Heated Rivalry, Autism, and Conceptual Breakthrough

I’ve only alluded to this show before — note the photo at the top of my January 10th post — but perhaps I have some things to say about the TV series “Heated Rivalry.” On the occasion of this longish essay in today’s NYT.

NY Times, critic’s notebook by Wesley Morris, 27 Feb 2026, I’m So Used to Gay Tragedies That I Almost Missed Romance, subtitled “After a lifetime of settling for shame, secrecy and death onscreen, I had my doubts about ‘Heated Rivalry.’ Then it seduced me, too.

The writer has a video at the end that summarizes much of the essay.

I’m not going to summarize the situation. Well, maybe I should, if only for any readers who might be seeing this blog in 20 or 50 years. (It’s possible, via Wayback Machine and other such facilities.) The situation: “Heated Rivalry” is a 6-part TV series made by a production company in Canada and streamed in the US on HBO Max, beginning last November. It quickly developed a word-of-mouth following — especially among women — and has made its two stars, Hudson Williams and Conner Storrie, international celebrities. They’ve been on talk shows; Connor just hosted Saturday Night Live. The show is  about hockey players, two players who are usually on rival teams, who fall in love, over years, via series of hotel room hookups, as they gradually acknowledge their feelings, and circumstances allow them to come together.

It’s based on a series of gay romance novels written by one Rachel Reid, and consumed mostly by women. This is a curious phenomenon which I won’t explore at the moment. There are apparently a lot of such novels.

There is something mesmerizing, even addictive, about this show. The actors are great, the plot is subtle yet intricate, the production values are impressive. I think what’s attractive about the show is that it’s mostly about yearning, and uncertainty. Not about the sex, per se. Is he or isn’t he? Does he or doesn’t he? It’s partly about family ties. It’s about the fear of getting hurt — and in this kind of romance genre, no one gets truly hurt. People are supportive. It’s only uncertainty and hesitation that provide the barriers to a happy ending.

I’ve watched it 5 times now, mostly streaming it on my computer while I should been working on my various projects. This last time, I took notes, especially about the timeline, since the show conveniently inserts title cards along the way to indicate time and location. It begins in December 2008, when the two boys are rookies, and ends in 2017, when they finally acknowledge being ‘boyfriends.’

That time span, to me, seems the story’s greatest flaw. Why so many years? We understand that Ilya, the Russian, has something of a playboy reputation, with women… though he has experience with men too. But Shane, the white/Asian mix, despite his hockey expertise, is something of a nerd: he sits home at night reading books, and has little or no sexual experience, before he meets Ilya.

Only after watching the show the first time did I read that the character of Shane was ‘on the spectrum,’ according to the author, and the actor. OK, then, that makes sense. There are plenty of moments when that was indicated: how he’s not sociable (according to the hockey game announcer in the very second scene), how he has a hard time looking his mother in the eye, in the last episode, how he repeatedly announces in social situations that he’s going to the bathroom rather than simply excusing himself (this comes from a certain literal-mindedness among the autistic). And about his repeated ‘panic attacks’? Not sure about those.

I have elements of being slightly on the spectrum myself, as I’ve discussed. Aversion to noises and crowds, the way I insist on buy books and magazines that are perfectly aligned with no wrinkles, even how I fold and adjust newspaper sections before I read them once Y is done. And for that matter, I was a slow starter in the same way Shane apparently was. I had no thoughts about being straight or gay until I was… 23? And my first sexual experience was at 24.

\

But one more thing.

There is a science-fiction idea called “conceptual breakthrough.” I wrote about this in my essay published last year, which I know only one person to have read, but it’s a common sf idea. It’s about a discovery or breakthrough in understanding that completely revolutionizes the way one sees the world. It would be like finally understanding that those lights in the sky aren’t just twinkles in some kind of dome, but actually other *suns* billions or trillions of miles away; your idea of the size of the universe, and of reality itself, undergoes a revolution.

I think the idea of realizing one is gay is a kind of conceptual breakthrough. One grows up as a child in a world full of parents and other children. Gradually learns how parents create children. The idea of sex. That’s what sex is for, you are told. Until you have a conceptual breakthrough. Sex has other ideas. There was that moment of revelation, even shock, for me, at a certain age.

I think Shane might have had that breakthrough. He’d never really thought about these things, until Ilya triggered those thoughts.

Posted in Movies, The Gays | Leave a comment

You Can Fool Some of the People All of the Time

Promise not to dwell on this war news. There are always wars, apparently, even in Trump’s administration in which he promised to end them. But here are a couple items.

Slate, Fred Kaplan, 4 Mar 2026: As He Tries to Rationalize His War in Iran, Trump Cannot Stop Telling On Himself, subtitled “His explanations for why he went to war keep getting worse. His plans for the future aren’t looking any better.”

I could quote, but it’s the same as yesterday, and the day before. No plans.

\\

The right-wing Christian zealots are thrilled. Maybe their prophecies will *finally* come true!

Media Matters, Payton Armstrong, 4 Mar 2026: Christian media figures have claimed that the Iran war could signal “the second coming” or the “End Times” and said “we are watching incredible prophecy in this time come to pass”

Remember that Abraham Lincoln quote? You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time. These are the people you can fool all of the time. They never learn.

\

And this.

Media Matters, Matt Gertz, 4 Mar 2026: Right-wing pundits want Trump to heal the MAGA rift over the Iran war via the mass deportation of American Muslims

You’d think this war was theologically driven, or something. Just another religious war in a long history of them.

\\\

Adjacent.

Salon, Nicholas Liu, 4 Mar 2026: ICE said their property was “lost.” Then it magically resurfaced, subtitled “Detainees were told their clothing, phones, documents and money were gone — and then their lawyers went to work”

Many immigrants detained and then released by Immigration and Customs Enforcement or Border Patrol have found that release was not the end of their problems. Across the country, government agents have been losing government documents, personal effects, medical devices, and other belongings after confiscating them, effectively turning released immigrants into legal non-persons.

According to lawyers and formerly detained immigrants who spoke to Salon, ICE and Border Patrol officers never admit to trashing or keeping these items, but that they have not been found anywhere. Only a call from a persistent lawyer might motivate officers to actually find those items and return them by mail. Even if an immigrant reunites with some or all of the belongings confiscated, the intervening time often takes its toll and leaves them in a vulnerable state.

Because immigrants, legal or not, are unpeople to ICE, and need to be encouraged to disappear. Example:

“I gave them my social security card, work permit, and driver’s license, and they never returned it to me. They also took all my clothes out of the car and threw it away in front of me. When I was released, they said, no, we don’t have anything of yours. My sponsor — my cousin — had to find a lawyer for me, and only after he called, they sent me my documents,” he said.

ICE is/are morally bankrupt. And conservatives support them.

\\

JMG: Interior Dept Furious Over Leaked Database Showing Plan To Rewrite History On Black And LGBTQ Rights (from Reuters)

This is what authoritarian governments do, and this is exactly what Winston Smith did in Orwell’s Nineteen Eight-Four. His job was to rewrite history according to current government policy. It’s telling that Trump’s government doesn’t want to reveal that database.

