28 February 2025

Bye, Bye WaPo

Because of Jeff Bezos's editorial interference with the Washington Post, I've decided not to renew my subscription when it expires at the end of March. 

I've been reading it regularly since I was in college, but I'm joining hundreds of thousands of other subscribers in deciding that enough is enough. Bezos has seriously compromised the Washington Post's credibility and value as a news source.
More than 75,000 digital subscribers to The Washington Post have cancelled since its owner, billionaire Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, announced on Wednesday that he would radically overhaul the paper's opinion pages to reflect libertarian priorities and to exclude opposing points of view. . . . The rapid-fire cancellations since Wednesday represent a historic level of reader fury over the changes. Yet they are only the most recent wave in a series of mass cancellations that began in late October. That was when Bezos killed a planned endorsement of Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris. Between then and Election Day, more than 300,000 subscribers canceled the Post, as NPR first reported last month. That was more than 12% of digital subscribers, which make up the vast majority of the paper's paid circulation.
The Post has aggressively wooed new subscribers to replace them, boosting circulation by 400,000, often at highly discounted rates, according to a Post executive. (The executive spoke on condition of anonymity because the Post does not release circulation figures.)

Even so, there is broad consensus inside the Post that without Bezos' decisions, the paper would be up hundreds of thousands of paying subscribers from where it was before the election. Instead, the numbers NPR has been able to obtain indicate a net loss of a couple hundred thousand subscribers.

Who Cares Most About Helping People In Need?


The more secular you are, the more care about the well-being of the poor. The more religious you are, the less you care about the well-being of the poor.


Atheists care more about helping people in need than people with any other category of religious beliefs.

25 February 2025

Plan I

Plan A and Plan B and a lot of other plans for dealing with the horror of a Trump administration have crashed and burned. So, we're onto Plan I. This stands for Plan Implosion. 

What is it?

1. Trump's management of the federal government and the actions taken by Elon Musk as shadow President are so bad, that his administration is on a path to implode in public opinion and political support, now that his honeymoon period is coming to an end.

The New York Times has listed 22 major illegal actions his administration has taken so far, of which courts have already halted seven of them. He may win some of those battles, but he won't win all of them. 

His nominees are consistently mendacious, incompetent, and have profoundly flawed character.

And, as his actions are starting to be implemented, a lot of his supporters, who didn't read Project 2025, or didn't take his rhetoric seriously, are starting to realize how bad his policies are for them, and had bad both his policies and the chaos and uncertainty that his approach to implementing them has created are for the economy. Pretty much every major economic indicator has gone south since he has taken office, and sometimes in a seriously concerning way. Polls show that both most of his policies and many of his approaches to implementing them are seriously unpopular. And, his initial favorability rating is lower than any other President in the history of modern polling.

2. If Trump's administration implodes badly enough, he may see major defections in his own caucus in Congress, which is just a three representative majority in the House and a three Senator majority in the Senate, and we may see long shot Democrats win races for Congress in 2026 as the nation decides that maybe putting the Republicans in charge was a bad idea. The current Republican caucus in Congress is not known for its unity and cohesiveness, even though some of these internal conflicts are just simmering beneath the surface.

3. The U.S. Supreme Court has carried a lot of water for Trump so far, and has an uber-conservative agenda that it would like to advance. But Trump's complete disregard for the rule of law, and the mess of constitutional crises he is creating, can't sit well with all of them. I'm sure that even many of the conservative justices are shocked at how far Trump has gone to ignore the law. And, ultimately, their power derives from government officials obeying the law including their dictates.

This court's rulings have shown a marked tendency to ignore legal analysis in favor of what they see as practical and expedient. And, if the chaos reaches the point that it is approaching, where the whole Congressionally and constitutionally established framework of the federal government and legislative process starts to fall apart, the economy is crashing, and popular support for his administration is crumbling, they may finally see the error of their ways in appearing to give Trump everything and put on the brakes.  

4. Trump's abandonment of all of the traditional enemies of the U.S. and embrace of our former enemies as friends, greatly weakens the U.S. internationally and weakens Trump's political support from even conservatives, at home. There aren't a lot of single issue foreign policy voters on the right or the left. But the people who do care deeply about foreign policy tend to be powerful.

We're going to have to hope that the rest of Western Europe steps up to support Ukraine, now that the U.S. has turned on all of its NATO allies and is trying to throw Ukraine under the bus.

We're going to have to hope that Israel with the U.K.'s help, and the involvement of the international community, can handle the Middle East's woes in the face of Trump's whacky destabilizing proposals.

Could this just be wishful thinking?

Sure it could be. But, right now, this seems to be the best trajectory to aim for at the moment until a better plan comes along. The opposition doesn't exactly have a lot of options right now.

24 February 2025

How Far Is China From The U.S.?

The closest U.S. territory to the People's Republic of China is Guam (which has about 166,000 people and substantial U.S. military bases) and is about 1,800 miles away from it (about the same as the distance from Denver to New York City). 

The Northern Marina Islands (which have a bit more than 40,000 people) which are an island chain that extends north of Guam. The Northern Marina Islands are 2,929 miles from the People's Republic of China (about the same as the distance from San Diego, California to Portland, Maine).

The People's Republic of China is about 4,000 miles away from Alaska (about the distance from Hawaii to Minneapolis), and is about 4,900 miles away from Hawaii (about the distance from Hawaii to Washington D.C.). Both Alaska and Hawaii have substantial U.S. military bases.

The People's Republic of China is about 7,200 miles from the closest point in the contiguous 48 states of the United States (about the distance from Albuquerque, New Mexico to Jerusalem).

Magnetic North Is Closer To True North Than It Has Been For Ages

 


The picture tells the entire story.

Don't Worry About China Controlling Our Food Supply

Concerns about Chinese ownership of U.S. farmland, or U.S. reliance on China for imported food, are driven entirely by paranoid xenophobia and have no legitimate basis in reality.

Only about 0.03% of U.S agricultural imports come from China, about $9.5 billion in 2022 (about $28 per person per year in the U.S.) most of which is snack food. China actually imports $34 billion in U.S. agricultural goods (as of 2023, down from $36 billion in 2022, which is about $19,000 per year per U.S. farm), which makes it the largest single export market for U.S. agricultural goods.

