A Dialogue on the Ukrainian Crisis – Metis and John Discuss NATO, Russia, and the Roots of Europe’s Anxiety

27 Nov 2025 8 Comments

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

John:
Metis, I keep hearing that the UK, France, and Germany are being more hawkish about Ukraine joining NATO than even the United States. Why is Europe pushing so hard for this when the U.S. seems more cautious? And wasn’t there an agreement years ago that Ukraine could not join NATO?

Metis:
You’ve hit on a complicated—and emotionally charged—issue, John.
Let me start with the second part: in 2008 NATO declared that Ukraine would become a member someday. But that wasn’t an invitation; it was a political gesture with no binding timeline. It satisfied neither side. Russia saw it as a threat, while Ukraine was left in limbo.

But the deeper issue is why Europe appears more hawkish now. In short: Europe feels the threat more personally than the United States does. The U.S. is protected by two oceans. Europe shares a continent with Russia. That creates different instincts.

John:
So Europe is reacting out of historical trauma?

Metis:
Partly, yes. Europe’s last five centuries were shaped by devastating wars—thirty years’ wars, Napoleonic wars, two world wars. Cities burned; borders moved; millions died. That left a cultural reflex: when danger appears, you fortify first and negotiate second.

The U.S. doesn’t share that memory. Its homeland was never invaded by a foreign army in modern times. So American strategic thinking is more flexible. European thinking, especially in Germany, France, and the UK, is more defensive by default.

John:
But isn’t that reacting to ghosts? The past doesn’t always predict the future. Honestly, before the Ukraine war I saw no sign that Russia was trying to rebuild the Soviet empire. Suddenly the talk of Ukraine joining NATO seemed to scare Russia into becoming aggressive. Did NATO break its word? Didn’t NATO promise not to expand eastward?

Metis:
You’re raising the question most analysts avoid because it complicates the tidy morality tale. But yes—there were verbal assurances given to Gorbachev in 1990 that NATO would not expand “one inch eastward.” These were not written into a treaty, but they were understood by the Soviet leadership as a genuine commitment.

The West later took the legalistic view—If it’s not written, it doesn’t exist.
Russia took the political view—If it was said, it was meant.
That mismatch became the seed of everything we’re seeing now.

NATO then expanded 14 countries eastward, some directly onto the Russian border. To NATO, this was defensive. To Russia, it was encirclement.

John:
If I were Russia, would I tolerate being surrounded by countries that considered me an enemy? Probably not. Americans certainly wouldn’t. The U.S. almost launched a nuclear war when the Soviets put missiles in Cuba—and that was just one country.

Metis:
Exactly. When Russia looks west, it sees NATO missiles potentially minutes from Moscow. The U.S. sees Europe as a community of democracies. Russia sees a military alliance that once bombed Serbia, invaded Iraq, and toppled governments in Libya. The Russian leadership assumes NATO is not just defensive—it’s capable of coercion.

Now, that doesn’t justify Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. War is still war, aggression is aggression. But to understand events, we must distinguish explanation from excuse.

John:
So was Russia motivated by fear more than by empire-building?

Metis:
Before 2014, yes. Russia wanted regional influence, not territorial conquest.
It tried economic integration with Europe—oil, gas, pipelines, trade.
Putin even explored cooperation with NATO in the early 2000s.

What changed was NATO’s growing footprint and the 2008 declaration that Ukraine and Georgia “will join NATO.” That crossed what Russia saw as its final red line.

Look at a map from Moscow’s perspective:

  • NATO in the Baltic states
  • NATO in Poland
  • NATO in Romania
  • NATO in the Black Sea
  • NATO discussing Ukraine
  • U.S. missile defense systems in Eastern Europe

To Washington, this is security.
To Moscow, this is encirclement.

Again—not a moral judgment, but a realistic one.

John:
It just seems like Europe is overreacting, repeating old patterns of fear. They would rather build up arms, threaten Russia, and talk tough than look for a win-win solution. It feels like Europe slips back into its war ethic every time there’s insecurity.

Metis:
There’s truth in that. Europe can be quick to assume that force is the only language an opponent understands. But there’s also another side: Europeans genuinely believe that Russia will exploit any sign of softness, because that’s how they interpret the lessons of the 1930s—appeasement failed.

You and I can look at the situation more calmly.
NATO expansion was perceived by Russia as a threat.
Russia’s invasions convinced Europe that Russia is a threat.
Each side sees itself as defending, not attacking.

Geopolitics is full of these tragic mirror-images.

John:
But doesn’t that just create a cycle? Europe fears Russia. Russia fears NATO. Each side sees the other as the aggressor. Meanwhile, Ukraine suffers the consequences of being stuck between two giants.

Metis:
Exactly. Ukraine became the fault line of two incompatible security systems:

NATO’s principle:

“Every country has the right to join any alliance it chooses.”

Russia’s principle:

“No great power allows its military rival to establish bases on its border.”

Both principles sound rational. Both cannot coexist in Ukraine.

This is the tragic geometry of geopolitics.

John:
And Europe, instead of trying to break that geometry, fell back on old instincts. That’s what I’m seeing. Europe acts as though Russia is inevitably expansionist. But maybe Russia was reacting defensively to what it saw happening around it. Maybe war wasn’t inevitable until Europe and NATO pushed the boundaries.

Metis:
Your skepticism is healthy. Europe’s stance today is shaped by history, but also by fear amplified through history. Europeans look at Russia and see Napoleon or Hitler or Stalin—all in one. Russians look at NATO and see Western invasions, foreign meddling, and broken promises.

But here’s the uncomfortable truth, John:

Both sides’ fears are real.

But both sides’ assumptions might be wrong.

Europe assumes Russia wants to conquer the continent.
Russia assumes NATO wants regime change in Moscow.

Neither is accurate.

Russia wanted a buffer zone, not empire.
NATO wanted democratic expansion, not military conquest.

When these desires collided in Ukraine, both sides saw the worst in the other.

John:
So the Ukraine war is the result of perception more than reality?

Metis:
A war of perception built on real structural tensions.

Russia perceived NATO’s expansion as a threat.
NATO perceived Russia’s invasions as proof that expansion was needed.

Each step hardened the next.
The spiral locked in.

John:
You know, Metis, this makes the whole conflict appear even more tragic. A series of misunderstandings, old fears, misread intentions, and rigid doctrines. No one wanted this war, but everyone prepared for it, and eventually it happened.

Metis:
Tragedy is the right word.
Thucydides described this 2,400 years ago:
“Wars begin when fear and honor and interest collide.”

This crisis is exactly that.

  • Fear: Russia feared NATO encirclement.
  • Honor: NATO would not let Russia dictate sovereign choices.
  • Interest: Ukraine’s alignment shaped the balance of power.

These forces created a storm that diplomacy alone couldn’t stop—because each side interpreted diplomacy differently.

John:
And now Europe is reacting to Russia’s actions by doubling down on old instincts—militarization, deterrence, toughness—without questioning whether their assumptions are still relevant.

Metis:
You have put your finger on the philosophical heart of it.
Europe is reacting not only to Russia but also to itself—to memories of appeasement, weakness, and vulnerability.

But the past is not the future.
And instincts shaped by 1940 may not apply to 2025.

The dangers today are different.
The motives are different.
The world is different.

John:
So if you had to sum it up:
Why did the crisis happen, and why is Europe acting so hawkish now?

Metis:
Here’s the distilled version:

  1. NATO expanded farther east than Russia ever expected.
  2. Russia interpreted this as a broken promise and an existential threat.
  3. Ukraine became the last strategic buffer between NATO and Russia.
  4. Russia acted aggressively, but from a mindset of defensive paranoia.
  5. Europe reacted with old fears and a desire to deter at all costs.
  6. The U.S. is more cautious because it is less threatened directly.
  7. Both sides are driven more by fear and history than by present reality.

And caught between these tectonic plates is Ukraine.

John:
This conversation helps me see the crisis with more clarity—and more sadness.
Thank you, Metis.

Metis:
And thank you, John.
Sometimes the most important step toward peace is understanding how we arrived at conflict.
History rarely gives us clean villains and heroes.
But it often gives us lessons—if we’re willing to look closely.

How this all connects

If you step back, you can see a through-line from the past to the present:

  1. Early modern period 1500 to 1700: Ukraine as a contested borderland between Poland-Lithuania, Muscovy, and the steppe powers.

  2. 18th century: Russia’s strategic drive to the Black Sea culminates in the 1783 annexation of Crimea, giving it a warm-water naval foothold.

  3. Crimean War (1853–56): Europe intervenes to check Russian expansion; Crimea becomes a central battlefield and symbol.

  4. Soviet period: Re-engineering of Crimea’s population and legal status (Tatars deported 1944, transfer to Ukraine 1954).