Trump has targeted cultural and historical institutions – from museums to monuments to national ​parks – to remove what he calls “anti-American” ideology. His declarations and executive orders have ​led to the dismantling of exhibits on slavery, the restoration of Confederate statues and other ‌moves ⁠that civil rights advocates say could reverse decades of progress.

Fortunately our modern world is saturated with information everywhere, and everything in the past is retrievable. They can’t wipe it all out. (Harari’s latest book, NEXUS, is about this in a way, how information is controlled, or not, by different kinds of government. I’ll write it up here soon.)

Comment: I think conservatives, especially the religious ones, think “progress” is a falling away from eternal truths. Never mind evidence of actual progress in terms of health and longevity and rights, as described in that book I posted about a couple days ago. Mother Teresa: suffering is good. I think hers was a perverted theology. Humans, all by themselves, have made the world a better place to live in. Despite religion, despite Jesus, despite Mother Teresa. Why didn’t God set it up all this way in the first place?

\\

There have been stories about how congregations, hearing the words of Jesus in a sermon, reject them as being “woke.” And many times I’ve noted how Christians are hypocritical, given their animosity toward the poor and immigrants. No doubt they would say I’m misreading the Bible. Actually, I think, the religious more often express tribal mentality, including fear of the other, and so align with the OT, not the New. That’s why they want the OT 10 Commandments posted in classrooms, and not anything Jesus said. Again, no doubt modern Christians could rationalize this somehow. But their actions betray their true beliefs.

OnlySky, Adam Lee, 2 Mar 2026: The Bible is too woke for Christians, subtitled “Anti-immigrant theology is a perfect catch-22.”

You always knew this was coming. Evangelical Christians have swung so hard to the right, the Bible is now too liberal for them.

This isn’t satire or the punchline to a joke. It’s gotten to the point that quoting the Bible is enough to get a Christian attacked, denounced as a heretic, and ostracized by his one-time allies.

With examples. John Piper; how even the OT is too liberal; the MAGA cult of while nationalism.

 

Posted in Politics, Religion | Leave a comment

Fractured Reality

Different takes on Trump’s new war.

The Critics:

Trump’s plan (to subdue Iran by strikes from the air, without any ‘boots on the ground’) has no apparent precedent.

PolitiFact, Louis Jacobson, 2 Mar 2026: Chris Murphy, stated on March 1, 2026 in an interview with CBS News’ “Face the Nation”: “There is no history … that shows an air campaign alone will result in positive regime change. In fact, there’s not a single example of it in the entirety of American history.”

Rating: Mostly true.

\

Robert Reich, today: Trump Hasn’t a F*cking Clue What He’s Doing, subtitled “He has no endgame for his war, which may be his undoing.”

\

John Pavlovitz, 2 Mar 2026: He is Not Worth This, America

\

Heather Cox Richardson: March 2, 2026

The Economist’s Middle East correspondent Gregg Carlstrom noted that Trump appears to be workshopping the causes for his attacks on Iran and his goals for the war by talking to journalists.

As Meidas Touch summarized Carlstrom’s argument, he said: “[Trump] doesn’t sound convinced by any of it. He’s throwing spaghetti at the wall. Ultimately I suspect he just wants to say he ‘solved’ a problem that has vexed every American president since Jimmy Carter. But there’s no clear idea what that looks like and no plan for how to get there. And there are plenty of possible scenarios in which Trump declares victory and leaves the region with an absolute mess.”

\

About the Supporters:

The Atlantic, Jonathan Chait: A Very Stable War, subtitled “J. D. Vance says this Middle East entanglement can’t be dumb—because Trump is smart.”

After the president of peace, a man who felt deserving of the Nobel Prize, authorized a massive aerial bombardment of Iran last summer, the task of explaining away the contradiction fell to J. D. Vance.

“I certainly empathize with Americans who are exhausted after 25 years of foreign entanglements in the Middle East,” the vice president told NBC—a stark understatement, given that Vance had, up to this point, unsparingly denounced Middle East wars and promised that the Trump administration would avoid them. “I understand the concern, but the difference is that back then, we had dumb presidents, and now we have a president who actually knows how to accomplish America’s national-security objectives.”

The difference was simple: Other wars were bad because they were led by dumb presidents, but a Trump war would be good because Donald Trump is smart.

What kind of mental contortions are going through Vance’s mind? Cognitive dissonance. Motivated reasoning. Appeal to authority. Ending:

The usefulness of Vance’s rationale is that it can justify anything. Trump could not be starting a dumb war, because that would mean Trump is a dumb president. And who could possibly think that?

\

God is on our side (says both sides, no doubt).

JMG (via The Cradle): Troops Report Being Told That Trump Was “Anointed By Jesus” To Ignite Armageddon By Launching War In Iran

This is irresponsible religious zealotry mongering.

Also here at AlterNet: ‘God’s divine plan’: US soldiers say commanders told them they’re fighting for ‘Armageddon’

\

And this.

Friendly Atheist, Hemant Mehta: Texas megachurch pastor John Hagee is selling Trump’s Iran conflict as God’s plan, subtitled “The Cornerstone Church preacher aired a literal infomercial for war—framing airstrikes, end-times prophecy, and Trump’s escalation as divine destiny”

This kind of prophecy has surely occurred innumerable times over the past two thousand years. The parishioner rubes are fooled every time. No doubt similar talk is going on over in Iran, to support their side.

\

Yet there are fractures among the MAGA crowd. And they resort to demon-calling to attack those who disagree with them. Demons? Is that their conception of the world?

JMG: Carlson: Bloodthirsty MAGA Is Controlled By Demons

\\\

An item from a few days ago. So this guy is still around?

Right Wing Watch, 27 Feb 2026: Discredited Conspiracy Theorist Dinesh D’Souza Raising Money to ‘Heal’ J6 Insurrectionists

In a fundraising email for a group devoted to bringing “help, hope, and healing” to participants in the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection at the U.S. Capitol, right-wing propagandist Dinesh D’Souza begins by claiming, “In my film 2000 Mules, I exposed one of the greatest scandals in American history – the hijacking of the 2020 presidential election.”

Where to begin? As Right Wing Watch has previously noted, “the movie’s election-fraud claims have been thoroughly and repeatedly debunked—so thoroughly in fact that [in 2024] the right-wing Salem Media Group apologized for the movie’s promotion of false claims and announced it would stop distributing both the book and movie versions.”

Some links deleted. And that’s all I’m going to quote. His fans will reject any debunking, perhaps as evidence of the worldwide conspiracy against them, and him. They live in a fantasy world, immune from evidence. This, too, will never go away.