China buying our agricultural land is also not a serious concern.


Most foreign owned farm land (more than 70%) is owned by Canadians or Western Europeans. Foreigners from all places own about 3.1% of U.S. agricultural land, and foreigners with Chinese connections own about 0.9% of that, i.e. less than 0.03% of U.S. agricultural land (about 383,935 acres), which is about 827 average sized farms out of 1,890,000 farms in the U.S., and not all in one place either. And, particularly near the Canadian border (e.g., in Maine and the UP) most foreign owners are Canadians.

The main legitimate concern about Chinese agents purchasing U.S. agricultural land is that the land might be close to U.S. military bases that could be used to spy on those bases. But the Biden administration addressed that issue:
A 2022 Chinese land purchase in the U.S. . . . raised concerns. That spring, a food producer called Fufeng Group bought 370 acres for corn milling near an Air Force base in North Dakota. This prompted the Biden administration to propose a new rule: any foreign company or individual who wants to buy land within 100 miles of certain U.S. military bases (the North Dakota base included) needs government approval. 

U.S. Air Force Starts Development Of Hypersonic Bomber And Other News


The news last week that the U.S. government is pursuing a Mach-5-capable bomber rippled across the globe at hypersonic speed. The Next Generation Responsive Strike (NextRS) program, a combination bomber and spy plane, will be the U.S. Air Force’s next project after its effort to build a sixth-generation fighter jet.

A hypersonic bomber would by far be the most technologically advanced aircraft project ever attempted—but is speed without stealth still relevant today? . . . 
The Air Force has previously bet the farm on stealthy strike aircraft, so it’s reasonable to ask why it is suddenly having a change of heart. In April 2024, according to Air & Space Forces Magazine, the Air Force said it did not want more than 100 B-21 Raider bombers.

Instead, it said, a new aircraft might come along by the time the initial order was fulfilled that would supplement the Raider fleet. That new aircraft is almost certainly NextRS.

NextRS won’t be a stealthy aircraft. A hypersonic bomber would need to prioritize aerodynamic efficiency over a low radar cross-section to maximize range and manage the blistering temperatures generated by high surface friction that would melt ordinary aircraft.

It would also generate a huge infrared signature that could be picked up by space-based sensors, giving an adversary a heads-up that a hypersonic aircraft or missile is on the way.

This raises two possibilities. One is that NextRS is not a bomber in the strict sense of the term, dropping unpowered, precision-guided munitions directly overhead a target. One of the aircraft’s design goals is the release of munitions at hypersonic speeds.

Hypersonic weapons could be fired outside the S-400’s 250-mile intercept radius, leaving it up to the missile to penetrate enemy air defenses. Another possibility is that the aircraft will be substantially faster than Mach 5—fast enough that the Air Force is confident it won’t face interception.

Unless it were launched directly underneath its target, a Mach-12 interceptor missile would be unable to overtake a Mach 12 NextRS traveling at 100,000 feet. The faster the aircraft can fly, the stronger the case to field it.

From here

If China's claims that it can detect U.S. stealth aircraft from more than 1200 miles away, using the heat emitted from their engines rather than radar, is accurate, the U.S. might be well-advised to stop putting all of its eggs in the stealth bomber/fighter basket, and have a speed based back up plan in place as well.

The proposed hypersonic long range bomber would be a successor to "the SR-71 Blackbird. The SR-71, retired at the end of the Cold War, was the fastest aircraft ever built, capable of Mach 3.2, or more than 2,200 miles per hour." It is sometimes called the SR-72 for sake of discussion. No publicly disclosed price estimate is available for the SR-72, but it will surely be more expensive than the B-21 Raider, so a flyaway cost of $1 billion each, or more, wouldn't be surprising.

It appears that the B-21 Raider long range bomber (at a projected cost of $780 million each with a buy of 100 of them), which would supplement or replace the B-1 ad B-2 bombers, and looks very similar to the B-2, will come first, followed by the next priority after Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) sixth generation stealth fighter (it would like to buy 200 of them at a cost of several hundred million dollars each) with its "loyal wingman" collaborative combat aircraft (CCA), unmanned fighter aircraft supporting it (the Air Force would like to buy 1000 of them at $25-30 million each but that seems optimistic), and the SR-72 coming after that in the U.S. Air Force's procurement plans for new fighters and bombers. 

Meanwhile, the Air Force is rounding out its buy of fifth generation F-35A fighters. It is also buying some pimped out fourth generation F-15EX non-stealth fighters in the meantime at an estimated price of $90-97 million each as of November 2023, which is more than the F-35A, with "a primary focus on air superiority roles such as offensive counter-air, cruise missile defence, defensive counter-air capabilities and escort of high-value airborne assets, with a secondary mission of air-to-ground precision strike."

The U.S. Navy, like the U.S. Air Force, also doesn't seem to be entirely at peace with purchasing only the F-35C carrier based fighters designed for it, and F-35B vertical landing fighters designed for the Marine Corps, and is also exploring buying more carrier based F-18s. 

It isn't clear to me if the U.S. Navy has any next generation carrier based fighter, attack, bomber, or patrol aircraft in the works, other than the CCA (which is also officially an Air Force only program at this time), that could probably be adapted to work with both Air Force and Navy fighters. 

The U.S. Navy isn't part of the NGAD program, which sees itself as developing a successor to the fifth generation U.S. Air Force only F-22 stealth fighter and is currently aiming at a nominal 200 plane buy in the 2023 DOD R&D budget. 

The U.S. Navy does nominally have an F/A-XX program intended to develop a sixth generation carrier based successor to the F-18 and F-35C that it has been working on since 2008, but it seems to be mostly vaporware at the moment and hasn't been a budget priority for the Navy. Defense insiders suspect that the program may end up turning into an F-18 and/or F-35C upgrade program, rather than an entirely new fight aircraft design.

But the Navy's reticence may be appropriate as radar stealth may be becoming less valuable, and long range missiles and kamikaze drones are increasingly taking the manned fighter aircraft middle man out of long range strike missions, and anti-aircraft defenses are evolving rapidly. 