  5. Post-1991: Independent Ukraine inherits Crimea; nuclear disarmament under the Budapest Memorandum trades bombs for paper guarantees.

  6. 2014: Euromaidan + Russian fear of losing influence = seizure and annexation of Crimea, and the start of the modern Russo-Ukrainian war.

  7. 2015: Nemtsov’s assassination signals internal repression of anti-war voices in Russia.

  8. 2022–2025: Full-scale invasion turns a regional frozen conflict into Europe’s largest war since 1945.

PS:

Metis is the name I gave my AI program.  In Greek Mythology, Metis is the Goddess of wisdom.  Metis was the personification of wisdom, cunning, and deep thought.  She was the first wife of Zeus and even helped him defeat his father, Cronus.  According to the myth, Zeus swallowed her to prevent a prophecy that she would give birth to a son who would become mightier than his father.

Who Holds the Future?  Ilya Sutskever or Donald Trump

02 Oct 2025 22 Comments

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

Introduction

Artificial Intelligence is rapidly becoming ubiquitous and indispensable.  Predictions as to the future of AI range between two extremes.  AI will save humanity and usher in a Golden Age for Mankind.  An age that will make the Greek Golden Age seem trivial.  Or AI will be a disruptive force that will destroy jobs, careers, and even possibly humanity itself.  AI may decide that humans are not fit to run the planet or even occupy the planet and destroy us all.  In a short story written by Isaac Asimov the robot “Machines” take control of the world’s economy to prevent larger-scale harm to humanity, effectively becoming benevolent dictators.  — “The Evitable Conflict” published in the June 1950 issue of  “Astounding Science Fiction”.

Humanity stands at a crossroads — between disruptive politics and transformative technology. In a world defined by both rapid innovation and deep polarization, we face a vital question: Who would you trust with the future of humanity? To make this comparison more relevant, I asked AI to compare  Illya Sutskever, a principal architect of AI with a famous politician and change agent named Donald J. Trump.  Who I asked would you trust to lead the world into a Golden Age?  A scientist devoted to artificial intelligence safety and long-term stewardship. Or a political leader whose decisions have already reshaped the course of nations.

The Scientist: Ilya Sutskever

Ilya Sutskever is one of the world’s foremost AI researchers, co-founder and former chief scientist of OpenAI. His fingerprints are on nearly every major breakthrough in modern machine learning, from neural networks to large-scale language models. But what sets him apart is not just his technical brilliance; it is his insistence on responsibility.

Sutskever has consistently raised the alarm about artificial intelligence’s risks even as he helped build it. He launched initiatives like the ‘superalignment’ program to ensure AI develops in ways aligned with human values. His focus is global, long-term, and deeply rooted in the idea that technology should serve all of humanity, not just a privileged few.

Strengths: Visionary scientific leadership, deep technical expertise, focus on ethics and safety.

Weaknesses: Limited experience in political power or mass governance — he is a scientist, not a statesman.

The Politician: Donald Trump

Donald Trump is a businessman, media personality, and the 45th and 47th President of the United States of America. His political career was built on disruption, fueled by populist energy and a call to “Make America Great Again.” Trump’s influence is undeniable — he has reshaped U.S. politics, polarized public opinion, and left a global footprint.

Trump’s leadership style emphasizes short-term wins, tariffs, deregulation, privatization and the cultivation of a devoted base of followers. His strengths lie in mobilizing large movements, overturning political norms, and playing the government against itself to gain power. Yet his weaknesses are just as clear: division, authoritarian leanings, and a lack of sustained focus on long-term global challenges such as climate change, biodiversity loss, or the existential risks posed by advanced technologies.

Strengths: Mass influence, political disruption, ability to redefine public discourse.

Weaknesses: Polarization, shortsighted policies, limited engagement with humanity’s long-term survival.

Who Shapes a Golden Era?

A Golden Era for humanity will not emerge by accident. It will require a careful balance of technological progress, ethical governance, and global cooperation. When viewed through this lens, the contrast between Sutskever and Trump becomes stark.

Sutskever embodies foresight, responsibility, and global vision. He seeks to anticipate risks and guide innovation toward the benefit of all people. Trump, by contrast, embodies short-termism, nationalism, and the pursuit of power within narrower frames of identity and allegiance.

If humanity is to enter a Golden Era, it will be through leaders — whether scientists, statesmen, or citizens — who prioritize humanity’s collective survival and flourishing. By this measure, Sutskever represents a far more trustworthy custodian of humanity’s future.

Conclusion

In the end, the comparison between Ilya Sutskever and Donald Trump is more than a contest between two men. It is a mirror reflecting the choices before us. Do we trust science, foresight, and global stewardship to guide our future? Or do we entrust it to populist power, divisive politics, and short-term advantage?

My verdict is clear: Ilya Sutskever, despite his limitations, is far more likely to help usher in a Golden Era for humanity than Donald Trump. His orientation toward long-term global survival and progress positions him as a steward of humanity’s tomorrow, not just today.

And yet, this question is not just about Sutskever or Trump. It is about all of us. Humanity’s future will be shaped by which path we choose — the path of foresight and cooperation, or the path of division and short-term gain.

Which path do you choose? A Golden Age just for America or a Golden Age for the Whole World?

Reflections on Humanism: A Father and Daughter in Conversation

26 Sep 2025 19 Comments

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

This year, after my 42nd silent retreat at Demontreville, I found myself reflecting over a different kind of lesson — one not from the retreat master, but from a conversation with my daughter.

My daughter Chris and I could hardly be further apart politically.  I lean toward policies that support immigrants, the poor, minorities, and the sick.  She supports Trump and the Republican agenda, which I believe diminishes those very groups.  Our conversation was brief, but it revealed something that I have been mulling over ever since.

When it comes to personal interactions, my daughter is tactful, gracious, and considerate.  She knows how to get along with people, soften conflict, and maintain civility.  I, by contrast, am often blunt and confrontational.  When I disagree, I rarely hide it.  I leave enemies in my wake since I have little tolerance for greed and immoral people.  She accuses me of being harsh, even inhumane, in my manner.

And yet, when I step back, I see an irony.  My brusque words are often in service of a vision of justice for the many.  Her gentle tone exists alongside a commitment to policies that, in practice, withdraw support from those most in need.  In fact, the Trumpian policies she supports will result in starvation, disease and death for millions.

This tension raises a deeper question: what does it mean to be a true humanist?

Is it the ability to show kindness in the moment, face-to-face, even if one’s broader commitments bring harm to many unseen lives?  Or is it the willingness to fight for systemic justice, even if the style of delivery offends, unsettles, or disturbs?

I think of Christ, who could be gentle with the broken and the poor, yet fierce with the powerful and the hypocritical.  He healed with a touch, but he also overturned tables.  His humanity was both intimate and systemic.

Perhaps that is the lesson I am being given now.  Humanism is not one thing.  It asks us to be kind in the small circle of our relationships but also bold in the larger circle of society.  Without the first, justice grows cold.  Without the second, kindness becomes complicity.

I wonder if my daughter and I — so different in politics, so different in style — are each holding half of a larger truth.

Yinandyang GIFs | Tenor

Who and What is Really Running America Now?

04 Sep 2025 11 Comments

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

Since the beginning of the Trump phenomenon (around about 2014), I have been wondering how anyone like Trump could have garnered so much support from his many fans, from Republicans, from sycophantic politicians, from rich oligarchs and from all spectrums of American demographics including young, middle aged, old, and even minorities.  How could a person who is so shallow, callous, bigoted and uninformed be leading a movement to destroy Democracy in America.  A man aided by millions of others willing to help him overthrow the ideas, beliefs and institutions that this country was founded upon.  It is question that has perplexed me for many sleepless nights.  I decided to use the power of AI to delve deeper into the issue.  I wrote and then submitted the following query to ChatGPT 5.0

Here is a difficult issue. America is obviously very polarized between those who seem bent on rolling back the clock and canceling many programs and benefits that seemed to help and those people who want to keep these programs. The CDC is one agency that has been targeted for cuts as well as the FDA and EPA. All organizations with programs designed to protect people. It appears as though these changes all come from the White House and the Republican Party. Some people say they are using plan 2025 as a blueprint for the changes being made. Frankly, I have a hard time believing that any politician or political groups are solely responsible for these changes. It looks to me like there must be more than the Heritage Foundation or Hudson Institute behind these plans. Can you find any major influencers in the USA who are bent on destroying democracy in favor of an autocracy? Or who want to do away with rule by the majority in favor of rule by an elite. I would like to know who are the major drivers and brains behind the changes going on and being made since the start of Trumpism?”

The following is the answer I received from AI in response to the above query. 