Posted in authoritarianism, conservatives, Politics | Leave a comment

Johan Norberg, PROGRESS

Subtitled: Ten Reasons to Look Forward to the Future
(UK: Oneworld, Oct 2016, 246pp, including 28pp notes, acknowledgements, and index)

Rather as I did with Rutger Bregman a few days, here’s an author who has a new book out recently, but before reading the new one I decided to back up and read two earlier books of his on my shelves. The author is Johan Norberg, a writer and filmmaker originally from Sweden and now stationed in DC working for the Cato Institute (which I did not realize until just now, the Cato Institute being a libertarian think tank and thus making him slightly suspect). His newest book, from 2025, is called Peak Human: What We Can Learn From History’s Greatest Civilizations (which sounds like it might align with Jared Diamond’s COLLAPSE), a big 500 page book; before that was Open: The Story of Human Progress, from 2020, a big 400 page book; and before that, the one I just read this past week, is Progress: Ten Reasons to Look Forward to the Future, from 2016, a much slenderer book of only some 200 pages. He’s written lots of other books, mostly published only in Swedish, since 1994. And I’ll mention that the three books of his that I have, though ordered from Amazon.com, are British publications; the books apparently aren’t available from US publishers.

PROGRESS aligns neatly with books by Hans Rosling (et al) and Steven Pinker, documenting in great detail the ways progress has been made along various dimensions, mostly just in the past couple hundred years, despite common beliefs that the world is getting worse all the time. (Wikipedia suggests books by Shermer and Ridley as well.) Norberg places progress in historical context, though he doesn’t examine proximate causes as deeply as Pinker does. He does, however, close with a chapter exploring why people resist the implications of all his evidence, and this focuses on the familiar topics of human biases….

Once again, I’ll decant my notes taken while I read the book below, and then return here with numbered key points.

Key Points

People who dream of a simpler past in harmony with nature don’t realize what the past was actually like, up to the Industrial Revolution and especially before the past couple hundred years.

  1. Famines were common in Europe up until the past century. The invention of artificial fertilizer (via nitrogen fixing) is one of the most important inventions of the 20th century. Food productivity has increased 2500-fold.
  2. Until 150 years or so ago, indoor plumbing was not common. Cities stunk; sewage was dumped in rivers. Only with filtering and chlorination, and the germ theory of disease, has access to clean water reached 91% worldwide.
  3. People seldom lived past 30 years; there was no medicine except praying, or letting blood. Agriculture and globalization spread diseases. Only in the past four generations has mortality reduction occurred, via sanitation, evidence-based science, vaccines, etc.
  4. Until 200 years ago, half of the US, Britain, and France lived in what we now call extreme poverty. Largely solved by technology, beginning with steam engines, and steady globalization, which arguably has had a greater effect than the Industrial Revolution in making the world wealthy.
  5. The chapter on violence here is largely drawn from Pinker’s BETTER ANGELS: the violence of ancient history, from the Trojan War to the Bible; how pacification occurred via judicial rules and central governments; cultural changes from Enlightenment perspectives. Now most nations have abolished the death penalty, and the UN has made war a crime.
  6. Pollution was extensive as late as a century ago; recall Dickens, and the Great Smog of London in 1952. A green movement began after WWII, water treatments have cleaned up rivers, acid rain was avoided, deforestation has stopped in wealthy countries.
  7. Literacy has improved as education has, especially via technology. Literacy is more than reading and writing, it’s about knowing the world and your place in it. Two centuries ago only 12% of world population could read and write. Then came public schools, greater literacy, higher incomes. There are still fundamentalists who oppose education for girls.
  8. Slavery was common worldwide until Enlightenment thinkers objected; their ideas spread, leading to the end of slavery in England in 1772, later in the US, eventually everywhere. In 1900 there were no democracies (in which both men and women could vote) anywhere in the world. Now democracies are the norm; even dictators hold staged elections.
  9. Racism has existed since ancient times, and has only legally disappeared in the past century. Economic growth after WWII triggered the demise of segregation. Similarly women, as Enlightenment ideas, and exposure to books, changed attitudes about ownership of women and their right to vote. And homosexual acts were illegal in every state in 1960, due to Christian intolerance, until the civil rights movements made the culture more tolerant.
  10. Child labor was common up until the Industrial Revolution; child labor was seen as an education, a way of preventing idleness. It disappeared by the early 20th century.

Finally, why would you not be convinced by all this? Surveys show most people are wrong about most things. The media tends to highlight the bad things in the world, and there’s always something bad somewhere. Human nature gives us biases for survival than tune into potential threats. People have always thought the past, especially the era they grew up in, was better than their present.

Detailed Notes

Intro

Quote by Franklin Pierce Adams: “Nothing is more responsible for the good old days than a bad memory.”

Author discusses how the sense of doom fed the fear on which Trump built his campaign. And Brexit. Sweden. Quotes from a general, the pope, Naomi Klein, John Gray (on the right). Author used to share their pessimism, in the 1980s. He dreamt of turning the clock back to a society that lived in harmony with nature. Without realizing what life was actually like before the Industrial Revolution… Then author read history and traveled the world. Learned how back Sweden (his homeland) was 150 ya.

Things got better because of the Enlightenment and the Industrial Revolution, p4. This book partly a warning: don’t take this progress for granted. Familiar hostility, 5m. Nativist backlash. …

1, Food, p7

Author recalls 1868, his grandfather, a famine in Sweden. Thousands died of starvation. Famine was common in Europe. Several every century, p9. Worse in Asia, China, India. Typical diet in author’s home province 100 ya, 11t (a lot of gruel). Studies of nutrition, life expectancy. Work hours were short because they didn’t have calories. Malthus thought it would always be true. But the problem he worried about were solved – via open borders, international trade, etc. Famines gradually disappeared. A few even after WWI. Then came the invention of artificial fertilizer. Nitrogen fixing. Fritz Haber. Carl Bosch. Vaclav Smil called it the most important technical invention of the 20th c. Still, Haber also developed chlorine gas for the Germans. And consequences of fertilizer include dead zones in the oceans. Meanwhile food productivity has increased 2500-fold. Etc. People are taller. Fertility dropped, because offspring lived longer. And now we worry about obesity. Ehrlich predicted new famines. They didn’t happen. Norman Borlaug and the Green Revolution. Etc. Malnutrition reduced. Example Peru. Statistics. Borlaug won a Noble Peace Prize. Today we see arguments against nitrogen fertilizer, and GMOs, by elitists. The demographic shift is happening around the world. From 6.1 to 2.6. … There’s never been a famine in a democracy. The greatest famine might be the one in China, under Mao, 1958-61. 40 million. Reforms came from the bottom, not the top. 18 families in a village in 1978. A contract. And others followed their lead. In 1982, China reversed course.

