Category Archives: CounterCurrent

The Time is Now!

The president’s lap dog and offensive coordinator, Mr. Stephen Miller, has been yapping about America’s supposed right to annex Greenland. The pathetic swine is going on about our role as a superpower and how we should be pushing America’s weight around. I’m faint with nausea as I write this because that is what this sickening pig does to me. I’ll try to continue.

The prime minister of Denmark, Mette Frederiksen, said recently that Trump’s comments about Greenland and last weekend’s abduction of Nicolás Maduro and his wife will likely lead to the collapse of NATO. NATO, in case half of America was sleeping, was a big part of what kept the world from WWIII during the cold war. But hey, Trump knows better than anyone because he is rich and has nailed down the speaking patterns of an after-dinner speaker in the hotel ballroom. His third-grade intellect is sufficient for his supporters.

There are plenty of sensible people in the USA who absolutely object to what Trump is doing to our beloved homeland and by extension to the world. It appears that his vision for America is in parallel to Putin’s vision of a large and powerful Russian empire. Putin’s ethnic pride pushes him to Russify as much western territory as possible in order to balance the USA and Europe.

The USA elected a mouthy billionaire real estate developer as president- twice -and what is he doing? He is looking for land to develop. He wants to repartition the world to fit his developer’s dream of having the USA pay for his indelible mark on monuments and in future history books. Another one of his businesses is the sale or leasing of his brand- TRUMP. He’ll plaster his brand without fear of recourse because we’ll let him do it. For crying out loud, he is planning to build a triumphal arch. And his supporters continue to tingle in excitement over his feats of strength and disregard for his detractors.

While Trump is casting societal norms into the ditch, we law abiding citizens must tolerate his dishonesty and incompetent mishandling of our historic nation. We tolerate it because we have respect for the constitution and the rule of law. He was twice elected to high office and we have respected his wins. The founders did not anticipate the ultraconservative majority that got elected or appointed to SCOTUS and how the country might be taken down one wall at a time.

Not only does #47 skirt the law but the news media, the fourth estate, who have previously tried to live up to their role in civic life are now conspicuously silent. The founders could not have anticipated the magnitude of trouble electronic media have contributed to a civically immature population.

It is well past time for us by the millions to take to the streets in lengthy and vigorous opposition to the current administration. We must make noise and push back in vast numbers with all of our strength. I know those who would protest with me once but not many who would do it multiple times. Arrest and reprisal must be accepted as untold millions have around the world.

America has been a land of opportunity for anyone who could summon the will power to “make it big.” Now, America is about those who have already made it big and are trying to push closer to trillionaire status. Haul up the ladder, I’m on board. Trump’s wealth has been seen as a sign of business savvy which was thought to transfer seamlessly into governing. So how did that work out?

The downfall of the United States of America is being accelerated by voters too clueless to know otherwise. Democracy is being undone by an idiocrasy from the low side of the bell curve. Citizens too stupid or too lazy to understand America’s place in the world. World history has been heavily documented so there is no excuse for civic ignorance.

Stephen Miller’s psychotic rattling of his stick in the administration’s bucket of shit in front of the White House never ceases to satisfy America’s confederation of fools. What a sad time to be alive.

Crossing the OS Rubicon- From MS Windows 11 Across to Linux Ubuntu

After viewing an alarming report on YouTube concerning the shady situation with Microsoft’s business strategy in general and Microsoft Windows 11 in particular, I’ve decided to cross the Rubicon to Linux Ubuntu. It’s not just about what I’ve learned about Microsoft’s intrusion into my personal computer’s files. My latest update of MS Outlook ab.so.lute.ly stinks. My relearning and expectations of Windows 11 Outlook is contaminated by my prior familiarity with the previous rev. The blurred familiarity of the new version is twisted with years of habit and expectations. I’ve had enough.

I’ve been using Microsoft products since the Jurassic age of home computing, ca 1986. I refer to both “IBM” machines of that age and Apple’s McIntosh. As a result, both my entire professional and personal computer lives are deeply invested in Microsoft products, MS Word especially. I’ve heard that transfer compatibility going from Word documents to whatever Linux app is problematic, except for pdf files.

My plan is to experiment with an inexpensive laptop from Amazon with Linux Ubuntu already installed. The goal is to make a parallel assessment of Ubuntu with my personal and consulting work on MS Windows.

Remember the scene from Saving Private Ryan where a German soldier is killing an American soldier by struggling to push his bayonet into his chest on the upper floor of a building? While the German soldier is pushing the blade closer and closer, all the while he is attempting to quell the American’s panic with soft words, shushing and a pleading for him to stop resisting. It’s very disturbing and reminds me of the banality of evil.

Many companies, including Microsoft, are constructing business models that remind me of this disturbing scene. They are encouraging customers to switch from Windows 10 to Windows 11 by aging out Windows 10 updates. In doing so, Windows has become a subscription service rather than your personal property in the privacy of your hard drive. Instead of buying MS windows once, you are now paying for a subscription and allowing MS to examine your files. What do they do with what they may find? Overall, they want to turn your proclivities and interests into cash through selective advertising and sales of marketing data to third parties.

They are trying to force users to use their cloud storage where they will have access to all of our data. Worse yet, their AI “helper” encourages users to ask for help that reveals what the user is thinking. That help can be in the form of rewriting your text or actually producing content for the user. The AI system resides in one of their data centers and who knows what kind of analysis and business planning that results in.

This approach is really about shooting fish in a barrel and is increasingly appearing on social media with advertisers pushing subscriptions rather than outright purchases. Amazon does it as well with certain food stuffs. I understand the business motivation to exchange a single larger sale for monthly payments of smaller dollar amounts over time. This works best when charges are hidden in your credit card statements disguised as lengthy character strings rather than intelligible names. Also, that particular human frailty of losing track of what you are paying for by credit card is a real issue for people. Do we actually think that the C-Suite knobs who oversee their sales operations haven’t thought of this? They know exactly what they are doing.

