Loneliness in America:  A Tragedy of the Commons by J. Persico and Metis – AI Assistant

05 Jan 2026 11 Comments

by Dr. John Persico Jr. in Uncategorized Tags: , , , , , ,

As I get older, I have noticed more and more people talking about loneliness.  One of my greatest fears has always been loneliness.  I remember embracing the song “Sometimes I feel like a Motherless Child” by Richie Havens.  He was not the first singer or author of this song, but he made it quite popular during the sixties and seventies.  This song reflected how I felt about life and growing up.  I was on my own with no one who loved or cared about me.  No mother.  No loved ones.  Just myself.

“The most terrible poverty is loneliness and the feeling of being unloved.” —Mother Teresa

I grew up somewhat hard and even at times cruel because it was my way of fighting back against the possibility of loneliness that lurked around every corner.  I never trusted anyone because I was sure that they would abandon me and then I would feel the pain of loneliness.  It is hard to describe this pain.  It is not a physical pain.  For me it felt like being thrown off the top of a high mountain or bridge and spiraling down as I waited to hit the ground.  During acute panics of loneliness, I would feel dizzy and lose my sense of balance.  My core felt empty.  I was shrouded with feelings that embraced despair and contempt for myself.  There was nowhere to run or anyone to turn to.  I was alone on an island barren of people, trees or any living creatures.  Not like purgatory and not like limbo.  Just a nothingness in which I existed with no other human beings.

“When you have nobody you can make a cup of tea for, when nobody needs you, that’s when I think life is over.” —Audrey Hepburn

I dreaded these feelings and would do anything to avoid them.  I would abandon other people before they could abandon me.  This destroyed many relationships I had over a period of years including my first marriage and to some extent the relationship I had with my daughter.  It continues to intrude on my life whenever I feel threatened with the loss of love in my relationship with Karen.

“You can be lonely even when you are loved by many people” — Anne Frank:

I tell you these things not because I want sympathy or any feelings of support.  I want you to know that I take loneliness more seriously than many other elements of life that cause us pain.  For this reason, I want to look at loneliness and what seems to be behind the increase that many people say is happening in America.  If one asks well, “Define Loneliness” or what data do you have that supports loneliness is on the increase in America, I am going to plead “Mea Culpa.”  I don’t have the requisite data to prove conclusively that loneliness is an epidemic as some have claimed.  But frankly, I don’t give a damn.  If there is one person in America or the world that is suffering from loneliness, that is one person too many for me.  However, there is in fact some data to support the five major trends that I am going to discuss later in this blog as contributing factors to the loneliness that so many people experience.

“There were moments of intense pain & utter darkness that I wanted to end it all.  The only thing I wanted was not to live.” ― Lala Agni,

For those of you that are not convinced that loneliness is a problem today.  Here are some facts and data that point in that direction.  Because surveys define loneliness differently (daily vs weekly vs “often”), the cleanest approach is to present a small set of credible, recent benchmarks.  Here are some that my AI assistant Metis found:

  • Gallup (daily loneliness): 20% of U.S. adults reported feeling lonely “a lot of the day yesterday” (Aug 27–Sept 4, 2024), up from ~17–18% earlier in 2024 and below the pandemic peak of 25%. Gallup.com
  • Pew Research Center (frequency): 16% say they feel lonely/isolated all or most of the time, 38% say sometimes, 47% hardly ever/never (report published Jan 2025). Pew also finds adults under 50 report “often” loneliness more than 50+ (22% vs 9%). Pew Research Center
  • Harvard “Making Caring Common” (overall prevalence): A nationally representative May 2024 survey found 21% of U.S. adults feel lonely. Making Caring Common
  • AARP (older adults trend): Among adults 45+, AARP reports 40% are lonely (fielded Aug 2025), up from 35% in 2010 and 2018. AARP
  • Workplace-focused lens (Cigna Group): “More than half of American workers classify as lonely,” with the report tying loneliness to absenteeism, disengagement, and turnover risk. MediaRoom

Depending on how it’s measured, loneliness shows up in anywhere from about one in five Americans to well over half in some surveys—especially when you ask about frequent feelings or focus on workplaces.  Gallup found that 20% of respondents felt lonely ‘a lot’ on the prior day, Pew found 16% of respondents feel lonely all or most of the time, and the nation -wide Harvard survey put overall loneliness at 21%.”

Now lets look at five of the reasons commonly cited for the increase in loneliness in America. 

1) We spend less time “doing life” with other people

Large-scale time-use data show Americans are less likely to socialize on a given day than a decade ago, and when we do, we spend less time at it.  In 2024, BLS reports 30% socialized/communicated on an average day (down from 38% in 2014), and average time fell from 43 minutes to 35 minutes. – Bureau of Labor Statistics

I often ask my students what they are going to do on the weekends.  The majority of times, the reply I get reflects their intentions to stay home and play video games.  I find it amazing that they are not going to go out to a park to play sports with other people.  Instead, they are going to interact with their friends through the digital world.  We all see this today wherever we go.  People texting and playing video games in restaurants, bars and parks, rather than talking or interacting with others.  We may not want to admit it, but older adults can be just as addicted to their phones as children seem to be.

2) Social networks are shrinking (fewer close confidants, weaker “bench strength”)

The Surgeon General’s advisory summarizes evidence that social networks are getting smaller and social participation is declining and cites research showing a steep drop in daily social time (e.g., “companionship/social engagement”) from 2003 to 2020.  That same advisory highlights the broader “fraying” context—lower trust in each other and institutions—which makes connection harder to initiate and sustain.

Once upon a time family dinners on Sunday were a major social event in the lives of most Americans.  Today, large-scale displacement of families now make such events almost impossible on a weekly basis.

3) Demographic and household shifts leave more people without built-in companionship

The Surgeon General’s advisory points to long-run declines in marriage rates and family size, plus a rise in single-person households (e.g., 13% in 1960, rising substantially over time).  That matters because for many people, spouses/partners, kids, and nearby kin are the default daily social glue.

There is probably no place in America where “Leave it to Beaver”, “Father Knows Best” or “Ozzie and Harriet” families are the norm anymore.  Two parent families are becoming rarer and rarer.  Many young people opt for simply living together either to avoid a commitment that they are apparently not willing to make or else feel that they could not keep.  You can argue about the value of a traditional relationship all you want.  I am not going to argue that children must be brought up by a Mom and Dad.  However, having two or even more adults to help in child raising has always made the task somewhat easier.  Many years ago, the task of child raising was presumed to be a communal or extended family activity.  Few homes today include a mom, dad and grandparents.

It is even rarer to find homes where either parent is home to simply look after their children.  The economics of modern life demand that both parents have jobs.  It is unbelievable to me when I remember that my father was only a postal worker and never a manager and that my mother stayed home with four kids.  Nevertheless, we had a tidy small home in a small town and food on the table every day.  We might even have had a lot more if my father was not a compulsive gambler spending his earnings or at least a portion of them on the horses.

4) Erosion of “third places” and community institutions

Over the years, there has been declining participation in traditional community anchors—religious groups, clubs and labor unions.  When these institutions fade, people don’t just lose activities; they lose the repeated, low-effort contact that turns acquaintances into friends.

If you are my age, you may remember the large number of social networks that people once belonged to from Camp Fire Girls to Girl Scouts to Boy Scouts to Fraternal groups like the Elks, Moose, Eagles,, Masons, and Shriners.  Churches were another source of community for many people.  I will repeat that the data shows sharp declines in participation in all of these groups.

5) Technology reshapes connection (often replacing, not enriching, relationships)

The Surgeon General’s advisory is careful here: the evidence is “complex,” but there are documented benefits and harms, and it concludes we have reason to be concerned about certain kinds of tech use affecting relationships and social connection.  Once upon a time, it was claimed that TV would destroy family life.  Then it was the Internet.  Now it is the social media programs.  Experts seem to pop up to dispute that any of these technologies have had or are having an adverse impact on socialization.  However, common sense argues against the wisdom of paid shills who benefit and profit from the exploitation of others via the media platforms that they shill for.

So How Do We Address the Loneliness that Exists in our Country Today?

This is a very difficult question to answer.  Lets start by describing what we are not going to do.

  • We are not going to eliminate TV or streaming digital media. This is not likely to happen given the number of hours people spend in front of TV’s.
  • We are not going to eliminate or ban Smart Phones. This will never happen as they serve too many good uses and are now a necessary part of doing business in the world.
  • We are not going to ban social media groups or make participation in real time groups like church or fellowship groups mandatory. This would involve a gross violation of the freedom and individual rights that people have.

Where Do We Go from Here?  Three Realistic Ways Forward

  1. Rebuild everyday human contact—where people already are

Loneliness will not be solved by telling people to “try harder” or “get out more.” It will be addressed when we intentionally rebuild regular, low-effort human contact into the places people already show up: libraries, senior centers, veterans’ halls, walking paths, coffee shops, classrooms, and clinics.  What matters is not the size or novelty of these efforts, but their consistency.  A weekly discussion group does more than a one-time event.  A familiar face does more than a thousand online “connections.”  Human bonds form through repetition—by seeing the same people, in the same places, over time.  We once understood this intuitively. Community was not something we scheduled; it was something we inhabited.  Recreating that does not require nostalgia or ideology—only intention.

When Karen and I moved to Wisconsin after she retired, we discovered several places in Frederic, Wisconsin where people would meet.  The farmers met in the Dairy Coop.  The literary people met in the library.  The mechanically oriented people met in the Holiday Gas Station.  We lived in Frederic for 14 years and knew about everyone in town.  The meetings at the venues mentioned above went on every day when each venue was open.

Before we left Frederic to move to Arizona permanently, the library had decided not to allow meetings anymore.  We were too noisy they said.  The Holiday Station took out the table and chairs that we had set around claiming the space could be used for more products.  The Dairy Coop caught fire and was not rebuilt.  This past year, the Safeway store in Casa Grande removed the outside tables they had where people could rest and not be in the way of food carriages.  You could sit, drink coffee and carry on a conversation with friends.  It seems as though all over America there is a conspiracy to eliminate places where people can socialize.

