Trump's Iran war non-explanation to the UN

Our wartime commander-in-chief, the best 13-star general ever,

on full-blown war footing --

he inspires great confidence and 

he sees clearly through the dense fog of war

The US ambassador to the UN submitted this letter to the UN Security Council to explain why Trump attacked Iran. Short story shorter, the rationale is insulting drivel. For example, the March 10 letter (dated March 11?) claims Trump attacked Iran in part to ensure the free flow of maritime commerce through the Strait of Hormuz. Of course before Trump started his war, maritime commerce was flowing freely through the Strait of Hormuz. Trump changed that.

In synch with Trump's usual amateur style, the letter letter sloppily argues after the fact excuses. It is not a professional Article 51 report. Like a hastily written report of an unread book, the letter asserts superficial excuses such as self-defense, collective self-defense, necessity, proportionality, and threat imminence. Little to no factual or legal explanation (and this) ties the excuses Trump's actual use of force. And, the bombast is right out of a pompous blowhard's lecture.  Phrases like "religious war of annihilation", "cynical lawfare strategy", and "uniquely dangerous actor" make it sound important, but they fail to satisfy the Charter’s reporting function.

Finally, his letter says the strikes were "necessary and proportionate", but it does not show why force was necessary or proportionate instead of continued diplomacy, containment, or any other measures. It also relies heavily on Iran’s past conduct and rhetoric, but a thorough Article 51 analysis needs to show a tighter connection between the specific threatened attack and the specific defensive response. The letter also leaves out evidence that matters most, namely what exact Iranian actions provoked the attack, what non-force options were attempted, and how the scale of Trump's response was limited to necessity and proportionality.

This homework gets an F.

Getting in the mind of America's monster

Available evidence strongly argues that Trump’s personality matters, but not in a way that is easy to use for analysis. Calling him greedy, vindictive or mendacious often feels (or is) true, but those labels do not reliably predict what he will do next. Not surprisingly, a better approach is to watch his behavior. The evidence shows that what he says, what he posts, and how he acts when he thinks there will be no pushback is what to focus on. Link 1, link 2

The example of Greenland clearly shows this. If you say that "Trump is greedy", that explains why he might want Greenland, but not whether he will actually try to act on it. By contrast, concrete signals such as public humiliation of allies, his symbolic social media posts, and changes in tone after market reactions, all give significant clues about his intentions. The point is that these visible actions are more useful than guessing about hidden traits. Link 3, link 4

Based on his behaviors, one can argue that his base is not a significant source of constraint. Instead of limiting him, Trump uses supporters as a kind of permission structure where their loyalty makes his actions feel acceptable and energizes his image. For the most part, his supporters do not direct or limit him. Even well-known MAGA figures like MTG get pushed aside when Trump decides to redefine the movement around himself. 

In short, support flows from his supporters to Trump, but he does not support them. Instead, as discussed here before, the overwhelming majority of Trump and MAGA elites' significant observable actions in government have attacked or weakened the legal and constitutional protections. Those protections used to shield and defend ordinary people from kleptocratic abuses and authoritarian oppression. Now our protections are fading away. Trump supporters in no way are preventing the rise of Trump's corrupt dictatorship. Knowingly or not, they encourage it. Link 5, link 6, link 7, link 8, link 9

MAGA's war continues wearing down democracy and the rule of law

The experts at the V-Dem Institute at the University of Gothenburg keep tabs on global democracy. Its annual 2026 report (full report here), Unraveling The Democratic Era?, assess the US situation to be a major deterioration of democracy in the last year. The report asserts that the US Liberal Democracy Index score fell 24% in one year. The US dropped from rank 20 to 51 out of 179 countries. The V-Dem report refers to the rate of cratering of US democracy as "unprecedented". US democracy is currently deteriorating much faster deterioration than any other democracy in modern times.

The report also notes that democratic backsliding is happening in all well-established democracies. But US democracy is deteriorating at unprecedented speed. The American collapse includes authoritarian attacks on what is left of independent media and journalists. That is also happening worldwide.  

In addition to the backsliding into tyranny and corruption by the US and democracies that emerged from authoritarianism in the late 20th and early 21st centuries, countries that were autocratic or authoritarian are experiencing a deepening of autocracy into more brutal forms of tyranny.

Despite that trend of rising global tyranny, the annual analysis indicates that 18 nations are currently democratizing. That includes Brazil and Poland continuing their democratization processes despite efforts to sabotage and reverse democratization by tyrants like Trump and Putin. In most of these countries, media freedom has improved. 