Ostensibly, the “genius” of the free market is to maximize the efficient use of capital. Obviously, history bears (or bares?) out that there is much evidence for this assertion. The downside of this is that decisions contrary to your personal choice are made by others who decide what efficiencies that you will pay for while they retain their margins.

Do you want to produce a product that results in a few single-item sales of a dollar each or a product that produces a larger number of nickels over time? Obviously, it depends on the product.

Like hundreds of millions of others, I have helped to keep Microsoft afloat and remain a great investment for their stockholders. We’ve done our part. But now it is time to say “so long and thanks for all of the fish.”

Good Lord, It’s The Greenland Thing Again.

The Fearless Overlord of the American Oligarchy, DJT, has resurfaced the Greenland question again. Louisiana’s Republican governor Jeff Landry has been anointed by Trump to a volunteer position as Special Envoy to Greenland. This move was promptly condemned by both the EU President and Denmark, unsurprisingly.

Resembling the many tragic leaders in history, Trump keeps nattering on about the need to annex Greenland for national security. The claim of national security is a kind of universal excuse that is solemnly expressed but rarely explained. We understand that an explanation might reveal the poker hand we are playing- We get it. But like a when a hammer looks around and sees only nails, what does a property developer see when he pans his orange face across a large, underdeveloped island? Bingo!!

We shouldn’t forget that Trump has been in the business of selling his name as a brand for a long time. He knows the value of an attractive brand and is not the least bit shy about plastering his family name as far and wide as possible. Look at the recently renamed “Trump Kennedy” Center in DC where he is the CEO. His coterie of sycophants are constantly trying to outdo each other with ever increasing levels of ass-kissing. Whatever shame there might have been in self-promotion is long gone.

The thing is that when a businessman who was in the business of promoting his brand begins to label government property with that brand, isn’t that a conflict of interest? His escape must be that others are slapping the brand on buildings, not him. There isn’t a single milligram of shame in him that would request that such naming happen only after he passes.

An interesting thing is that while the Trump administration is officially contemptuous of global climate change, a particular result of climate change must come about. In order to extract mineral wealth from below the ice –whatever that might be– global warming will be needed to melt the Greenland ice cap to expose that mineral wealth.

However, the motivation goes far beyond minerals. Access to the Arctic Ocean and whatever crude oil that may be pumped out from below the ocean floor is up for grabs. A US shoreline on the Arctic Ocean supports arctic military access as well as access to the new Northwest Passage that is opening up to commerce.

A surprise to precisely no one, annexing Greenland is about a new phase of American hegemony and extending the reach of military power. Perhaps Greenland is the new Manifest Destiny in the eyes of the rancid White House clique running American government just now.

I previously mentioned American hegemony. The USA has been a leading world power since the conclusion of WWII. There are presently two other powers who desire this status and are happy to help the USA to topple over as hegemon. The post WWII track record of the American hegemon is spotty at best and since the election of Trump, has begun an abrupt nosedive.

Trump’s slogan “America First” is catchy and patriotic-sounding and appeals to us as citizens of an isolated country bounded by two expansive oceans. Unlike a great many other countries, the USA has a temperate climate, warm deepwater ports, and abundant fertile farmland, minerals and lumber. Importantly, the USA had a capitalistic economic establishment favoring industrialization as a mostly democratic republic. In combination, all of this allowed the USA to rapidly tool-up after Pearl Harbor and back its fighting forces with massive quantities of war materiel and enter WWII cocked and loaded for bear. Fascism was defeated in Europe and the Pacific, and we even helped our defeated enemies get back on their feet.

In my lifetime, I’ve heard many fellow citizens try to explain our victories in WWII as the result of some unique attribute of American clean living and superior moral fiber. Never mentioned are the countries who also had clean living and high moral fiber but were unable to summon the resources to assemble a powerful war machine. American successes in WWII greatly relied on abundant natural resources, an existing industrial base and oceans that prevented tanks and troops from marching across our borders.

Today, the tell-tale voices of fascism are surfacing around the USA. People who had previously voted republican and strutted around claiming to be patriotic citizens are now saying that maybe democracy doesn’t work and an authoritarian government is needed. Let Trump be Trump!

WWII veterans and their offspring have come, passed away or retired by now in 2025. They brought a kind of optimism and energy to the growth of the USA. Technological modernism was the answer to all the ills of society. What was needed was an electrified, push button life of convenience.

If you look deep enough into virtually any peacetime period of American history, you’ll find reports of conflict, malfeasance, criminality and a myriad of dirty political dealings for the time. This represents the true baseline, ground state of America. This is bumpy ground but normal. My point is that before we indulge in self-flagellation and unrealistic expectations of our society, we should have a good think about what “normal” is actually comprised of. The inability to deal with exponential growth, uncertainty and a bit of disorder only cripples us.

Wherein I faintly Mock a Harvard Professor

Ok, so there is this Harvard professor named Avi Loeb who attracts media attention with his suggestions that a new comet or asteroid may be an alien spaceship, especially if we’re sure that it is from outside our solar system. Any given new object arriving from “way out there” has the possibility of being made and operated by extraterrestrials. Yes, it is a remote possibility, but still non-zero.

What gets my attention is how his pronouncements of possible alien spaceships are leapt upon by media who publish and promote with breathless and fanciful headlines. Ok, media are in a 24 hour or less news cycle and feel the need obligation to publish a story with breathtaking headlines. Or at least the writer of the story intends it will attract the reader’s engagement,

Is the professor just looney or is there method to his madness? Perhaps his personal threshold for signal to noise ratios is set just a bit too low. I just don’t know.

With this, however, the ET credibility gap is bridged by the fact that a professor at Harvard University is making the statement. This affords instant credibility because, as we all know, God himself spends Thursday afternoons at Harvard and what is more sanctified than a tenured Harvard faculty member? In fairness, it must be said that God spends Thursday mornings across town at MIT, though half-assed claims of ETs are a bit rarer from there.

As Carl Sagan or someone else once said, incredible claims require incredible evidence. In this example, where was the incredible evidence? Extremely distant, small and faint objects detectable only in the visible part of the spectrum with very sensitive equipment tend to reveal only faint evidence. Even if some kind of signal can be discriminated, would aliens want to broadcast their appearance to the whole flippin’ solar system straight away?