2, Sanitation, p31

Water is the source of all life but also spreads diseases. Typhoid. Water spreads microbes. The modern flush toilet wasn’t invented until 1596. But it took another 300 years for indoor plumbing to become common. Bathing was rare until modern times. Cities stunk. Horses in NYC. “Gardyloo.” There was no science beyond the theory of ‘miasma.’ Sewage was dumped in rivers. Cholera, shown to be borne by water. Then came filtering and chlorination, the germ theory of disease, and life expectancy increased rapidly. Access to clean water went from 52% to 91% from 1980 to 2015. And so on. Time spent simply fetching and carrying water has dropped. The worst area now is sub-Saharan Africa. Kibera in Nairobi. ‘Flying toilets’ spread disease. But progress is being made.

3, Life Expectancy, p41

High mortality was primarily due to disease and bad sanitary conditions. Plagues spread. The Black Death seemed like the end of the world. Montaigne. Chart p43.

Prayer was the commonest medicine. Physicists let blood, or used leeches. Hunter-gatherers lived 20 to 30 years. Agriculture didn’t help, and perhaps brought more harm overall, because diseases spread more rapidly and sanitation became a problem in settlements. Globalization brought exchanges of disease. Mortality reduction came only in about the last four generations. It used to be common for parents to bury their children. Three stages: the age of pestilence and famine; the age of receding pandemics; the age of degenerative and man-made diseases. Sanitation improved. Evidence-based science. E.g. smallpox. Immunization. Edward Jenner. Developed vaccines. Physicians washing their hands reduced maternal deaths. Microscopes. Standards improved. Penicillin, 1928. Polio. Malaria. Now HIV/AIDS. Ebola, handled well, 2014-2015. Still, in some countries many children die young. 53. More vaccines. Oral hydration therapy. World population grew because fewer people died young. Wealthy countries are healthier. A result of globalization. Cancer rates are falling. Etc etc. H1N1. But life expectancy may be hitting a ceiling. Yet they keep rising.

4, Poverty, p63

The question isn’t why some people are poor, it’s why some are rich. Chart of falling poverty, p65. There was very little economic development until the early nineteenth century. Improvements since 1ce were so slow they weren’t noticeable in one person’s lifetime. In early 19th century, even US, Britain and France had nearly half the population living in what we now call extreme poverty. Economists argued the poor were necessary. Adam Smith disagreed. Then came new technology: steam engines, etc. Marx thought there must be both winners and losers in the free market. 66b. [[ i.e. zero-sum ]] Yet during his life, Englishmen became three times richer. The West continued to grow into the 1900s. A first Great Ascent was complete by the 1950s; a second occurred in east Asia. China and India opened their economies in 1979 and 1991. Experts of the ’60s and 70s predicted the opposite; they saw what really happened by the 90s. Even the poorest villages greatly improved. They integrated into the global economy. China especially. Details. 9 in 10 Chinese lived in extreme poverty in 1981. Now just 1 in 10. Protectionism and planned economies held India back until independence in 1947. Details. India, the Dalits, or untouchables. [[ how caste systems, hierarchies, were dismantled. ]] By the 2000s, ninety percent of developing countries have grown faster than the US. Etc etc. Table, p76. The population is growing, but the absolute number of poor is being reduced. It’s more about overall growth, than about income redistribution. In contrast to ‘trickle-down’. 78,79. The exception to much of this is sub-Saharan Africa. It’s improved since 2000. The majority of the world’s extreme poor are in just a handful of countries. And global inequality is going away by itself. The Gini coefficient fell from 0.69 in 2013 to 0.65 in 2013. It may be that globalization is bigger than the Industrial Revolution. Maybe 50 times bigger, p82.

5, Violence, p83

Drawing heavily on Pinker’s BETTER ANGELS. It’s all about what we currently bring to mind. Chart p85. Examples from cultural history. Trojan War. Odysseus. Bible. Ethnic cleansing, ordered by God. Rome, bread and circuses. Crucifix. Torture, throughout history. Against witches. Knights. Back to the hunter-gatherers. Human sacrifice. Etc. Tuchman on the 14th century. Violence declined in the modern era. Via a pacification process: judicial rules and central governments. Yet punishments were often severe. Codes of honor. Rule of law, civil liberties, democracy. Moral individualism. Culture of honor gave way to culture of dignity; e.g. the British stiff upper lip. Humanitarian attitudes rose. Enlightenment perspectives. Nations abolished torture, cruel and unusual punishments. Most abolished the death penalty. WWII was bad, but we suffer from historical myopia. And it’s about proportion, not absolute numbers. Examples of ancient wars. Number of conflicts per century. Attitudes have changed in recent centuries, due to Enlightenment values and the retreat from religion. Example Sweden. Consider the Great Powers, p98. The UN made war a crime. Conflicts have become less lethal. Genocide has mostly ceased. When it did, survivors denied it, e.g. the Holocaust. But hasn’t terrorism increased? It sows fear, but it kills very few. It seldom accomplishes its ideological goals. Despite current threats (China, Russia, Middle East) the trends are strong. Democracies seldom go to war against each other. Especially with open market economies.

[[ of course Trump is reversing the trend, e.g. by renaming the department of defense to the department of war ]] [[ and Israel is perhaps committing genocide ]]

6, The Environment, p107

Recalling the Great Smog in London, 1952. Chart of UK pollution, p109. A feature of Dickens novels. Increased production and transportation. Fossil fuels. A green movement began after WWII. Since then we have made great improvements, and the worst scenarios of that era haven’t come true. Club of Rome, 1972. Statistics. Ozone layer in the 80s: countries phased out damaging substances and now it’s recovering. How the Thames river has recovered, thanks to water treatments. Oil spills have reduced. Acid rain was mostly avoided. Deforestation has stopped in wealthy countries, and declined in in the Amazon. We’ve reached ‘peak farmland,’ in turn avoiding extinction scenarios. It’s hard to find proof of a mass extinction. Wealthy areas manage the environment better than poor areas. A cancer epidemic never appeared, though there’s more cancer now because people live longer. Synthetic components in our foods may be safer than natural ones; tobacco is natural. [[ That is, just because something is “natural” doesn’t mean it’s better. ]] Our creativity has enabled us to avoid the worst imagined scenarios. Julian Simon. Old estimates have proven wrong, etc. Problems are due to lack of technology and affluence. Most countries are getting better. Drastic efforts to limit emissions might be counter-productive, if they hurt our ability to create wealth and better technologies. [[ Here he’s being a bit contrarian. ]] And other problems, from pandemics to tsunamis, must be addressed too. The poor nations are more vulnerable than the wealthy ones, which are not as fragile as some think. Efficiency of engines is increasing. New kinds of nuclear power. Other ideas… solar power in space, internet for energy. How to remove CO2 from the air.

7, Literacy, p129

Author visited Dalits [i.e. the lowest Indian caste, aka the untouchables] in an Indian village in 1977. No education. They didn’t know that they lived in India, and so on. By 2010 everything had changes: internet, mobile phones, learning they were part of a bigger world. Chart of illiteracy, p131. At the same time, the consequence of that now the young don’t ‘know their place,’ and contradict their parents, want more in life.