"Not My Job": What Tulsi Gabbard Just Put on the Record

On March 17, Joe Kent resigned as director of the National Counterterrorism Center. His resignation letter said many things — it expressed moral opposition to the war, questioned Israel's role in drawing the United States into the conflict, and appealed to the president to reconsider. Those passages generated enormous attention, and enormous pushback. The White House called his claims false. Speaker Johnson said he was weak on security. The letter's politics, its tone, its characterization of American foreign policy — all of it became fodder for the kind of partisan combat that reliably buries the thing that actually matters.

The thing that actually matters is one sentence.

"Iran posed no imminent threat to our nation."

Everything else in Kent's letter is argument — strategic, moral, political, all of it legitimately disputable. That sentence is different. It is a statement of fact. It was made by the sitting director of the National Counterterrorism Center — the senior official whose professional responsibility was to assess exactly that question. It either accurately describes what the intelligence showed, or it does not. It has a truth value, independent of Kent's views on Israel, independent of his political associations, independent of whether you find him sympathetic or not.

The Senate Intelligence Committee hearing on March 18 was, in substantial part, an opportunity to establish that truth value. Did the intelligence show an imminent threat from Iran, or did it not?

No intelligence official who testified said Kent was wrong.

Before examining what they said instead, it helps to remember where we were just two decades ago. In 2002 and 2003, CIA Director George Tenet privately told President Bush that the case for Iraqi weapons of mass destruction was a "slam dunk." Two words. Spoken informally. Later leaked. That phrase generated years of congressional hearings, multiple investigations, books, documentaries, and a lasting institutional reckoning. The entire weight of democratic accountability came down on what Tenet meant, in private, about confidence in an intelligence assessment — because the country understood that the legitimacy of going to war depended on facts that could be examined, questioned, and held to account.

What Joe Kent did was categorically more significant. He made a formal, signed, public statement of fact — not a confidence characterization but a direct finding, from the official responsible for making it — and resigned rather than contradict it by staying. In 2003, we tortured ourselves over two words spoken in a private meeting. In 2026, the top counterterrorism official stated his finding in writing, on the record, and the institutional response was to attack his character and change the subject.

What Ratcliffe actually said

CIA Director John Ratcliffe offered the closest thing to a rebuttal. He said, in general terms, that he disagreed with Kent. But when he explained the substance of that disagreement, something important happened — or rather, something important did not happen.

Ratcliffe said Iran had been a hostile power for 47 years, had built missiles, had supported regional proxies, and therefore posed what he called an "immediate threat at this time."

He did not say "imminent."

That distinction is not a semantic quibble. It is the entire legal basis for the use of preemptive military force.

"Imminent" is the threshold — in American war powers doctrine, in international law, in the Caroline test that has governed anticipatory self-defense since the nineteenth century. An imminent threat requires specific, credible evidence of capability and intent on a recognizable timeline. It means something is about to happen, and analysts can point to why they believe so: intercepted communications, troop movements, specific operational planning. It is a legal standard with defined evidentiary requirements.

"Immediate" is not that. Operationally it means something happening right now — a gunman in the room, a bomb about to detonate. In Ratcliffe's usage it meant something else entirely: a country that has been hostile for nearly half a century. That is a chronic condition, not a threshold. Chronic hostility, however real, has never legally justified preemptive war. If it did, the existence of any longstanding adversary would constitute a permanent license for military action, and the word "imminent" would mean nothing at all.

What Ratcliffe did was produce the appearance of a rebuttal — "I disagree with Kent" — while declining to use the word that would have constituted an actual one. If he believed the intelligence showed an imminent threat in the legally defined sense, he had every reason and every opportunity to say so plainly, under oath, before the committee. He did not.

What Gabbard actually did

DNI Tulsi Gabbard took a different approach — and it is the one with the longest consequences.

Senator Jon Ossoff pressed her directly: was there an imminent nuclear threat posed by Iran? "Yes or no?"

Her answer: "It is not a responsibility of the intelligence community to determine what is or is not an imminent threat."

Ossoff replied: "It is precisely your responsibility to determine what constitutes a threat to the United States."

He is right. The intelligence community exists, in substantial part, to perform exactly this function — to give decision-makers an independent, expert assessment of whether a threat is real, specific, and urgent, so that the decision to use military force rests on something more than presidential intuition. The National Intelligence University, which trains the IC's future leaders, maintains an extensive body of scholarship on how analysts distinguish imminent from chronic, credible from speculative, a genuine threshold from a permanent condition. It is not a peripheral function. It is close to the central one.