For myself, if there were aliens strapped inside this object, the more interesting problem is how did they manage to cross interstellar space in a way consistent with sufficient fuel for their propulsion system and critical supplies?

My faint mockery of the Harvard professor is now complete. Time to move on.

Perhaps aliens have picked up our radio transmissions, remembering that TV transmission is also a kind of radio transmission. Amplitude modulated transmissions, AM, would be easiest to investigate since it is only a narrow carrier frequency that is modulated by wave amplitude.

A radio signal modulated in two ways- AM and FM. Source: Wikipedia.

Black and white television used AM for video and FM for sound. AM is the easiest to understand, but the FM signals are quite different. Frequency modulation, FM, takes a fixed carrier frequency and combines it with signal that is near the carrier frequency, but the frequency is modulated in a way that the sum of the carrier and sound frequencies combine in such a way that the combined carrier and sound signals produce peaks and valleys resulting from combining two signals of somewhat different frequencies. The peaks of the carrier frequency end up adding or subtracting with the other signal.

AM receiving equipment has difficulty discriminating between signal by variable amplitude noise. Lightning or other sources of radio frequency energy easily interfere with the clarity of the signal. If you have listened to an AM radio station in stormy weather, you know how interfering lightning can be.

FM, on the other hand, is from the addition of a set carrier frequency plus a variable frequency sound signal. Electrical mechanisms that produce RF noise generally do not produce an FM signal, thus the quiet sound of FM reception.

Interlacing raster scan lines on a TV screen. Alien receivers of TV signals would have to assemble images from an interlacing raster scan signal with a proper sweep frequency across the screen. Image: Wikipedia.

This is a superficial explanation of television. Television images of the Lucy show, or the Three Stooges received by aliens has been speculated on to our great amusement, but we should understand that a transmitted TV signal is generated taking into account of specifically how it will be read. On a monochrome TV receiver screen, the picture is produced by interlacing two half vertical images alternating every 60th of a second so a whole image is received by our retinas every 30th of a second exploiting our persistence of vision to prevent flickering images. Below 30 frames per second, the images begin to flicker. Aiding in this is the fact that the phosphors in the picture tube glow momentarily after the beam has passed. In order to produce images from a radio frequency signal, this method would first have to be recognized then a receiver built by the aliens to “decode” the signal. Also, the aliens would have to recognize that the analog information is visual in nature and presented as an interlaced raster scan on some kind of display. Misinterpretation of our signals as hostile in nature would be avoided, hopefully.

Ok, movie projection just for fun

The passage of movie film through a movie projector is at 24 frames per second but flickering is avoided by projecting each frame twice to give a frame rate of 48. The classic sound of a movie projector results from the advancing of each frame past the shutter, stopping the film momentarily while the shutter rotates in the light beam and shines light through the frame twice. Slack is built into the continuous flow of film through the projector using loops of film above and below the aperture and shutter to allow continuous movement of the film but also stopping for 1/24th of a second so that a steady image is projected twice per frame. The source of the flickering sound is in large part from the upper and lower loops jumping up and down every 1/24th of a second.

If only we’d ship reels of movie film to the aliens, they could better understand us. For starters, I’d suggest a recent Godzilla movie.

The essential parts of a movie projector. Note the loops above and below the shutter. Source: Smithsonian.

The Latest Crusades

You’ve probably heard that #47 has asked the Pentagon to be ready for action. According to an article in The Hill, President #47 has labeled Nigeria as a “Country of Particular Concern”, or CPC. This designation stems from news that Islamic terrorists are allegedly attacking Nigerian Christians. A group of approximately 30 American Christian religious leaders and a few politicians like Ted Cruz and Rep. Riley Moore (R-W.Va.) as well as the entertainers Nicki Minaj and Bill Maher have made a convincing enough case for the President to make the CPC declaration.

If you read H.R. 2431 (2018), you’ll find:

Title IV: Presidential Actions – Subtitle I: Targeted Responses to Violations of Religious Freedom Abroad – Directs the President, for each foreign country in which the government engages in or tolerates violations of religious freedom (including particularly severe violations), to oppose such violations by taking certain actions and promoting the right to freedom of religion in that country. [emphasis mine]

(Sec. 405) Specifies among the actions the President may take: (1) public condemnation; (2) delay or cancellation of scientific and cultural exchanges; (3) withdrawal, limitation, or suspension of U.S. development assistance and U.S. security assistance; (4) instruction of U.S. executive directors of international financial institutions to vote against loans primarily benefiting the foreign government responsible for such violations; (5) restrictions on the issuance of licenses to export any goods or technology to such foreign government; (6) prohibition against the making, guaranteeing, or insuring of loans, or extension of credit by certain U.S. financial institutions to the violating government; and (7) prohibition of U.S. Government procurement of goods or services from such government. Provides for: (1) commensurate actions in substitution for any of the above presidential actions; and (2) binding agreements with foreign governments obliging them to cease, or take substantial steps to address and phase out, the acts, policies, or practices constituting violations of religious freedom.

(Sec. 407) Authorizes the President to waive the requirements of this Act if certain conditions are met.

My reading of Title IV of H.R. 2431 is that the President is compelled to take certain actions against Nigeria. While taking no action does not seem to be specifically barred, I didn’t see it listed as an option.

The potential threat by the President is in sending an expeditionary military force to Nigeria to stop the violence on Christians. According to Wikipedia, the population (2023) of Nigeria is estimated at 236,747,130 people. Unless the terrorists are wearing military uniforms, how will our troops find them and what’s to prevent a guerrilla war with the terrorists gradually taking bites out of our soldiers as they did in Viet Nam, Iraq and Afghanistan? Guerilla warfare has time and again proven successful against superior military forces.

America does not need another distant land war … this time in west-central Africa with guerilla fighters in the jungle. Peace through superior firepower only works if you can find the targets. Perhaps we should call in favors from Israeli special forces?