The F-35 Program

In all 3,532 F-35s of all variants have been ordered by the U.S. and 19 other countries, and 883 have been delivered so far (25% of those ordered). There may be some additional foreign orders before F-35 production ends, and there is a decent chance that the U.S. will reduce its final F-35 order based upon past experience. 

The U.S. military is in the middle of F-35 procurement with is projected to ultimately cost it $1,700 billion for 2456 fighters (about $692 million each including operations and maintenance over the lifetimes of the planes). But simply buying them is less expensive: "As of July 2024, the average flyaway costs per plane are: US $82.5 million for the F-35A, $109 million for the F-35B, and $102.1 million for the F-35C. . . . As of August 2023, the program was 80% over budget and 10 years late."

So far, the U.S. has received deliveries of about 514 of them. The U.S. Air Force has received 302 F-35As out of the 1,763 planned, the U.S. Navy has received more than 100 F-35Cs out of the 273 planned, and the U.S. Marine Corps has received 112 F-35s (a mix of F-35Bs and F-35Cs) out of a planned 280 F-35Bs and 140 F-35Cs. 

The U.S.  Air Force planned to buy 1,763 F-35As and 17 other countries plan to buy 836 F-35As, which entered service in 2016, for a total of 2599 F-35As planned, 591 of which have been delivered.

In all 933 F-35B/Cs have been ordered and 292 have been delivered. The U.S. Marine Corps planes to buy 280 F-35Bs which entered service in 2015. Four other countries plan to buy 240 F-35Bs of which 80 have been delivered (South Korea and the U.K. will be buying only F-35Bs and not F-35As, Japan and Italy will make mixed buys). The U.S. Navy and Marine Corps are the only purchasers of  the planned 413 F-35C variants, which entered service in 2019.

The F-35 has also been sold to many allies including Australia (72 F-35As delivered), Japan (38 out 105 F-35As delivered and 42 F-35Bs ordered), South Korea (40 out of 65 F-35Bs delivered and 20 F-35Bs planned but not yet ordered), Israel (39 out of 75 F-35Is, and F-35A variant, delivered including one prototype electronic warfare fighter), Belgium (35 F-35As delivered), Denmark (10 out of 27 F-35As delivered), Italy (17 out of 75 F-35As and 6 out of 40 F-35Bs), Netherlands (38 out of 52 F-35As delivered), Norway (40 out of 52 F-35As delivered with a minor local modification), and the U.K. (34 out of 138 F-35Bs delivered, but one lost in an accident).

There have been no deliveries yet to other allies who have ordered F-35As including Singapore (12), Canada (88), Czech Republic (24), Finland (64), Germany (35), Greece (20), Poland (32), Romania (32), and  Switzerland (36). Requests from Taiwan, Thailand, Turkey, and UAE to buy F-35As were ultimately declined (in the case of Turkey even though eight were built and are ready for delivery).

New Navy Drones

The Navy is also exploring having a single kind of fairly large and simple drone warships that put more anti-ship missiles into its fleet and amplify the military clout of destroyers escorting commercial ships:
The Navy currently has six unmanned surface vessel prototypes: the so-called “Overlord” ships Nomad, Mariner, Ranger, Vanguard and the smaller Sea Hunter and Seahawk, all members of the Navy’s “ghost fleet” of unmanned vessels. Nomad was put up for sale last year and her status remains unknown.
The unmanned ship Ranger successfully launched an SM-6 missile in 2021, and a smaller unmanned vessel launched that weapon in 2023,. The service has expressed support for building a single type of unmanned ship, closer in size to the Overlord ships that can each carry four, 40-foot container payloads.The Navy wants these ships to be up to 300 feet long with a displacement of up to 2,000 tons. For comparison, the Navy’s frontline manned ship, the Arleigh Burke class destroyer, is about 509 feet long and displaces about 9,900 tons in its current variant. . . . 
The data and experiences gleaned from the deployment to the Red Sea would allow the Navy to make smart decisions about how best to use the unmanned ships. For example, one proposal is to use the larger, Overlord-type unmanned ships as escorts and supplements to manned combatant ships. Just as the battleship seldom put to sea without an escort of destroyers to defend it from surface and undersea torpedo craft, today’s surface warships need their own escorts to aid in air, missiles and drone defense, as well as conduct antisubmarine and scouting missions.

In theory, the larger unmanned ships might carry a dozen or more missiles of their own, accessible as additional magazines for the manned warships with which they sail.

The advantage of the unmanned ships is that they could be built in vast numbers quickly and in shipyards around the United States to include those on the Great Lakes and Western Rivers. If these unmanned ships work as combat augmentation for manned ships, then the Navy might embark on a vast building program with the goal of every manned ship being a “flotilla” leader of unmanned combatants. The Dutch Navy is already planning this for their guided missile frigates.
So basically, the Navy is looking at a loyal wingman model for its large, missile bearing drone warships. These large drone surface warships have "an estimated cost of $497.6 million [in 2027], with procurement of the next two the following year at about $326 million apiece."

Stealth Surface Combatants

Image from Wikipedia.

The real stealth surface combatants of the future are less likely to be high tech purpose built warships with designs that reduce their radar profile, like the experimental prototype shown above, and more likely to be like the ones in this Star War video excerpt that look like ordinary cargo ships, but are actually outfitted with military grade anti-ship missiles hidden away in structures that are indistinguishable from those found on ordinary cargo ships, manned by military personnel.

These secretly armed cargo ships can come quite close range with opposition warships, because they don't look like a threat, and blend in with normal merchant ship traffic, before striking opposition warships. This close range engagement can reduce the target warships' ability to employ defenses to the attack in the short moments after they realize what is going on, just as effectively as a far more sophisticated hypersonic missile attack from a much greater range fired from a conventional warship.

A recent incident where a U.S. aircraft carrier in the Mediterranean sea near the entrance of the Suez Canal was struck by a 53,000 ton cargo ship with a history of prior collision incidents, illustrates how unsuspiciously the U.S. Navy currently responds to ships of this kind, even though that ship was unarmed and the collision was apparently a matter of mutual negligence rather than malice. The captain of the aircraft carrier was relieved of his command after that collision (which did significant but not disabling damage). 