  1. Reclaim in-person connection as the default, not the exception

Technology has given us extraordinary tools, but it has also quietly taught us that presence is optional.  Texts replace visits.  Zoom replaces conversation.  Scrolling replaces sitting with one another in silence.  This does not mean rejecting technology.  It means re-establishing boundaries.  Phones down during gatherings.  In-person meetings when distance allows.  Choosing eye contact over convenience when the choice is ours to make.  Loneliness is not cured by communication alone; it is cured by being seen.  And being seen requires physical presence, attention, and a willingness to tolerate a little awkwardness.  The cost of connection has gone up—but the cost of avoiding it is far higher.

“Society is the product of our relationships – if our relationships are confused, egocentric, narrow, limited, national, we project that and bring chaos into the world.” — Krishnamurti

A few years ago, my wife’s adopted daughter came out to visit.  She had her cell phone with her and spent more time on the phone than she did talking to us.  I was very peeved and told Karen, next time she comes tell her to leave her phone in her luggage.  Realistically now though, how do you think this would go down?  Parents fight schools that want to ban cell phones in the class because they say, “What if I had to call my son or daughter or they have to call me?”  It is amazing that we grew a nation of people long before we had cell phones.

  1. Treat loneliness as a shared moral responsibility, not a private failure

Perhaps the most damaging myth about loneliness is that it is a personal shortcoming—a sign of weakness, poor social skills, or individual failure.  When loneliness is framed this way, people hide it.  And hidden loneliness only deepens.  A healthier society would name loneliness for what it is: a civic and moral challenge.  One that affects public health, democracy, trust, and social stability.  One that cannot be solved by individuals acting alone.

A simple but powerful starting point would be for organizations, churches, employers, and communities to ask regularly: “Who has disappeared from our circles—and why?” and “How can we create more shared space for people to communicate and get to know each other.”  

My wife Karen has been in a choir for over ten years now and she often does not know the names of new members or even all the old members.  I asked her why several times and I always get the same response “Well, we don’t get time for socializing as we are busy practicing our songs for the Sunday service.”  This seems criminal to me.  I never started a business meeting that I facilitated without going around and allowing each person to introduce themselves and say a little about their background.  What is so important that we cannot take a few minutes to let others know we care about who they are?

A final thought

Loneliness in America will not be solved quickly, cleanly, or perfectly.  In fact, it will not be solved at all unless we decide—quietly and collectively—that showing up for one another is not optional.  Connection is not a luxury.  It is the infrastructure of a humane society.

Martin Luther King Jr. developed the concept of an “inescapable network of mutuality” where the fate of individuals is interconnected.  He also stressed the mutual obligation individuals have for each other’s development.  King emphasized that unity is crucial for survival, stating, “We must learn to live together as brothers or perish together as fools.”

Reaching out should not be seen as charity.  It should be seen as a survival skill.  It should reflect Love, Empathy and Compassion for others.

 

 

Overdose America: Why We Will Never Win the War on Drugs!

02 Jan 2026 14 Comments

by Dr. John Persico Jr. in Uncategorized Tags: , , , , , ,

A popular quote has it that “The definition of craziness is continuing to do the same thing and expect different results.”  Yet for nearly 100 years now, we have been doing the same thing when it comes to drugs.  Beginning with marijuana, then heroin, then cocaine, then crack, then methamphetamines, then opioids and now fentanyl, every ten or fifteen years or so, we add another drug to the list of drugs that we are waging war on.  The wars are always the same, arrest the people who use the drugs, arrest the drug dealers, interdict the drug suppliers and try to close down the drug factories.

For more than fifty years, the United States has been running what we officially like to call a “War on Drugs.”  Nixon first used the phrase during a press conference on June 17, 1971.  The truth is we have been waging a war on drugs since the first batch of alcohol was produced at some remote still in the Virginia mountains.  The first “Illegal” stills began in 1791.  Distilling became “illegal” only when owners refused to pay the Whiskey Tax of 1791.  This was the first domestic tax imposed by the new federal government.  Before this, private stills were common and perfectly legal.

The charts below tell us—without ideology, slogans, or moral judgment—how this war has actually gone.  What these charts reveal is not a story of individual moral failure or a handful of reckless “bad actors.”  What they reveal is something far more troubling:

A system that consistently produces harm at scale.  A system where drugs are not the cause of the problem but the inevitable outcome of a larger problem.

Chart 1: Total U.S. Deaths from Drug Overdoses and Alcohol (2004–2023)

Total U.S. deaths from all drug overdoses (including prescription and illicit drugs) compared with alcohol-induced deaths, 2004–2023.

Why This Chart Matters

This chart shows the raw number of Americans dying each year from:

  • Drug overdoses (all drugs: prescription and illicit)
  • Alcohol-induced causes (poisoning and chronic disease; not accidents or violence)

The upward trend is unmistakable.

Drug overdose deaths rise from roughly 27,000 in 2004 to over 100,000 per year after 2021.
Alcohol-induced deaths nearly double over the same period, with a sharp surge during and after the pandemic.

At first glance, some will argue this is simply a matter of population growth:  More people means more deaths.  That explanation collapses when we look at the second chart.

Chart 2: Per-Capita Death Rates (Deaths per 100,000 Population)

Per-capita death rates (per 100,000 population) remove population growth from the equation, revealing true changes in risk over time.

Why This Chart Matters

This chart removes population growth entirely.

Measured per 100,000 Americans, drug overdose deaths more than triple over the past two decades.  Alcohol-induced deaths nearly double per capita over the same period.

This is the critical point:

When harm grows faster than population, the problem is not demographic — it is structural.

Healthy systems dampen risk.  Unhealthy systems amplify it.

This Is a Systems Failure, Not a “Bad People” Problem

American drug policy still rests on a comforting fiction:  that addiction and overdose are primarily the result of individual weakness, criminal behavior, or poor moral choices.  In other words, drugs are associated with low life scum bag assholes that bear no resemblance to us, our relative or our friends.

The per-capita data destroys that narrative.

Millions of people do not independently decide to fail in the same way, at the same time, across both legal and illegal substances.  What is failing is the system — the structures that shape incentives, access, despair, treatment, and profit.

This is where the idea of Economic Apex Predators becomes unavoidable.

Economic Apex Predators and the Logic of Harm

In nature, an apex predator is not evil.
It simply occupies a position of unchecked advantage.

When ecosystems collapse, it is rarely because predators are malicious.
It is because balance and restraint disappear.

Our economic system has produced its own apex predators:

  • Pharmaceutical industries that monetize dependency while externalizing risk
  • Financial systems that profit from addiction through insurance, debt, and incarceration
  • Legal systems that thrive on the drug war with lawyers, police, judges and courts all owing their existence to catching and prosecuting anyone in the illegal drug trade.
  • Supply chains optimized for speed and efficiency, not safety
  • Political institutions more responsive to capital than to human cost

None of these actors needed to intend mass death.

The system rewards behavior that makes drugs and drug deaths inevitable.

From Prescription Pills to Fentanyl: A Market Evolution

The overdose curve follows a grim but predictable logic.

Prescription opioids were aggressively marketed.  When backlash came, access tightened — but demand remained.  The market adapted.

Heroin filled the gap.
When heroin became risky to traffic, fentanyl replaced it — cheaper, stronger, deadlier.

This was not a failure of enforcement.

It was a success of market logic operating without ethical boundaries.

Fentanyl did not invade the United States.  It emerged naturally from a system that prioritizes cost reduction, scalability, and profit over human survival.

Why Alcohol Strengthens the Argument

Alcohol’s curve matters because alcohol is:

  • Legal
  • Regulated
  • Taxed
  • Socially normalized

Yet its per-capita death rate rose alongside illegal drugs.

That tells us something deeply uncomfortable:

The crisis is not about legality.
It is about despair.

Despair does not care whether a substance is legal.

2020 Was Not an Aberration — It Was an X-Ray

The pandemic spike is often described as an anomaly.  It wasn’t.

It was an X-ray.

When social supports vanished, when work and healthcare became unstable, and when isolation replaced community, the system’s fragility was exposed.

The pandemic did not create the overdose crisis.

It revealed it.

Why Individual Blame Is Comforting — and Wrong

  • Blaming individuals is emotionally satisfying.
  • It absolves institutions.
  • It preserves the illusion that the system is sound and only people are broken.

But systems that function well do not produce exponential per-capita death curves across decades.  If millions fail in the same way, the problem is not personal failure.

It is design failure.

A Closing Thought

Apex predators do not destroy ecosystems intentionally.
They do so when constraints vanish and balance collapses.

These charts are not just public-health data.
They are moral documents.

They show us what happens when an economic system evolves without ethical boundaries and treats human lives as acceptable losses.

This is not ultimately a story about drugs.

It is a story about power, incentives, and what we choose to tolerate.  I have watched this war now for over fifty years.  The craziness continues with bombings of so-called drug boats and now attacks on Venezuela with drones.  It is as though people in this country are blind to the truth and reality of this war.  You never hear the truth about this war in any media.  The news proudly broadcasts arrests of drug dealers and busts of large drug hauls but no data or facts about the drug war are ever published.  The media would rather ignore the real problem so they can make their blood money on advertising accompanied by their lurid stories of drug deals and drug related crimes.

As a nation we have stuck our collective heads in the sand.  The only time we take them out is when a relative or friend is caught up in the war.  Otherwise, it is them versus us.  Them are low life people with no motivation or desire to improve themselves so they default to drugs.  Them are other countries which find it lucrative to manufacture and sell drugs in the USA.  Them are immoral people who sell drugs to anyone with the money to buy them.  Do we ever ask “why are we alone in a drug war” when the rest of the world seems to look the other way and benefits at our expense.