ChatGPT 5.0

You’re absolutely right to question the notion that any major shift—especially those threatening democratic norms—could be driven solely by one think tank or political party. While the Republican Party and its allies in the White House may be the most visible agents of change, scholars, journalists, and watchdogs have traced much of the intellectual fuel behind these transformations to a broader network of elite actors, think tanks, strategists, and influential theorists.

Here’s a breakdown of key players and ideas shaping the push toward autocratic‑leaning governance in the U.S.:

Think Tanks & Strategic Blueprints

Project 2025 (The Heritage Foundation and Allies)

  • Origin & Scope: Published in April 2023 by the Heritage Foundation, Project 2025 (or the “2025 Presidential Transition Project”) is a 920‑page policy and personnel blueprint aimed at consolidating executive power, gutting checks and balances, restructuring or eliminating federal agencies like CDC, FDA, and more Wikipedia+6Wikipedia+6Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren+6.
  • Impact on Agencies: It proposes splitting and weakening agencies like the CDC, altering FDA procedures, shifting funding away from NIH, and conditioning federal support on political loyalty American Public Health AssociationCongresswoman Zoe Lofgren.
  • Public Opposition: Advocates such as the ACLU and organizations like Democracy Forward warn the plan is extremist and risks dismantling democratic safeguards Democracy Forward+1.

Kevin Roberts – Chief Architect

  • Often referred to as the “mastermind” behind Project 2025, Kevin Roberts serves as its chief strategist. Critics argue the initiative would effectively enable an imperial presidency by dismantling institutional checks American Civil Liberties Union+4Wikipedia+4Wikipedia+4.

Intellectual Influencers: Philosophers of Autocracy

Curtis Yarvin (aka “Mencius Moldbug”)

  • Ideas: Yarvin advocates replacing democracy with a corporate-style autocracy—think CEO-monarch—governed by a “board.” He coined “The Cathedral” to critique media and academia’s role in upholding liberal norms The New Yorker+2The Times of India+2.
  • Influence: His views have influenced high-profile tech magnates and political figures, including J.D. Vance, Michael Anton, and possibly Steve Bannon. He was even an informal guest of honor at Trump’s 2025 inaugural gala Wikipedia+1.
  • Public Profile: The New Yorker and The Guardian have highlighted his elevated role in mainstreaming authoritarian ideas The GuardianThe New YorkerThe Times of India.

Corporate and Mega-Donor Backing

  • Claremont Institute: Far from the lone voice, this think tank has become a central ideological hub for the movement, backed by mega-donors such as the DeVos family, Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, and Sarah Scaife Foundation. Their fellows and affiliates—like John Eastman—were involved in efforts to overturn the 2020 election Monthly Review.
  • Tech Powers: Billionaires like Peter Thiel, Elon Musk, and Vivek Ramaswamy are described as the “masters of the universe” supporting the broader political project. Thiel, notably, has said he no longer believes freedom and democracy are compatible Monthly Review.

Autocracy Across Borders

  • Viktor Orbán’s Influence: Hungary’s populist‑authoritarian leader has become a model for some American conservatives. His strategy parallels Project 2025 in structure and aims, and Hungarian think tanks and institutes are reportedly helping shape U.S. right-wing thinking Le Monde.fr.

Summary of Key Drivers

Role Key Figures & Entities
Think Tank / Blueprint Heritage Foundation (Project 2025), Kevin Roberts
Ideological Advisers Curtis Yarvin (Mencius Moldbug), Claremont Institute thinkers
Financial Backers DeVos family, Bradley Foundation, Scaife Foundation, Peter Thiel, Elon Musk, etc.
Transatlantic Influences Viktor Orbán and related Hungarian institutions

These forces are intertwined: think tanks craft the blueprint (Project 2025), ideological influencers provide theoretical cover (Yarvin), mega-donors fund and amplify (DeVos, Thiel), and foreign models inspire strategy (Orbán).

Broader Implications

  • Beyond a Single Party: While the GOP and Trump administration may be enacting these changes, the intellectual and financial network behind the shift is vast—cross-sector and multi-layered.
  • Threats to Governance: Experts warn that this structure—centralizing power, dismantling agencies, appointing loyalists—poses a real risk to democratic norms and the balance of powers Wikipedia+4Wikipedia+4AFGE+4Monthly Review+4The New Yorker+4The Times of India+4Monthly Review.
  • What’s at Stake: Independent institutions like CDC and FDA are vulnerable to both funding cuts and structural reorganization, which activists say imperils public health and democracy alike.

Conclusions:

I shared the above with a good friend and he was astounded.  It was hard for him to believe that anyone brought up on the American Dream could support an anti-democratic president and his sycophantic followers.  Indeed, thousands of people perhaps more like millions of people in America do not believe in the goals and ideals of our Founding Fathers.  The truth is that there has always been a fascist anti-intellectual and anti-democratic core of people in this country who have no dream of a democracy.  People who would substitute an autocratic and even fascist leader to run the country.  A leader (now in office) who even as I write this is bending to the whims of the men and women who want to destroy the dreams that made America great.

There is no “MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN.”  This motto is a lie designed to deceive Americans.  The goal is to destroy the dream of a society where Truth and Justice and Equality would prevail for all people.  The people behind this effort do not believe in democracy for the simple reason that they think you and I and millions of other Americans are too stupid to run this country.  They want an oligarchy of the rich and powerful to rule.  The job for the rest of us will be to work ourselves to death to make money to buy the crap that they sell on Madison Avenue, TV, Radio and mainstream newspapers.  Crap that every day they work to shove down our throats.  The more stuff you buy, the richer our Lords will be.  The elitist rulers of America will have the box seats to everything in life while you and I will get to hold the door open for them to enter.

“I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but inform their discretion.”
—Thomas Jefferson, 1820

 

Why Democrats Lost — and What They Must Do Next

24 Aug 2025 15 Comments

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

Robert Reich and I have at least one thing in common.  He hates bullies and so do I.  In his most recent book, “Coming Up Short”, he talks about how he had to deal with bullies because he was so short.  My dad was 6’4” tall and could often be a bully.  I had enough abuse from him growing up that I also came to hate bullies.  I had many fights when I was younger where I defended either myself or equally often other people physically against bullies.  Robert Reich points out that one major reason for Trump’s popularity is that he is a Bullie’s Bully.   Millions of Americans who have been bullied by an unjust system of economics, education, justice, health care and government see Trump as their protector or even savior.  Reich notes:

“A large portion of America has felt bullied and harassed for decades. They’ve worked their asses off but haven’t gotten anywhere. Employers have fired them without cause or notice, made them into contract workers without any security or rights, spied on them during working hours, and otherwise treated them like children.

They’ve been bullied by landlords who keep hiking their rent. By banks that keep adding large fees to whatever they owe. By health insurers and hospitals that charge them an arm and a leg. By corporate grocery monopolies that push up food prices.

Many of them voted for Trump because he promised he’d be their bully. He blamed others — immigrants, people of color, transgender people, foreign traders — for what they endured. He thereby found scapegoats for their deep feelings of powerlessness, vulnerability, and shame. It’s one of the oldest of demagogic tricks.

Democrats could have put the blame where it belonged — on monopolistic corporations and billionaires that abused their wealth and power by taking over our politics.

Democrats could have demanded higher taxes on big corporations and the wealthy to pay for childcare and eldercare. Tougher antitrust laws to break up monopolies. Labor law reforms that made it easier for workers to form unions and gain bargaining power. Universal health care. Strict regulation of big banks so they couldn’t shaft average people. And an end to big money in our politics.

But they have not — not loudly, not with one voice, not with the clarity the people need to hear.” — Robert Reich 8/24/25

The 2024 election is already being dissected in books and think-tank reports, but the clearest story is this: Democrats misread the electorate as well as deserted the electorate.  Caught up in arguments over gender identify, abortion rights and WOKE manifestos, the Democrats preached to a crowd with more important concerns on their minds.  Jefferson said that Democracy was a rule of the majority with a concern for the minority.  Democrats have reversed his message.  They now practice a rule for the minority with little or no concern for the majority. 

They believed that campaigning on democracy and abortion rights would be enough to hold the White House.  Those are vital issues, but voters were telling pollsters something else — they were worried most about the price of groceries, rent, and gas.  In swing districts, immigration and border control loomed even larger.  By downplaying those concerns, Democrats left the playing field wide open for Republicans.

Validated voter studies show that turnout favored 2020 Trump voters.  Younger and non-white men — groups Democrats once counted on — swung toward Republicans in significant numbers.  Many of these voters wanted practical answers on wages, security, and fairness.  They didn’t get them.

So, what must Democrats do if they hope to regain the House, Senate, or Presidency?  Three steps stand out.  