Finally, conflict between religions is a conflict between ideas. When both sides believe that they have authority based on the supernatural, short of religious conversion or death how do you decisively win such a war? A war of attrition, perhaps?

As a military conflict progresses, what is to prevent escalation on the part of US forces. Or is this just to be the work of a few military advisors? Remember, that is how the US stumbled into the Viet Nam war.

Latest Fake News

For Release, 11/1/25.

Secretary of Defense Hegseth and the public affairs office with the Department of War in Washington, DC, announced late Friday that 2 policy changes will go into effect on January 1, 2026, both relating to the military dress code. First, unless otherwise specified, Fridays will become casual Friday. Second, ties worn by service members will be red and extra-long. This change has been in the works since 2016.

White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller was rushed from the White House outhouse to the hospital late Friday evening for a severe RCI, Rectal-Cranial Inversion. Members of his immediate family said only that this came as no surprise.

A spokesman for President Trump said that the East Wing conversion has already gone over budget owing to the late addition of state-of-the-art-secret doors and passageways. The secret doors are designed for the quiet removal of foreign guests who refuse to speak English.

The White House Office of Global Disruption has announced the decision to rename an offensive digit. It has been named “Trump” and it replaces the name “five”. MAGA rejoiced in the elimination of the Antifa-approved name five, e.g. trump, trumpteen or trump thousand trump hundred and trumptytrump. When asked whether or not this is a wise move, Trump replied that someone said that this will be the greatest change ever in mathematics.

Violent Death as Entertainment

Note: This essay is written mostly for a foreign audience whose members may lack a more nuanced view of America if only by virtue of distance or language.

The awful shooting in Michigan recently as well as other shootings in the last several days are a reminder- as if we need it- that this mass shooting business is not a bug but rather a feature of current American culture. It is yet more male violence. So far, Americans have failed to hold males culpable for this trend. The way we raise men in general needs to be rejiggered to produce better citizens overall. Make no mistake, there are a great many good and decent fellas in the US- maybe most of us- but a minority are quite problematic.

Surely there must be a way to address this matter without government interference. This is in large part a civics problem. The question is this: How can we make everyone better citizens, men especially?

A great many US citizens are forced to endure gun violence because any argument that might impede any aspect of anyone’s ability to own a gun is met with howls of indignation and angry hand waving arguments based on the 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution. Okay, fine. Conservative politicians are loathe to touch this electrified 3rd rail of politics. Candidates for the US House of Representatives will sometime post pictures of themselves in ads holding a firearm with a flag somewhere in the picture. This is meant to assure conservative voters that they as patriots will uphold the 2nd Amendment to the US constitution. I understand this and I cannot believe that any liberal politician could successfully part gun owners with their guns. There would be shooting. The government confiscating American guns is in no way politically feasible.

I also support anyone’s right to stand in a pool of gasoline and play with matches, barring any violation of local ordinances of course.

For the most part, school killings were unusual prior to the Columbine shootings in 1999. What has changed? One notable change relates to the emergence of smart phones and the internet. According to Wikipedia-

Below is a graphic from the K-12 Shooting Database. Of course, in the USA K-12 refers to the 13 years of basic education all children receive in public and private schools.

Source: K-12 Shooting Database. The Mormon church shooting or other recent shootings in public places aren’t part of this data set.

If you wade into the data, you’ll find that the definition of ‘mass shooting’ might vary a bit. Sometimes the definition refers to 3 or more deaths, but for the most part there is no agreed upon definition.

As a kid I recall exploring with a .22 caliber rifle out in a grassy river bottom. Maybe it is just me, but I was always itching for an excuse to fire the gun at something, maybe even a badger or a fish. I never shot a badger or a fish, thankfully. I’m only saying that possessing a gun and ammo can gave me a sense of power and authority. My imagination tells me that there are others.

These mass shootings are the status quo and usually fail to generate more than a day or two of concern for most Americans. Except for Charlie Kirk. Thoughts and prayers are offered by many, but to no useful end so far. Flowers and stuffed animals are left at the crime scene, but most people return to their streaming episodes of TV with gunplay being central to the show.

Americans have a fascination with murder as a plot line for their entertainment. Hollywood feigns some concern over the violence but continues to bang out more grotesque violence in their creations. As much as actors would like to think, the artistic qualities of film are no more than secondary. A movie project is much like a speculative construction project- plans are made, money is secured, contractors are hired and the building project is begun. The whole thing is based on a fair probability that eventual sale of the building will sell at a healthy profit. It is a wager made by people who believe that they understand the market in the near future.

Investors in a movie or TV series also bet on a spec project where their money is gathered on the guess that the production will be a hit and rake in profits. Whereas a building project depends on scarcity in the real estate market and vanity to some extent, a movie project is all about vanity. Investors believe that they alone can select a project likely to be profitable. Directors and writers believe that their work product will put butts in seats or eyeballs on the TV screens. In film, the artistic elements are complex and expensive. However, the artistic sensibilities of audiences are fickle at best.

All of this leads to a critical point. Spec buildings and movies both rely on the notion that if you build it, customers will come. Buildings can be designed and located in appealing ways to attract buyers. Movies can be produced with stars, popular directors, and the myriad specialists who put a successful film together. So, why would investors back a movie project that lacks large scale appeal to audiences? If gunplay or other violence puts butts in seats, investors may require it before committing funds. Writers, producers and directors understand this and may only go forward with a movie project having a minimum of violent action sequences, car chases and a bit of nudity to dial in some edginess. Very often, though, star power leads the charge to success. Stars are likely to favor certain types of movie projects with ‘action’, where action includes scenes with combat, one-on-one fighting and gunplay which add to ticket sales. Think Tom Cruise, Keano Reeves and many others

Having been in the theater exhibition business, I can verify that people will line up in droves to see a new Tom Cruise or 007 movie. The appeal of shoot- ‘em-up action movies is undeniable and bankable. So, the question is-

Why fund a movie that is less than best effort, where ‘best effort’ means attractive elements known to draw crowds? Why leave out scenes of gun violence when the public expects it?