But it isn't clear that there has been any deeper tactical doctrine adjustment by the U.S. Navy even though the technique I describe was used with devastating effect in a U.S. Navy war game in the year 2002 whose outcome is now declassified.

21 February 2025

Gas Prices Around The World

There are about 3.8 liters per U.S. gallon.


The main drivers of gasoline prices prices are gas taxes and the availability of local oil supplies. A secondary factor that drives gasoline prices is the nature of environmental regulations related to gasoline that, for example, limit octane levels or otherwise restrict supply. 

Almost all of the countries at the bottom, including the USA, are major oil producers. The U.S., Canada, Brazil, Russia, and Indonesia also all have very low gas taxes. 

Europe has high gas taxes for a variety of reasons which make gas expensive even in nations that are major oil producers like Norway and the U.K. (partially, it funds the infrastructure that vehicles use, and partially, it is a de facto carbon tax enacted for environmental reasons and addresses other externalities associated with motor vehicles).

Has The Time Come For A Great Lakes High Speed Rail Line?


When my wife was a summer advertising agency intern in Chicago and I was a law student in Ann Arbor, we actually used the Amtrak service between those cities quite a few times.

The case for a Toronto to Detroit high speed rail line is pretty strong. It would serve a huge share of Canada's entire population with urban centers that are all along a straight line that is flat and manageable to build a high speed rail line on, and Canada is more familiar with the benefit of high speed rail from its stronger connections to Europe.

I'd need to be convinced with more facts that a Detroit to Minneapolis high speed rail line (or parts of it) could be viable and make some kind of economic sense. It might be viable, it might not.

Another route not shown that has been seriously considered for more than thirty year, but never gone anywhere, and wouldn't be too expensive to build (its flat and a lot of the land between the major cities is farmland), would be a Cincinnati-Dayton-Columbus-Cleveland line connecting Ohio's major urban centers. It wouldn't require interstate cooperation, which could make funding it operations and the political process of getting it goin easier (much like high speed rail lines at various stages of development in California, Florida, and Texas). It might give Ohio a much needed economic boost, from construction in the short term, and good transportation infrastructure aggregating the connectively of its major urban centers in the long run. But it is also possible that Ohio's economy has declined so much in the last thirty years that there isn't enough traffic between its major urban centers to support it. Projects in Florida and Texas, however, have at least demonstrated, however, that being a red state isn't an insurmountable political barrier to support for high speed rail.

I do think that the approach of focusing on specific corridors that are either entirely in one state, or in a small number of states in a single region, is a better one than pie-in-the-sky national high speed rail network approaches.

The virtue of focusing on specific corridors also reflects the fact that the sweet spot for high speed rail is medium length trips. 

For long distance travel, the speed of commercial air travel and the lack of a need to maintain expensive infrastructure on the ground between airports through varied terrain with large swaths of low population density, gives commercial air travel a decisive advantage over high speed rail. 

For short distance travel, the high speed doesn't deliver enough of a marginal advantage relative to driving and intracity rail, and having lots of local stops destroys the speed benefits of high speed rail. 

But, for medium length trips of hundreds of miles to several hundred miles, high speed rail can provide significant benefits in speed and comfort over driving, and its ability to deliver passengers all of the way to a city center and its lack of long delays associated with security and checked baggage can give it an edge relative to commercial air travel (and also puts pressure on the commercial air travel system to reduce those delays). Combining it with low volume, high value mail, parcel, and freight service could also tip the balance in favor of high speed rail's economic viability.

The Pacific Coast, improvements in the Northeast Corridor, the connector in place between major Florida cities, planned Texas triangle, and LA to Las Vega routes, for example, do make sense.

I'm ambivalent about Colorado high speed rail proposals. 

In Colorado along I-25, sometimes including cities in Wyoming and New Mexico. I-25 south of Denver is quite fast, and it isn't particularly bogged down north of Denver either. Quality bus service on I-25 could fill the needs that I-25 high speed rail service would fairly well. But construction costs for high speed rail in the I-25 corridor are pretty low since its flat and much of its isn't densely populated. 

The analysis for and against high speed rail along I-70 in Colorado from DIA to Vail or Glenwood Springs is very different. The need for better, faster passenger transportation options there that are less prone to interruption from landslides and weather related accidents is much more clear. But construction costs in the mountains are very high indeed, and much of the demand for high speed rail along I-70 is seasonal.

The U.S. is a big and diverse national geographically and economically. There are many places in the U.S. where the better approach in the intermediate term would be to end Amtrak as a passenger transportation option entirely, in favor of boosting the quality of intercity bus service, and to relegate Amtrak or some other future passenger rail service to a fully private sector, unsubsidized, scenic/mobile tourism destination service that isn't really about getting people from here to there efficiently (something that doesn't require high speed service).

Political Observations

* Extremist judges on the highest courts together with a modest share of judges in federal trial courts who can be preferentially selected, can greatly undermine legal and institutional checks and balances, and more generally, the rule of law.

* Sustained campaigns of disinformation can be very effective, especially when combined with efforts to undermine accurate sources of information.

* While the connection between political leanings and geographic are generally very stable, they aren't immune to change on a time scale of multiple election cycles and decades. 

In my lifetime, Colorado, Nevada, Virginia, North Carolina, and Georgia have all swung significantly left. But Florida and Ohio have swung decisively to the right. In between Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia have swung moderately to the right, while Arizona has swung moderately to the left. In most of these cases, swings to the left have been associated with healthy economies not driven mostly by fossil fuels leading to migration in and prosperity, while swings to the right have mostly been driven by sustained outmigration of promising young people, the ongoing effects of deindustrialization, and the decline of rural economies not driven by tourism. 

Probably the most puzzling of these has been Florida, which has seen population growth and was never a big fossil fuel economy or a manufacturing economy. Arizona has perhaps swung less left that it would have otherwise, and Florida has perhaps swung far right, due to migration of snowbirds to these places.

* Political coalitions can change, although again, this can take multiple election cycles.

The first wave of change, when I was younger, was the end stages of realignment that started in the 1960s, with the Democratic party going from being the Southern party that defended slavery to a liberal northern-urban-nonwhite-nonChristian-union-working class party, and the Republican party going from affluent urban moderates party of the north to a conservative, Southern-rural-white-Christian party. Moderate Republicans and moderate Democrats disappeared with the parties becomes much more strictly a liberal leaning Democratic party and a strictly conservative, and almost white Christian nationalist party.