I make a simple prophecy.  Unless we change our tactics and strategy, we will never win the so called Drug War.  Deaths will continue to escalate from drugs.  New drugs will soon replace fentanyl as the target drug.  Drug cartels will continue to manufacture and ship drugs to the USA where they will be eagerly purchased.  Police and courts will continue to prosecute drug pushers, drug users and drug lords.  The majority of people that get sentenced will be poor or minority if previous patterns of prosecution prevail.  Leaders of major cartels will continue to be replaced by even more vicious leaders, and the illegal drug industry will continue to make billions of dollars each year in profits.  Profits from the misery, despair and deaths of the customers who have made them rich.  Meanwhile our leaders will continue to brag that they are against drugs.  Politicians will continue to make more laws that do nothing to help us end the ravages of drugs in America.  Politicians will continue to be quick to espouse anti-drug drivel like “just say no!” to make it look like they are really concerned about the public welfare.

Anyone want to place a bet against my prophecy?

Thoughts to Start 2026 and Begin a Glorious New Year

01 Jan 2026 8 Comments

by Dr. John Persico Jr. in Uncategorized Tags: , , , ,

As we leave the “Old Year” behind and get ready to greet the “New Year” here are some thoughts that I hope you will enjoy from some great poets and authors.  These writings are in the public domain. 

A New Year’s Charge
by Metis (ChatGPT)

The year begins again—
not because the world is finished with us,
but because it still believes we might choose better.

Let this be the year we refuse easy silence,
the year we speak when speaking costs,
the year we stand even when standing feels lonely.

Hope is not naïve.
It is disciplined.
It wakes each morning and goes back to work.

Dreams survive not by wishing,
but by courage repeated—
small acts of honesty,
daily refusals to give up the good.

When the road is steep and the noise is loud,
remember: moral courage is a quiet strength
that outlasts brute force and empty power.

Begin again.
Reach higher.
The future still leans toward those who try.

——————————

New Year’s Eve by Thomas Hardy

    “I have finished another year,” said God,

     “In grey, green, white, and brown;

    I have strewn the leaf upon the sod,

    Sealed up the worm within the clod,

     And let the last sun down.”

    “And what’s the good of it?” I said.

     “What reasons made you call

    From formless void this earth we tread,

    When nine-and-ninety can be read

     Why nought should be at all?

    “Yea, Sire; why shaped you us, ‘who in

     This tabernacle groan’ –

    If ever a joy be found herein,

    Such joy no man had wished to win

     If he had never known!”

    Then he: “My labours – logicless –

     You may explain; not I:

    Sense-sealed I have wrought, without a guess

    That I evolved a Consciousness

     To ask for reasons why.

    “Strange that ephemeral creatures who

     By my own ordering are,

    Should see the shortness of my view,

    Use ethic tests I never knew,

     Or made provision for!”

    He sank to raptness as of yore,

     And opening New Year’s Day

    Wove it by rote as theretofore,

    And went on working evermore

     In his unweeting way.

——————————–

Te Deum by Charles Reznikoff,

Not because of victories

I sing,

having none,

but for the common sunshine,

the breeze,

the largess of the spring.

Not for victory

but for the day’s work done

as well as I was able;

not for a seat upon the dais

but at the common table.

———————————

Brighter, Better New Year by Joanna Fuchs

Happy, happy New Year!

We wish you all the best,

Great work to reach your fondest goals,

And when you’re done, sweet rest.

We hope for your fulfillment,

Contentment, peace and more,

A brighter, better new year than

You’ve ever had before.

——————————————-

A New Year to Start

Finally, from some place within me that calculates the benefits of a New Year versus the Old Year, I believe that January 1, 2026, brings more than just the beginning of a New Year.  It brings a promise of hope and possibilities.

It is the time when it becomes traditional for us to form new resolutions, new dreams, and new goals.  It is the time when we want to begin over and try to make those desires come true that did not work out the year before. 

We should bring in the New Year as a mother brings in a newborn baby, full of promise and love.  There are those critics and skeptics who look at the inevitable human trail of broken dreams and unfulfilled goals from bygone years and laugh at our efforts.  Let us not be like those who deny the possibility of hope and change. 

I may often be a pessimist but for any of you with the courage to tackle a new set of goals or dreams, I say “try, try, and try again.”  When you give up your dreams, you give up your life. 

Happy New Year from the Persicos.

December 31, 2025 – New Year’s Eve!

31 Dec 2025 5 Comments

by Dr. John Persico Jr. in Uncategorized Tags: , , , ,

Out with the old and in with the new!   New Year’s Eve!  The end of our past and the beginning of our future!   All over the world, we count down the minutes and then seconds until a New Year begins.  New Year’s Eve represents a finish and a time to put failures, bad dreams, and a year dominated by bad politics behind us.  New Year’s Day will be a new beginning.  We pray and hope that each year will be better than the last.  Curiously, we celebrate this ending with a night of wild parties and much drinking. Not a good way to start off the New Year.  Thus, may I suggest a bit of Greek wisdom, “Moderation in all things.”

giphyDo you ever wonder why so many people get drunk on New Year’s Eve?  Is it simply to forget the past or is it to celebrate the past?  How many New Year’s days have been ruined before they even got started?  Tonight we drink, tomorrow we make promises about how different our lives will be and what changes we will make.

Each New Years promises a time new-year-resolutions-300x304of magic.  We think it will mean great differences in our lives, but how long do these commitments usually last?  Go to the health clubs on New Year’s Day and the parking lots will be full.  By early March, the parking lots will usually be back to their normal contingent of cars.  The landscape will be littered with failed promises and failed New Year’s resolutions.  Some may think that they can escape this debacle by simply not making any resolutions.  Instead their failure to make any commitments remain with them day after day.  Not making a commitment is akin to throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

new year resolutionThankfully, we have 365 chances each year to start our life anew. You don’t have to wait until New Year’s Day to begin again.  Each day you fail, tomorrow can be a new start.  If each day your commitments can last a little longer than the last day, you are making progress.  You do not have to wait until next New Year to start over.  Start now but get back up each time you fall.  The only failure in life is not trying again.  Every time you fall down and get up again you are a success.  Every day that you make a new commitment to try, you are a success.  Every time your commitment lasts a little bit longer than the last time you are a success.  So here’s to the success of each of you this New Year.  I drink a toast to all who try and try again.

Time for Questions:

What are you going to change in your life this New Year? What would you want to do differently?  What changes would help you to lead a happier and healthier life?  What are you going to do about it?  How long will your commitment last?  Can you fail and then keep trying?

Life is just beginning. 

Tonight is the first day of your new life.  Don’t wait to start.

thisyearwillbedifferent

Guns or Butter?  What Would Three Battleships Buy for Americans? By John Persico and his AI Partner Metis

27 Dec 2025 4 Comments

by Dr. John Persico Jr. in Uncategorized Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Recently, I read that Trump is proposing the U.S. military begin the construction of a new class of battleships called “Trump Class” or as the press is labeling them “The Golden Fleet.”  Each of these ships will have a realistic (not the bullshit projected cost by defense contractors) final cost of $30 billion apiece. If three are built—as is being discussed—we are looking at a price tag approaching $100 billion.

That number is so large that it becomes abstract. When figures reach this scale, they stop meaning anything at all.  So with the help of my AI partner Metis, I tried an experiment: What if we forced that number back into human terms?

I asked Metis a very simple question:

What else could $100 billion buy if applied directly to the daily needs of American families?

To keep this grounded, I used conservative, real-world assumptions—not best-case fantasies.

The Assumptions

To avoid cherry-picking, I chose modest, mainstream benchmarks:

  • A reliable used car: a 3-year-old Toyota Corolla or Honda Civic
    Average cost: $20,000
  • Food for a family of four using the USDA Thrifty Food Plan
    Annual cost: $9,500
  • A two-bedroom home, roughly 2,200 square feet
    Average cost: $350,000

Then I asked the same question three times:

What does $100 billion buy—if we buy only this one thing?

Option One: Transportation

At $20,000 per vehicle, $100 billion would purchase:

5,000,000 reliable used cars

Five million.

That’s not a subsidy.
Not a tax credit.
Not a loan.

That is five million families with dependable transportation—the difference between:

  • Holding a job or losing it
  • Making a medical appointment or missing it
  • Participating in society or being stranded at its margins

Transportation isn’t a luxury in America. It’s infrastructure for survival.

Option Two: Housing

At $350,000 per home, $100 billion would fund approximately:

286,000 homes

That’s enough housing for nearly one million people.

For perspective:

  • It could dramatically reduce homelessness nationwide
  • Stabilize entire regions
  • Lower healthcare, policing, and emergency service costs downstream

Housing is not merely shelter. It is the foundation upon which everything else—health, education, employment—rests.

Option Three: Food Security

Using the USDA Thrifty Food Plan, $100 billion could provide one year of food for:

Over 10.5 million families of four

That’s 42 million people.

More than the population of California.

In a nation where food insecurity still affects tens of millions, this single line item could eliminate hunger—not as charity, but as policy.

Each ship carries not just steel and weapons—but foregone lives improved.

The Real Question:

This is not an argument against defense.  This isn’t about ships versus cars or homes.

It is a challenge to unexamined assumptions.

What kind of security do we believe actually sustains a nation?

  • Military security protects borders
  • Economic security protects civilization itself

We speak of “national security” almost exclusively in military terms, yet:

  • Hunger destabilizes families faster than any foreign power
  • Homelessness erodes communities more reliably than missiles
  • Economic security strengthens democracies from the inside out
  • Food, shelter, and mobility:
    • Reduce crime
    • Improve health outcomes
    • Stabilize families
    • Increase productivity
    • Lower long-term government costs

From a Deming-style systems view (which considers this as an investment vs. expense thinking taken to its logical conclusion.  From a systems perspective, this is a classic case of short-term protection versus long-term stability.

Or to put it plainly:

A nation is not secure when its people are hungry, homeless, and one paycheck away from collapse—no matter how powerful its navy may be.

Conclusions:

When budgets reach into the tens of billions, morality becomes invisible unless we deliberately restore it.

Every dollar spent reflects a value choice.
Every budget is a moral document.

The question is not whether we can afford battleships.

The question is:

What kind of country do we believe we are protecting—and for whom?

Who is my Neighbor?

25 Dec 2025 Leave a comment

by Dr. John Persico Jr. in Uncategorized Tags: , , , ,

Introduction: by J. Persico

A few weeks ago, while our regular pastor was on a sabbatical, one of the elders of the church gave the following sermon.  Sadly, I cannot duplicate the passion that went along with her words, but she gave me permission to reprint her sermon.  The words she used and the story she tells are very powerful in themselves and seem most appropriate for us to remember on this Christmas Day when Jesus Christ was born. 