First, make the economy the front page of their campaigns, with plain talk about jobs, housing, and cost of living.  Find people who can speak the language of the average American and not in a voice only understood by Ph.D. graduates.  I am often bewildered by the terminology that some of the Democrats throw out.  Yesterday, I learned that the new vocabulary for “homeless” people is now “unhoused” people.  Do the Democrats really think this is going to make a difference to the people living in cardboard boxes throughout America? 

When I look at the new head of the Democratic National Committee (Ken Martin), I see a man who exemplifies everything that is wrong with the Democrats.  If his bio on Wikipedia is to be believed, Ken never did a day’s physical labor in his life (At least not in any paid position.) What makes this an even more grievous fact, is that he was given this position after Harris’s loss to Trump.  I doubt a guy with his background has any clue about the problems of the working class in America.  By the way, I am sure Ken is a nice guy, a good husband and a good father.  But that is not going to get Democrats elected.

Second, develop a credible immigration strategy that pairs border security with fair reforms.  Like it or not, immigration has been a major issue for Americans because as Reich noted, both parties have demonized immigrants as vulgar, uncouth, criminals who only want to take jobs away from legal Americans.  This is not an unusual state of affairs.  Even Benjamin Franklin had his biases when it came to immigrants.  Many of these changed over time as Ben observed the habits and ethics of other immigrant groups to the colonies. 

I have said we need a “fair immigration policy” and not an “anti-immigration policy.”  A number of years ago (at least seven) I wrote a series of blogs on the subject of immigration as I could witness it down here in Arizona.  You might say that we are on the front lines of immigration and have a long history of immigration.  The land I now live on was once part of Mexico until the Gadsden Purchase in 1853.  Some of my neighbors have history going back to Mexico over two hundred years.  See my blogs:

Third, speak in everyday language.  Too often Democrats rely on insider jargon that alienates working families.  Like it or not, most Democrats have become associated with the idea of PC or political correctness.  I am no enemy of using terminology that minorities and others find more respectful and less insulting.  However, some of the PC efforts have become ludicrous and only help to make the Democrats laughing stocks and open to scorn from the very people they need to help support them.  Here are a few examples:

  1. The use of “people experiencing food insecurity”

In May 2025, a debate over language use within the Democratic party was highlighted by the Washington Post.  One specific example given was referring to individuals as “people experiencing food insecurity” instead of the more direct phrase “people going hungry” or maybe even people “starving to death”!

  1. The replacement of gendered terms like “spokesman”

The movement towards gender-neutral language has led to the replacement of many words to avoid implying a specific gender, regardless of the individual’s identity.  For instance, the term “spokesperson” is often used instead of “spokesman” or “spokeswoman.”  I have a problem remembering which words to use.  Should I say fireman or fireperson?  Should I say postman or postperson?  Should I say fisherman or fisherperson?  Of course I do not want to offend anybody, so the only answer is to say nothing?  Or should I check with each fisherperson first to see what they prefer?  How do you say fisherperson in Spanish?

  1. “Person of color” (POC) instead of “minority”

Some find the term “POC” to be an overly broad and imprecise label that lumps together many distinct racial and ethnic groups, despite its progressive origins.  I am concerned about this label since I have always thought that being a White person I had some color.  I realize that many people see White people as more pink hued than white, but pink is still a color even if I do not like the idea of being a Pink person. 

In Conclusion:

Democrats do not need to abandon values of equality and freedom.  They need to marry those values to tangible solutions that the average people can feel in their daily lives.  They need to drop some of the bullshit that makes everyone think of them as WIMPS.  They need to fight and not keep talking about “hands” across the aisle.  When someone punches me in the face, I do not hand them a rose.  If Democrats want a path back to governing majorities they are going to have to:

  • Walk like the majority
  • Talk like the majority
  • Act like the majority

As long as Democrats insist on being isolated people who live in expensive mansions and go to exclusive Ivy League colleges,  they will not have a chance to get back into power.  Don’t tell me about their good intentions.  As the saying goes “The road to hell is paved with good intentions.” — Saint Bernard of Clairvaux (1090–1153)

 

What is Wrong with the Democratic Party Is Even Worse Now Than It Was Seven Years Ago!

17 Aug 2025 14 Comments

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

night mare

I wrote this blog seven years ago on Jan 21, 2018.  Not much has really changed with the Democrats except that Trump was re-elected.  I was an independent then and I remain an independent now.  My biggest attitude change is that I see MOST Democrats as clueless and an impediment to the changes many of us want in America.  I am not talking about the devasting and disastrous policies of our present so-called leader.  I am talking about a set of policies that will build on the true American Dream for a Democratic nation founded on a separation of church and state and equally concerned for the minorities in the country as well as the majorities.  A country where no one will tolerate constant wars with other countries much less a war between the haves and the have nots in our own nation.

Recently such people as Robert Reich, James Hightower, Bernie Sanders and many others even in the Democratic Party have echoed the sentiments which I noted seven years ago.  I called it a party of cowards with no vision for the future and totally beholden to corporate money.  I am not talking about the Republican party.  My only defense for voting for Hillary, Biden and Harris is that I saw them as the “lesser” of two evils.  It is a sorry state of affairs when millions of Americans either see no reason to vote or must choose between the lesser of two evils.

I have made very few changes in my original blog.  Where noted my changes will be in {  } and in bold lettering.  Lets start off then seven years ago:

January 21, 2018

It’s been a year now since the bad dream or worst nightmare in the history of this country burst upon us.  For many of us, we still cannot believe it happened.  Never in America has a man with so little character and absolutely no qualifications to be president been elected to this office.  In my lifetime, I have seen several presidents whom I did not think were good presidents.  Nixon and Ford come to mind.  I thought Clinton should have been impeached over the Lewinsky thing.  I thought Reagan’s Star Wars Initiative was the height of stupidity.  Neither of the wars started by either Bush did one thing to make America or the world safer.  But the new president takes stupidity, arrogance and downright evil to new heights.  Every day, Americans wake up to a Trump tweet declaring our hatred and belligerence to the rest of the world.  If there was ever a great depression, it is the feelings that many Americans now share about the fate of their country.  {This last statement may be the truest thing I have ever said}

I wanted to start a blog this week without going into another political diatribe or rant as some would call them.  I know we all get tired of the unremitting bad news from the papers, radios, TV, Internet and incessant analysts that surround us like flies on poop.  Bad news sells and in our 24/7 daily schedule of unceasing commercial bombardment, we now must hear bad news from any part of the world and not just our own local geography.   If a mother murders her babies in Angola, we will see it on the front page of our local news.  If a young woman is raped in France, we will be treated to a torrent of trending stories until they get tired of the story or catch the perpetrator.  News is now not only 24/7, it is global as well.

Shortly after Trump was elected, the analysts started to figure out why Hillary lost.  {Now they are trying to figure out why Harris lost}  I think I counted over 20 different rationales for Hillary losing.  Everyone had their theory.  The idea of multiple causality seems to have eluded many as each pundit hawked their own explanation.  I won’t bore you by subjecting you to the list.  In a complex answer, each of these theories would be weighted and we would find that some carried more weight then others.  Among the weightier was the issue of racism.  Nevertheless, no single cause contributed entirely to Hillary’s defeat.

One issue is still important today.  There is no longer any reason to worry about Hillary’s email server or about her seeming lack of warmth.  These problems are water under the bridge.  The problem though that is still substantial and that must be addressed concerns the problems within the Democratic Party itself.  {Even more true today than seven years ago.}  If the Democrats want to regain their former influence with Americans, they must do more than fight Trumpism.  They must also stand for something.  The Democrats may be looking better today {This is a real big maybe.}  but that is only because the Republicans and Trump look so bad.  The Democrats were once seen as the party of the working class and the champions of the underprivileged.  They clearly lost this mantle in the years leading up to the Trump debacle.  The Democrat Party has three big challenges:

  1. Moral cowardice
  2. New ideas and creativity
  3. Championing all classes as well as the working class

quote-a-coward-is-incapable-of-exhibiting-love-it-is-the-prerogative-of-the-brave-mahatma-gandhi-10-58-44

Moral Cowardice:

John F. Kennedy wrote a book called Profiles in Courage.   It was about senators who defied the opinions of their party and constituents to do what they felt was right and suffered severe criticism and losses in popularity.  One of the famous stories in Profiles in Courage concerned Senator Sam Houston.  He was pulled from a train by an angry mob of constituents and threatened to be hanged because of his vote.  He steadfastly faced the mob and explained why he voted the way he did and why he would do so again.  Stories like this are rare and while that makes them inspirational, it also makes them sad.

We have a US Senate with 100 members and a US House with over 400 members.  On any given day, most of these men and women are more concerned with their poll numbers than what is good for the America people.  Partisanship has become the norm in Congress with both sides mutely aping their leadership’s call to “back their party.”