The second wave, associated mostly with Trump and MAGA, has been the shift of the white working class to the GOP and the college educated upper middle class to the Democratic Party. In 2020, and even more in 2024, however, Trumpism has started to win over significant minorities of Hispanic working class and black working class voters, notwithstanding the movements rather extreme xenophobia and widespread racism.

* There are two, mostly disjoint, groups we perceive themselves to be in dire straits that call for major political change.

On one hand is the white nominally Christian or Evangelical, Gen X and older, non-college educated population, especially working class men and petite bourgeois men who aren't particularly educated but have gained wealth from small and medium sized non-professional business like car dealerships, construction contractors, farmers, ranchers, and skilled tradesmen. They have seen their status, in relative terms decline, their cultural norms marginalized, and their economic prospects and health stagnate and decline. They tend to live in suburbs or rural areas or a handful of conservative leaning cities.

On the other hand there are secular leaning, demographically diverse Millennial and Gen Z members who are have at least some college and often have college degrees and even post-graduate degrees or certifications, who are professional and administrative profession leaning, mostly white collar or pink collar, who making decent enough money oftentimes, but face high higher education costs, student loans, unaffordable housing costs, high health care costs, and high child care costs that impede their ability to accumulate wealth and attain the American dream.

20 February 2025

Trump's DOD Budget

Trump has ordered the DOD leadership to come up with 8% budget cuts, for each of the next five years (about $68 billion per year) from the DOD budget while preserving 17 priorities. Those priorities are:

  • Southwest Border Activities
  • Combating Transnational Criminal Organizations in the Western Hemisphere
  • Audit
  • Nuclear Modernization (including NC3)
  • Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCAs)
  • Virginia-class Submarines
  • Executable Surface Ships
  • Homeland Missile Defense
  • One-Way Attack/Autonomous Systems
  • Counter-small UAS Initiatives
  • Priority Critical Cybersecurity
  • Munitions
  • Core Readiness, including full DRT funding
  • Munitions and Energetics Organic Industrial Bases
  • Executable INDOPACOM MILCON
  • Combatant Command support agency funding for INDOPACOM, NORTHCOM, SPACECOM, STRATCOM, CYBERCOM, and TRANSCOM
  • Medical Private-Sector Care
It will be interesting to see what cuts will be proposed. To recap some cuts that I have suggested:
  • The Selective Service System.
  • Most tanks in the U.S. Army (transfer them to allies who want them like Ukraine and Taiwan).
  • New destroyers (of existing designs) for the U.S. Navy.
  • The U.S. military base at Guantanamo Bay.
  • Bomber aircraft in the Air National Guard.
  • Canon artillery in the Army National Guard.
  • The Space Force (which should be merged into the Air Force).
  • The Air Force (which should be merged into the Army).
  • Stealth fighters in the Air National Guard.
  • The Next-Generation Intratheater Airlift (NGIA) program in the Air Force (it duplicates a more advanced Army Future Long-Range Assault Aircraft program).
  • The amphibious assault mission of the U.S. Marine Corps.
  • The U.S. Navy's nuclear-armed sea-launched cruise missile (SLCM-N) program.
  • Most U.S. military VIP transport aircraft.
  • The Armored Multipurpose Vehicle (AMPV) procurement of 522 M1283 General Purpose Vehicles, 993 M1286 Mission Command Vehicles, and 386 M1287 Mortar Carrier Vehicles. This would leave the AMPV program with 790 M1284 Medical Evacuation Vehicles and 216 M1285 Medical Treatment Vehicles.
  • The M10 Booker Mobile Protected Firepower program.
  • Retire the B1-B bomber (or transfer it to the U.S. Navy as a patrol aircraft).
  • The U.S. Army Junior Reserve Officers' Training Corps (JROTC), which is a high school pre-ROTC program.
Some other programs which could be cut include:
  • The Constellation class frigate program (which is three years behind schedule and over budget, and remains vulnerable to various anti-surface combatant threats).
  • The next generation destroyer R&D program.
  • The next generation main battle tank R&D program.
  • Phase out canon artillery in the Army in favor of canon artillery substitute missiles deployed from C-130 transportable, wheeled vehicles.
  • Delay the "Next Generation Air Dominance" warplane.
  • Phase out the remaining 13 Ticonderoga-class guided missile cruisers (a class which entered service in 1983) ahead of schedule (which is September 30, 2027).

Thirty-One Flavors Of Fiction That Could Be Attempted

1. The usual medical drama features a brilliant but somehow personally flawed or anti-social physician. It would be interesting to imagine one that is, instead, about an admittedly mediocre or dull physician, just barely qualified medically to do their job, and perhaps a little corrupt as well, so not truly righteous, who nonetheless basically moral and makes a positive difference by falling back on the medical basics and by recognizing and addressing the non-medical concerns of this physician's patients.

2. If one wanted to do a "hard science" story about aliens, how could one do it without faster-than-light travel? Suppose that somehow someone in our solar system with an advanced space based radio telescope intercepted transmissions from another advanced civilization without faster-than-light travel many light years away. Suppose further that these transmissions were sufficiently rich to figure out their language(s) and to follow the story playing out amongst the aliens. This would leave the author free reign to develop a very different (and yet in some essentials, similar) culture and world. The aliens' stories, in turn would impact the solar system based observers despite the fact that it doesn't directly impact them and they can't really meaningfully interact with the aliens. Perhaps, for example, our solar system observers might witness transmissions from the fall of their civilization and gain insights from it that would guide them in trying to prevent humans from making the same mistakes. The solar system observers might also glean technological advances that could be utilized by us.

3. There are several places in the solar system: the atmosphere of Venus, and the gas clouds of Jupiter and Saturn, for example, where the most habitable regions would be for life that was perpetually aloft rather than on the surface of some rocky or icy planet. A hard science fiction story of first contact with an intelligent species that is part of a larger aeolian ecosystem in one or more of these places could be promising.

