Captain Obvious

What happens when a “deal term” is non-negotiable?  Most will naturally insist that is a deal killer. Negotiation requires give and take … seeking some middle ground.  Therefore, Ukraine’s insistence on being part of NATO should have been recognized long ago as a deal killer.  Plus, insisting on terms like these sours even the beginnings of any potential negotiation.  

This whole fiasco was brought to us by Ukraine’s interest in joining NATO.  If they had not committed that sin, this would have never escalated into the war it is today.  Zelenskyy’s real intent was clear—he would not agree to peace unless security guarantees were in place, implying that NATO must accept Ukraine.

If Ukraine joins NATO, the U.S. would be bound by NATO’s collective defense agreement—an attack on one is an attack on all.

In 1962, the Soviet Union placed nuclear missiles in Cuba to counter the US’s missile lead and to protect Cuba from the US. This led to the Cuban Missile Crisis, a tense confrontation between the US and the USSR that some feared would start World War III.  Ukraine joining NATO is the equivalent of placing that kind of weaponry on the Russian border, and they reacted like the US did under the Kennedy Administration where negotiations with Nikita Khrushchev achieved compromise and peace.  Which is precisely what the Trump Administration is trying to do through diplomacy. 

Most citizens of Ukraine despise Russia but, most of the eastern cities of Ukraine would rather be part of Russia. If these facts were faced early on, there might have been a chance to negotiate … but that opportunity was lost.

So, what you witnessed was a setup. Trump and JD Vance knew that the only way to achieve peace was to strategically align, at least on the surface, with Russia. Why? Because Russia would never sign a peace treaty if Ukraine were admitted into NATO.

Zelenskyy, Putin, and Trump all knew this. Zelenskyy, thinking he had Democratic support, believed he could make this bold move on live television. But Trump and Vance saw right through it and outmaneuvered him.

Zelensky has no cards to play, and Trump called his bluff.  He must give up this war while he has a chance of negotiating a good agreement.

Normally, these card games are played behind closed doors, and the results are cosmetically presented to the public.  It is rare indeed to have the game played in plain sight on national TV.  A tribute to the current administration’s commitment to transparency and truth.

We’d be a stronger country if we came together in support of what the President is trying to do and not try to tear him down at his every move.  He usually knows more than his opponent and he is the best negotiator we will get to serve as our president.   

You may not like the game, but the winner of this hand was clearly Trump and Vance.  I hope you can see that.  Trump just avoided World War III.

Sadly, all too many are blinded by their hate for his personality and party affiliation.  He wasn’t voted in for his decorum.  The majority of Americans, and the vast majority of those who are not party loyalists, voted him in for change.  It is too early to know if he will deliver.  Time will tell.

 

A recent Wall Street Journal article on how students are using AI to cheat on homework and tests indicates we are in a rapid transition where our entire educational system is being hijacked by technology.  AI is permitting students to defeat the traditional learning process and lowering the level of difficulty and the intellectual content of coursework.  This of course leads to a general decline in reasoning, and worse yet, the belief that AI provides reliable truths.

Take a careful look: https://www.wsj.com/tech/ai/chatgpt-ai-cheating-students-97075d3c?st=CD2dHb&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink

I have personally noticed that clerks in retail stores can’t make change if you give them cash, and the interest in and ability to handle demanding subjects like math and science are on a continued decline, plus our country’s scores are already low compared to others.  We were doing poorly already, and now the widespread free availability of AI is going to further degrade the learning process.

Perhaps more worrying is that we will eventually have too many who can’t function in their jobs when their electronic support systems fail.  It will be as if we were all robots, and someone turned off our power supplies. This is already true if the computers in our retail establishments go offline … the commerce system grinds to a halt.

How do we think of education in this modern context.  We saw the elimination of cursive which now makes it impossible for those students to sign their name … they must print it. I have been told by so many of our utility clients that entry-level employees are less prepared to enter the workforce than their predecessors, and they must hold remedial classes on basic skills. 

Couple this with the T Ball generational attitudes that everyone gets a trophy and that grades are classist, racist, and elitist … you get a toxic cocktail on life skill-preparation.  Fortunately, we now seem to be in a correction phase of the idea that anyone who identifies with a profession should have the right to be one.  No, it is not classist or racist that I am not a pilot … I haven’t gone through the training, and I am not capable and certainly not qualified to be a pilot.