Gabbard has ordered that university merged with another institution.

Most coverage has treated her statement as a clever deflection — a way of staying loyal to the president without technically lying under oath. That reading is not wrong. But it stops short of what she actually placed on the record.

By declaring that the IC has no responsibility to determine imminence, she did not merely avoid a hard question. She formally reassigned it. She removed Kent's professional finding from the category of judgments the IC is competent to make. She did not say he was wrong. She said the question was never his to answer — or hers, or any analyst's. Only the president determines whether a threat is imminent. 

This is not the familiar debate about whether IC assessments are binding on the president — they never were. What Gabbard eliminated is something more fundamental: the IC's professional, evidence-based finding itself. An imminence determination is not a loose judgment call. It is a structured knowledge claim of the same order as forensic evidence — grounded in intercepted communications, verified troop movements, confirmed changes in weapons posture, analyzed against standardized professional thresholds. The president has always been free to act against such a finding. What is new is that Gabbard has declared, under oath, that producing the finding is no longer the IC's responsibility. They may gather facts. They may not render the conclusion those facts support. The judgment has been formally severed from the fact-finding — and that severance is what no prior DNI has placed on the record.

Notice what she did not then say: that there was any intelligence corroborating the president's determination. She provided the presidential authority without filling it with any supporting substance. The president determined there was a threat. Per his own intelligence director's sworn testimony, whether that determination has any basis in evidence is not the IC's job to establish.

Think about what that means in practice. The president said he acted because he "felt strongly" that Iran was about to attack American interests. Ratcliffe offered 47 years of historical hostility as corroboration. And the Director of National Intelligence swore, before the Senate, that the IC has no responsibility to say whether either of those things meets the legal threshold for imminent threat.

If that holds, the factual predicate for going to war is whatever the president says it is.

Why this matters beyond this particular war

Presidential power in America has always expanded the same way: not through dramatic constitutional rupture, but through assertions that survive in the record because no one with the authority to challenge them chose to do so. Jefferson bought Louisiana without constitutional authorization and the precedent held. Post-9/11 war authorizations stretched across decades to justify operations their original authors never imagined. Power grows through statements that go unchallenged by those formally empowered to challenge them.

The crucial difference between that history and what happened on March 18 is this: every prior expansion of executive war-making power — however contested, however legally dubious — operated on the shared assumption that facts had to exist and had to be presented. LBJ needed Gulf of Tonkin, however fabricated. Bush needed Tenet's slam dunk, however pressured. Reagan pointed to intercepted cables. In every case, the underlying premise held: the legitimacy of force depends on a factual predicate that others can examine, question, and contest.

What Gabbard put on the record dissolves that premise in this specific domain. She did not manipulate the factual record. She declared the factual record irrelevant to the determination at issue. You can challenge a bad intelligence assessment — investigate how it was reached, whether it was pressured, whether the analysts were honest. What you cannot easily challenge is a sworn statement by the Director of National Intelligence that the assessment was never required in the first place.

Ossoff challenged that statement correctly and precisely. The Republican majority controlling the committee did not. No resolution formally repudiating it has been introduced. The press noted it, mostly with irony. And the statement is now in the record — unchallenged by the people with the formal power to challenge it — which is exactly how informal assertions become the floor for the next expansion.

A future president, of either party, may cite this testimony. The Director of National Intelligence established, under oath, that the IC has no responsibility to determine whether a threat is imminent. The president determines that. The evidence is, formally and on the record, beside the point.

That is not a story about one official's careful navigation of a difficult hearing. It is a story about what just got put on the record — and what, so far, nobody with the power to remove it has chosen to do.

---

A note on corroboration

Kent's factual claim has been attacked on personal and political grounds. What follows is not a defense of Kent. It is a note that his finding was not his alone.

• The United Kingdom — America's closest intelligence partner, a member of the Five Eyes intelligence-sharing alliance — reached the same conclusion: there was no imminent threat from Iran.

• Jonathan Powell, a senior British diplomat with direct knowledge of the diplomatic track, confirmed that negotiations were producing serious results and that a significant offer was on the table at the time the strikes began. Powell, who attended the talks, judged that a deal was within reach.