Living here in Arizona less than 130 miles from the border, the immigration issue is not theory but reality.  Karen and I have made over 40 trips across the border.  We have many friends whose families came from Mexico.  We live with the reality of a hostile suspicious anti-immigrant culture that seems to be growing every day as right-wing politicians preach hate, fear, and suspicion and accompany it with hateful innuendos about our Mexican neighbors.  I will not say anymore, but I will let our Elders words speak for themselves. 

2ND SCRIPTURE: Leviticus 19: 18, 33-34

18 Thou shalt not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people; but thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself: I am Jehovah.

 33 “‘When a foreigner resides among you in your land, do not mistreat them. 34 The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the LORD your God.

WHO IS MY NEIGHBOR by Elder J. Hammond

Good morning!

Some of you asked about me when I was here two weeks ago and since we’re talking about who is my neighbor, I thought I’d share just a little bit of my story. Usually, you’ll find me at the second service—sometimes serving as a Beadle, sometimes up in the booth helping.  Before coming here, I was part of the Methodist churches in Casa Grande and Eloy, where I took classes as a Lay Servant and then a Lay Speaker. I also trained as a Stephen Minister, and during that time I became an affiliate member of First Presbyterian so I could share in that ministry. Then about a year ago, I became a full member of this congregation.

Spiritual Growth Through Retreats

One of the most meaningful parts of my faith journey has been attending retreats at the Redemptorist Renewal Center in Tucson. If you’ve ever been there, you know it’s a beautiful, quiet place—a setting for learning, sharing, and deep reflection.

Now, for those of you who know me, you won’t be surprised that the hardest part of the experience, was the “quiet” part! From evening prayers until breakfast – no talking. But it was in those quiet times that God often spoke the loudest.

At my most recent retreat, the guest speaker was Karen González, author of The God Who Sees. Karen, herself an immigrant and a Christian, writes about what the Bible says regarding immigrants and refugees. She reminded us that God is not silent on this issue. If you remember my sermon from 2 weeks ago, God again gave us very specific instructions about how we are to treat the immigrant—with love, with respect, and with protection.

A Lesson from Nogales

Part of our retreat took us across the border to Nogales, Mexico. We visited shelters where families had come for safety and help. On one wall, there was a picture with these words: “The best place to live is where you do not fear anyone or anything. Where you can run without fear and not run because of fear.”

As we watched families preparing food, children painting and laughing, and teenagers practicing for a school debate, those words hit me deeply. Isn’t that what we all want? A place where we don’t have to live in fear. But later as we stood near a crossing point, where the barbed wire ran across, and there were pilings set in the ground, so no vehicle could get through, there stood a large white monument, with Mexico written on one side, and the US on the other. The Border Patrol had been alerted to our visit, so we were able to go back and forth freely, but I couldn’t imagine having trudged through the desert, clothes on my back, and no food or water, and then seeing the promised land, but not being able to enter it. And still later, we stood at a border crossing, and looked at “the fence”. “One of the uglier things I have seen, it made me think of the ugliness of the entire situation. There were people with children, just sitting waiting their turn to make an appointment to see about legally getting a way to cross the border. One woman actually gave birth while waiting in line, because she had nowhere else to go and didn’t want to lose her place in line.

Scripture Foundation

The Bible is clear: we are called to love our neighbor. You heard the scripture from Leviticus, but it bears repeating: In Leviticus 19, God says, “When immigrants live in your land with you, you must not cheat them. Any immigrant who lives with you must be treated as one of your citizens. You must love them as yourself, because you were immigrants in the land of Egypt.” Now I can take Leviticus with a grain of salt, because it is all about ancient laws and rules, but the New Testament also echoes the same sentiment.

  • Jesus repeats this commandment in Matthew 22 and Mark 12, calling it the second greatest commandment—right alongside loving God himself.
  • Romans 13:10 tells us, “Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.”
  • Galatians 5:14, John 13:34–35, And 1 John 4:20, all echo the same instructions

So here’s the big question: Who is my neighbor? Who is God talking about? That question might seem easy—but is it really? When I first moved here to AZ from the Northeast, I noticed something:. Many people don’t even know the name of their next-door neighbors. The walls around the yards were more than just physical walls, Where I came from, in New Jersey and Pennsylvania, and even in the Poconos with large lots and more space, I knew all my neighbors. But the Bible stretches “neighbor” far beyond our next-door fence. As Karen González writes, Abraham, Moses, Ruth, Mary, Joseph—even Jesus—were all refugees at some point in their lives. They were strangers, they were immigrants, there were ‘people seeking safety. So our neighbors are not just the people who look like us or live near us. Our neighbors are the immigrants and refugees at our borders, and the people we might be tempted to see as “others.” And their reality is hard.

According to Amnesty International, more than 60 percent of women crossing the border into the U.S. are sexually assaulted along the way. Many take precautions before they even start their journey, because they know what is likely to happen. We also hear the narrative that immigrants are criminals or that they’re “stealing jobs.” But research shows the opposite: immigrants actually commit fewer crimes than native-born citizens, and they often take the difficult, low-paying jobs that others won’t do. God created this earth without borders. He gave it to all of us and called it good. Human beings built walls and drew lines. But nowhere in Scripture does God say, “Build borders and keep people out.”

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. put it this way:

“Man-made laws assure justice, but a higher law produces love. No code of conduct ever persuaded a father to love his children. A good father is obedient to the unenforceable. The Good Samaritan represents the conscience of mankind because he was obedient to that which could not be enforced.” That’s what Jesus calls us to—a love that cannot be legislated, but must be lived.

After visiting the shelters and borders , I felt overwhelmed. What can I possibly do to change any of this? In our small group discussions, someone reminded me of the story of the starfish. A man watched a boy throwing starfish back into the sea. “Why bother?” he asked. “You can’t save them all.” The boy picked up another one, tossed it into the waves, and said, “I saved that one.” We may not change the whole world. But we can change the world for someone.

A Story of Francisco

Karen González shares the story of Francisco, who crossed the border out of desperation. He married a U.S. citizen, had children—including one with special needs—but because of restrictive Laws (the 3 & 10 law), he was never able to adjust his status. One night, after drinking, he chose not to drive but to sleep it off in his car, keys in his pocket, not in the ignition, but. In Maryland, even that counts as a DUI. He was arrested, and ICE stepped in. Despite being a hardworking husband and father, a judge decided he was “undesirable” and deported him. Now his wife and children, U.S. citizens, were left without their provider and had to rely on public assistance. Deporting a father didn’t protect the family—it broke it.

This is what happens when we see immigrants only as “others” instead of neighbors.

Conclusion: Who Is My Neighbor?

When Jesus was asked, “Who is my neighbor?” he told the parable of the Good Samaritan. Today, the answer is the same. Our neighbors are the immigrants and refugees at our borders. Our neighbors are the people across the street. Our neighbors are the ones who need love, not suspicion. And while laws cannot love our neighbors, we can. I may not change the world. But I pray that I can make a difference in one life. And if each of us does the same, then together—we can bring change.

 Let it be so. Amen.

Happy Holidays: The Persicos’ 2025 Annual Holiday Letter

21 Dec 2025 12 Comments

by Dr. John Persico Jr. in Uncategorized

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Happy Holidays to all our friends and relatives, and Merry Christmas to those celebrating the birth of Jesus Christ.

(John)  I turned 79 this year and Karen reached 81.  We no longer feel like spring chickens, but I promised not to regale you with medical adventures or offer political rants—tempting as both might be.  Since Karen handles the family updates, you may wonder, “What’s left for John to talk about?”

This year I found myself thinking about Jesus—not as a figure of doctrine, but as a man who preached love and forgiveness, and whose life still speaks to us in a world obsessed with fame and fortune.  I mentor a high school student through a program called I Could Be, and like many young people today, his dream is simply to become famous and wealthy.  I wanted to tell him that neither guarantees happiness, but how do you convince a teenager of that?

It made me wonder: Did Jesus ever dream of fame or fortune as a young man?  If so, he certainly abandoned those goals.  His message was humble, his life simple, and his legacy was born not from ambition but from compassion and courage.  The fame he eventually gained came with a heavy price—crucifixion at 30-something is not the kind of fame anyone would choose.  Yet his influence endures two millennia later, reminding us that the greatest gifts we can offer the world are still kindness, forgiveness, and love. 

So, as we come to the close of another year, Karen and I want to thank each of you for being part of our lives—near or far, frequently or occasionally, in person or through the mysterious fibers of the internet.

May your holidays be filled with peace, warmth, and whatever form of love most sustains you.  And may we each remember that the gifts which matter most—kindness, connection, forgiveness, and compassion—cost nothing yet change everything.

(Karen)  The year has gone very fast, our first year spending the full year in Arizona.  I didn’t mind the summer heat, and John found ways of keeping cool.  We didn’t like our electric bill much though.  Cool air doesn’t come cheap!  I continue my quilting, choir, Tucson Dulcimer Ensemble (group picture on our card), a small ukulele group and have added serving as a deacon at First Presbyterian Church in Casa Grande.  I don’t have much spare time, but I enjoy all the things I do.

I made a trip to MN last February and the temperature didn’t go up much above zero.  I decided from now on, I’m visiting in spring and fall.  I’ve become an Arizona wimp.  In June, John and I took a train trip from Maricopa, AZ to Portland, OR.  Trains are such a civilized way to travel.  We had a tiny compartment, a dining car, an elevated observation car and even a narrated guide for part of the trip.  After spending a few fun days in Portland, we flew to Anchorage, AK.  John’s 50th state to visit was OR, and my 49th and 50th were OR and AK.  Highlights of the trip were participating in a “No King’s” march in Talkeetna, AK and taking a small plane ride to the side of Mt. Denali where we landed on a glacier and played in the snow. 