Our citizens are programmed early on to tolerate or enjoy gun violence. Guns are used to solve conflict. Violence in entertainment is something that we have normalized by sheer repetition leading to satisfying conclusions.

The prevalence of violent video games exposes young men and kids to killing. Some deny that these games promote violence, but the enthusiastic death dealing and mayhem produced by the players is telling. People are immensely entertained by it. I’ve seen where the military even encourages its active-duty soldiers to play games with violent gunplay. That is the job of soldiers. Causing casualties is what they train to do because it is necessary. I get it.

Why were these large-scale killings scarce before 1990? For the school shootings, the hockey stick curve above shows that from about 2010, the incident count exploded until 2018 where it leveled off briefly but rapidly took off again. Has entertainment conditioned us to tolerate or even enjoy gun violence? The actual fallout from untimely death is brutal for family and friends.

Before 1990 there was an internet in its infancy, but no smart phones. Unless you had access to a computer, electronic entertainment and news had limited reach. Unlike today, a great many people were isolated from events and politics. There were only the 3 major networks plus PBS, newspapers and magazines. All suffered from time delays owing to content production complexity. The standards and practices required discipline and ‘proper’ content absent speculation and hype. There were the tabloids like the National Enquirer that indulged in gossip, but their credibility low, at least among educated people.

Today with the 24-hr. news cycle, content is broadcast immediately and most of the entire population are free to take half-baked, poorly content edited news items and crank themselves into a tizzy. Unlike the past, today producers of news content rely on ‘clicks’, ‘likes’, or other indicators of viewing to base their advertising invoices on.

Scrolling through content online is driven by our curiosity and FOMO- Fear Of Missing Out. I can personally add that it is certainly say this is true for myself. While I do enjoy ‘action‘ movies, I must occasionally remind myself that the violence on fellow humans is only a plot element. But like Jane Goodall observed in ape and chimp behaviors, our human primate behavior includes sometimes extreme violence. It’s built in and for many it lurks just below the surface, waiting to spring out.

Much of what we learn is based on observation of other people. Are we saying that civilized social norms can screen out or ignore violence in entertainment? For most mature people, the aversion to violence is strong and a 2-hour movie will not change that. But for some, the application of violence may get considerable thought. The realization that a violent act may be called for. Socially or mentally fragile people may see the application of gunplay as a plausible solution to their problem. To become a social issue, only a very few violence prone individuals are needed.

Gun violence is our own fault as Americans and will only be solved by a concerted effort in America to see violence as an undesirable aberration. We cannot expect a change of heart in the entertainment business. As long as there is profit in violence, they will continue to produce it.

Hurray for the UK!

The anti-Trump action in the UK prior to, during and after the American president’s visit has been awe inspiring for many of us in America. The grotesque and nauseating Trump has managed to emotionally unify Britain for a time in shared revulsion. Someone said that Trump speaks English like a dog walks on his hind legs.

Trump’s attempt to offer “elder statesman” advice to members of the EU and the greater collection of attendees at the UN actually blew up in his face, though it isn’t likely that he realized it. That said, he is extremely sensitive to perceived slights and is quite thin skinned even by his own admission. At the UN, Trump’s clown car of staff sycophants and pale underlings immediately assumed the escalator and teleprompter incidents malevolent acts meant to humiliate him. If they were acts of protest, then good on them.

It looks like the majority of Americans can see through his charade as a benevolent billionaire, the all-knowing sage of capitalism. If a general election were held now, it is becoming more likely that MAGA would lose control of the House of Representatives. The outcome of the 2028 general election, if Trump doesn’t interfere with it, is in doubt for the MAGA party.

Prior to Trump’s election in 2016, I don’t think he has ever led a publicly owned company. This means that he has never had to be accountable to the public. His actions are always buried within the board of directors of whom he is either the chairman or in control of some relative or other lackey.

I’ve been noticing more examples on YouTube about what foreigners, especially Brits and Canadians, really think about America: And it ain’t pretty either. The negative feelings expressed have torn through the curtain of polite silence to a full venting of the spleen. The traditionally understated Brits are aghast at the boastful American Orange Jesus. This frustration with the USA didn’t suddenly surface from the Trump era. It has been growing quietly for decades. America presumed it’s hegemony and has acted accordingly. Once the sparkling city on the hill, on close inspection we have a darker side, a grubby and mean-spirited side that persists despite all of our self-aggrandizement.

Aren’t Americans themselves embarrassed at Trump’s behavior? Yes, dammit. But due to the election cycle, MAGA congressional support and an impotent judiciary, there seems to be no way around immediate remedy. We must wait for the 2026 midterm elections and hope that the Congressional MAGA monopoly is toppled.

Even if Trump voluntarily resigns, there is the matter of his vice-president, JD Vance. As president, he would be pressured to carry out Trump’s “policies”, which so far have amounted to vengeance and the Project 2025 plan to drown the federal government by holding its head under water in the bathtub to paraphrase a republican strategist. Vance is an unknown quantity to most Americans. He was very critical of Trump before being chosen as the VP candidate. Somehow, he “saw the light” and became Trump’s VP. How would he really behave as president? Connect his dots and project into the future with a linear extrapolation, to begin with.

Trump has already done irreparable damage to US credibility and leadership in the world. I don’t see how this can be reversed back to pre-2015 days. American hegemony has come and gone now that the barnyard gate is open. New alliances in trade, absent US participation, are being set as in the case of Canada. American military leadership will linger well passed the rejiggering trade situation. America has a true talent for the military arts and sciences. Not because of American exceptionalism, but because of the vast sums that we have spent in the past plus our natural resources.

It is good for Americans to see ourselves through the eyes of foreign nations, painful as it might be. Television has a large impact on how we view ourselves. Ever vigilant for new trends or ways of keeping eyeballs fixed on the tube, broadcasters produce content that satisfies by exaggerating our merits or strengths and by burying certain parts of history. Huge corporate news organizations profit by taking a populist political stance and setting inflammatory political content on repeat cycle. Corporations are like a penis- they have no brain and all they want is more.

Academia and Industry, Industry and Academia. It’ll never work.