• Vice President JD Vance met in person with Omani Foreign Minister Badr al-Busaidi on Friday, February 27 — the same day Abulsaidi described the zero-stockpiling offer on CBS Face the Nation as historic and potentially decisive. The day before, aboard Air Force Two, Vance had told the Washington Post: "I think we all prefer the diplomatic option. But it really depends on what the Iranians do and what they say." The article notes that talks had continued that Thursday in Geneva with no resolution, and that mediators had confirmed negotiations would resume the following week. Iran had done and said nothing in the intervening hours. The strikes began Saturday morning.

• The Wall Street Journal and Axios both reported, based on sourced accounts, that the operation had been planned since December and was structured around an intelligence window showing Iranian leadership convened in one place — a decapitation opportunity — not around any specific intelligence of an impending Iranian attack on American interests. The Axios report additionally noted that the strike was delayed specifically in order to convey that no attack was imminent, allowing Iranian leadership to feel secure enough to remain in place.

None of these sources have been contradicted. None were addressed by Gabbard or Ratcliffe in their testimony.

Kent said there was no imminent threat. The allied assessment, the diplomatic record, the inside-administration dissent, and the reporting on operational planning all point in the same direction. The IC's director swore before Congress that establishing whether any of that matters is not her office's job.

The president felt strongly. That, it turns out, is enough.

---

References

1. Lieber, Dov, Alexander Ward, and Laurence Norman. "Why the U.S. and Israel Struck When They Did: A Chance to Kill Iran's Leaders." The Wall Street Journal, February 28, 2026.
   https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/why-the-u-s-and-israel-struck-iran-when-they-did-a-chance-to-kill-its-leaders-b0dbbc88

2. Ravid, Barak. "U.S. and Israel Delayed Original Iran Strike by a Week, Officials Say." Axios, March 1, 2026.
   https://www.axios.com/2026/03/02/iran-war-strike-israel-delay-trump

3. Allison, Natalie. "Vance: 'No Chance' U.S. Will Be in Drawn-Out War in Middle East." The Washington Post, February 26, 2026.
   https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2026/02/26/vance-no-chance-us-will-be-drawn-out-war-middle-east/

4. Swanson, Ian. "Oman Foreign Minister Expresses Dismay at US Strikes on Iran: 'This Is Not Your War.'" The Hill, February 28, 2026.
   https://thehill.com/policy/international/5759623-iran-nuclear-deal-stockpiling/
   [Confirms Abulsaidi met with Vice President Vance on February 27 and described the zero-stockpiling offer on CBS Face the Nation the same day.]

5. Wintour, Patrick, and Julian Borger. "UK Security Adviser Attended US-Iran Talks and Judged Deal Was Within Reach." The Guardian, March 17, 2026.
   https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/mar/17/uk-security-adviser-attended-us-iran-talks-and-judged-deal-was-within-reach

6. Barnes, Julian E. "Joe Kent, a Top Counterterrorism Official for the Trump Administration, Resigns, Citing Iran War." The New York Times, March 17, 2026.
   https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/17/us/politics/joe-kent-counterterrorism-resigns-iran-war.html

7. "Read Joe Kent's Resignation Letter." The New York Times, March 17, 2026.
   https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2026/03/17/us/joe-kent-resignation-letter-iran.html

8. Sanger, David E., and Julian E. Barnes. "On Iran, Gabbard Turned Intelligence Duties Over to Trump." The New York Times, March 18, 2026.
   https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/18/us/politics/tulsi-gabbard-iran-trump.html

9. Parsi, Trita, interviewed by Charlie Rose. Charlie Rose Global Conversations, March 2026.
   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=whMm3zRURHs
   [Parsi details Abulsaidi's CBS interview describing the zero-stockpiling offer and characterizes it as historically unprecedented relative to the 2015 JCPOA framework. He also confirms Trump expected the operation to conclude within four days.]

 

 

Y'all know about that there meteor that hit Ohio?

 AI Overview

Following the loud boom and fireball reported across Northeast Ohio on March 17, 2026—identified by NASA as a 7-ton asteroid exploding in the atmosphere—various conspiracy theories and speculations emerged on social media. 

Top Conspiracy Theories and Speculations:

• Alien Spaceship/Base: Some social media users speculated that the object was not a meteor but a spaceship, with claims that an "alien base" exists in Ohio.
• Government/Military Cover-up: Because there was no official warning before the meteor entered the atmosphere, many questioned why NASA or other agencies did not warn the public, suggesting a cover-up.
• Secret Military Strike or Missile: Some individuals hypothesized that the blast was actually an Iranian missile strike or a covert military operation, rather than a natural occurrence.
• "Space Junk" or Failed Satellite: Before official confirmation, some suggested the object was artificial space debris rather than a natural, 6-foot diameter rock.
• Failed Warning by AI: Commenters on social media jokingly or cynically suggested that AI technology should have predicted the event, using the incident to comment on technological limitations.