[[ Good point – literacy isn’t just about reading and writing, it’s also knowing about the world. ]]

200 years ago only 12% of the world’s population could read and write. Churches taught reading only for reading religious texts. Public schools started in the early 19th century. Once it gets going, it becomes self-sustaining. Developing counties became literate faster. Even in Africa. Global literacy in 2015 was 86%. Etc etc. Higher incomes and peaceful conditions support education. Parents realized their kids do better. Girls were barred from education by men who feared their independence. Fundamentalists still oppose education for girls. Frederick Douglass, and how he taught himself to read and write. And of course he did learn about the world and became dissatisfied with his own station. And developed a thirst for liberation.

8, Freedom, p139

More about Frederick Douglass, after his slave-owner died. All the slaves were shipped off to uncertain fates. Slavery was common and brutal around the world. It was common in the Bible, even in the NT. Chart p141. Routine in Europe, given the Pope’s blessing. The indigenous peoples of the New World were enslaved. A few objected, but the slave-owners couldn’t imagine how a world without slavery would work. So slaves were brought from Africa. Perhaps 10 million, of which 1.5 million died en route. But some leaders and intellectuals did object, and by 1772 England declared slavery illegal. Diderot. Voltaire. There were fears of Barbary pirates enslaving whites. The Declaration of Independence drafted a ban on slavery, but the clause was omitted. But it was gradually phased out in the northern states. In Britain, by 1834. The southern states held on. Opponents created an ‘underground railroad’. It took Lincoln to end it, triggering a civil war. P147. An anti-Enlightenment revolution. Other countries followed suit: Russia, the Ottoman Empire, China. Even Arab nations gave in by the late 20th century. Still, slavery is practiced illegally. But no one actually defends it. And state power has become more limited. People were given control of the government… a process that was slow for centuries, then happened all at once. In 1900 there were no democracies (in which both men and women could vote) in the world. By 1950, 31% of the world’s population could vote; 58% by 2000. Even dictators now hold staged elections. Communist systems were undermined. Poland, Hungary. The Iron Curtain fell, gradually. And by 1991 the Soviet Union was dissolved. And so on. But not everywhere. China. Russia, and Putin. But democracies popped up around the world. A correlation with wealth. Yet keep in mind that the majority isn’t always right, 156t. [[ current US and MAGA fit this pattern. ]] But Karl Popper pointed out, it’s not about the majority, but about popular control of government power. One aspect of liberty is freedom from censorship and control of information. Free press. And economic freedom. Free trade. China is much freer now than it was under Mao. Milton Friedman summary, p159.

9, Equality, p161

Note Darwin quote – he understood as far back as then.

Ethnic minorities:

Democracies don’t necessarily grant equal rights. Racism has been part of people’s mindsets since ‘ancient times’. Pogroms against Jews. Muslims exiled from Spain. Religious wars. Slavery in the US gave way to Jim Crow laws. Lots of riots against every minority. Even Teddy Roosevelt, Wilson, Churchill, FDR expressed racist sentiments. Evolution. But the advance of civilization makes us expand the circle of interests… Shermer’s interchangeability of perspectives. Locke. Intelligence: the Flynn effect. Pinker and the moral Flynn Effect, and the ability to think in hypotheticals. [[ SF is all about hypotheticals ]] Open markets and rising affluence increase tolerance. Adam Smith showed the economy does not have to be a zero-sum game. Marx and Engels, quote 166. Ronald Inglehart about stress and tolerance 166b:

Individuals under high stress have a need for rigid, predictable rules. They need to be sure of what is going to happen because they are in danger == their margin for error is slender and they need maximum predictability. Postmaterialists embody the opposite outlook: raised under conditions of relative security, they can tolerate more ambiguity; they are less likely to need the security of absolute rigid rules that religious sanctions provide. The psychological costs of deviating from whatever norms one grew up with are harder to bear if a person is under stress than if a person feels secure.

[[ This echos books about how stress makes people susceptible to conspiracy theories ]] Economic growth after WWII triggered the demise of segregation. Civil rights movement in the 50s and 60s. MLK. Changes in attitudes: stats. Etc. Yet hate crimes are still common.

Women’s rights

In most of history women have been the property of their fathers, or their husbands. Men have attempted to control the sexuality of women. Thus prohibitions against adultery, infidelity, etc. Things changed with the Enlightenment. Jeremy Bentham. Mill. Mary Wollstonecraft. The mid 18th century brought a reading explosion: readers could see other people’s points of view. Women’s fight were compared to slaves’. Tennessee, 175t; Sweden. Suffragettes. The vote by 1928 in Britain. By 1920 in the US. Laws changed. Contraception and abortion rights. Marital rape criminalized. Right to vote. Chart p178. The Golden Gender Gap. Inequality gap. Details. Attitudes about wifely duties. Example of rewriting Japan’s constitution.

Gay rights, 181

In the early 1960s homosexual acts were illegal in every American state. Concerns about security risks. Joseph McCarthy. Eisenhower. Police entrapment. ACLU got involved. Alan Turing. Some cultures have always tolerated homosexual acts, but Christian tradition has not. Dante. Spain, France, Italy. England. Things changed, again, with the Enlightenment. France, England. Organizations. Stonewall in 1969. Gay Pride marches. Laws gradually stricken down. The culture became more tolerant. Today most people know someone who is homosexual. Gay marriage still contentious. Homosexuals still illegal in some countries. But the forces of tolerance are global.

10, The Next Generation, p189

Quote from Julian Simon. Author visits Vietnam, seeing child labor. Chart p191. Child labor wasn’t the product of the Industrial Revolution; rather the IR was when it began to be reduced. In medieval times children were part of the household economy. Sometimes hired out to others. Some worked by age 7. Child labor was seen as education, a way of preventing idleness. Examples. Ideas taken for granted. When children began to be sent to factories, criticism began. 28% of children worked in 1851, England and Wales. A century later it was much higher in China and elsewhere. Reductions came with rising wagers, universal education, and technological change. Down to 14% by 1911, then disappeared. It happened in every industrialized country. The girl in Vietnam now has a job and giving her son a proper education. Studies show that once they can afford to do so, parents will remove their children from the workforce. Etc etc. Conditions for children now have never been as good. Compare 200ya, 196b. A revolution in living standards since then, 198. Nice long para. Does progress bring happiness? Debate. Just compare 200 years ago. Smartphones etc etc. everyone will have access to knowledge. … Pictures of the hands a girl, now a woman.

Page 196b:

Consider a ten-year-old girl 200 years ago. Wherever she had been born, she could not have expected to live longer than around thirty years. …

A long passage that covers living conditions, health, schooling, violence, and the other themes of this book.

Epilogue: So Why Are You Still Not Convinced?, p205

An inscription from 3800 bce about how the world was going to ruin.