I have heard investigations are underway into the FAA’s DEI hiring practices where it is suspected minority candidates were given answers to tests to ensure diversity quotas were met.  Even Bill Gates, a long-time advocate of DEI initiatives, has declared it has gone too far.  It’s time for the pendulum to swing back to a more balanced state and for people to not just expect but to demand high performance and excellence, and that can’t be the product of software the person uses … it has to be based upon personal competencies.

You should try this and compare it to what you used to have to do to solve equations: https://www.wolframalpha.com/  One could say this can teach you how to solve problems. But, it can also make you lazy to the point you can’t solve problems without this software.

And, finally, take a look at this WSJ article recommending that we stop using in person teaching altogether plus illustrating how Chicago’s teachers negotiated to get pay raises with no relationship to their teaching successes:

https://www.wsj.com/opinion/make-america-smart-again-technology-ai-students-education-schools-policy-5ffcc497?st=8TS5ac&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink

Beam me up Scotty … there definitely is no intelligent sign of life here …

There have been very few times in my eleven years writing Captain Obvious blogs that my post has been redeemed so quickly and decisively.  As you know, I broke with my usual weekly cadence because I felt compelled to write a recap of how I saw the Presidential address to Congress. I was appalled at what I saw and frankly how few were willing to call out the bad behavior on the part of the Democrats.  The only thing I thought was that it was mostly because they were trying to toss “fresh meat” to their supporters to bait them into believing they still were ready to fight for their causes.

I still remember how unified the Democratic Party was when Hillary ran and the party stayed united right through Biden’s presidency.  Now, they seem like wounded cornered animals all snarling at each other with fractious perspectives. I fully understand that losing the recent election so soundly sent them searching for those within their ranks to blame, but I thought the recent spate of sour grapes would naturally coalesce once again.  But, without a leader around which to do that, the up and comers are all trying to grab the spotlight, perhaps so they can be crowned the new leadership, but they have utterly fractured the party. Then, a day later, I read the article I copied here below from the NY Times and felt I had to write a follow-up blog.

We need checks and balances in our political system, and our founders knew that.  Yes, the acrimony and name-calling are an important part of the process. We have all grown up watching debate and argument and can still feel the confusion this can create when truly controversial decisions are made, such as bombing innocent civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki to end World War II.  Perhaps it is best when both sides of an issue can see the complexity and perplexity of these questions.

As so many of my blogs have indicated, we seem unwilling to truly listen to all sides of a situation and humbly admit it is complex.  We have the right to our opinions and the freedom to express them, but we also have the responsibility to do the right things in life as we learn from our past and consider the higher narrow road.  Democracy favors the easy roads with broad consensus driving our direction.  For all its strengths, that is also its essential weakness, and while attempting to educate the unwilling can seem a fool’s errand, we all must accept our responsibility to keep trying.

We are in a precarious position on the world stage and are not privy to the full backstory to many issues on the table.  There is the distinct possibility that we have been fed a crock about what we think we know. Time will certainly tell but remember that the victors always write the history of any situation. We like phrases like “trust but verify” but now realize how futile it is to know virtually anything for sure about what is really going on.

It sure seems like insanity to me.  Perhaps it is an addiction to power, and like alcohol and drugs is very hard to break. If Alcoholics Anonymous is right, we must at some point recognize that our success depends upon recognizing a “higher authority” who some will also call God.  We can’t break from true addictions without this recognition and daily admission and support by others on the similar journeys.  Plus, it takes positive counsel and support from others to achieve this in most cases.  We must work together as a community … not finding fault … but not enabling through listening and attesting to what works in our own lives.

Perhaps this is the right time for a new awakening not only here but around the world?

Article on The New Resistance by Lisa Lerer

Yesterday, several Democrats disavowed one of their own.

Representative Al Green of Texas had jumped up during President Trump’s address to Congress on Tuesday. The lawmaker yelled that Trump had no mandate to cut Medicaid, shook his cane at the dais and refused to sit down. Eventually, the House speaker ejected him. It was a showy protest on national TV. And two days later, 10 of his fellow Democrats joined a Republican censure of him, renouncing his call for “righteous indignation and righteous incivility.”