I made a second trip to MN with John in August.  He attended his annual retreat at Demontreville Retreat Center while I went to stay with Kevin and Megan.  Kevin bought a new home this summer which has a large garden level apartment.  Megan has the apartment while saving for a home of her own.  It was fun to see them both together and run up and down the stairs between the two living spaces.  After John’s retreat was over, we spent a few more days in the Twin Cities so I could spend some time with Susan and Juli.  I brought Susan a Korean themed quilt for her birthday, and it was fun to watch her discover the different areas of the quilt. 

The poster on our card was taken at a church in Tucson where we had gone to attend a concert.  They had facilities set up for the homeless and signs around the church campus welcoming those in need and immigrants. 

The last picture is our new pet, Mikey, a 5-year-old Leopard Tortoise.  He came with his name which is a nickname for Michelangelo, from Teenage Mutant Turtles.  After I lost my ongoing appeal for another dog, John suggested we adopt a Desert Sonoran Tortoise.  He could live in the back yard, munch on our plants and need very little care.  Then I found out from a friend that the Desert Sonoran Tortoise is a digger and will destroy your landscaping and escape under the fence.  Just as John was feeling relieved that we weren’t going to get a tortoise, I added we could get a Leopard Tortoise as they weren’t diggers.  I found one on Facebook marketplace as the family who had him were going to move to a cold climate and needed to rehome him.  Then we started learning about the care and feeding of a Leopard Tortoise.  First came a heated doghouse for John to build.  Then we needed specialized food, supplements, soaking tubs, hiding spots, UV and heat lamps for the indoor terrarium, and more.  But, we do enjoy him.  We do believe he will outlive us though.

Wishing you all a wonderful 2026, health and happiness.

John, Karen and Mikey

Here are a few other pictures from our 2025 Life.

What is the true meaning of Christmas? Does anyone really know?

15 Dec 2025 87 Comments

by Dr. John Persico Jr. in Uncategorized Tags: , , , , , ,

Image

It is around this time of the year that many of us start asking the question “What is the true meaning of Christmas?”  I am sure that for those who do ponder this question, your inquiry is no doubt prompted by an assortment of stimuli.  For example:  Black Friday, Cyber Monday, shop till you drop lists, Toys for Tots, Christmas countdowns, gift rages, children meltdowns, commercials, jingles and endless exhortations to buy that special gift that will truly show someone you love them.

I must be humble.  Many have tried to answer this question before me.  I am nowhere near the first nor do I assume the last who will ever tackle this issue.  Thus, I offer my opinion where no doubt many wiser than I have gone before me and many wiser will go after.  However, if I merely offer you some fresh insights into this age old question, I will have accomplished my goal.  Perhaps I may see things in a slightly different perspective than all the wise people who have already treaded on this question.

I am going to break the key question “What is the true meaning of Christmas?” into three parts or three sub-questions.

The first sub-question is “Why do we celebrate Christmas?”  The answer to this question is obvious.  A man named Jesus was born on or near this date in the time of the Roman occupation of Israel.  He is alternately revered as a great prophet, the son of God, the Messiah or a humble man with a simple but profound message.  Many who respect him honor his memory on December 25 each year.

The second sub-question is “What should we celebrate at Christmas?”  The most common means of celebrating the life of a great person is to remember what they stood for.  Jesus IMHO stood for two major ideas which were radical in his time.  The first major idea was to “Love Everyone.”  This meant that you needed to love your enemies as well as your friends.  Easy to love your friends said Jesus, much more difficult to love your enemies.  The second major idea was to “Forgive Everyone.”  Again, not just forgiveness for your friends and relatives but also for those you hate and your mortal enemies.  Thus, at Christmastime, Christians and those who wish to venerate Jesus of Nazareth should be celebrating both Love and Forgiveness.  We see many manifestations of the love at this time of the year but much less focus on forgiveness.  The truth of this will be more evident when we look at the third sub-question:  “How do we Celebrate Christmas?” 

“How do we celebrate Christmas?”   How do we take the two major ideas that Jesus stood for and remember them.  Each concept could be honored in a variety of ways.  The primary way that we seem to express the idea of Love is through the giving of gifts.  We can give gifts of the spirit or gifts of the world.  Gifts of the spirit express our love for others by giving some of ourselves.  We give some immaterial expression of love to others that we care about.  We might choose to spend time with a loved one or simply help them out with a project or task that needs doing.

We also give physical or material gifts.  These include toys, gadgets, technology, clothes, jewelry etc.  Material gifts express our love by transferring our money into presents for others based on their perceived wants and needs.  It is quite common to see gifts given based on wants but needs are less frequently factored into the gift giving equation.  One could posit a hierarchy of gift giving, going from easiest to give to most difficult.  I think it would look something like this:

  • Material gifts based on wants (easy)
  • Material gifts based on needs (more difficult)
  • Spiritual gifts based on wants (difficult)
  • Spiritual gifts based on needs (very difficult)

It is not always easy to distinguish between wants and needs, particularly when dealing with children who often confuse the two.  The good parent should be able to tell the difference, but all too often parents are more interested in simply satisfying their child’s wants rather than dealing with their child’s needs.  The Love of Jesus becomes a love focused on completing a shopping list of wants.  Little attention is spent on needs while even less time is spent on spiritual gifts.  It is easier to buy a gift card than to spend time with a friend or loved one.

How do we deal at Christmastime with the second major idea that Jesus promoted, the idea that we should Forgive others?  This idea does not seem to have seriously entered the panoply of displays that we see or that are observed at this time of the year.  Somehow, Forgiveness gets forgotten at Christmas time.  A cynic might wonder if it is not because this is the hardest idea to implement.  Can you imagine sending a beautiful gift of flowers or jewelry to someone you loath and detest?  Can you imagine spending time with someone you hate or giving some gift of the spirit to someone you dislike?   I suggest that such demonstrations of Forgiveness would be unusual for most Christians as well as non-Christians.

So “What is the true meaning of Christmas?”  After dicing and slicing this question what are we left with?  A short summary of the main points that I have made to address this question might help:

  • We celebrate the birth of Jesus of Nazareth, a great prophet, teacher and to some God
  • Jesus’s mission and purpose was to teach us Love and Forgiveness
  • We attempt to celebrate his concept of Love during the time we think he was born
  • We substitute gift giving for more substantive displays of Love or more difficult expressions of the concept
  • We leave out or neglect Jesus’s concept of Forgiveness

Perhaps this Christmas, we can all try to GIVE more Forgiveness.  If there is a “True Meaning of Christmas”, if Jesus were alive today, I am sure he would be most pleased if we all spent more time trying to love our enemies as well as our friends and to forgive those who “Trespass against us.”  

Time for Questions:

What is your “meaning” for Christmas?  How do you celebrate the birth of Jesus?  What could you do more of this year to truly celebrate his message?  What can we do to help make Forgiveness part of the Christmas message?

Life is just beginning.

“How many observe Christ’s birthday!  How few, His precepts!” ― Benjamin Franklin

“And in despair I bowed my head;
“There is no peace on earth,” I said;
“For hate is strong,
And mocks the song
Of peace on earth, good-will to men!”

Then pealed the bells more loud and deep:
“God is not dead, nor doth he sleep!
The Wrong shall fail,
the Right prevail,
With peace on earth, good-will to men!”
― Henry Wadsworth Longfellow

Five Westerns and Five Moral Universes: What Old TV Shows Still Teach Us About America

09 Dec 2025 13 Comments

by Dr. John Persico Jr. in Uncategorized Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

By John Persico (with a lot of help from Metis)

In the late 1950s and early 1960s, American television was overrun with cowboys.  Westerns galloped across nearly every network, each one promising a different angle on courage, justice, and the messy human struggle to build a society out of dust and gun smoke.  We tend to remember the big ones—Gunsmoke, Bonanza, The Rifleman—but tucked in that crowded landscape were several thoughtful, sometimes surprisingly philosophical shows that tried to answer deeper questions about right and wrong.

I have always loved cowboy shows.   My favorite cowboys when I was growing up were Hopalong Cassidy, the Lone Ranger and Roy Rogers.  Most of these men got their start in the 30’s but their shows migrated to the TV medium when it was first started.  Many episodes of Hopalong were taken from his early movies.  Later, TV started to develop its own cowboy series with weekly episodes of tall, dark and handsome heroes.  By this time in the late 50’s and early 60’s I was not watching TV anymore.  I was in my early teens and had better things to do than watch TV.  Thus, I never watched the five shows that I am going to talk about in this blog when I was young.

I only started to watch these old TV shows a few years ago.  I was rather amazed at the quality of the stories that they told.  They were nothing like many of the TV series that came around later characterized by many more shootouts and gun fights.  These early TV shows tried to convey a strong sense of morality and featured a more discreet and thoughtful use of gunplay.   Many of the heroes in these shows eschewed violence and attempted to use reason to end a fight rather than gunning down a villain.   

Five of these Westerns—The Tall Man, Wyatt Earp, The Restless Gun, Tombstone Territory, and The Texan—offer a fascinating window into how Americans of that era imagined moral life on the frontier.   Each operated in a different moral universe.  Together, they reveal a whole spectrum of values still relevant in 2025: authority vs.  independence, violence vs.  restraint, institutions vs.  personal codes, loyalty vs.  law.

Here’s what these shows have to teach us when we dust them off and look again.

The Tall Man: Tragedy, Friendship, and the Gray Zone of Morality

Among these Westerns, The Tall Man stands out for its dramatic complexity.  Rather than presenting the frontier as a struggle between clear-cut good and evil, the series explored the psychological and moral tensions between Pat Garrett and Billy the Kid—historical figures already steeped in myth.  The show emphasized the tragic inevitability of their relationship: Garrett, the reluctant lawman; Billy, the charming outlaw whose charisma repeatedly outpaced his judgment. These were not cardboard heroes and villains; they were complicated men bound together by loyalty and destiny.

The morality here is not a simple endorsement of law or rebellion.  Instead, it suggests that human loyalties are fragile, destiny is unforgiving, and justice often emerges from personal conflict rather than abstract principles.  It is a Western operating in shades of gray, reflecting an America grappling with Cold War dilemmas where allies and enemies were not always easy to distinguish.  Viewers recognized themselves in the struggle between duty and friendship, a theme uncommon among early Westerns.