4. There have been a number of science fiction stories about human scientists deliberately nudging other species along to become sentient species on a par with our own. One of the most promising, but least explored, of these possibilities, is the possibility of sentient octopi, who are already quite intelligent and have the physical traits necessary to be tool users but whose intelligence is as different from our own as almost any other on Earth. The main problem that prevents them from realizing this potential is that they have a great many young who receive no parental care once they are born and are eaten in large quantities by all manner of other creatures in the sea. A story taking place near the end of this process as we begin to share the world with another fully sentient species that we helped to create could be fascinating.

5. A hard science fiction story exploring the consequences in the not so distant future, of widespread biohacking and genetic engineering for longevity and other traits.

6. A hard scientific Jurassic Park style de-extinction drama, but involving mostly Pleistocene mammal species (which are much more feasible), rather than dinosaurs, and a less tragic ending.

7. A story exploring the co-existing of various archaic hominins and modern humans that we know happened several times in human history, perhaps a "Clan of the Cave Bear" type story, but with Denisovans and hobbits making first contact with modern humans.

8. A century or two in the future, climate change driven by fossil fuels will have run its course, fossil fuels themselves will have ceased to play a significant economic role even if it persists in some niches, Africa will have undergone economic development and experienced the demographic transition seen everyplace else that has experienced economic development, the global population will have fallen significantly from a peak of perhaps 9-10 billion people, Islam will have transformed from a current state that is a bit like Victorian Christian civilization to something more like modern Christianity, Christianity will have become a minority religion in most places outside of Africa in the face of secularization, and science will have advanced to the point where we know the laws of physics at the most fundamental levels without the various unsolved problems and open questions we have today. All this plausibly prophecy for the future needs is the right kind of story to unveil this world, and to identify the new central conflicts that have emerged in it, perhaps a heroes journey, or a journey of exploration, or a flight from some peril.

9. What would the world look like in the future if the so called "Axis of Evil" ends up winning, perhaps with the complicity of a MAGA America? What would the regression of global civilization look like in that new dark age? I would expect a future in that scenario that is dystopian but not apocalyptic, in which some small resistance or movement tries to get return humanity to a path of progress, and our hero joins that movement. 

10. We know that there was once a farming civilization, thousands of years ago at a suitable moment in climate history, in what is now the Amazon jungle. At some point, the climate changes, the civilization collapsed, and the jungle came to be in its current state. Imagine a story, or perhaps a series of stories or short stories, all set in this civilization trying to imagine it as fully and accurately as possible.

11. The Younger Dryas climate event profoundly impacted much of the world about three thousand years before farming and herding was invented, at a moment when the Clovis culture was thriving in North America, and when proto-farming and megalithic ritual centers were starting to develop in Anatolia. In North America, this climate event tipped the balance provided by the ecological pressure of human hunters, to result in a mass megafauna extinction. In Anatolia, this climate event delayed the development of agriculture by about three thousand years. There would be plenty of room for the stories of people who lived just before, during, and after the Younger Dryas event.

12. The modern collection of military conflicts that I call the Sahel War in Africa is a climate driven conflict that is epic and primal, giving rise to genocidal wars between Muslims in the north, whose ancestors were traditionally herders, and Christians and animists in the south, whose ancestors were traditionally farmers, as the slowly expanding Sahara desert creeps southward, pushing herders into the farmers' territory as their own land become uninhabitable. There are many stories that could be written in the context of this ongoing conflict from both sides, or perhaps in the context of a young couple with a herder and farmer from opposite sides of the conflict.

13. The ancestors of the Chadic people of Africa made an epic journey from the place we now call Moldova to Lake Chad at the peak of the Green Sahara period. A story, perhaps a multi-generational one, of their journey and of the society they build upon arriving at Lake Chad, would be a worthy one.

14. Another epic, possibly multi-generational journey worth describing in fiction based upon pre-history would be that of the Austronesian mariners who settled Madagascar via East Africa, and also brought the banana to Africa.

15. Swahili civilization arose when Arabic speaking maritime traders entered into marriages with high status local women along their trade routes along the eastern coast of Africa. The ethnogenesis of this civilization could provide a great backdrop for all manner of stories.

16. It would be interesting to read stories set in the early days of the Islamic empire, concretely filling in the blanks with best available hunches, on what fueled its explosive expansion in a matter of decades and the experience of the first wave of people converting to Islam that made this attractive to them. 

17. It would also be interesting to set a story in the medieval period at urban centers in the Islamic empire where an Islamic renaissance of intellectual progress and cultural flowering was underway. The story of how the lives of women who got divorced in this time period, which was something that happened and was not uncommon at the time (long before divorce was possible in Christendom), in a historically authentic way, could provide at least one important unifying thread to the overall narrative.

18. Some horrible regional war in the medium term future forces a large group of refugees into exile, and they settle in some near Arctic or Antarctic region that global warming has made marginally habitable, or in someplace like Texas that has become increasingly uninhabitable causing most people to move away, in a story of pioneering colonization on a last frontier on Earth.

19. A murder mystery, a few decades in the future, some sprawling megacity in the developing world or third-world city, perhaps in a more backward part of India developing on the late side, or Southeast Asia, or Africa.

20. Some political faction in a gridlocked political system, resorts to assassinations to achieve its political goals, authorities try to thwart them with mixed success.

21. A story recounting the rise of a new religion, along the lines of the 2010 series "Caprica" (a Battlestar galactic prequel), or the 2024 series "Dune Prophecy", that is a better fit in its metaphysics and in the social issues that it addresses, than the Abrahamic faiths that are predominant today.

22. A city killing sized asteroid is headed towards Earth and scientists have greatly narrowed down where it will strike, but political leaders and the rich have declined to mobilize a planetary defense effort. So, instead, the race is on to relocate as many people as possible from the predicted impact area far enough away that they can survive, before it strikes at the appointed time.

23. A retelling of the Bible narrative and some of its extra-canonical books from the perspective of Satan, an angel cast out of heaven because he bucked YHWH's tyrannical rule.

24. A very personal story of the author of some piece of a major work of legendary history and what drives this author to mix elements of historical fact with mythical fiction, perhaps the Iliad, perhaps the Bible, perhaps some other Bronze Age mythology.