How should Democrats resist Trump this time around? The answer isn’t clear. Eight years ago, liberal voters flooded the streets, week after week, to protest Trump’s actions on immigration, climate change and women’s rights. This time, they’re much quieter and far less unified. They lack a galvanizing leader. They’re divided over ideology, strategy and tactics. Elected Democrats aren’t sure how to battle a president whom more voters wanted than didn’t. And many of their supporters are demoralized and resigned, choosing to tune out the news altogether.

Their party is still grasping for a coherent response, and the speech on Tuesday captured their disorganization. Some Democratic lawmakers boycotted; some didn’t. Some walked out of the chamber during the speech. Others held up signs, heckled Trump and wore hot pink suits in protest. Afterward came a sober-minded official Democratic response from Senator Elissa Slotkin of Michigan, a rising star who won in a swing state.

Today’s newsletter looks at the fractured Democratic opposition to Trump 2.0. It falls roughly into four categories.

The compromisers

Lawmakers, party leaders and strategists in this group point out that Trump won the election, so clearly voters wanted some of what he was selling. Governors — such as Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan and Jared Polis of Colorado — have given some political ground on issues where surveys indicate popular support for Trump’s position. Think of immigration, tariffs and transgender athletes on girl’s sports teams, which California’s governor, Gavin Newsom, recently described as “deeply unfair.”

Some of this approach is driven by the need of governors to work with the federal government. Before Trump took office, Newsom positioned himself as a leader of the opposition, calling a special session of the state legislature to craft lawsuits and “safeguard California values.” After the fires ravaged Los Angeles in January, he adopted a less confrontational style. For instance, he suspended provisions of some state environmental laws while he appeals to the federal government for aid.

The resisters

These Democrats — a younger and more liberal group — argue that the party must stridently oppose nearly every action taken by the administration. They want to update the 2017 strategy of outrage and protest for a new era.

Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut embodies this approach. As my colleague Annie Karni detailed last month, he assails the administration in videos on social media, posts on X, floor speeches, interviews and essays. “The case I’m making to Democrats is that we have to fight every single day,” he said on CNN’s “State of the Union” this week. “We have to be on the offensive 24/7.”

Green, the censured Texas congressman who heckled Trump, is an adherent of this view. Many others in the House agree.

The lawyers

Another set of Democratic officials believes the best place to fight Trump is in court. With Democrats locked out of federal power, the party’s 23 attorneys general have become the front line of the opposition.

They’ve already filed seven lawsuits against the administration, challenging executive actions to end birthright citizenship, freeze federal funding and other moves. The attorneys general of Arizona, Minnesota, New Mexico and Oregon even held their own town hall meeting this week in Phoenix, responding to voters in an unusual joint event.

The pragmatists

This group of Democrats argues that the party needs to find a message that works and not just reflexively oppose everything Trump does. The most extreme version was articulated by the strategist James Carville, who says Democrats should let Republicans and Trump sink under the unpopularity of their initiatives. “Roll over and play dead,” he told Democrats.

But in Congress, Democrats have largely chosen an economic focus, stressing issues like the cost of eggs, the potential of higher prices from tariffs and the threats to popular programs like Medicaid and Social Security.

Many of those championing this approach are more experienced members of Congress, like Senator Chuck Schumer, the minority leader. But not all: Slotkin, who won in a state where Trump prevailed, stuck to bread-and-butter issues during her response to Trump on Tuesday.

Wrapped within her message was a far more basic plea: “Don’t tune out. It’s easy to be exhausted, but America needs you now more than ever,” she said. “If previous generations had not fought for democracy, where would we be today?”

To her and other Democrats, there are two dire problems. Trump is one. The other is the apathy of their own voters.

 

Insubordination no longer seems like a politically correct label for interpersonal behavior.  Let’s go back to the definition: willfully disobeying a lawful order of one’s superior. It is generally a punishable offense in hierarchical organizations which depend on people lower in the chain of command obeying orders.

We have a democracy that elects our leaders, and the assumption is that they have our best interests at heart.  When we no longer believe that we have legal methods of examining and proving their mistakes and removing them from the office.  But, until and unless that is true, we are expected to support them, especially when we report directly to them in our jobs.

The recent presidential address to Congress illustrates how far we have moved into political insubordination. It seems on the brink of mutiny, which in the military is still punishable by death.  The reasons should be clear: the insubordinate act of one person can threaten the well-being of many.