Most people don’t believe that things are getting better, and they never have. Chart, p207. Surveys show most people are wrong about most things. Gapminder studies. The results must be from misleading or outdated information. The media, 207.6. Impressions of crime. Bad elsewhere. Unhappy people make for good stories. Only airplane crashes are reported. Etc. There’s always a war, or a child murderer, somewhere. Worst case scenarios scare people. Ebola. Local media, on average, is fairer. But it’s not the media’s fault, it’s our fault. Kahneman and Tversky, the availability heuristic; we’re built to be worried. Hardwired by evolution. Pinker cites three biases that make us think the world is worse than it really is. Bad is stronger than good; the psychology of moralization; and nostalgia for a golden age when life was simpler and better. Most people say their ideal era is the one they grew up in. The Romantic philosophers thought life was infinitely worse than before. Populists and demagogues play on this. And memories aren’t reliable.

Still, there’s no guarantee of progress in the future. Financial crises, global warming, war, terrorism. Matt Ridley: superstition and bureaucracy. History did not appreciate progress. Examples. Ming dynasty, the Islamic world, turned inward. Ottoman empire. Europe, 14th century. But new ideas spread despite obstruction – a prelude to modern globalization. If progress is blocked in one place, others will take it up elsewhere. Last paragraph:

Even though wealth and human lives can be destroyed, knowledge rarely disappears. It keeps on growing. Therefore any kind of backlash is unlikely to ruin human progress entirely. But progress is not automatic. All the progress that has been recorded in this book is the result of hard-working people, scientists, innovators and entrepreneurs with strange, new ideas, and brave individuals who fought for their freedom to do new things in new ways. If progress is to continue, you and I will have to carry the torch.

\\

Sites cited in the acknowledgments:

gapminder.org
humanprogress.org
ourworldindata.org

\\\

Comments:

  • And of course application of current-day US to these principles is easy. At the same time, the evidence suggests that progress will prevail over MAGA.
  • And religion, which has almost always hindered progress.

 

Posted in Book Notes, Human Nature, Human Progress, progress | Leave a comment

Our New War, and Perceptions of Change

I’ll post just a couple items about Trump’s new Iran war. This echoes many other commentaries I’ve seen. Why now? For what reason? Didn’t the US just obliterate those facilities last year?

BBC, via Doug Van Belle on FB:

OK, here’s the info from the intel community backchannel chatter that Americans need to know. Most of this can be confirmed by reading the details buried deep below the headlines in news coverage.

1. The US has no plan. No strategic plan. No exit plan. No medium term plan. No contingency planning at all. And they don’t seem to understand that there is such a thing as the long term. In fact they have nothing beyond about 48 hours worth of targets.

2 The US killed the people that their own intelligence community had been grooming as a more cooperative leadership group.

3 Iran was ready and has a spectacularly clever strategy for countering the US. They are overwhelming the US defensive systems with thousands drones literally powered by lawn mower engines. They are rapidly using up defensive assets costing millions and will soon switch to an offensive mode of attack.

4 The US isn’t abandoning its allies in the region, it’s running out of the missiles it needs to defend them and is scrambling just to keep its own bases and ships protected.

5 Because Trump diverted or cut off the funds for manufacturing the weapons the US really needs right now, it will run out of most of the resources it needs to continue attacking beyond a few more days. It can shift weapons from other theatres, but that is strategically problematic, and short term, because most of those stocks were already stripped to the bone to attack Iran in the first place.

No plan. No long term thinking. This precisely encapsulates my take on conservatives, and especially Trump.

\\\

This too echoes many other commentaries that I’ve seen. Trump’s actions are illegal on the face of it. Only Congress can declare war. His fans don’t care about legalities, because they and Trump are, apparently, completely amoral.

Slate, Mark Joseph Stern, 2 Mar 2026: Trump’s War With Iran Isn’t Just Reckless. It’s an Impeachable Abuse of Office.

President Donald Trump thrust the United States into a war against Iran last weekend without bothering to secure congressional approval or even pretending to identify a legal basis for his actions. This administration, of course, has already declared a freewheeling authority to commence hostilities in foreign nations without a greenlight from the legislative branch. But this new conflict pushes Trump even deeper into dictatorial territory: He now asserts a freedom to disregard constitutional limits on his war-making authority and thrust the country into a potentially protracted military campaign that will only end on his say-so. This theory of executive supremacy leaves American armed forces at the whim of one man—a total inversion of our constitutional design.

\\\

Evangelicals, of course, cheer violence and war when they’re against anyone who is unlike themselves. They perpetually detect the imminent return of Jesus. They don’t learn from having been wrong over and over again for two thousand years.

Right Wing Watch, Kyle Mantyla, 2 Mar 2026: ‘The Return Of Jesus Is Back On The Menu’: MAGA Evangelicals Celebrate The Attack On Iran

When Israel launched an attack on Iran in June of 2025, religious-right activists celebrated, excited by the prospect that it could precipitate the End Times and the return of Jesus Christ.

Predictably, these same religious-right activists are once again overjoyed after the United States and Israel began jointly bombing Iran over the weekend, killing the nation’s supreme leader and dozens of top military commanders.

While the attack has generated retaliatory strikes and fears of a wider Middle East war, evangelical Trump supporters are gushing over President Donald Trump’s action, with megachurch pastor Jack Hibbs declaring that “for such a time as this, this man is being led by God.”

And you know what? I’m sure there are holy people in Iran declaring that *they* are on the side of God and that it’s their duty to fight off the evil oppressors in the US.

Truly, I cannot get over how most people, around the world and in every time, don’t get over this. Do they not understand how religion is parochial? I think it’s because they are not well-educated or well-versed in the reality of the world, and are simply comfortable growing up and living within the culture and religion of their community. They don’t need to know or understand anything else.

\\\

Let’s dip back in to some clear thinking. Here’s Cory Doctorow’s latest column in Locus Magazine, posted today.

Locus Magazine, Cory Doctorow, 2 Mar 2026: Commentary: Cory Doctorow: Not Normal

Norms change. That’s a foundation of stfnal thinking: “all laws are local and no law knows how local it is.” It’s not unusual for the bedrock ethos of your childhood to be overturned by your dotage.

As Douglas Adams put it:

  1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
  2. Anything that’s invented between when you’re 15 and 35 is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
  3. Anything invented after you’re 35 is against the natural order of things.

I’m keenly aware that when a 54-year-old man like me rails against some modern commonplace, it’s very likely that he (I) is (am) wrong, that the infernal innovation is good, actually, and he (I) is (am) simply out of touch.

And he goes on with a long example about the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA).

But my point is this example of how people deal with change. More tomorrow.

Posted in conservatives, Politics | Leave a comment

The Demise of Mass Market Paperbacks

Trends in publishing can take place over decades, so they won’t be noticed by most people unless they’ve been buying (or borrowing) books for decades. Here’s a trend I’ve noticed for a while, which is now being noticed by the major media.

NY Times, Elizabeth A. Harris, 6 Feb 2026: So Long to Cheap Books You Could Fit in Your Pocket, subtitled “The mass market paperback, light in the hand and on the wallet, once filled airport bookstores and supermarket media aisles. You may never buy a new one again.”