Today I have a slightly different demographic of readers of this blog than in the past, so I’ve been dredging up old posts into the light of day. This is a renamed post from September 3, 2011. I’ve changed some wording to be a bit more mellifluous if that’s even possible.

==========

I’ve had this notion (a conceit, really) that as someone from both academia and industry, I should reach out to my colleagues in academia in order to bring some awareness of how chemistry is conducted off-campus.  After many, many conversations, an accumulating pile of work in local ACS section activities, and visits to schools, what I’ve found is not what I expected. I expected a bit more academic curiosity about how large-scale chemical manufacturing and commerce works and perhaps what life is like at a chemical plant. I’d guessed that my academic associates might be intrigued by the marvels of the global chemical manufacturing complex and product process development. Many academics would rather not get all grubby with filthy lucre. Not surprisingly, though, they already have enough to stay on top of.

What I’ve found is more along the lines of polite disinterest. I’ve sensed this all along, but I’d been trying to sustain the hope that if only I could use the right words, I might elicit some interest in how manufacturing works- that I could strike some kind of spark.  But what I’ve found is just how insular the magisterium of academia really is. The walls of the fortress are very thick. I’m on a reductionist jsg right now so I’ll declare that chemistry curricula is firmly in place on the three pillars of chemistry- theory, synthesis, and analysis. In truth, textbooks often set the structure of courses.  A four-year ACS certified chemistry curriculum spares only a tiny bit of room for applied science. I certainly cannot begrudge departments for structuring around that format. Professors who can include much outside the usual range of academic chemistry seem scarce.

It could easily be argued that the other magisteria of industry and government are the same way.  Well, except for one niggling detail. Academia supplies educated people to the other great domains comprising society.  We seem to be left with the standard academic image of what a chemical scientist should look like going deeply into the next 50 years. Professors are scholars and they produce what they best understand- more scholars in their own image.  This is only natural. I’ve done a bit of it myself.

Here is my sweeping claim (imagine waving hands overhead)- on a number’s basis, chemists apparently aren’t that aware of industrial chemical synthesis as they come out of a BA/BS program. That is my conclusion based on interviewing many fresh chemistry graduates. I’ve interviewed BA/BS chemists who have had undergraduate research experience in nanomaterials and atomic force microscopy but could not draw a reaction scheme for the Fisher esterification to form ethyl acetate, much less identify the peaks on 1HNMR.  As a former organic assistant prof, I find it sobering and a little unexpected.

A mechanistic understanding of carbon chemistry is one of the keepsakes of a year of sophomore organic chemistry. It is a window into the Ångstrom-scale machinations of nature. The good news is that the forgetful job candidate usually can be coached into remembering the chemistry. After a year of sophomore Orgo, most students are just glad the ordeal is over and they still may not be out of the running for medical school.

I think the apparent lack of interest in industry is because few have even the slightest idea of what is done in a chemical plant and how chemists are woven into operations.

To a large extent, the chemical industry is concerned with making stuff.  So perhaps it is only natural that most academic chemists (in my limited sample set) aren’t that keen on anything greater than a superficial view of the manufacturing world. I understand this and acknowledge reality. But it is a shame that institutional inertia is so large in magnitude in this. Chemical industry needs chemists of all sorts who are willing to help rebuild and sustain manufacturing in North America. We need startups with cutting edge technology, but we also need companies who are able to produce the fine chemical items of commerce. Have you tried to find a company willing and able to do bromination in the USA lately? A great deal of small molecule manufacture has moved offshore.

Offshoring of chemical manufacturing was not led by chemists. It was conceived of by spreadsheeting MBAs, C-suite engineers and boards of directors. It has been a cost saving measure that mathematically made sense on spreadsheets and PowerPoint slide decks. The capital costs of expansion of capacity could be borne by others in exchange for supply contracts. There is nothing mathematically wrong with this idea. Afterall, corporate officers have a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders. Allowing profit opportunities to pass by is not the way to climb the corporate ladder.

We have become dependent on foreign suppliers in key areas who have control over our raw material supply. Part of control is having manufacturing capacity and closer access to basic feedstocks.

The gap between academia and industry is mainly cultural. But it is a big gap that may not be surmountable, and I’m not sure that the parties want to mix. But, I’ll keep trying.

Where is Russia Going?

What is the deal with Russia? Why do the Russian people tolerate the lack of basic freedoms we in the West are accustomed to? Dissatisfaction with their government has been there since the beginning. Hundreds of millions have been deprived of liberty and prosperity following Russian revolution.

The history of early 20th century reveals the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia and the formation of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republic (USSR). Later, after much blood and treasure was spilled after the revolution and then through the cold war, the Soviet Union collapsed after a brief attempt at openness. Many around the world saw the collapse as a positive thing and a sign of better times ahead, especially for the people of the former USSR. There was hope in the West for a transition to some variety of Russian-tinted democracy and for freedoms heretofore absent for the average citizens of the former USSR.

To Russians in power, the very idea of a democratic republic is alien and inconceivable. There is a baseline level of distrust and fear of the infectiousness of the democratic spirit among Russian/Soviet leadership. Even the population has been convinced that the moral collapse of the West would spread to their homeland without an iron-fisted leader.

For a part of the world that has been strangling under autocratic rule and economic stratification since before the time of the Tsars, there has not been a historical Russian-style power sharing agreement between the monarchy and the nobility or the serfs from which to build upon. After generations of polarization by Soviet propaganda focused on Western hegemony and the moral turpitude of the West, there was no likelihood of building upon a Western style democratic model. The Russian propaganda engine continues to this day as strong as ever but with the help of the internet, artificial intelligence and widespread political indifference or gullibility.

The decade of the 1990’s following the collapse of the former USSR was a time of redistribution of wealth for a lucky few. Large Soviet industrial sectors were absorbed by a few private interests, producing fabulously wealthy oligarchs. This did not go unnoticed by the populace, who simmered in anger over it because they expected a freedom and prosperity dividend from the collapse. Amidst the confusion and dissatisfaction with Russian President Yeltsin, there arose a growing sense that Russia needed a strongman leader. Many even spoke admiringly of Stalin.