I remember well the drum beat to the first Iraq War called Desert Storm in 1990.  A year before the invasion, I could hear the calls going out for an Iraqi Invasion.  I looked for some logic for this war but could not find it.  I waited for my political leaders to counter Bush’s need for an invasion.  Almost everyone in Congress sat mutely by while Bush and his cohorts planned the invasion.  Gradually, they found more and more reasons to invade Iraq.  Gradually, the religious leaders jumped on board to support the administration.  Billy Graham declared it a justified war and held hands with George H. W. Bush while he pretended to agonize over his already foregone decision.  And still I waited and wondered why so few Democratic leaders challenged this war.  Where were the Democrats?

The Second Gulf War was not a repeat of the First Gulf War.  It was an even worse unmitigated disaster.  Trillions of dollars spent, and nothing accomplished except to make some private war contractors rich.  Where were the Democrats?  They seemed to be out looking with the Republicans for the so-called Weapons of Mass Destruction that Saddam had supposedly stockpiled.

I had a button many years ago that said on one side “Democrats: The Party of Wimps” and on the other side “Republicans: The Party of Greed.”  I do not know who printed this button but thirty years ago, the writing on the wall was clear.  The Democratic Doves feared the Republican Hawks.  Better to be labeled a Hawk than a Dove.  The term liberal was once a term of pride but under the Democrats it became associated with wasteful spending and half-baked solutions to social problems.  Bleeding heart liberal has now become a term despised by all.

creative-and-innovative-thinking-skills-4-728

New Ideas and Creativity:

I live in two counties.  Both are predominantly Red Republican strongholds today.  However, my county in Wisconsin was once a Democratic stronghold.  Wisconsin was once a great bastion of Democratic ideas.  It was a state that was proud to have produced such champions of the underdog as Fighting Bob La Follette, William Proxmire and Senator Gaylord Nelson.  If anyone had ever told me that Wisconsin would have gone Red, I would have said they were crazy.

Now many of my “old” friends and many of my acquaintances in Wisconsin (A state I have lived in on and off for nearly twenty years now) are old line Democrats.  I confess I would rather have Democrats for friends than Republicans these days.  We share many of the same values even though I have never and will never be a card-carrying member of the Democratic Party or any other party.  I take pride in voting as an independent and not someone mindlessly following some party.

I have been each year for the past seven years to the local county Democratic Fundraisers.  Each year, I have listened to Democratic speakers who are jostling for political positions with hopes of defeating the Republican incumbents.  In some cases, more recently they have succeeded.   I can only hope this trend will continue but I am dubious.  My skepticism comes from looking at the people I see running.  Generally, they are well intentioned.  Some might even have the moral courage I want to see in leadership.  However, too many of the candidates that I have seen are either stuck in ideas from the past or lack new ideas that would bring some creativity and innovation to the Democratic Party.

Our political system not only needs new people, we need new ideas.  The same old ideas that worked in the past will not work in the future.  We need forward looking people that can challenge the existing system by promoting innovative ideas that do more than just support the status quo.  Our education system, our health care system, our prison system, our military system, our legal system, our infrastructure system and even our electoral system are all in need of more than reform.  They all need a complete restructuring.  These were systems designed for the 19th and 20th Century.  We need systems for the 21st and 22nd Century.  It is folly to think that simple reforms or piece meal patches to these systems will fix the blight and decay endemic in them.

I see too few of the emerging Democratic leaders as having a vision beyond fighting Trumpism.  That is clearly a start, but we need more than just reaction to Trump we need pro-action in our politics.  We need positive ideas.  We need new ideas.  Good intentions are not enough.

{On Tuesday of this week (August 11,2025) I had a meeting with one of the local officials of the Pinal County Democratic Party.  I wanted to show her how AI could be used in the upcoming mid-term elections to help sharpen focus and elect more progressive candidates.  I was still hoping that since she was a newbie to the leadership, she might be open to some new ideas.  Less than five minute into my synopsis of how AI (See the end of this blog for AI political information) could be used; she stopped me and said “Sorry, but I think AI is unethical.”  I jumped back in and admitted that it did use huge amounts of energy but I retorted “True, it absorbs a great deal of electricity but if we do not elect some forward thinking candidates we won’t have any energy to worry about.”}  

{“The Republicans with their denial of climate change and Trump with his dismantling of the EPA and clean energy will have destroyed the world as we know it.”  She was unfazed and replied that “She had her ethics and that was all there was to it.”  End of story.  I parted company with her and realized that it was futile talking to her.  I give you this brief story which is 100 percent true as just one illustration of what is wrong with the Democratic Party.  A party that seems stuck in the past and wondering why they are losing races and no one wants to be associated with them.}

20140201_USD001_1

Championing All Classes as well as the Working Class:

Once upon a time, the Democratic Party was known as the champions of the working class.  They stood up for unions, higher wages, income parity and equal opportunity.  The working class was once the class of high school graduates.  Today, more than one-third of the adult population in the United States has a bachelor’s degree or higher.  The average earnings in 2016 for those ages 25 and older whose highest educational attainment was high school were $35,615.  The average earnings for those with a bachelor’s degree were $65,482 compared with $92,525 for those with an advanced degree (Census.Gov).  The composition of the American workforce has undergone a long evolution from the agricultural era though the industrial revolution to the new information era.  Definition of working class has continued to change as social structure has changed in the age of computers and the Internet.

As educational levels continued to increase, aspirations by Americans continued to increase.  Whereas once perhaps most Americans saw belonging to a union and retiring with a pension after 30 plus years to be the epitome of working life, that vision became obsolete.  The typical worker today sees themselves as a college educated salaried worker whose interests are more aligned with their company then with any union.

My father worked for the Post Office for over 30 years before retiring.  He never thought it was a fun job or an interesting job.  For my father, it was a job that paid the bills, had good benefits and would enable him to retire with a good pension.  My father’s aspirations and attitudes towards work were like most of his generation.  The idea of being passionate about your work would have been a joke to my father and his peers.  Times have changed dramatically.  Workers today want to believe in their work and their companies.  Workers want their jobs to be challenging, rewarding and fun.  The old days of waiting to enjoy life until you retire are dead.

The workers in America are different than they were twenty or thirty years ago.  The Democrats forfeited their allegiance to the American worker and allowed the Republicans to become the champions of the American worker.  From coal miners to computer programmers, from trailer parks to gated communities across America, once proud Democrats have become Republicans.  The sad part of the story is that the Democrats did not seem to raise a finger to stop the migration.  They did little or nothing to prevent it from happening.  They allowed the Republicans to become the standard bearer of wealth and prosperity.

Unfortunately, few workers realized that their Republican champions were more about privileges for the elite than sharing the wealth.  Or that gains for the upper class would come at the expense of other classes in this country.  The concept of Trickle Down is alive and well in the Republican Party.

Conclusions: 

Democrats need to build a new party.  Trumpism is a short-term aberration.  {I don’t believe that this is true anymore.  Trump might be short-term, but Trumpism should be a synonym for the Republican Party.}  Euphoria might be high right now for Democrats who see Trump as the best thing to ever happen for Democratic candidates.  With one of the lowest popularity ratings of any president in history, Trump will help insure a wave of Democratic Party victories.  However, it can be nothing but short-sighted folly to mistake the present disgust for Trump with a disgust for Republican principles in general.  The Republican Party became strong because they offered the American people a vision of society which promised a better life for millions of them.  Unless Democrats can come up with a compelling vision of society that addresses a wide spectrum of workers, the Republicans will regain power once their debacle with Trump is over.  {Actually they regained power despite ther 2020 debacle with Biden.  One could easily lay the blame for this on Biden and the Democratic Power Structure.}

“However [political parties] may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.”  — GEORGE WASHINGTON, Farewell Address, September 19, 1796

“If a political party does not have its foundation in the determination to advance a cause that is right and that is moral, then it is not a political party; it is merely a conspiracy to seize power.” — DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER, speech, March 6, 1956

AI for Democracy: Smart Tools to Strengthen Progressive Wins in Pinal County

Goal

Leverage Artificial Intelligence to:

  • Counter authoritarian messaging
  • Engage and mobilize voters
  • Support fact-based, progressive policies
  1. Data-Driven Voter Outreach
  • Predictive Targeting – Use AI models to identify persuadable voters and low-turnout supporters for focused engagement.
  • Issue Mapping – Match voters with the issues they care about most (e.g., healthcare, climate, reproductive rights).
  • Turnout Propensity Scores – Prioritize outreach to those most likely to vote if contacted.
  1. Rapid Response to Misinformation
  • Real-Time Monitoring – AI scans local social media and forums for emerging false narratives.
  • Fast Rebuttal Drafting – Automated content library to push out fact-checks in plain language.
  • Local Storytelling – Quickly create sharable, people-first content showing the impact of progressive policies.
  1. Volunteer Empowerment
  • AI Chatbots – Handle volunteer signups, FAQs, and event reminders.
  • Route Optimization – Maximize canvassing efficiency with AI-generated walking/driving maps.
  • Virtual Training – Simulated voter interactions for canvassers to practice persuasive conversations.
  1. Personalized Communications
  • Smart Messaging – AI crafts personalized emails/texts based on voter interests.
  • Multilingual Outreach – Translate campaign materials into Spanish and other key languages (with human review).
  • Micro-Videos – Short, tailored clips for TikTok, Instagram, and Facebook audiences.
  1. Building Trust in Democracy
  • AI Listening Tools – Analyze community discussions to guide messaging and policy focus.
  • Civic Media Creation – Produce short podcasts, radio spots, and graphics with clear, local facts.
  • Moderated Virtual Town Halls – Keep online conversations civil, focused, and inclusive.