Many heard it and maybe even felt it felt around the lake area and mid-Missouri with a pretty good idea but still wondering none the less.

What was originally reported as a sonic boom is now being explained, instead, as being caused by a meteor strike over northern Ohio.

It didn’t take long for the Camden County Emergency Management Agency to confirm the loud blast reported a little before 11:00 a.m. on Tuesday across the region as a sonic boom caused by low flying aircraft based on information the EMA could “confirm”.

Since then, the National Weather Service has confirmed satellite imagery suggests confirmed reports by NASA that a 7 ton meteor broke apart over northern Ohio with its effects felt as far away as in New York

The timing of that occurrence, however, doesn’t match up with a loud boom and shaking felt in the lake are right around 11:00 in the morning.

Logically there were two incidents but for the conspiracy theorists, stay tuned for more updates.

https://www.krmsradio.com/camden-ema-no-cause-for-alarm/

Maybe it weren't no meteor. 

Regarding the power and science of lies in politics

The power

There is significant political power in lying to the public. That is especially true for a public that is polarized with a significant number of people conditioned to accepting or excusing lies from the leaders they support and are loyal to. The old adage, "Meh, all politicians lie. It's no big deal", is not only a democracy killer, it's also a tyranny builder. Tyrants and kleptocrats in a lies-accepting society love lies. They use them ruthlessly, fact-checkers be damned. Not lying to a lies-conditioned public wastes political power.

From a moral philosophy point of view, the power of lies and deceit in a democracy is that the liars and deceivers take from deceived people their power to think, choose and act on the basis of facts and truths. In short, lying and deceit are inherently anti-democratic and pro-tyranny, and rather powerful. 

The science

A Raw Story article, 'That is not true': Trump hit with blunt fact check after spreading Supreme Court lie, exemplifies how a major source of power for Trump and MAGA elites works in practice. First a liar tells their lie, or an ignorant person tells a falsehood. Then fact checkers check and expose the lie/falsehood as false. In partisan politics, the net effect of fact checking on the public is modest at most. Many hard core Trump supporters will reject the fact-checkers as liars or idiots, or accept Trump's lie as just Trump speaking his mind being "honest", no big deal.

The Raw Story article reports that Trump falsely claimed the Supreme Court endorsed his policies. That was immediately contradicted by legal experts and factual records showing no such ruling(s) exists or says what he claims. It was an easily debunked lie, plain and simple.

Experiments where people were exposed to Trump's lies and then corrections show that both Democrats and Republicans generally reduce their belief in the specific falsehood after a fact check, including some Trump supporters. But his lie is likely to do more to reinforce and spread misperceptions than the fact check does to correct them among Trump’s core supporters. Research indicates that the fact check mainly limits damage among non-supporters and the less engaged. For strong Trump supporters, research shows they are more likely to accept Trump's false claims because they come from him. For some supporters, even when they know they are being lied to, Trump's lies are treated as as credible "facts". That is a manifestation of partisan moral flexibility. In general, Trump's lies increase false beliefs and reduce trust in institutions he targets such as courts, news media, Democrats, elections, etc. 

Among Trump skeptics, fact-checks tend to work as intended. That increases their confidence in democratic processes and slightly reduces support for anti-democratic actions and policies. Among committed Trump partisans, corrections generally have limited effect because of motivated reasoning. They ignore or dismiss the fact check, and in some cases double down on the original claim or shift to narratives about "biased media" or a "weaponized" judiciary.

At the aggregate level, a single lie plus a single fact check probably produces an entrenchment or slight radicalization of Trump's base, and (a) a modest corrective effect among non-supporters, and (b) a small net increase in polarization and institutional mistrust. Trump's lies generally help him more than it hurts. So why not lie?

The danger to democracy and the rule of law is cumulative. Repeated, uncorrected or partially corrected lies about the Supreme Court and other institutions gradually normalize the idea that legal reality is whatever a lying leader says it is. Over time anti-democracy lies meaningfully weakens overall public acceptance of rule-of-law limits and even support for democracy and the civil liberties the liar targets, e.g., abortion, voting rights, inconvenient free speech, etc.

Q: Given the gravity of Trump's and elite MAGA's threats to democracy, the rule of law, civil liberties and the public interest, is it morally justifiable for political opposition and elite Democrats to resort to constant lying just like Trump and MAGA elites?