When the first book in the Bridgerton series was published in 2000, it was immediately recognizable as a romance novel. The cover was pink and purple, with a looping font, and like most romances at the time, it was printed as a mass market paperback. Short, squat and printed on flimsy paper with narrow margins, it was the kind of book you’d find on wire racks in grocery stores or airports and buy for a few bucks.

Those racks have all but disappeared.

After almost a century in wide circulation, the mass market paperback is shuffling toward extinction. Sales have dropped for years, peeled away by e-books, digital audiobooks and even more expensive formats like hardcovers and trade paperbacks, the mass market’s larger and pricier cousin. Last year, ReaderLink — the country’s largest distributor of books to airport bookshops, pharmacies and big-box stores like Target and Walmart — announced that it would stop carrying mass markets altogether.

“You can still find them in some places,” said Ivan Held, the president of Putnam, Dutton and Berkley, publishing imprints that once did brisk business in mass markets. “But as a format, I would say it’s pretty much over.”

The piece goes on with the various origin stories of paperback books, including the US government’s support to manufacture such books to send to troops overseas. But this piece makes a crucial error — as was noted by several of my Fb friends weeks ago when this article was published. These paperbacks, for decades now called “mass market paperbacks,” to distinguish them from the later “trade paperbacks” that appeared in the 1980s and ’90, where never called “pulps.” That terms referred to pulp magazines, meaning extremely cheap magazines published in the 1930s and before on the cheapest quality paper, the kind of paper that would easily disintegrate if gotten wet. “Pulps” were magazines, never paperback books.

(Aside: I own, or perhaps once owned, the editions shown in this photo collage of A WIZARD OF EARTHSEA, THE ANDROMEDA STRAIN, DUNE, and CAT’S CRADLE (the red one in the back at bottom right).)

\

A more recent piece.

The Guardian, David Smith in Washington, 24 Feb 2026: ‘We’re losing accessibility’: America says goodbye to the mass-market paperback

Subtitle: The so-called ‘pocket book’ sold in supermarkets is being phased out across the US, the latest sign of an ongoing shift in how people are choosing to read.

Shelly Romero has early memories of going to her local supermarket and picking pulp fiction off the shelves. “We were very working class; my mom was working two jobs sometimes,” she recalls. “The appeal of books being cheaper and smaller and able to be carried around was definitely a thing.”

For generations of readers, the gateway to literature was not a hushed library or a polished hardback but a wire spinner rack in a supermarket, pharmacy or railway station. There, amid chewing gum and cigarettes, sat the mass-market paperback: squat, roughly 4in by 7in and cheap enough to be bought on a whim.
The 2005 film version of The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe.
Myth, monsters and making sense of a disenchanted world: why everyone is reading fantasy
Read more

But the era of the “pocket book” is drawing to a close. ReaderLink, the biggest book distributor in the US, announced recently that it would stop distributing mass-market paperbacks. The decision follows years of plummeting sales, from 131m units in 2004 to 21m in 2024, and marks the end of a format that once democratised reading for the working class.

Again the solecism about “pulp fiction”. (Has the name of that movie contorted peoples’ memories?)

\\

Here’s what I remember. (I’ve written some of this history in this personal history post: 15 Ways of Buying a Book, Part 1.) As a teenager I bought [mass-market] paperback books from newsracks in drug stores and markets, including Wayne’s Super Value market in Cambridge Illinois, where I spent a couple summers, on those spinner stands. This was the late 1960s. Paperbacks cost 60 cents or 75 cents. As years passed prices crept up to 95 cents.

It was only as years passed that I discovered actual bookstores, which sold hardcovers. I was only able to afford hardcovers, which in the early 1970s sold for $7.95 or so, in the 1970s while I was at UCLA, and making bits of money here and there.

Now there’s a crucial understanding to be made about mm (mass-market) paperbacks. The earliest paperbacks, the ones called “pocket books” (as my father continued to call them in the 1960s), were all reprints of books published earlier in hardcover. At some point, perhaps it was the 1950s with Ballantine Books, some publishers began publishing brand new never-before-published books, in paperback, without any precursor hardcover. “Paperback original!” their covers would crow.

Over the decades “trade” paperbacks, larger paperbacks almost the size of hardcovers, appeared, sometimes as reprint of hardcovers, other times with original titles. These continue to this day. In bookstores these days, Barnes & Noble and the independents, you see lots of hardcovers and trade paperbacks, but virtually no mass market paperbacks. They’ve quietly vanished. The only place I see them lately is in those little free libraries. People giving them away.

That doesn’t mean the older mm paperbacks aren’t just as valuable as hardcovers (or less frequently trade paperbacks). Abebooks. Partly because many of them are legitimately collectible, since some of them were actual first editions (e.g. Delany’s DHALGREN and Russ’s THE FEMALE MAN), and some of them were issued as matchable sets of titles by their author, sets which collectors of a certain type strive to complete.

Checking Abebooks just now, a “near fine” 1st printing of DHALGREN is asking $699. It originally cost $1.95, a huge price for the time, because the book was very fat at 879pp.

Posted in Personal history | Leave a comment

Peace President Trump’s New War

So now Trump, the would-be-Nobel-Peace-Prize-winner, has started a war with Iran. All by himself, without congressional overview or approval. As someone on Facebook said, this isn’t how democracies start wars; it’s how dictators do.

I’m going to try not to get too absorbed by this, and just let it play out. But I have a couple items to note today.

Vox, Zack Beauchamp, 28 Feb 2026: Trump’s case for the Iran war makes no sense, subtitled “The scary incoherence at the heart of Trump’s latest, biggest war.”

Early Saturday, the United States launched an open-ended war on Iran. And nobody really knows why.

For the past several weeks, the United States has been amassing forces in the area — with an estimated 40 to 50 percent of its entire deployable air fleet in the region. Throughout this time, the Trump administration has refused to give any kind of straightforward public justification for the buildup: a clear accounting of why they were considering war with Iran, what such a war would entail, or what victory would look like.

After the war began, President Donald Trump gave an eight-minute speech explaining why the war had begun. The speech ran through a series of grievances with the Iranian government: its anti-Americanism, its history of supporting terrorist groups, and its nuclear program (which he had previously claimed to have “completely obliterated” after airstrikes last year).

“For these reasons,” Trump said, “the United States military is undertaking a massive and ongoing operation to prevent this very wicked, radical dictatorship from threatening America and our core national security interests.”

And so on. Later in the day Trump gave a speech explicitly citing “regime change” as a primary goal, and indeed, since this piece was posted this morning, there are reports that Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, was killed in the airstrikes.

\

Apparently Trump now claims Iran tried to interfere in the 2020 and 2025 elections to stop him. (Daily Beast and JMG) Isn’t this the first we’ve heard about it? It’s remarkable how often he accuses various groups of interfering in elections. He’s obsessed by the idea. In fact, incidents of voting fraud are very rare, and mostly done, self-righteously, by Republicans. And how, I’ve wondered before, how would election interference actually be done? By carting out truckloads of invalid ballots that get accidentally discovered? No such suggestion has been remotely plausible, let alone based on evidence. All those conspiracy theories have been debunked (sorry, Dinesh). Far more plausible: many, many people just don’t like Trump.