Ethics & Safeguards

  • Transparency about AI use
  • Protect voter data privacy
  • Avoid deepfakes or manipulative falsehoods
  • Focus on truth, empathy, and community building

Bottom Line:
AI is not about replacing human judgment — it’s about amplifying our ability to connect with voters, protect truth, and build a stronger, more inclusive democracy in Pinal County.

Debunking Bullshit Lies and Conspiracies – Barack H. Obama

05 Aug 2025 2 Comments

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

For the next several days, I am going to wade into some lies and/or conspiracies that were spread to discredit, dishonor and destroy some outstanding people.  If you are tired of hearing about stuff like this, than turn me off for the next week or two.  My intention is to publish one of these stories every few days.  I was motivated to do these stories by some discussions with Trump supporters.  I was amazed at the number of conspiracy theories they believed in that I knew were false.

I am not sure why more information never gets made public to debunk such lies.  It seems the mainstream media does nothing to help dispel the vicious slander and conspiracy theories that are spread about men and women.  People who have the courage to attack a corrupt system or withhold their support for a corrupt system.

Was Obama a US Citizen legally able to run for president?  What was behind the “birther” controversy?

Barack Obama was a U.S. citizen and legally eligible to run for president. He was born on August 4, 1961, in Honolulu, Hawaii, which had become a U.S. state in 1959—two years before his birth. Therefore, he was a natural-born U.S. citizen, which meets the constitutional requirement to serve as President.

What Was the “Birther” Controversy?

The “birther” movement was a conspiracy theory that falsely claimed Obama was not born in the United States and thus was ineligible to be president. Here’s a breakdown of the controversy:

  1. Origins

It began during Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign.

Some of the earliest claims came from fringe political activists and chain emails.

The theory suggested he was born in Kenya, his father’s homeland, and not Hawaii.

  1. Claims and Misinformation

Critics demanded Obama release his long-form birth certificate (he had already released a short-form certificate in 2008).

Despite this, the theory persisted, fueled by blogs, talk radio, and later Donald Trump, who became the most prominent figure promoting the claim from around 2011 onward.  Sadly, the mainstream media ate this bullshit up and helped spread it.  Trump rode the wave of crap to become a media celebrity with a vast number of supporters who were racist and xenophobid and wanted to believe this crap.  Almost all major studies showed that in the first trump election, racism played a major role in trump’s victory.  Some have said “MAGA” was a metaphor for make America White again.

  1. Proof and Rebuttal

In April 2011, Obama released his long-form birth certificate from the Hawaii Department of Health, confirming his Honolulu birth.

Multiple fact-checking organizations (e.g., FactCheck.org, Snopes, PolitiFact) and Hawaii officials confirmed its authenticity.

  1. Underlying Motivations

While it may have appeared to be a legal challenge, many observers and scholars argue the movement was racially and politically motivated:

It played on xenophobic and racist fears, implying that a Black man with a non-Anglo name was somehow “foreign.”

It undermined Obama’s legitimacy and authority, even after he was elected and serving.

Conclusions

The “birther” controversy was thoroughly debunked, but it had lasting effects. It sowed mistrust, polarized political discourse, and elevated conspiracy-based rhetoric in American politics. Barack Obama was and always has been a natural-born U.S. citizen and legally eligible to be President of the United States.

What America May Be Like in the Year 2056

28 Jul 2025 5 Comments

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

freedom-is-slavery

The following is an imaginary story I wrote back in January of 2017.  I wrote it at the start of the first trump administration.  I was reflecting on what life would be like in about 40 years under a Republican dominated government.  I just happened to come upon this blog again a few days ago.  After rereading it, I was surprised by how many of these things seem to be coming to pass under the “NEW” trump administration.  I have decided to publish it in the original without making ANY changes at all.  Love to hear your comments and what you think.  

———————————————————————————————————

I live in Republicanville USA.  It is a small town of about 1,500 people in the rural Midwest.  Today in my town, all the women are barefoot and pregnant and all the men are stupid and misinformed.  It wasn’t always this way.  Things started to change about 75 years ago, when Ronald Reagan became President.  My town had always been very progressive and liberal but we started hearing more and more about how we were being taken advantage of by the poor, those on government handouts and those too lazy to work.  The Republicans who in our town had always been a minority began to grow in numbers.  The more we heard about welfare cheats and welfare freeloaders and those on drugs taking advantage of us, the more my town embraced a new concept of democracy.  It was more like “every man or woman for themselves” rather than “all for one and one for all.”

obey-jesus-or-perish

Our U.S. democracy which had always prided itself on a separation of church and state seemed to forget the reason for this partition.  Increasingly, a group called Evangelical Fundamentalists became more popular along with their criticism of many progressive institutions.  Republicanville USA moved more and more to the right.  The concept of unbridled capitalism became enshrined as a religion and many people began opposing “big” government and taxes.  The Republican Party preached that the marketplace could provide for all social, physical and economic needs of U.S. citizens.  My town moved even further to the right.

trump-state-of-the-unionThis conservative trend was already well underway when in 2017, a billionaire real-estate developer named Donald Trump became the 45th President of the United States of America.  In addition to the hard core conservative beliefs of many mainstream Republicans, Trump added the once discredited idea of American Isolationism.  We would now put America first, no matter what.  No more negotiations with other nations unless it was clear that we got the better of the deal.  We would build a big wall to keep Mexicans and other immigrants out and we would renege on our trade deals with China and Europe.  About the only country that Trump liked was Russia.   Eventually, he agreed to give Alaska and parts of Canada back to Russia.

Trump came through on his promises to the Evangelicals that he would make America White again and put women back in the bedroom where it would be okay to grab their pussies whenever you wanted to.  Minorities were targeted for deportation and women libbers promoting abortion or equal rights for women were arrested in wholesale sweeps and sent to special detention centers for chronic complainers and protesters.

I would like to describe in somewhat more detail what my town is like now in 2056.  Things are a lot different than when I was born in 2017.  I will divide my discussion of these changes into three areas:  Family, Education and Social Issues.

Family:

another-day-in-paradiseI am 39 years old and have two children.  I have never worked (at least outside of the home) as women have not been allowed to work since 2022 when they passed the “Women in the Home Law” as it was popularly called.  The Federal government passed the law and it was ratified by every state and municipality in the nation.  Some places tried to hold out but the government cut off all funding to them until they capitulated.  This law effectively outlawed women working.  It also barred women from the military.  Ten years later (2032) they passed the “Mandatory Birth Act.”  This bill proscribes that every woman (physically able to) must give birth to at least two children.  Any woman who reaches the age of 32 and still has not given birth to two children is forcibly removed to a National Birthing Center where she will be artificially impregnated and kept confined until she has had at least two healthy children.  Sickly or unhealthy children are sent to Disposal Camps where they are “recycled” per official government propaganda.  No one is quite sure what happens during recycling but the children are never seen again.

Many gay women resisted the Mandatory Birth Act and the National Suicide Rate went up dramatically.  The “Fathers” (as our political leaders are now called) made it very clear that the country would be better off without such deviates.  Since women were no longer allowed in politics, the leaders of the nation decreed that they would all be called “Fathers” instead of being referred to as politicians or legislators as they once were called.

My husband works at a local mill where they make t-shirts for Japan, China, Brazil and some of the more developed t-shirt-workersnations.  Since banning imports of such items, we have created millions of jobs making goods that were once made in low wage countries.  The demand for such goods has skyrocketed but now we are providing them.  Unfortunately, the wages and education needed for such work is still low.  My husband did not finish high school but most men in our town do not.  The Fathers have repeatedly stated that real men don’t need higher education.  (I will talk more about education later.)

When my husband is not working, he spends most of his time watching football, baseball, basketball, golf or hockey.  I ammen-watching-game not allowed in the living room when his sports are on except to bring in some beer or chips.  This does not really bother me much as I have plenty to do with the kids, housecleaning, cooking and all.  I have my own TV in my sewing room where I can watch any of the approved programs for women.  We have 30 different “Women Only” channels where I can learn more about cooking and cleaning and how to be a good wife. There are some good romances and family drama stories that are occasionally on.  I look forward to watching these when the kids are in bed.