The collapse of the USSR left an internal power vacuum that would soon be filled by former Soviet citizens. Boris Yeltsin was elected President of Russia in December 1991 and remained as President until 1999 when his selected successor Prime Minister and former FSB director Vlad Putin took over as acting president. Putin was elected president in May of 2000.

I’ve been trying to understand why present-day Russia seems so … belligerent. My focus to start with is Putin. Rather than being a one-of-a-kind freak of nature, Putin is rather ordinary as a dictator except that his regime has a nuclear triad. Until its invasion of Ukraine, Russia also had the benefit of whatever left-over respect it may have had from its Soviet military reputation. But that has changed dramatically.

Putin has long expressed the view that the collapse of the USSR was a tragedy. He wants to rebuild the stature of Russia into a global superpower. Soviet leaders held the view that in order for Moscow to be safe from attack by the West, the Slavic eastern European countries bordering Western Russia had to be under the wing of the Kremlin. It was this deep boundary in combination with the Russian winter that helped to wear down the invasions of Napolean and Hitler. Both armies were substantially weakened by traversing the extensive farmlands and steppes of Ukraine and Poland. It is difficult to believe that this thinking has changed since the collapse.

When the USSR collapsed it left much more than empty senior positions and titles to fill. The Soviet governing apparatus was abandoned when the Kremlin finally conceded that the USSR was economically unsustainable. Even a culture built upon bribery and corruption needs an all-encompassing structural skeleton to manifest its national identity and sustain an economy, security and a global presence. Even a corrupt government needs some sustainability.

Unfortunately for present day Russia, extensive government bribery and corruption in all sectors was already baked in from Soviet times. On a practical level, getting things done involved bribery. Bribes were expected and paid as a matter of routine in the military and all other areas of government. Today there have been show trials with certain high-level officials being tried, convicted and imprisoned on bribery charges. It gives the population bread and circuses to consume and hopefully optimism for a brighter future.

The USSR and later the Russian Federation did not have the benefit of English common law which evolved from the Magna Carta. Born of earlier conquest by the Rus, the Bolsheviks had nothing to build upon for a more democratic legal system like the American colonists had. Overall, Bolsheviks forcibly switched from monarchy to an autocratic socialist empire. Conquest of the tsarist Russian empire by the Bolsheviks was difficult because there were numerous groups vying for power, leading to the Russian civil war following the 1917 revolution.

Although Putin and the cranky Dimitry Medvedev have done a bit of nuclear saber rattling, the West has been concerned about Russian nukes since their very first test in the late 1940’s, so not much new here. Putin’s stern public warnings about nuclear retaliation were not necessary for the Western experts to be on alert. This apparent “virtue signaling” in the form of a public warning by Putin is just a part of Russia’s overall hybrid warfare approach. They’ll use every word and inflection uttered by Russian and Western media as well as the Kremlin to fortify their propaganda with doubt, suspicion and existential threats. They are also actively injecting propaganda into every media stream in the West they can manage. Putin’s dire public warnings about lowering the threshold for a tactical nuclear release were meant to cause a great clenching of public sphincters with the usual fear and loathing leading to internal political pressure for its enemies.

/*begin anecdote/*

Russia’s triad of Soviet-era nuclear weapons have been aging in storage. Are Russian nuclear bomb designs immune to shelf-life issues? By comparison, American-style nuclear weapons have a relatively short shelf-life because of their boosted triggers. According to one source, the entire US nuclear arsenal of nuclear triggers are boosted. American nuclear trigger designs have a short shelf-life stemming from tritium’s 4500 +/- 8 day half-life or 12.32 years (NIST, 2000). US fission triggers have a hollow core which contains a 1 to 1 deuterium-tritium mixture. This booster gas undergoes fusion during ignition in the center of the core and increases the fission yield by the release of abundant 14 MeV neutrons into the surrounding fissile material. With the use of a booster to breed neutrons, the critical mass of fissile explosive is reduced because more neutrons are dispersed to initiate a runaway fission while under intense compression. The reduced mass of fissile material in a bomb is also resistant to unintended ignition by a nearby source of neutrons, like a nearby nuclear explosion.

Tritium is 3H, with 1 proton and 2 neutrons. It undergoes a beta decay where a neutron decays to a proton and an ejected electron, forming 3Helium with 2 protons and a neutron. So, wouldn’t you know, 3Helium is a poison with a very high neutron capture cross section. An aging booster gas loses its tritium potency as well as gaining an effective neutron poison.

But for this application to work, an ongoing supply of tritium is required. Tritium must be produced in a breeder reactor or accelerator. In addition to its short half-life, tritium decay is problematic to monitor because of its low 5.7 keV average beta radiation energy. Tritium atoms or molecules can be detected and measured by mass spectroscopy, but its beta decay radiation requires special equipment to detect. Tritium emits very low energy, low penetrating beta particles which are limited to 6 mm of travel in air and are blocked by the dead layer of skin cells on the surface of the skin. Getting through the window of a Geiger-Muller tube is a problem. So, measurement of tritium activity requires a liquid scintillation detector or an ionization chamber. A sample of radioactive material is dissolved in a vial of scintillation cocktail and run through a scintillation detector which detects faint flashes of light corresponding particle emissions. Perhaps detectors using scintillation crystals like cesium iodide are available for tritium detection.

/*end anecdote/*

A History of Conflict

The lands of Eurasia have, over time, been overprinted with layers upon of layers of conflict over thousands of years. While it may seem reasonable to assume that the current national borders of Europe have finally overcome the urge for military conquest, this seems over-optimistic. The ease with which Putin dashed in to grab large tracts of Ukraine in 2014 show that land-grab invasions are not just left to the past.

The more you learn about the last 4000 years of history of the lands covering the British Isles to Portugal to Mongolia to north Africa and the Levant, the more apparent it is that battles of conquest and defense have overwhelmingly been the norm.