\

And there’s this. Every accusation is a confession. And recalling an old Dustin Hoffman movie.

JMG, via Yahoo News: Trump Repeatedly Claimed Obama Would Attack Iran

“Wag the Dog” entered the political lexicon after a 1997 film about a president who manufactures a foreign crisis to distract from scandal. The movie was satire but the cynical political instinct it captured was not. When a White House under pressure reaches for military force, voters ask whether the battlefield just changed the subject.

In 2012 and 2013, he warned repeatedly that Barack Obama might attack Iran to appear tough or distract from political weakness. He urged Republicans not to let Obama “play the Iran card.” His argument was blunt: a president in political trouble might reach for war to reset the narrative.

And it’s widely noted that Trump manufactures crises in order the distract from earlier ones.

\\\

A couple substantial topics.

NY Times, 27 Feb 2026: The Birthrate Is Plunging. Why Some Say That’s a Good Thing., subtitled “The political class is worried about the historic drop. But the biggest change is among the youngest women, who are the least ready to have children.” [gift link]

The U.S. birthrate is declining. Rose Paz’s choices help explain why.

It describes a 22-year-old woman in Salt Lake City who has a bachelor’s degree and a serious boyfriend but who doesn’t want to have children right now. She’s not financially stable.

Not so long ago, women like Ms. Paz — in their early 20s, from backgrounds that are far from privileged — would have been among the most likely to be having children.

Now this group is a key contributor to the country’s declining birthrate, which is at an all-time low, down by over 25 percent since 2007, the year the fall began.

There’s a big picture perspective here. (Which aligns with a book I’ll post a summary of here tomorrow, about progress.) Over the past couple centuries, birthrates have declined worldwide as mothers have realized that, with improved healthcare, many more children live into adulthood than was true even a couple centuries before. And so they don’t need to keep churning out more babies, compared to a time when only a few of their many babies ever grew up. That’s good news. That’s one reason to think the declining birth rate is not a problem.

The other really-big-picture perspective is to imagine the future as the world population of humans keeps expanding. Yes, it’s true that prognostications by Malthus and Ehrlich haven’t panned out; in those cases technology has saved us. But that trend can’t, literally, go on forever, or humans would, literally, fill up the planet, and drive all other species into extinction. Progressives try to imagine “sustainable” solutions, in which a balanced population manages its energy needs and learns to live in its native environment. Only a very few seem to take that perspective.

While conservatives, driven by Biblical morality, are focused on expansion at any cost. Be fruitful and multiply. They ignore the context in which that commandment was given, compared to the state of the world today.

The NYT article is long, with many examples.

\\\

Here’s a great example about how to understand scientific studies, and the risk of “doing your own research.”

Video

This is another video by Dr. Noc, whom I’ve mentioned before, as he explains how the obvious interpretation of this graph is wrong.

Sorry for the fuzzy image; it’s a screen capture from the video. But here’s the gist. The naive interpretation of this graph sees cancer rates rising as soon as someone is vaccinated. Right away. The informed interpretation is that people who get vaccinations are seeing their doctors more often, and thus more likely to see cancer diagnoses earlier than those who don’t, and don’t.

Posted in authoritarianism, History, Politics, Science | Leave a comment

Fearmongering and Gratuitous Cruelty

  • E.J. Dionne Jr. on Trump’s fearmongering;
  • Gratuitous cruelty in Kansas: canceling the driver’s licenses of transgender people, immediately and without notice;
  • Florida cuts off HIV meds access; White House edits video of US hockey star;
  • Thoughtful piece by Ryan Burge about the “God gap” in American politics, and the decline of mainline churches;
  • And a sample of Philip Glass’s opera Orphée.
– – –

Another take on the SOTU.

NY Times, opinion by E.J. Dionne Jr., 27 Feb 2026: Why Trump’s Fearmongering Is Falling Flat With Voters

President Trump did the nation a big favor in his State of the Union message: He brought home the dark secret behind his success. His one and true genius is hating on other people — Democrats always, immigrants and racial minorities (Mexicans one day, then Somalis), trans people, mythical election fraudsters, street criminals, drug dealers, foreign enemies and anyone else he finds it convenient to hurl a brick at.

The next paragraph makes an interesting point:

His speech was thus an unhappy marriage of bloody images designed to scare people and borrowed glory as he handed out medals to those who earned the honors by accomplishment and bravery, not flimflam. Mr. Trump demonstrated something too often overlooked: He can win when he’s not the incumbent and can go on the attack (2016, 2024), but he leads his party to defeat when he has to govern and fails to deliver (2018, 2020).

Continue reading

Posted in Conservative Resistance, conservatives, Music, Politics | Leave a comment

The MAHA Veil, Cruelty, and What Trump Supporters are Teaching their Children

  • MAHA isn’t about health, it’s about making money off quack cures;
  • Matthew Rozsa thinks Trump will lose in November because of one word: cruelty;
  • John Pavlovitz spells out what Trump supporters are teaching their children, about diversity, compassion, women, and much else;
  • Timothy Snyder fantasizes a Cabinet meeting in which members say honestly what they’re trying to do: destroy education, wreck the civil service, and so on;
  • How Trump’s problem is that voters don’t believe a word he says;
  • Short items about blaming Biden for closing rural hospitals, educating the Pope, and headphones;
  • About Fermi problems and Trump’s misconceptions about math;
  • Speculation about how American democracy repairs itself every 60 years or so;
– – –

The Bulwark, Jonathan V. Last, 26 Feb 2026: Behind the MAHA Veil, subtitled “It’s not about transparency or choice. It’s not even about ‘natural health’ It’s about making everyone else take their quack cures.”

The other day I mentioned in passing that anyone who puts “anti-woke” at the center of their ideology is trying to camouflage their real beliefs.

I think that’s become pretty obvious in recent years with the journey of Bari Weiss, Elon Musk, and most of the famous anti-woke, “free-speech absolutists” who, it turns out, were just shy MAGAs who preferred not to cop to their real allegiances.

Continue reading

Posted in conservatives, History, Human Nature | Leave a comment

SOTU last night

  • Perspectives on last night’s State of the Union address;
  • Followed by personal thoughts about ICE and why conservatives are especially concerned about crimes committed by immigrants.
– – –

We saw only a bit of the SOTU address last night, mostly sections where Trump highlighted someone in the audience for this or that or the other and presented them with some award. Was there anything about the actual state of the union? Fortunately I check lots of sites every morning that provide their spins.

All posts are from today unless otherwise indicated. Start with this.

The Bulwark, William Kristol: Revealing Omissions

Here are a few terms that President Trump never uttered last night:

Continue reading

Posted in Conservative Resistance, Human Progress, Politics | Comments Off on SOTU last night