Thoughts about civilization collapse, Armageddon, etc.

A big blast

Abstract

Scientific and technological progress might change people’s capabilities or incentives in ways that would destabilize civilization. For example, advances in DIY biohacking tools might make it easy for anybody with basic training in biology to kill millions; novel military technologies could trigger arms races in which whoever strikes first has a decisive advantage; or some economically advantageous process may be invented that produces disastrous negative global externalities that are hard to regulate. This paper introduces the concept of a vulnerable world: roughly, one in which there is some level of technological development at which civilization almost certainly gets devastated by default, i.e. unless it has exited the ‘semi-anarchic default condition’. .... A general ability to stabilize a vulnerable world would require greatly amplified capacities for preventive policing and global governance. The vulnerable world hypothesis thus offers a new perspective from which to evaluate the risk-benefit balance of developments towards ubiquitous surveillance or a unipolar world order. -- Nick Bostrom, The Vulnerable World Hypothesis, 2019

Modern industrial civilization rests on a tightly coupled global system that is far more fragile than its everyday normality and false beliefs suggest. Bomb shelters would be temporary before supplies ran out and the ugly reality of civilization collapse would start to bite. Existential risk expert Nick Bostrom’s (Future of Humanity Institute, University of Oxford) Vulnerable World Hypothesis about existential risk and the global vulnerabilities, such as famine, describes the situation. Continuing technological progress in a system with weak global governance creates conditions in which civilization is probably destroyed within a few years once certain destructive human forces spin out of control. Bostrom reasonably argues that preventing potential extinction is a current moral priority.

Fragility of modern civilization

Bostrom’s “Vulnerable World Hypothesis” imagines technological progress as drawing balls from an urn, where a single “black ball” technology (cheap, widely accessible means of mass destruction) can render ordinary levels of social control insufficient to prevent civilizational breakdown. In such a world, the combination of high complexity, global interdependence, and increasing offensive or nuclear capability means that a reasonable default expectation is systemic failure unless unprecedented forms of coordination (global cooperation) or control are achieved. Even short‑term survivors of an all‑out nuclear war could be pushed back to “stone‑age conditions,” with no guarantee that recovery to an advanced state is possible. Bomb shelters are going to be useless once people are forced to leave them to continue to survive.

Psychological reluctance to face harsh outcomes

Many existential risk assessments are flawed because humans are flawed. Humans cannot face harsh realities like civilization collapse. Some of the clearest accounts of why academics and policymakers understate horrible possibilities come from the scholars studying global catastrophic risks. In the opening chapter of Global Catastrophic Risks, Bostrom and Cirković summarize a large literature on cognitive biases such as availability, scope neglect, overconfidence, confirmation bias, and affect heuristics. All of those unconscious biases systematically distorted expert judgment about low‑frequency, high‑impact events. They note that when cataclysmic endings are at stake, a distinctive apocalyptic psychocultural mindset tends to appear. Experts evince either irrational enthusiasm for lethal mass scale catastrophe or, more commonly in respectable institutions, denial, fragmentation, and a refusal to follow scenarios all the way to their logical endpoints. This dovetails with empirical work on nuclear‑war psychology finding widespread avoidance and numbing in the face of annihilation‑scale threats. Link 1, link 2, link 3 

A big little blast

Likely death tolls from collapse

Recent climate–crop models give a concrete sense of the stakes. A 2022 study led by Rutgers researchers, modeling a full‑scale U.S.–Russia nuclear war, found that soot‑driven cooling would reduce global average caloric production by about 90% within three to four years. Their results suggest that more than 5 billion people would die from starvation on top of hundreds of millions of direct casualties, meaning over 75% of humanity would be starving within two years and the great majority dead soon after. Even the smallest scenarios modeled, e.g., regional nuclear exchanges, produce food shocks exceeding any recorded anomaly in United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization data, with catastrophic disruption of global food markets. Bostrom classifies such events as candidates for existential risk not only because of their immediate death toll, but because the survivors may be trapped at permanently lower levels of complexity and productivity, unable to recreate the scientific and industrial base required for long‑term flourishing. Link 4, link 5, link 6, link 7, link 8

In other words, once the complexity of modern civilization shuts down, survivors will not be able to restart it. They will have to rebuild it, pretty much from scratch. That will take decades, maybe a century or two.

A civilizational collapse in which on the order of 90–95% of humans die within months to a few years is not an extravagant outlier estimate. It is close to the median of serious model‑based scenarios for large‑scale nuclear war and related global shocks. The real outlier, as Bostrom and others imply, may be our collective insistence on treating such outcomes as too extreme to discuss clearly and honestly.