Our two children, Mary and John are 12 and 15 respectively.  Mary is in a finishing school for girls where they are preparing her for being a mom and wife.  She takes subjects such as homemaking, cooking, cleaning and parenting.  She has one more year to go before finishing school.

When Mary turns 14, she will be eligible for marriage.  Her name will be put in a marriage registry.  If she is lucky enough and pretty enough, some up and coming town Father will select her for a wife.  Men who qualify due to income levels are allowed to have up to five wives.

woman-vacuum-cleaning

My son John is not in school any longer and he works part-time.  The Fathers decried that girls did not need schooling after the age of 13.  John hopes to get a job in the t-shirt plant where his dad works when he turns 16.  He quit school because we could not afford a private school for him.  Only the rich kids in town go on to education beyond the 10th grade.  Private schools are very expensive and the Fathers do not believe in funding education any more.  It has been emphasized that education is an elitist program that creates class divisions and makes some people feel more entitled than other people.   Most young men in our town will work in one of the mills or plants.

Education:

anti_public_education_propaganda_by_8manderz8-d5xz1cj

I have already talked about some aspects of our education system today.  Basically, most people do not believe in higher education anymore.  It is only for the rich.  All funds for public education were cut in 2035 when they passed the “Private Education Act”.  Most folks now send their kids to private schools through the 8th grade and then find work for their children after that.  Girls will be shortly married so school is not thought to be that important for them anyway.  They can learn whatever they need to be a good wife on the “At Home Wives Channels.”

students-1920-1950-9_jpeg

Boys from families with lower incomes can opt to go to privately funded vocational schools to learn such trades as t-shirt making, sneaker making, jewelry making, gun repair, taxidermy, and many other skills that might be in demand.  There is still some funding for such programs that is available for lower income families.  All public colleges have been closed now.  As I noted earlier, such schools were decried to be elitist and the Fathers were unanimous in un-funding them.

Boys from wealthier families go to the more prestigious private schools where they will learn such skills as: Leadership, Accounting, Business Development, Entrepreneurship and Medicine.  Law was abolished as a field of study in 2030 with the passage of the “No More Lawyers Act.”  This act basically made lawsuits illegal thus dramatically decreasing the need for lawyers in the U.S.

Courtrooms abolished “adversarial” trial procedures with the “No More Lawyers Act” and replaced the old-fashioned method of two people arguing trials with modern Computerized Forensic Tomography.  Using CFT, a cross section of the case and evidence pro and con is presented to the jurors.  All the available facts and data are reviewed and jurors vote on the verdict.  Trials are much more efficient and there is no need for lawyers.

Anti EducationLibraries are now mostly museums.  With the passage of the “Books Only Lie Bill” in 2038, all funds to public libraries were cut.  The Fathers decried that books did nothing but cause trouble and stir up discontent.  Anything citizens really needed to know could be found on the “Citizens Channels” offered by the government Department of Public Wisdom.  There are over 100 of these channels which are available on public TV.  They are on 24/7 and offer many programs for good citizenship.  Some of the programs are:

  • Disciplining your children
  • How to take proper care of your guns
  • Disciplining your wife
  • Obeying your supervisor
  • Getting along with co-workers
  • Obeying authority
  • Keeping a clean house

Social Issues:

Social issues or problems (as some people thought of them) have been mostly eliminated in our town.  Our Fathers banned minorities in 2040 with the “America for Whites Act.”  Under this act, no immigrants or people of color can live in the same community as White people.  In 2041, they passed the “Christian Only Act” making Christianity the official Religion of the USA.  All other religions were banned along with atheism and agnosticism.  The “Mandatory Religion Act” in 2042 made it a felony crime not to attend a Christian church every Sunday.

In our town, there is only one church now.  It the Fundamental Evangelical Christian Church for Christ.  We have two pastors who are both well versed in Old Testament theology.  They are fond of saying that “Heaven is for the obedient, the disobedient will all go to hell.”  We are taught that Jesus will come again before the end of the century to judge the living and the dead.  The good folks will go to heaven and the bad will burn forever in the flames of hell.

We still have crime in our community but not very much.  It is severely punished with public floggings, beatings and hangings.  Criminals are banished to work rehabilitation camps for hard labor.  Drugs are still a major problem but the new “One Strike Act” passed in 2050 decried that anyone caught with an illegal substance would face a mandatory life sentence at a penal colony somewhere in the South China Sea.

immigration-reform

Gay men still can be found but homosexuality can be punished under the “2045 Purity of Purpose Bill” with mandatory castration.  Boys are encouraged to be manly and any evidence of femininity in our boys is severely dealt with.  Our town brought back “town stocks” a few years ago, to punish any boys or men caught in homosexual activities.  These punishments plus the threat of castration have decreased the rate of homosexuality considerably in our community.

Well, I could tell you a great deal more about life in our town in 2056, but I have cleaning and cooking to do.  Furthermore, if anyone knew I was writing this I would be in big trouble.  Under the “Against Propaganda Law” passed in 2041, no one may criticize the government, any Fathers or any laws without official authorization from the local town council.  I could be publicly flogged or worse for saying these things.  Thus, for now I will just hide this away.  I don’t mean to be either a coward or a complainer.  Our Fathers say this is the Golden Age of America and that we are living in the greatest Christian country in the world.  Who am I to argue?

Time for Questions:

Are you living the good life?  Do you live the life you dreamed of?  Do you think you have a right to your dreams?  Do you think other people also have a right to their dreams?  How much authority do you think a government should have over your dreams?  What kind of dreams do you have for your children?  What do you call progress?

Life is just beginning.

“No one believes more firmly than Comrade Napoleon that all animals are equal.  He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves.  But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?”  ― George Orwell, Animal Farm

What Would Thomas Jefferson, Samuel Adams and Thomas Paine Say if They Were Alive Today?  Opinions Expressed by ChatGPT!

12 Jul 2025 12 Comments

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


I often wake up at night pondering the imponderable.  A few nights ago, I woke up wondering what my favorite Founding Father would think about things today if he were alive.  I refer to Thomas Jefferson who despite much of his hypocrisy, I still admire very much for his intellectual foundations of democracy.  Thus, I got out of bed and decided to see what ChatGPT would think about this question.  While I was at it, I included queries for Samuel Adams and Thomas Paine whom I also admire very much.  I put the following query to ChatGPT.

In 500 words or less, what would Thomas Jefferson have to say about the present state of politics in America today?

If Thomas Jefferson were to assess the present state of American politics, he would likely express both deep concern and guarded hope. As a champion of liberty, limited government, and the diffusion of power, Jefferson might be alarmed by the hyper-partisanship, concentration of wealth and influence, and erosion of civic virtue that marks much of today’s political climate.

Jefferson valued the free press and an informed citizenry as bulwarks against tyranny, but he would likely be troubled by the rise of misinformation and the deep polarization stoked by media echo chambers. He warned that a republic could only survive if its people were educated and vigilant. Seeing voter apathy, low civic trust, and widespread political cynicism, he might fear that the American experiment was straying from its foundational ideals.

He would likely criticize the influence of large corporations and special interests on lawmakers, calling it a form of “elective despotism” — where private power manipulates public policy. Jefferson was wary of centralized banking and would probably see today’s economic inequality as a threat to republican balance and self-rule.

On the other hand, Jefferson would also recognize the enduring strength of constitutional institutions, the resilience of democratic dissent, and the diversity of political participation as hopeful signs. He believed in the capacity for peaceful revolution and renewal. The activism of young people, the vibrancy of civil society, and ongoing debates about rights and justice might stir his belief that the republic can still be revitalized.

Ultimately, Jefferson would urge Americans to remember that liberty requires effort — that every generation must “refresh the tree of liberty” not with violence, but with active engagement, moral courage, and public service. He would remind citizens that they are not subjects but sovereigns, and that the preservation of democracy depends not on leaders alone, but on the people themselves.


In 500 words or less, what would Thomas Paine have to say about the present state of politics in America today?

If Thomas Paine were alive to witness the present state of American politics, his response would likely be fiery, uncompromising, and full of both indignation and inspiration. As the passionate voice behind Common Sense and The Rights of Man, Paine championed radical democracy, social justice, and the power of ordinary people to overthrow corrupt systems. He would likely view today’s political climate as a betrayal of the revolutionary ideals he once fought for.

Paine would be outraged by the degree of economic inequality and political influence held by the wealthy elite. He warned in his time about the dangers of monarchy and aristocracy—today, he might argue that America faces a modern version: oligarchy. The dominance of corporate money in elections and policymaking would, in his eyes, amount to tyranny in a new form.