25. The Second Amendment is repealed and slowly but surely the population of the United States is disarmed in a series of conflicts with reluctant gun nuts that ultimately end decisively against them. Tyranny does not follow.

26. Vice has been legalized, but only in designated areas that were formerly industrial or in the middle of nowhere. Our protagonist is a public official charged with helping people who have started to drown in this and need treatment, and identifying abuses that need to be ended.

27. A woman from a strict and wealthy Muslim family de-converts while she is a foreign student in the U.S. where she is chased by extended family members and the Islamic government of her home country, in an effort to subject her to a honor killing. With the help of allies she meets along the way, she tries to stay alive and make a life for herself.

28. A short story of a woman who is charged with sorcery in Saudi Arabia and ultimately executed for it, ideally based as much as possible on one or more true stories.

29. All of the women and a couple of the men in the senior class of a high school, with varied well developed individual characters, in an isolated rural hot springs resort town, inspired by a science fiction story that a few of them read, form a polyamorous pod and have and raise children in it.

30. Oil runs out or becomes worthless, in much the way that coal is starting to, or already has, in North America of Europe. The economies of oil states start to collapse. Our protagonist is a member of the Saudi Arabian royal family as the monarchy must choose a path to either constitutional monarchy or being replaced entirely in the face of dramatically declining economic prospects, particularly when it is discovered that the sovereign wealth fund of the country has been embezzled on a massive scale and invested in failed nepotism and politics driven investments.

31. A relict colony of archaic hominins are discovered deep in an Indonesian jungle and scientists make contact with them and study them. They find that they are more human than they expected them to be, while still clearly not being modern humans.

Note also that science fiction, and really all speculative fiction, really involves all other genres of fiction, but in disguise.

19 February 2025

States That Should Merge

This map of proposed state mergers, which is largely self-explanatory, is pie in the sky, "king for a day" stuff. It isn't politically viable as under the current U.S. Constitution, merging states lose power in the Senate and electoral college which they would almost surely not consent to losing. 

But the suggested state mergers would largely end the imbalances in the current U.S. political system against urban blue states, in a pretty mild way that could make most of the U.S. functional. They also would merge states with similar cultures and political leanings. And, none of the combined states would have excessively large populations even post-merger (Texas and Oklahoma would be big but the two states have so much in common and the combined state would still be smaller than California in population.)

Statehood for D.C. and Puerto Rico would also be necessary for a just balance and representation of the people. The one majority black state-like jurisdiction, and the one Spanish speaking state-like jurisdiction, should not be denied representation in Congress and in the case of Puerto Rico, a say in Presidential elections. Even the GOP gives Puerto Rico a say in nominating its Presidential candidate.

The current U.S. Senate balance is 53R to 47D. This would remove twelve GOP leaning seats and the new states might add 2-4 Democratic seats and 0-2 GOP seats, resulting in 41-43 GOP seats and 49-51 Democratic seats. It would also reduce the number of U.S. states to 46 (adding two and removing six).

This exercise also illustrates how much overall results under our constitution depend upon what amount to gerrymandered state lines created historically, mostly in the 19th century.

Goodbye Democracy?

America’s constitutional democracy is going to collapse.

Some day — not tomorrow, not next year, but probably sometime before runaway climate change forces us to seek a new life in outer-space colonies — there is going to be a collapse of the legal and political order and its replacement by something else. If we’re lucky, it won’t be violent. If we’re very lucky, it will lead us to tackle the underlying problems and result in a better, more robust, political system. If we’re less lucky, well, then, something worse will happen.

From a prescient article from October 8, 2015 entitled "American democracy is doomed" by pundit by Matthew Yglesias.

In a nutshell Yglesias argues that:

1. Democracies with strong Presidents have a natural tendency to slip into dictatorships, which is why post-WWII democracies in Europe avoided them, to a great extent, because these systems are prone to unresolved gridlock, since "within a presidential system, gridlock leads to a constitutional trainwreck with no resolution."
He offers the politics of Honduras in 2009, when gridlock and litigation between the President and Congress over constitutional reforms there led to a coup, when the option to use a ballot issue not constitutionally provided for to resolve the dispute is ruled out by their Supreme Court.

2. The U.S. has returned to a historical norm of strong partisan polarization driven by racial issues involving divisions over principles rather than spoils, money, and jobs, much like it was on the eve of the U.S. Civil War that reflects genuine partisan divisions at the grass roots.


3. The U.S. is seeing a rise of "constitutional hardball" tactics that while they are not strictly speaking, violate strong political norms. He sees this as having a structural cause. Politicians and the grass roots are increasingly ideological and elected officials are insistent of carrying out their party's will as much as possible, and principle based politics leaves less room for compromise. In particular, this makes the stakes in Presidential elections very high because the President can have an edge in tipping the balance during periods of gridlock.

He concludes as follows:
The idea that America’s constitutional system might be fundamentally flawed cuts deeply against the grain of our political culture. But the reality is that despite its durability, it has rarely functioned well by the standards of a modern democracy. The party system of the Gilded Age operated through systematic corruption. The less polarized era that followed was built on the systematic disenfranchisement of African-Americans. The newer system of more ideological politics has solved those problems and seems in many ways more attractive. But over the past 25 years, it’s set America on a course of paralysis and crisis — government shutdowns, impeachment, debt ceiling crises, and constitutional hardball. Voters, understandably, are increasingly dissatisfied with the results and confidence in American institutions has been generally low and falling. But rather than leading to change, the dissatisfaction has tended to yield wild electoral swings that exacerbate the sense of permanent crisis. . . . 

As dysfunctional as American government may seem today, we’ve actually been lucky. No other presidential system has gone as long as ours without a major breakdown of the constitutional order. But the factors underlying that stability — first non-ideological parties and then non-disciplined ones — are gone. And it’s worth considering the possibility that with them, so too has gone the American exception to the rule of presidential breakdown. If we seem to be unsustainably lurching from crisis to crisis, it’s because we are unsustainably lurching from crisis to crisis. The breakdown may not be next year or even in the next five years, but over the next 20 or 30 years, will we really be able to resolve every one of these high-stakes showdowns without making any major mistakes? Do you really trust Congress that much?