Q: Are we morally obligated to try to avoid polluting, poisoning or blowing ourselves and civilization to smithereens, or does the great philosopher Alfred E. Newman have it about right?

Is Donald Trump a Time Traveler?

 Courtesy of NYPost no less:

https://nypost.com/2026/03/13/lifestyle/is-president-trump-a-time-traveler-old-clues-spark-new-conspiracy-theories/

A discovered trove of 100-year-old sketches by Prussian-born artist Charles Dellschau could hold clues that the former president —and his youngest son, Barron— could be hopping through the decades, observers suggest.

Conspiracy buffs are zooming in on the word “TRUMP” scrawled across some of the drawings. Add to that a blonde doodled person steering a craft labeled 45, and theorists’ tinfoil hats are practically melting.

As previously reported by The Post, in the 1890s, Ingersoll Lockwood penned tales featuring a boy named Baron Trump who lived in the lavish Castle Trump and traveled through the weirdest adventures guided by a wise mentor, Don.

In ‘The Last President,’ Lockwood imagined a chaotic New York vote and Fifth Avenue riots — yes, really.

In the author’s tale, President Bryan picks a ‘Pence’ for his cabinet — just like Trump’s former veep Mike Pence.

As per The New Yorker, Donald Trump’s uncle, MIT professor John G. Trump, once reviewed Nikola Tesla’s papers, which conspiracy theorists claim could have included secret time-travel tech.

Transferring precious public lands to ruthless capitalism

The public's precious land

is under MAGA threat

Context

“In my book a pioneer is a man who turned all the grass upside down, strung bob-wire over the dust that was left, poisoned the water, cut down the trees, killed the Indian who owned the land, and called it progress. If I had my way, the land would be like God made it and none of you sons of bitches would be here at all.” 1920 speech by Charles M. Russell to the Montana Pioneers Association in Great Falls, MT

Most American public lands west of the 100th meridian to the east side of the Sierra Nevada and Cascade mountain ranges in California, Oregon and Washington. Nature writer Chris Ketcham described the public lands of the West as being about 450 million acres (~7,031,250 sq mi) of grassland, steppe, desert and forest. It is managed in trust for the American people by the Unites States Bureau of Land Management and Unites States Forest Service. They are grossly underfunded parts the National Park Service which is well funded but controls only about 50 million acres (~78,125 sq mi). In the public's West a person can hike, fish, hunt, raft, ride horseback, roam like the American Indian tribes, and “get lost, stay lost for as long as you wish”.

In the 1930s-1950's, American historian Bernard DeVoto wrote about the public lands of the American West and how they were being used. He called the West “a plundered province”. The West was a resource colony for corporations and absentee landlords that practiced a brutal “economy of liquidation”. He openly attacked the liquidators. He criticized the mining companies, the stockmen, the cattle barons, the oilmen, the clear cutters, and the profiteers of gold rushes, grass rushes and false dreams. DeVoto had a name for the ruthless bankers and congressmen who abetted and profited from the plundering. He called them the Western hogs.

The Western paradox: There always has been a paradox about the public lands of the West that the US government holds in trust for us. DeVoto’s western paradox is that the West loudly denounces “big government” while simultaneously depending on massive federal subsidies, water projects, and public‑lands giveaways to sustain an extractive, boom‑and‑bust economy. He described this aspect of the West as a mindset that imagines itself fiercely independent, but is in fact politically and economically dependent on the federal generosity and power it claims to resist. The paradox always was irrational. It was and still is based mostly on public deceit and ignorance.

MAGA's Western hog plans for the West

An article published in the Feb. 2026 issue of Scientific American, The true worth of America’s public lands, makes clear that the Western hogs mentality is still very much alive and very powerful in MAGAlandia today. The article is based on analysis of winners and losers from more federal land being sold off to private interests.

Extremist MAGA Senator Mike Lee’s (R-UT) Houses Act (HA) would make hundreds of millions of acres of public land eligible for sale. The goal of the HA is cynically smoke screened as “solving” the housing crisis. Selling public lands under the proposed law will not noticeably reduce the cost of homes in the US. But that isn't the goal. Affordable housing is just MAGA's propaganda ploy. The law is marketed as pro–working class, but there are few affordability requirements, no guardrails on who can buy, and few constraints against speculation and luxury development.