There have been so many armies who have fought bloody battles and died or prevailed on the Eurasian landscape since before Roman times, it is a wonder that there aren’t still great heaps of bones wrapped in rotted battle gear. As always, much remains below the surface in history.

Putin’s Botched War

The Putin-Ukraine war is a war of conquest begun by a dictator who somehow didn’t understand or foresee the accurate weapons made available to Ukraine by the USA and Europe. He misunderstood the willingness of the West to come to Ukraine’s aid, but also and maybe more importantly, the magnitude of the relative sophistication of Western armaments and war materiel. This was a major blunder. While Russian military intelligence should have kept the Kremlin updated on Western weaponry, Putin should have asked more penetating questions. But perhaps most importantly, he underestimated the combative spirit of the Ukrainians and their president.

How did Russia manage to fall so far behind the West in the art of war? A high reliance was placed on its giant fleet of tanks, armored personnel carriers and artillery. Much of this equipment was left over from WWII and the cold war. In contrast to its ground operations, Russia’s use of airpower in the early days of the war was weak and ineffective. Western military strategy has a high reliance on air power.

Russia was completely unprepared for the evolving drone tactics used against them. Drones were able to provide intelligence and pinpoint delivery of relatively small bombs at critical locations on launchers, vehicles, individual soldiers and in trenches. While Russian tanks were covered with reactive armor, the Ukrainian drones could place bombs in weak spots on the vehicles or even drop them through crew hatches to the interior where propellant and warheads could be ignited.

Post-War

To the discredit of both Russia and Ukraine, extensive use of land mines as well as cluster munitions has been made. The immorality of these munitions lies in what happens to the left-over mines and cluster bomblets remaining after the conflict. After the war, the lands are going to be recovered and farmed or rebuilt. Land mines and cluster munitions are well known to remain extremely dangerous for decades. Other conflict zones that have been so mined have left a legacy of death and mutilation for civilians.

At some point, the victor of the Putin-Ukraine war will want to salvage the scrap metal of the many thousands of vehicle carcasses left on the battlefields. One question relates to the explosive reactive armor (ERA) on the exterior of the destroyed tanks. ERA consists of a sandwich of a metal “flyer plate” facing the incoming projectile, a layer of high brisance explosive, and another metal flyer plate facing the tank armor. In order to respond to a high velocity kinetic or shaped charged projectile, a high shock-velocity, highly energetic explosive is needed for fast response to impact by a projectile. The ERA must be insensitive to small arms fire.

A great many videos of the destruction of tanks show that a tank can be destroyed and its crew killed by artillery or drones, but a large fraction of the reactive armor remains. The reactive armor contains enough high explosive to diffuse some of the incoming projectile’s energy release, yet seems to be rather insensitive to the shock of a hit a few feet away. This unexploded reactive armor will need collection and disposal.

Ukrainian farmers will need to level out the thousands of bomb craters in their fields so their equipment can traverse the ground. Obviously, Sappers or bomb disposal crews will need to de-mine the roads and pathways. Extensive trench systems will need to be filled in to recover the croplands. The environmental insult to the bombed-out battlefields is already substantial. The environmental toxicity of explosive residues may need evaluation.

Finally, in victory the brave people of Ukraine face the daunting prospect of rebuilding their homeland. Generations of children have been exposed to serious trauma and violence that no one should have to face. Their childhoods have been stolen from them and their educational prospects badly damaged.

If Russia prevails, the citizens of Ukraine face loss of their national identity and progressive Russification. All of the post-war issues given above will still be present, but the economic and social upheaval resulting from a vengeful Russian takeover will be traumatic. Many Ukrainian fighters and political leaders will no doubt be jailed, sent to gulags or perhaps defenestration.

A Russian victory in Ukraine signals bad times ahead for the rest of eastern Europe and the Baltic states. These countries, Poland in particular, already understand this and are preparing for this eventuality. Putin has previously expressed a kinship with the Slavic peoples of Eurasia and this may be part of his motivation for establishing a Russian empire.

The Fall of the American Empire

As bad luck would have it, this aggressive act of Putin’s Russia coincided with a political catastrophe in the United States. The Republican Party (GOP) in America has adopted the old Tea Party platform including libertarians and ultraconservative evangelical Christians to morph into a party of fanatical fascists, sometimes called Christo-Fascists. This is a reprehensible development that has taken decades to pull off. These Make America Great Again (MAGA) people have decided that American democracy doesn’t work. They favor a weak, authoritarian flavored democracy, similar to what Orban in Hungary has led.

The combination of the election of Donald Trump along with allowance of dark money OK’d by the US Supreme Court, the fanatical support of MAGA voters and a detailed coup strategy penned by the Heritage Foundation and funded by numerous billionaires has turned America around the corner towards an ultra-nationalist dictatorship. Trump ignores the courts, the legal role of the congress, and has lately taken a fancy to sending troops into US cities.

Some knowledgeable scholars have offered that American hegemony, in place since the end of WWII, is all but over. Some estimate that the American empire reached its peak influence perhaps 15 years ago and has been in decline since then but Americans haven’t paid attention. Trump, with his claims on Panama, Canada and Greenland as well as his manic desire to impose tariffs on globally has sent American credibility into the waste bin. The global economic upset caused by Trump has forced former friends to forge new alliances, leaving America behind.

Even if the stars lined up right and Trump and Vance disappeared tomorrow, a return to the previous status quo is unlikely to happen. The rapid trade disengagement by Canada suggests that they have had serious doubts with the USA already and this Trump fiasco was the last straw. There has been grumbling by other nations in the past that the American 4-year presidential cycle leads to excessive and frequent foreign policy changes that cause difficulties for them.  

Trump’s “America First” declaration and radical disengagement with previous foreign policy has left an apparent power vacuum in the world. This has not gone unnoticed by anyone. Of course, the BRICS nations (Brazil, China, Egypt, Ethiopia, India, Indonesia, Iran, Russian Federation, South Africa, and United Arab Emirates) are taking advantage of this sea change and are considering moving from the US dollar as the principal reserve currency. America is willingly abandoning its historical global stabilizing ability in exchange for a more libertarian internal structure.