I am seeing an unprecedented level of outrage over the recent presidential address.  Yes, just like the leader General Patton, the interpersonal antics can seem over the top, but this moves way past decorum on the part of the troops.  The behavior exhibited in the chamber and afterward by the media’s coverage are unacceptable and must be called out. The mission is always at risk, and the actions of even one can matter … a lot.

Please consider the recent events where leadership is being second-guessed.  We have the Ukraine-Russia negotiations, the Palestinian-Israel negotiations, and a country that must be set on a path out of extreme indebtedness.  Oh, and there is that pesky problem of people who are not here legally who are doing nefarious things like killing people.  Clinton, Obama, and Biden all said they needed to go, but did little to block or remove them, and it is a fact that many countries emptied their prisons and asylums at the same time to come to the United States.

The country elected Trump because most people believe he will deal with the issues other leaders have turned a blind eye to.  Doesn’t that seem like a lot on anyone’s plate? Add to that trying to regain world peace and get the Biden Administration’s rampant inflation under control.   Do you really think you could or would do better?

I don’t!  Plus, I really don’t want to work that hard or receive the crap so evident when you try.  I think it was President Lincoln who said, “you can only please half the people half the time.”  Seems like a pretty good summary of where we are as a country.  I am reminded of one of our key generals in World War II … Patton.  He was not a nice guy, but our troops and our country needed that kind of leadership … it was an ugly war.

Do you remember how close we were to destroying our country from within over slavery?  Does anyone now want to run on reinstating that?  Well, if not, why were we at war with ourselves over who the country elected as its leader?  You do, of course, remember that our President who tried to right this wrong was assassinated. Yet, there are still a few who resent him for freeing slaves. Seems silly in comparison, doesn’t it?

OK, so if you agree with me, tell me why our news media is on an all-out tear to demean, discredit, and dishonor the office of the POTUS?  I thought they were just supposed to report the news, not decide what we should think about it.  The press briefing after the next day was telling: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dD-25ENOie4

You can’t please all the people all the time, but what the mainstream media is feeding viewers is propaganda and it is pouring fuel on the flames dividing and weakening our country.  The world is watching and if what they see is an internal war against the president we elected, Lincoln again said it best regarding the threat of slavery, “A house divided against itself cannot stand.”

Your call.  Stop the insanity by turning off your media that tries to second guess the POTUS.

And, if you still can’t get over the fact that Trump is the POTUS watch this therapeutic answer: https://newzy.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/Dont-Cry-Cryo.mp4?_=1

 Watch it all the way to the end!

I am no athlete, but I did run track in high school, so I do have some curiosity about the running elite.  These are genetic winners of course, coupled with training, careful attention to diet, and a level of internal focus certainly deserving of praise.

However, when the sport changes the game through technology to let these elites break previous records, I find we have gone too far.  My best events were distance running so cross country was my favorite.  Part of the reason I did better at this was my sense of pace … not going out too fast, taking hills at the right pace, and reserving enough but not too much energy for the final few hundred yards. 

Now technology makes all that unnecessary … track lights tell you precisely what your pace should be!  Look for yourself and read very carefully:

 https://www.wsj.com/sports/olympics/indoor-mile-world-record-yared-nuguse-jakob-ingebrigtsen-7a67dfce?st=RZvBQR&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink

The track of course favors all athletes equally if it is improved, but how fair is that to the athletes whose previous records are now smashed?  Why are bathing suits for swimmers being optimized?  Sure, you wouldn’t want to have one swimmer with faster suits.

No, there is something more subtle going on here: we are being teased with technology that makes it appear that the latest athletes can break historical records more frequently.  The pure and simple reason for this is commercial interest … not sportsmanship.

I am a very serious fisherman and of course have always had a great fish finder for my boat.  Over the years, they have improved to now include side-scanning and forward-looking.  It is therefore easier to spot fish and even detect bigger ones over smaller ones.  When I was a young, the bass tournaments relied more on intuition and insight if you were to consistently catch large bass. 

I do understand the trend to make some sports more interesting by picking up the pace, but I wonder where this all leads for running in particular.  High tech sneakers that recapture the energy of the ground strike to propel you forward seems to be something that should not be allowed … yet it has crept into the sport.

We used to worry about doping … athletes taking performance enhancing substances. We all heard of the international incidents of this.  I guess this is all human nature at its worst.  Perhaps it is more about commercial interests at their worst.

My basic question is why this form of cheating has not triggered outrage from the athletes, past and current, and the spectators … except for me .