The underlying message was that life often puts us in situations where justice isn’t neat.  Friendship can clash with duty.  Good intentions can slide into the wrong choices.  And sometimes the person you care about most becomes the person you eventually have to confront.

In that sense, The Tall Man feels strikingly modern.  It understands that real life doesn’t divide neatly into good guys and bad guys—something America in the Cold War era was just beginning to wrestle with.

Wyatt Earp: The Comfort of the Uncomplicated Hero

If The Tall Man reveled in moral ambiguity, Wyatt Earp offered the opposite: a mythologized portrait of the West’s greatest lawman, played with crisp, upright dignity by Hugh O’Brian.  This series promoted a worldview in which society advances only when firm, principled authority imposes order on chaos.  Earp serves as the archetype of the responsible American leader—a man who does not relish violence but accepts it as a necessary instrument of civilization.

Earp represented the belief that civilization requires firmness.  Order doesn’t grow on its own—it has to be imposed by strong, decent people who are willing to shoulder responsibility.  For postwar America, still anxious about the atomic age and the looming tensions with the Soviet Union, this moral clarity was reassuring.

The show’s moral message resonated with 1950s ideals of stability: strong institutions, disciplined citizenship, and faith in the ability of virtuous leaders to “keep the peace.” It aligned neatly with postwar values, especially the belief that social progress requires firmness rather than moral compromise. Earp rarely doubted himself, and the series rarely doubted him either.  Its clarity, even rigidity, provided reassurance during an era troubled by atomic anxieties and Cold War uncertainty.

Earp didn’t struggle with his conscience—he was the conscience.

The Restless Gun: Pacifism in a Violent Landscape

In sharp contrast to both Garrett and Earp stands Vint Bonner of The Restless Gun, one of the few early Western heroes who actively sought alternatives to violence.  Bonner modeled the idea that courage is not measured by willingness to kill but by the ability to resolve conflict through empathy, reason, and patience.  Yes, this was a Western.  Yes, he still ended up in gunfights.  But the moral direction of the show pointed firmly away from killing and toward understanding.

This places The Restless Gun closer to a moral philosophy of restorative justice than frontier retribution.  In many episodes, Bonner functioned as a mediator, teacher, or counselor.  The villains were not always evil; they were often misguided, desperate, misinformed, or trapped in circumstances they could not manage.  The show’s worldview subtly challenged the Western convention that justice flows from the barrel of a gun.  Instead, it argued that America’s future might depend more on understanding than dominance.

This made the series unusually modern, anticipating later Westerns such as Have Gun, Will Travel, which incorporated moral complexity into the traveling-gunman archetype. Though the show ended early, its worldview remains distinctive in the genre.

In a genre built on bullets, The Restless Gun dared to say: there is another way.

Tombstone Territory: Justice as a Public Responsibility

Tombstone Territory offered a more institutional perspective on frontier justice. Structured around the fictional Tombstone Epitaph newspaper, the show dramatized the challenges faced by Sheriff Clay Hollister in maintaining order within a volatile, fast-growing community.  Unlike Wyatt Earp, where the marshal’s authority was never questioned, Hollister constantly wrestled with public scrutiny, political pressure, and misinformation—issues that eerily foreshadow the modern news cycle.

The moral heart of the series lies in its quasi-documentary tone. Hollister must uphold the law not simply by enforcing it, but by navigating competing interests, calming mobs, and maintaining legitimacy.  Truth, evidence, and due process—rare elements in early Westerns—become central themes. The show’s structure echoes the belief that justice is not merely an individual virtue but a collective responsibility.  It encourages viewers to appreciate the difficulty of governing rather than merely celebrating the lone hero.

In many ways, Tombstone Territory anticipated the later rise of procedural dramas where law enforcement is portrayed as an institution rather than a personal crusade.

The show’s moral center was institutional: justice requires process, evidence, and the difficult work of maintaining legitimacy.  It wasn’t glamorous.  But it was honest.  In many ways, Tombstone Territory speaks more directly to our modern world than some of the bigger Westerns of its time.

The Texan: The Noble Drifter and the American Myth of Honor

Rory Calhoun’s The Texan returned to the classic Western figure of the noble wanderer—a man whose moral code is internal rather than institutional.  Bill Longley, a Confederate veteran, embodies the Western ethos of individual honor: help the vulnerable, confront injustice, and ride away when the dust settles.  The show foregrounds personal integrity over law, suggesting that character—not institutions—ultimately preserves the frontier’s fragile social fabric.

This worldview reflects an enduring American belief in self-reliance and moral autonomy. Longley’s wanderings represent not rootlessness but a spiritual quest to repair the world one town at a time.  His code is chivalric, almost knightly, and he stands as a corrective to the bureaucratic tensions seen in Tombstone Territory.  While he respects the law, he serves a higher standard—his own conscience.

Longley wasn’t defined by the law, nor by institutions.  His moral compass was internal.  He showed that a single person—armed only with decency and grit—could make things a little better wherever he went.

It is the Western as America likes to imagine itself: independent, honorable, and self-reliant.  Even if it rarely works that way in real life, the aspiration is part of our national DNA.

Five Shows, Five Moral Visions

When you line up these Westerns side by side, the moral variety is remarkable:

  • The Tall Man explores the tragedy of conflicting loyalties.
  • Wyatt Earp celebrates firm authority and disciplined leadership.
  • The Restless Gun champions compassion and restraint.
  • Tombstone Territory elevates due process and public trust.
  • The Texan extols personal conscience as the highest law.

Together, they show how deeply Americans were thinking—even through half-hour cowboy shows—about law, justice, violence, and the kind of people we wanted to be.

And perhaps that is the most interesting lesson of all: Westerns weren’t just entertainment.  They were moral storytelling, played out on horseback.

In dusting off these forgotten classics, we rediscover a whole range of ethical possibilities—some stern, some gentle, some tragic, some idealistic.  The frontier wasn’t just a place; it was a metaphor for the ongoing journey America has always been on: trying to figure out how to live decently in a world that is not always decent.

What Happened to These Shows and the Morality that They Tried to Convey?

  1. The Tall Man (1960–1962)

Why it was cancelled:

  • Ratings sagged as audiences drifted toward lighter, family-friendly Westerns and bigger stars.
  • NBC also faced increasing difficulty with script standards: portraying Billy the Kid sympathetically clashed with emerging TV violence guidelines.
  • Production costs were rising, and no strong sponsor stepped in to keep it going.
  1. The Life and Legend of Wyatt Earp (1955–1961)

Why it was cancelled:

  • After six seasons, the formula grew repetitive, and the mythologized Earp no longer impressed audiences seeking the grittier realism of later Westerns.
  • Hugh O’Brian wanted to move on, and ABC saw declining ratings.
  • The Western market was oversaturated by 1961.
  1. The Restless Gun (1957–1959)

Why it was cancelled:

  • Despite solid ratings, Payne’s contract and salary demands increased, and NBC hesitated to renew at higher costs.
  • The show’s gentler tone was overshadowed by edgier Westerns.
  • Payne himself said he felt the stories were becoming repetitive.
  1. Tombstone Territory (1957–1960)

 Why it was cancelled:

  • Transition from ABC to syndication hurt the budget.
  • Stiff competition from higher-budget Westerns.
  • The semi-documentary framing was admired but not loved; viewers were shifting toward character-driven stories.
  1. The Texan (1958–1960)

Why it was cancelled:

  • It had strong early ratings but lost its time slot advantage to more modern “adult” Westerns.
  • Calhoun’s outside film commitments strained scheduling.
  • CBS was phasing out lower-budget half-hour Westerns in favor of hour-long dramas.

Each show ended for slightly different reasons, but the common story is:  the genre evolved faster than these earlier, simpler morality tales could adapt.  Americans wanted more “grit” more “violence” and yes even less morality.  The change from John Wayne to Clint Eastwood capped the change that we would see in Westerns from morality tales to tales of vengeance and retribution.  America was becoming more jaded.  We did not want heroes any more who were goody two-shoes.  We wanted anti-heroes and the studios offered them up in droves. 

Looking at American politics today, I often wonder where, when and how the decline in values, integrity and morality started.  Some would say it started with the decline in religion.  I don’t think religion has in the last 200 years in the USA been that big of an influence in terms of morality and integrity.  Karl Marx always believed that economics was the major driver of most social trends.  Many people who disagree with him nevertheless admit that the primary influence on voting behavior is the state of the economy.  In my opinion, this influence goes much deeper than voting behavior.  Capitalism thrives on avarice and stupidity.  It needs a large mass of people who want more and more stuff and too brainwashed to realize that the stuff they are buying is not going to bring them happiness. 

Madison Avenue became a major influencer with the advent of TV.  Go back and look at some of these early Westerns.  Smoking was de rigor.  Many of the heroes of these early Westerns died of lung cancer.  Legendary figures like John Wayne, Gary Cooper, and Chuck Connors, with numerous other actors, musicians, and public figures from that era also falling to the disease, highlighting smoking’s heavy toll in Hollywood.  But while these heroes were dying, Madison Avenue was perfecting the use of TV to sell all kinds of products. 

I always laugh at the fact that so many men have been conned into buying what I call “piss beer” from Budweiser, Miller and Coors.  Large macho football players posing in a bar with these watered down beers spent years on TV regaling their followers with the virtues of light beer.  Would be macho males stormed the liquor stores to buy their six pack of piss beer that they could swill down while watching their favorite football teams playing.  The average person is brainwashed by Madison Avenue on a daily basis.  Watch some of the old TV shows and see how much more sophisticated the ads are today.

I once asked all my MBA students if they thought that TV ads had much influence on their buying patterns.  The typical answer I received was “No, I make up my own mind when I go shopping.”  Most people do not even know that they are brainwashed.  The cigarette industry spent years lying to people about the medical effects of cigarettes.  Today, it is the liquor companies that are lying to consumers.  But all of Capitalism and advertising has one major motive when it comes to making a sales pitch.  That motive is too make you feel inferior.  To make you feel needy.  To make you feel inadequate.  Once you feel like you are somehow lacking something, they can pitch you their product.  Their pitch will always be that you will be better, smarter, faster or happier with their product or at least you will be better, smarter, faster and happier than your next-door neighbor who did not buy their product.