Trump has already run us through multiple constitutional crises, and there are surely more to come.

Scott Sumner's February 17, 2025 blog piece entitled "A simple model of authoritarian nationalism" references the earlier article by Yglesias and riffs further on it.

Sumner focuses on efforts by Trump and other authoritarian nationalists, such as Victor Orban in Hungary, Putin, and even to some extent FDR, to different degrees as he doesn't see it as an all or nothing matter, to "systematically eliminate any aspect of the . . . government that might potentially check his power, or expose corruption." He also argues for looking a foreign and historical examples because Americans are so close to it that it is hard for them to see what is going on. He explains that:
Authoritarianism has such a bad connotation that its supporters generally justify it as a necessary evil to fight a deeper form of authoritarianism, the stranglehold on power of the so-called deep state. Trump’s fans implicitly buy into a sort of Mr. Smith Goes to Washington framing. Ordinary democracy is a cesspool of corruption, and we need an honest outsider to come in and shake things up, someone like Elon Musk. Move fast and break things. But Mr. Smith Goes to Washington is a myth, not reality. Washington cannot be fixed by sending authoritarian leaders there to shake things up, just as the French chaos of 1795 was not fixed by sending in Napoleon. The only way to fix Washington is to make our culture more rational, more honest, and less selfish.

The common thread in most authoritarian nationalists is an unwillingness to be constrained by rules. Thus Trump refuses to adhere to international trade agreements such as Nafta. Of course a president has a legitimate right to renegotiate a trade agreement that he believes is not in the national interest. But even after negotiating a new version of Nafta, a version that he insisted was a great treaty, Trump still refuses to adhere to its provisions.

To achieve the sort of lawless society envisioned by hardcore nationalists, you need to weaken your opponents, strengthen your supporters, and co-opt anyone who can be bribed or intimidated. . . . 
This post was easy to write—any rational person can see what’s going on. To his credit, Matt Yglesias predicted the coming authoritarianism way back in 2015, even before Trump appeared on the scene. His entire Vox article is worth reading, but this paragraph caught my eye:
Those who like these actions on their merits comfort themselves with the thought that these uses of executive power are pretty clearly allowed by the terms of the existing laws. This is true as far as it goes. But it’s also the case that Obama (or some future president) could have his political opponents murdered on the streets of Washington and then issue pardons to the perpetrators. This would be considerably more legal than a Zelaya-style effort to use a plebiscite to circumvent congressional obstruction — just a lot more morally outrageous. In either case, however, the practical issue would be not so much what is legal, but what people, including the people with guns, would actually tolerate.
Replace “political opponents murdered on the streets of Washington” with “send a violent mob to the Capitol to try to intimidate Congress into overturning a presidential election”, and you’ve described what happened 6 years after Yglesias used that seemingly “far-fetched” example, including the pardons. And I doubt that even Yglesias expected the assassination hypothetical to be discussed in the Supreme Court just a few years later.

In the end, our Constitution won’t protect us, there are too many loopholes. What matters is how much authoritarian nationalism the public is willing to stomach. I’m an optimist by nature and still expect Trump’s project to fail. My bigger concern is that the trajectory that Yglesias so presciently described in 2015 is likely to continue for many more years. Future presidents will become even more authoritarian that Trump.

To summarize, here’s how I think about the authoritarian nationalist’s credo:

* We don’t need no stinking election monitors. We decide who won the election.

* We don’t need no stinking trade rules. We set the rules.

* We don’t need no stinking refugees, except Afrikaners who’d vote MAGA.

* We don’t need no stinking international criminal court. We decide what’s torture.

* We don’t need no stinking Nato.

* We don’t need no stinking IRS audits of our supporters.

* We don’t need no stinking press critics.

* We don’t need no stinking United Nations

* We don’t need no stinking federal court oversight

* We don’t need no stinking European Union rules

* We’ll do whatever the hell we want to, and who’s going to stop us?

I hope it doesn’t take another global war for the world to come to its senses.

The state of the nation in the early days of the second Trump administration certainly send chills down my spine. 

The Economist democracy index defines four degrees by which democracy may be present in a country:

  • Full democracies are countries where civil liberties and fundamental political freedoms are not only respected but also reinforced by a political culture conducive to the thriving of democratic principles. These nations have a valid system of governmental checks and balances, an independent judiciary whose decisions are enforced, governments that function adequately, and diverse and independent media. These nations have only limited problems in democratic functioning.
  • Flawed democracies are countries where elections are fair and free and basic civil liberties are honoured but may have issues (e.g. media freedom infringement and minor suppression of political opposition and critics). These countries can have significant faults in other democratic aspects, including underdeveloped political culture, low levels of participation in politics, and issues in the functioning of governance.
  • Hybrid regimes are countries with regular electoral frauds, preventing them from being fair and free democracies. These countries commonly have governments that apply pressure on political opposition, non-independent judiciaries, widespread corruption, harassment and pressure placed on the media, anaemic rule of law, and more pronounced faults than flawed democracies in the realms of underdeveloped political culture, low levels of participation in politics, and issues in the functioning of governance.
  • Authoritarian regimes are countries where political pluralism is nonexistent or severely limited. These nations are often absolute monarchies or dictatorships, may have some conventional institutions of democracy but with meagre significance, infringements and abuses of civil liberties are commonplace, elections (if they take place) are not fair or free (including sham elections), the media is often state-owned or controlled by groups associated with the ruling regime, the judiciary is not independent, and censorship and suppression of governmental criticism are commonplace.
The U.S. may still be a democracy, but any fair minded observer would have to downgrade us, at least, to a flawed democracy (the U.S. is currently rated by the Economist at the high end of the flawed democracy range and will probably fall to at least the low end of it in the next round of evaluation), and is on the path to being even worse, at this point. The next level is where Mexico, Peru, Turkey, Morocco, Tunisia, Algeria, and Kazakhstan sit, and we could be there soon.

We may not plummet all of the way to the full on authoritarian regimes of Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, Myanmar, North Korea, and Afghanistan just yet. 

But we have lots of room to fall further, and it is increasingly plausible that we will. We are in the worst case scenario, and if the rearguard action to protect democracy and the rule of law doesn't prevail now, it can only get worse.