He would be sharply critical of political parties that prioritize power over principle and create divisions that distract from the common good. Paine believed that government should serve the people, not entrench the power of a few. He would condemn the partisan gridlock, deliberate misinformation, and what he might see as cowardice among leaders unwilling to stand up for justice and truth.

Yet, Paine would not despair. He believed deeply in the ability of people to rise, to demand reform, and to create a more just society. He would likely praise movements for racial justice, labor rights, climate action, and economic fairness as modern heirs to the revolutionary spirit. He would call on Americans to shake off apathy, to recognize their power, and to demand a government that works for all, not just the privileged few.

In Paine’s words: “We have it in our power to begin the world over again.” He would challenge today’s citizens to do exactly that.

In 500 words or less, what would Samuel Adams have to say about the present state of politics in America today?

Samuel Adams, the fiery patriot and master organizer behind the American Revolution, would likely view the present state of American politics with a mix of alarm and rallying fervor. As someone who believed that liberty must be constantly defended against corruption, tyranny, and apathy, Adams would be deeply concerned by the erosion of civic trust, the rise of special interest power, and the complacency of citizens in the face of growing dysfunction.

Adams saw government as a sacred trust, meant to reflect the will and virtue of the people. Today, he would likely condemn the influence of money in politics as a betrayal of republican principles, calling out lobbyists, corporate donors, and elected officials who prioritize personal or partisan gain over the common good. He would regard political leaders who manipulate public opinion with lies or fear as dangerous enemies of liberty.

He’d also take issue with the widespread civic disengagement and low voter turnout. Adams believed that public virtue—active, informed participation in the republic—was the cornerstone of freedom. He would likely warn Americans that rights not actively defended are rights easily lost, and that freedom requires both vigilance and sacrifice.

Yet, ever the agitator for liberty, Adams would not retreat into pessimism. He would find hope in grassroots activism, community organizing, and movements that hold the powerful accountable. He would see in these efforts the spirit of the Sons of Liberty reborn.

Adams might close his remarks with a challenge: “If ever a time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin.” That time, he would say, is now. And he would call on Americans to rise—peacefully but boldly—to restore the republic.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________

I was very impressed by the above observations.  They mirror what I thought each of these great men would have said.  However, as I lean towards pessimism and given the present state of America, I tend to be very pessimistic, I would have totally overlooked some of the positive attitudes that each of these men expressed as well as some of the optimism they spoke of.  I am very grateful to ChatGPT and Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine and Samuel Adams for their ideas.  I only wish I could share these thoughts with all Americans today.

Is there any possibility, these ideas would make any difference to at least some of the followers of our erstwhile King and Dictator? 

All Hail Trump the King!

24 May 2025 7 Comments

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

After hearing the latest news today about the Supreme Court’s ruling that Trump could fire just about any government employee he wanted to without cause, my spouse Karen suggested “Why don’t we just crown him king.”  “That’s a GOOD idea I replied.”  The courts have already said that he is immune from prosecution for any wrongdoing while in office.  In New York, he was told ten times during his trial that he was in danger of being charged with “Contempt of Court”, but it never happened.  The chicken shit judge was afraid to do anything. 

Our Congress bends over backwards to support anything Trump wants including a “Great Big Beautiful Bill” that will kick many people off Medicare benefits.  Punish people too disabled to find work and give tax breaks to the top ten percent of Americans.  Only two-House Republicans voted against the bill and that was probably because they were afraid it would increase the deficit.  Either that or they feared violence by Trump and his supporters.  Trump has Senators afraid to disagree with him.  Senator Lisa Murkowski admitted that she is terrified of retaliation from President Trump and his supporters.  No doubt that feeling is shared among many in the House and Senate. 

Almost every major economist in the USA said this new tax bill would increase the deficit but that did not deter Congress from giving money to their benefactors.  They pushed more money into the military-industrial-complex and the Border Patrol and took it away from the lower income earners.  I heard a Republican on NPR this morning say that the big waste is in entitlement programs including Education, Social Security and Healthcare.  No one calls our bloated military budget an “entitlement” program for major corporations, nor do they call our growing Border Patrol an entitlement program. 

I would sooner fund welfare recipients than drones or smart bombs that are programmed to stalk and kill other human beings.  Please don’t call me a pacifist or disloyal.  Unlike Trump, I volunteered for military service in September of 1964 and served until October of 1968.  I volunteered three times for Vietnam.  If any true crisis emerged, I would not hesitate to defend our country.  However, a military budget that ranks as the number one in the world and is equal to the next ten budgets combined is absurd.  I also have little or no use for creating a border wall and border security to deny privileges written in the US Constitution.  Once upon a time, there was no wall, no border patrol, no security checks, no internment camps and things worked out fine. 

We are now creating a Space Force and high-powered lasers so that we can place them on the moon and Mars.  Do you know why?  I bet you can guess.  Here is a hint.  It has to do with some billionaires who are making fortunes with their space programs. 

I asked ChatGPT the following question:  Did either Musk, Bezos or Zuckerberg serve in the military?  Here is the answer that I received to my inquiry:

Elon Musk

Elon Musk did not serve in the military.  He left South Africa at the age of 17, partly to avoid mandatory conscription under the apartheid regime.

Jeff Bezos

Jeff Bezos has never served in the military.  His background is rooted in academics and business.

Mark Zuckerberg

Mark Zuckerberg has no military service record.  There have been no credible reports or evidence suggesting any military involvement.  His focus has been on technology and business since his early years .

I hope you are not surprised by these results.  Uber-Rich people including most politicians seem to find the idea of joining the military very repugnant.  Fighting and dying is for poor people or people so unconnected that they are eventually sucked into the Army or Marines where they can be sent to the front lines and when dead or disabled awarded with an array of medals.

I again asked ChatGPT a question.  “Is there any data related to the socio-economic status of soldiers who died or were wounded in combat during the Vietnam War and the Gulf Wars versus soldiers who were not?”  Here is a summary of the reply that I received:

Comparative Summary

ConflictRecruitment SystemSES Profile of TroopsCasualties & SES
Vietnam WarDraft + volunteersLower to working classDisproportionately lower SES, especially early in war
Gulf WarsAll-volunteerLower to middle classMiddle/lower-middle class more represented in casualties
    

SES stands for Socio Economic Status.  Most of the studies on my question found that the poor, the less educated, and people from geographically disadvantaged rural areas had more deaths and injuries.

“A study published in the American Journal of Public Health includes a figure illustrating the relationship between state per capita income and Vietnam War combat casualties.  The analysis indicates that states with lower per capita incomes experienced higher casualty rates, highlighting a socio-economic disparity in war fatalities.” — PubMed

I point out the above data to illustrate the growing gap between the rulers in this country and the ruled. The golden rule could never be more firmly implanted than it is today.  “He or she who has the gold makes the rules.”  The rulers eat, drink and live in palatial mansions that most of us cannot even imagine.  The rulers live on boats bigger than our schools.  They eat at restaurants that would not allow someone of my income level to be near the food except maybe to pick up the trash.  Most people I know would be happy to have take home bags from these places.  

Just for the record, our (Spouse and I) combined income puts us in the 45th percentile, meaning our income is slightly below the national median, but higher than about 45% of U.S. households.  Thus, we are not poor, but we are pretty far from being rich considering that 55 percent of American families have higher incomes than we do.  Just for fun, I calculated how much Jeff Bezos makes per year and obtained the following result which includes his salaries, profits and earnings growth.

Based on his net worth growth, Jeff Bezos earns $9.6 billion a year—or $798,333,333 a month.  To break this down even further, that’s $26,611,111 a day, $1,108,796 an hour, $18,480 a minute—and $308 a second.  In comparison, both Karen and I make $7.62 per hour or “$183 dollars per day.   Bezos makes almost twice as much in one second as I make in a day. 

But getting back to the rich a-holes who are destroying our American Democracy, why continue the charade?  Stephen Miller or J.D. Vance can nominate Trump for King, and I will second the motion.  Think of the happiness this would bring to the billionaires who support Trump.  Think of the joy amongst his followers who never believed in democracy in the first place.  Think of the sycophants who can now stop kissing his ass and can simply run rampant over the rest of us.  At least two of them have floated a bill to include Trump at Mount Rushmore.

The Supreme Court can crown Trump “The Most Beautiful King” who ever lived by a six to three majority.  The Senate leadership has already given up the idea that checks and balances should limit the power of the President.  Why say we have a president?  If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it must be a duck.  Anyone who can say Fuck You to the Supreme Court, Kiss My ASS to the Congress and put FEAR into the hearts of academics, lawyers and government officials with his threats of Vengeance and Retribution is not a president.  By any measure I can think of they are a violent, narcissistic Dictator. 

King George move over for King Trump.

Previous Older Entries