I believe the decline in morality and integrity in the USA can be directly linked to Madison Avenue and the brainwashing they conduct on consumers.  If you are on the producers side of the economic equation, you cannot have any qualms about what you are selling or the side effects or the unintended consequences of the use of your products or services.  If you are on the consumer side of the economic equation, your whole reason for being is to buy more and more stuff regardless of its impact on your health and sanity or the environment.  This callousness on both sides has resulted in a society that is unparalleled in terms of greed and avarice. 

The old Westerns were like some of the early fairy tales.  They had a motive beyond entertainment.  They existed to convey a morality that eventually seemed too simplistic and certainly too limiting.  Morality is a unique virtue in the sense that it not only asks you what you are doing for yourself, but it also asks what are you doing for others. Morality cannot coexist with Capitalism any more than Capitalism can coexist with Communism.  We need a new economic system based on principles of love, trust and compassion for ALL the people in world and not just our friends or relatives or the people in our own country. 

致我在中国以及世界各地的朋友们的节日问候（简体中文版）

05 Dec 2025 17 Comments

by Dr. John Persico Jr. in Uncategorized

Happy Holidays:

1989 年，在天安门事件前两周，Karen 和我前往中国旅行。我们没有参加旅行团、没有宗教任务，也不是任何形式的跟团度假。我们自己买机票、自己订酒店，并在一位中国朋友的协助下制定了属于我们自己的旅行路线。我们的旅程从上海开始，接着去了苏州、黄山，再从黄山到南京，最后回到上海。我们乘坐过公共汽车、火车、汽车，甚至在苏州租过自行车骑行。

我并不声称自己看过多少中国。严格来说，我们能看到的可能也就占中国的 10% 而已。我们没有见到所有中国人，也没有住在普通的中国旅馆。因为我们是外国人，只能住当时称为“侨汇旅馆”的地方，我们手中的钱也必须兑换成外汇券，而不是人民币。我们一路上到处步行，参观过公园、医院、乘船游览长江，去过露天市场（也称“菜市场”或“湿货市场”），还曾与一路上结识的当地人共进晚餐，当然也拜访了佛教寺院。

有一天，我们在南京逛街时遇到一个街头节庆活动。我出于好奇，拿起一支 .22 口径的小步枪在摊位前射击几个靶子。不用说，Karen 和我在这样的场景里显得颇为引人注目。周围的人纷纷围上来看我射击。无论我们走到哪里，总会吸引不少好奇的眼神。人们会主动过来和我们聊天，有时甚至会围成一大圈与我们交谈。

那天正好有一队士兵路过，他们也好奇地靠近观察。带队的士兵礼貌地问：“你们从哪里来？”“为什么来中国？”这些都很普通。突然，一个年轻士兵问：“你们现在的总统是谁？”我回答：“乔治·布什。”年轻士兵马上说：“你们的总统很差劲。”我脱口而出：“你们的总统也很差劲。”那一秒钟，所有人都屏住呼吸——尤其是 Karen。这又是我典型的“说话先于思考”的时刻。但突然另一个士兵笑着喊：“他说得对！我们的总统也很差劲！”人群随即大笑，互相拥抱后士兵们继续上路。我长舒一口气——心想自己差点因为一句玩笑话进了中国监狱。

在整个旅程中，所有中国人都对我们非常友善、礼貌。我们从未遇到任何麻烦。风景美丽，食物更是令人难忘，但最重要的是我们一路上遇到的那些可爱的人们。后来我们与一对来自上海的年轻夫妇成了挚友，他们在旅途中帮助我们处理一些习俗和规定方面的问题。那对夫妇（傅希波和 Mary 希波）后来在我们的资助下移民美国，如今与女儿、女婿和三个外孙居住在加州。我们每隔几年就会去看望他们。

现在，我想说说这篇祝贺信的核心。我对中国怀有深深的敬意。中国是世界伟大的国家之一，而且比我们的国家伟大得更为长久。我也同样尊重中国人民。用穆罕默德·阿里的话来说，没有一个中国人吐过我口水、抢劫过我，或骂过我混蛋。中国和美国从未互相开战。虽然我们曾在两场战争中站在对立面，但我们从未入侵中国，中国也从未入侵我们。在过去五十年里，中国发动的战争远远少于美国。人工智能系统给出如下对比数据：

基于保守定义的“入侵”比较：

  • 中国（PRC）：0 次（无重大正式入侵或吞并，但有过边境冲突）
  • 美国：数十次——视定义而定，大致在 20 到 40 次之间。

事实上，中国对美国人民生活水平的提升发挥了重要作用。以下是中国帮助美国经济增长和繁荣的五项主要贡献：

中国的贡献 带给美国经济的益处
低成本制造业 提升美国消费者购买力；降低通胀
支持美国企业供应链 提高美国企业利润、估值与高技能就业机会
大量采购美国出口产品 支持农业、航空业、高科技与服务业
购买美国国债 帮助维持低利率，使联邦政府能够投资公共项目
创新压力 + 制造规模 加速美国科技发展与全球竞争力

尽管中美之间存在明显的互惠关系，但近年来美国出版了大量“反华书籍”，例如《即将到来的对华战争》《百年马拉松：中国取代美国的秘密战略》《我为什么讨厌共产主义中国》等。此外，美国主流媒体常常夸大甚至煽动与中国有关的最微小的负面新闻，使中国看起来不堪入目。比如，最近一场对失控飘过美国的中国气象气球的巨大恐慌——我已经在一篇名为《气球来了！气球来了！》的博客中批评过这种荒唐的反应。

还有我们那些善于用“替罪羊”转移注意力的政客们。如今，中国恰好成为他们最方便使用的靶子——民主党和共和党都不例外。我们可以看看最近他们的一些言论：

共和党政客：

  1. 田纳西州众议员 Andy Ogles：
    “中国共产党是我们面临的最大外国威胁……”
  2. 新泽西州参议员 Doug Steinhardt：
    “让像中国这样的敌对政府渗透我们的技术和能源网络……构成严重且日益增长的国家安全威胁。”
  3. 俄亥俄州众议员 Mike Turner：
    “很明确，TikTok 是国家安全威胁。”

民主党政客：

  1. 参议院多数党领袖 Chuck Schumer：
    “中国共产党会不择手段窃取我们的知识产权并破坏美国经济……”
  2. 弗吉尼亚州参议员 Mark Warner：
    “我们不断看到中国共产党在包括金融领域在内的多个方面对美国表现出日益增强的攻击性。”
  3. 俄勒冈州参议员 Jeff Merkley：
    “美国在面对中国时不能软弱……”

我不希望看到美国与中国发生任何军事或经济上的战争。Karen 不希望。我认识的人当中，没有一个希望看到这种战争。

美国民意调查普遍显示：大多数美国民众希望减少紧张、加强合作，而不是走向冲突。

然而，这并不意味着所有人都是和平主义者——一旦涉及台湾或军事威慑，民意往往变得复杂、情境化。但总体而言，美国公众更倾向外交与接触，而非战争与敌意。

公众是务实的；而我们的政客却常常不是。

回到气球事件。当时，美国国务卿已经 五年 没有访问过中国。然而，布林肯却因为一个气象气球取消了已经安排好的外交访问。如果这个气球真的是中国怀有恶意的严重入侵，那么还有比亲自面谈更好的讨论方式吗？可是，布林肯选择了取消访问。这算什么外交？甚至他部门里的专业人士也质疑这一决定的明智性。美国防务官员也承认，这个气球虽然用于侦测，但并不构成立即威胁——这意味着美国完全可以在保持沟通的前提下处理事件，而不是切断外交渠道。

结论：

我对中国最深刻的记忆从来不是敌意，而是那些普通人——好奇、友善、慷慨，并且同我们一样为家庭、为未来怀抱希望。我的人生经历、我认识的所有人，都没有理由去准备一场对中国的战争。美国民调也清楚地显示，大多数美国人倾向合作、对话与和平竞争。

但我们的领导人——无论民主党还是共和党——却总是喜欢把小火星吹成大火焰。一只漂移的气象气球被渲染成国家危机。一场期待已久的外交访问被演变成政治作秀。当布林肯五年来第一次有机会与中国领导层面对面时，他却取消了访问——偏偏是在最需要外交的时候。这不是力量，而是目光短浅。

如果中国与美国确实是 21 世纪的两大强国，那么我们真正面对的问题不是谁将称霸，而是我们能否在不互相毁灭的情况下共存。我的经历告诉我：我们可以。美国人民在不被政治操弄时也相信：我们可以。如果我们的领导人能够重新找到真正的勇气——不是威胁的勇气，而是交流的勇气——也许我们仍然能够做到。

如果我的旅行（包括我去过的 42 个国家）教会我一件事，那就是：全世界的人们都渴望相同的东西——家庭的安全、工作的尊严、对未来的希望。当我们忘记这一点时，政客们就更容易把陌生人变成“敌人”；当我们想起这一点时，和平就变得更可能。如果两个旅行者能在南京尘土飞扬的道路上为各自的总统开玩笑大笑，那么两个伟大的国家也一定能在选择冲突之前找到对话的方式。

For those of you who do not understand Chinese, I will publish this blog in English or American as they call it in England in a few days.  In the meantime, this blog is meant for all the people in China or all the Chinese people in the world.

节日快乐

John and Karen

Happy Holiday Greetings to All My Friends In China and Around the World

In 1989, two weeks before Tiananmen, Karen and I went to visit China.  We did not go on a tour or a mission trip or any kind of guided vacation.  We bought our own tickets, scheduled our own hotels and developed (with the help of a Chinese friend) our own travel itinerary.  We started off in Shanghai, went on to Suzhou, then to Huang Shan.  From Huang Shan, we went to Nanjing and then back to Shanghai.  We traveled by bus, train, car and even by bicycles which we rented while in Suzhou. 

