters into a single district, which provides a synthetic increase in influence.  Either way, the result is nefarious because it creates a situation where elected officials choose their constituents, instead of the people selecting their representative.

Since the 2024 election, the state of Texas is working to gerrymander districts to increase Republican power.  In response, California has threatened to gerrymander districts to increase Democratic representation, with the specifically, publicly stated goal of countering what Texas is doing.

This is stupid, evil and wrong.  The end result is a further perpetuation of entrenched incumbent elected officials, and the disenfranchisement of the non-majority voters in a given district.  Gerrymandering is a perversion of of democracy, and all branches of the government are complicit, including the judicial branches that allow it to continue.

It's Our Own Damned Fault

 Once upon a time, it was a matter of civic duty and personal pride to participate in the right to vote.  People were politically aware, politically active, and most importantly, educated in how our republic works.  Over the last century, things changed.  People became more inwardly focused and selfish.  They became less tolerant of difference and dissent.  This had the two-pronged outcome of disenfranchising the majority of America, and the other half became entrenched in partisan bickering.

Our electoral system exacerbates the situation.  By and large, only Republicans can select a Republican candidate, and only Democrats can select a Democratic candidate.  The natural outcome of this is that in order to be elected to office, a candidate needs to play to the most rabidly loyal to the party platform in order to be selected as the party candidate, and then, they need to moderate their tone to appeal to the masses.  But even that has changed over time, because moderates continue to become disillusioned with the process, eventually dropping out and leaving only the most partisan to vote for their candidate.  This has resulted in an entrenched group of legislators who refuse to compromise, for fear of being voted out of office.  Since most judges are selected and confirmed by partisan politicians, our courts are becoming partisan as well.

The silliest thing is that it's all our fault.  There are more than two political parties, but collectively, we want to back a winner, and we believe that it's less offensive to select the lesser of two evils, rather than voting for the best candidate.  We have collectively bought into the lie that following your conscience results in a "wasted vote."  Bullshit!  Politicians who lose an election when a third party candidate is involved invariably say that the third party candidate "stole" votes from them. This would indicate that the vote was theirs in the first place, and that's flat out wrong.

Think of your vote as a piece of candy.  You may choose to give this piece of candy to anyone you choose.  This, of course, means that you have the choice to not give the candy to anyone.  The politicians conveniently dismiss this, however, instead choosing to blame their loss on those who gave the candy to someone other than them.  What a selfish, egocentric perspective.

We are the ones who buy into the lie that only two choices exist.  We are the ones who select the most partisan candidates.  We are the ones who punish elected officials who cross party lines.  We are the ones who throw up our hands in disgust and give up when we reap the consequences of our actions.  In other words, it's our own damned fault. 

Partisan Bickering is Nothing New

 It seems most Americans believe that we're in a unique time in our history.  That's not completely correct.  I recall history lessons from my younger days that were full of yellow journalism.  Sensationalistic newspapers seem to have been the norm from the founding of our country until well into the 20th century.  Though I don't have enough scientific evidence to back up my hunch, I suspect that journalism really took a turn toward neutral professionalism around the age of radio, and improved with the advent of television.

I distinctly remember what I would call the golden age of journalism, where Walter Cronkite, Dan Rather, Peter Jennings and countless other reporters would investigate and report facts, counting on the public to discern the truth.  The big three television networks (CBS, NBC and ABC) didn't make money from the news.  The TV stations considered investigative journalism a civic duty, and the people were able to trust the information they consumed.  Then came Fox and CNN.

The concept of a 24/7 news channel was unique, but it had (and still has) a critical flaw.  These stations came into being for the purpose of making money.  The only way to make money is to keep viewers engaged.  The best way to attract and retain interest is through emotions.  Fear, anger, outrage, and moral indignation grab our collective attention and keep it such a manner that it's difficult to disengage once you're pulled in.  As a result, sensationalistic reporting returned to prominence.

I do believe there are a couple of noteworthy differences in today's society.  We have a world of data at our fingertips, and it's easy to fall prey to the constant barrage of information, which can easily lead to a virtually constant state of fight or flight.  This, in turn, can reduce the brain's analytical ability, and a vicious cycle results.  It's also easy to fall into an echo chamber, where your existing biases are confirmed and alternate possibilities are ridiculed.

Unfortunately, I don't see an easy way out of this.  It seems that we collectively enjoy being outraged and tribal. It's the one thing that we have in common.  Our partisan bickering is nothing new.  The only thing that's really changed is how efficient we've become at doing it, and how effectively the media leverages that into increased profits.

I'm Still Alive

 Yes, it's been ages.  I've been having fun with other activities and living.  I kind of stopped writing because I felt like I had run out of new observations.  Since then, the world seems to have gone sideways.  I get that nobody reads this blog anymore, which is kind of perfect.  I'm now in a place were I can write my stuff with a semblance of anonymity.  Don't get me wrong... I'm not afraid of being found out, and I do not plan to hide behind anonymity.  I hope to write with the same sort of honesty and respect for my fellow human that I did before.  I will also, at the same time, be my same irreverent self that I've always been.  I will not be politically correct.  I will piss off everyone.  This is who I've always been, and to do otherwise is to sell myself out.