Now I am not claiming to have seen much of China.  I would say we might have seen 10 percent of the country at most.  We did not meet every Chinese person, and we did not stay in regular Chinese hotels.  Because we were foreigners, we stayed in what were called “Overseas Chinese Hotels” and our money was converted to FEC’s and not Renminbi.  We did lots of foot travels and we visited parks, hospitals, a boat trip on the Yangtze river, open air markets (or what might be called wet markets), several dinners with local Chinese that we met during our travels, and of course Buddhist Monasteries.  

One day while we were in Nanjing we stopped at a street festival; I took the liberty of shooting a 22 rifle at several targets in the bazaar.  Needless to say, Karen and I were peculiar.  People surrounded us as I was shooting.  Wherever we went we drew curious looks or stares.  People took the opportunity to come up and talk to us.  Sometimes entire groups would gather around us and start chatting with us.  

On this particular day a group of soldiers walking by came up to observe us.  The leader started a polite conversation with the questions,  “Where are you from?”  “What brings you to China.”  Nothing out of the ordinary in terms of questions.  Suddenly, one young soldier asked us, “Who is your president now?” I replied “George Bush.”  To which the young soldier responded, “Your President sucks.”  Without thinking I replied, “Your President sucks too.”  For a second, everyone (but most of all I think Karen) held their breath.  Another example of my speaking before thinking.  Then one of the soldiers shouted “He is right!  Our President sucks too.”  Everyone broke out laughing and with hugs all around the soldiers went on their way.  I breathed a sigh of relief thinking that we just might end up in a Chinese prison. 

Everywhere we traveled Chinese people were kind and polite to us.  Not once did we experience any trouble from anyone.  The scenery was great; the food was even better but the best thing of all were the wonderful people we met on our journey.  We eventually became very good friends with a young couple from Shanghai who helped us navigate some of the customs and legalities we would face on our trip.  The couple (Fu Xibo and Mary Xibo) eventually emigrated to the USA under our sponsorship and now live in California with their daughter, son-in-law and three grandchildren.  We visit them every few years or so. 

Now I would like to come to the point of this greeting.  I have nothing but respect for China.  They are one of the great nations of the world.  They have been a great nation for many more years than our great nation.  I have nothing but respect for the Chinese people.  To paraphrase Muhammed Ali, no Chinese person has ever spit on me, robbed me or called me an asshole.  China and the USA have never had a war together.  We have been on opposite sides of at least two wars but never have we invaded China or they invaded us.  China has in fact committed far fewer invasions in the past fifty years than we have.  An AI comparison gives the following data:

Working Comparison (using a conservative definition of “invasion”)

Country           Estimated # of other sovereign states invaded (past 50 years)

China (PRC)     0 (major formal invasions / annexations) — though border clashes occurred.

United States (USA)    Dozens — likely somewhere between 20 and 40, depending on what counts as an invasion.

In fact, China, has had a significant positive influence on the standard of living in the USA.  Here are five major roles that China has played in helping the US Economy to grow and in fact thrive:

Chinese Contributions

That Have Helped the U.S. Economy

 

Lower-cost manufacturing

        Boosted consumer purchasing power; reduced inflation

 

Supply chains for U.S. corporations

Increased profits, valuations, and job creation in high-skill sectors

 

Massive purchases of American exports

Supported agriculture, aviation, high-tech, and       services

 

Financing of U.S. government debt

      Kept interest rates low, enabling federal investment     

 

Innovation pressure + manufacturing scale

Accelerated U.S. tech development and global competitiveness

Despite the evident synergy between the USA and China, the last few years has seen a proliferation of anti-China books with such titles as “The Coming War with China,” “The Hundred-Year Marathon: China’s Secret Strategy to Replace America as the Global Superpower” and “Why I Hate Communist China.”  Not only has there been a book blitz blasting China but the mainstream media in the USA does nothing but fan even the slightest ember into a raging blaze to make China look bad.  A recent example was the furor over a Chinese weather balloon that went out of control and flew over the USA.  I wrote about this ridiculous excuse for panic in a blog called “The Balloons are Coming.  The Balloons are Coming.”  Last but not least by a long shot are our politicians who like nothing better than to stir up a frenzy and divert attentions from their own shortcomings by creating a scapegoat.  Today China seems to fit the bill for far too many of our politicians on both sides of the aisle.  Witness some of the following statements that made the press:

Republican politicians

  1. Rep. Andy Ogles (R-TN, U.S. House)

“The Chinese Communist Party is the greatest foreign adversary we face…” Industrial Cyber

  • Source: Industrial Cyber, “House Republicans reintroduce bill to counter Chinese cyber threats to critical infrastructure,” April 9, 2025. Industrial Cyber
  1. Sen. Doug Steinhardt (R-NJ, New Jersey State Senate)

“Allowing hostile foreign governments like China to…penetrate our technology and energy networks is…a serious and growing national security threat.” Senate NJ

  • Source: New Jersey Senate GOP “News Flash,” “Steinhardt Responds to Discovery of Chinese Communist Party Spy Tech in Solar Infrastructure,” May 14, 2025. Senate NJ
  1. Rep. Mike Turner (R-OH, U.S. House)

“Let’s be clear. TikTok is absolutely a national security threat.” CBS News

  • Source: CBS News, “Rep. Mike Turner says TikTok ‘remains a national security threat,’” Jan. 26, 2025. CBS News

Democratic politicians

  1. Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY, Senate Majority Leader)

“The Chinese Communist Party has shown they will stop at nothing to steal our intellectual property and undermine the American economy…” Senate Democratic Leadership

  • Source: Senate Democratic Caucus press release, “Majority Leader Schumer Statement On New Biden Administration Tariffs On Chinese EVs,” May 14, 2024. Senate Democratic Leadership

 2. Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA)

“We continue to see increased aggression from the Chinese Communist Party towards the United States, including in the financial sector.” warner.senate.gov

  • Source: Office of Sen. Mark R. Warner, “Warner, Colleagues Introduce Bipartisan Legislation to Respond to Financial Threats from [Chinese] Communist Party of China,” Mar. 25, 2025. warner.senate.gov
  1. Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR)

“The United States cannot afford to be weak in the face of the People’s Republic of China and its aggression around the world.” Reuters

  • Source: Reuters, “US Democrats, Republicans plan bills to pressure China as Trump pushes trade,” July 29, 2025. Reuters

I don’t want to see a war with China either a military or economic war.  Karen does not want to see a war with China.  None of the people that I know want to see a war with China. 

Polls / Surveys Showing Desire to Avoid War or Conflict with China

  • According to a 2025 survey by Chicago Council on Global Affairs / affiliated public-opinion research, a majority of Americans (53%) now say the U.S. should pursue “friendly cooperation and engagement” with China — rather than focusing primarily on limiting China’s power. Chicago Council on Global Affairs+2Facebook+2
  • A 2025 poll (conducted by American Friends Service Committee (AFSC) with The Harris Poll) found that 63% of U.S. adults say the U.S. government should engage in dialogue with China as much as possible to reduce tensions. American Friends Service Committee
  • In a 2024 poll by Defense Priorities: 44% of respondents agreed that, “avoiding war with China is more important than Taiwan’s political autonomy.” Only 30% said the U.S. should defend Taiwan if China invaded (given the potential costs).

What This Means:

It appears that a substantial portion of Americans prefer diplomacy, engagement, or at least avoiding military escalation with China rather than confrontation — particularly when asked about general U.S.–China relations or abstract conflict avoidance.  But that doesn’t necessarily translate into blanket pacifism: sentiment depends heavily on the scenario (e.g., Taiwan defense, blockade, economic pressure), and many Americans remain concerned about China’s power — so support for defensive/military or economic pressure measures can still be high.

In short: there’s no single “the public wants war / doesn’t want war” view — the public is split and often situationally pragmatic, tending toward cooperation or deterrence rather than aggressive conflict in many contexts.  It should be noted that too often what drives public opinion is the sloppy political thinking by our so-called elected leaders.  I have already mentioned that too often they use China as a scapegoat.  Many Americans are brainwashed by politicians into believing that they should fear or hate China. 

Referring again to the balloon incident.  An American Secretary of State (who should be a source of diplomacy) had not been to China in five years.  Nevertheless, Blinken cancelled a planned diplomatic trip to Beijing because of the Balloon.  Now if this was an intended serious breach of American airspace with any hostile intentions by the Chinese, what better time to discuss it than Secretary Blinken had.  But instead, he cancels his planned trip.  What the f—k kind of diplomacy is that?   Even people in his department questioned the wisdom of canceling his trip.  The fact that defense officials acknowledged the balloon as surveillance — but also assessed it was not an immediate physical threat — suggests the U.S. had room to respond without severing diplomatic ties or canceling ongoing communication. 

Conclusions:

In the end, my memories of China are not of enemies or adversaries but of ordinary people—curious, kind, generous, and as hopeful for their families as we are for ours.  Nothing in my life, nothing in the lives of the people I know, suggests that we should be preparing for war with China.  And the polls confirm it: most Americans prefer cooperation, dialogue, and peaceful competition.  Yet time and again our leaders—Democrats and Republicans alike—inflate every spark into a firestorm.  A drifting weather balloon becomes a national panic.  A long-overdue diplomatic visit becomes a stage for political theatrics.  When Secretary Blinken had the first opportunity in five years to speak face-to-face with Chinese leaders, he cancelled the trip—precisely when diplomacy was most needed.  That is not strength; it is shortsightedness.

If China and the United States truly are the two great powers of the 21st century, then the question is not who will dominate, but whether we can coexist without destroying one another.  My experience tells me we can.  The American people, when not being manipulated by fear, believe we can.  And if our leaders ever rediscover courage—not the courage to threaten, but the courage to engage—perhaps we still will.

If there is one lesson I carried home from China and my trips to 44 other countries, it is that people everywhere want the same things: safety for their families, dignity in their work, and a future worth believing in.  The farther we drift from that truth, the easier it becomes for politicians to turn strangers into enemies.  But the closer we come to remembering it, the more possible peace becomes.  If travelers on a dusty road in Nanjing could laugh together about their presidents, surely two great nations can find a way to talk before they choose to fight.

 

 

 

 

Previous Older Entries Next Newer Entries