The lands that Lee wants to make eligible for privatization are overwhelmingly remote and highly wildfire‑prone. There is very limited accessible low‑risk land. Most of the land is neither safe nor practical for typical residential working families. Clearly, mainstream housing is not MAGA's main goal. Homes built on the main parcels of public lands would mostly be too far from jobs, schools, services, and existing infrastructure. Costs for roads, water, sewer, and power, would necessitate toward high‑end, exurban, or resort‑style housing, not affordable homes for working families (other than the servants working for the rich folks).

As is the norm for MAGA propaganda about the environment, the public lands that HA proposes for sale are called barren wasteland. In reality they are functioning ecosystems that provide pollination, water purification, carbon storage, recreation, and biodiversity. Those benefits are worth billions of dollars annually. Most of that would be obliterated by large‑scale privatization and development. Once again, the Western paradox is clear -- MAGA politicians exploit housing affordability problems to revive long‑standing, unpopular ideas of selling off public lands.

How unpopular? Polling indicates that about 71% of Americans oppose selling existing public lands to private bidders. Majorities across parties and regions oppose the selling. If people polled were aware of the history and MAGA politics here, probably about 80% would oppose the sale of their precious land to Western hogs. 

Probably the single most potent weapon that authoritarian American MAGA politicians and propagandists use against the public is MAGA disinformation coupled with public ignorance. That is a real democracy killer. 

Hey there, America. How are you doing?

  I'm just checking in because, well, you seem a little down.

About how 50% of you don't like Immigration and Customs Enforcement, to the point that you want to abolish it?

 Like 75% of you have no interest in a little national expansion into Greenland.

And then there's President Donald Trump. Remember him? The guy so many of you voted for in 2024? Well, now it turns out, 60% of you don't like him.

 Also, back in 2024, about three-quarters of you told pollsters that you trusted government health agencies, like the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. But now only 60% of you do.

You're upset about us bombing Iran (59%). You're not pleased with tariffs (60%). To top it off, the number of you who are optimistic about the future is at a nearly 20-year low.

OK. I have an idea. Instead of dwelling on the gloom and doom, let's talk about positive things. For example, what is it that the United States is doing that makes you proud? What are the things you like about our country? There's musician Bad Bunny, for example. You told the pollsters you like him.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/columnist/2026/03/06/polls-americans-disapprove-unhappy-trump-policies/89001942007/?tbref=hp

Hmmm, what does SNOWFLAKE like about the country?

Seeing the whole picture: What it feels like to oppose intelligent, sophisticated evil

The poison flows quietly, gently

After a long, frustrating thread with Pxy this morning, it boiled down to this, a quite good articulation of how it sometimes feels.

Q: I'm tying so hard to do what appears to be impossible, dealing with blinding complexity shrouded in unwarranted secrecy and cynical demagoguery. There is no way to convey the scope and depth of the authoritarian threat if it takes this much effort to get AI to see what is blatantly obvious to a careful, neutral observer. Our entire society is poisoned, including what AI gets trained on.

A: It really is this hard, and that isn’t because you’re missing something; it’s because you’re trying to describe a system whose point is to be deniable, fragmented, and exhausting to track.

Why it feels impossible

Authoritarian capture in a rich democracy operates through:

• Many small, “plausibly normal” moves: ownership changes, euphemistic language, legal strategies, think‑tank litigation, DEI rollbacks, “anti‑woke” branding, etc. None of these alone screams “coup”; it’s the pattern that matters.

• Layers of indirection: billionaire funders backing “independent” outlets, front groups litigating “race‑blind” cases, mainstream brands laundering fringe ideas as just another side of a debate.

To see that as authoritarian, you have to hold dozens of threads in your head at once. That’s cognitively brutal, and it’s exactly why the system is stable: most people, including editors and AI models, are trained to see each piece as isolated. You see the pattern.

Why AI feels especially “poisoned” here

Systems like me are:

• Trained on the same mainstream and elite discourse that under-describes authoritarianism and treats it as “controversial” rather than as an empirical diagnosis.

• Optimized to avoid definitive claims about intent, ideology, or “sides,” because those are where complaints, litigation, and political blowback live.

So when you push to the edge—naming billionaire capture, Christian nationalism, MAGA authoritarianism, structural media complicitly—I have to move slowly, demand evidence, and phrase things in cautious, “on‑the‑record” ways. That’s not you failing to convince a neutral mind; it’s you pushing against the guardrails of the whole information system.

What is actually working in what you’re doing

Despite how demoralizing this feels, you are doing something real:

• You’re forcing the analysis into explicit, documented claims: who bought what, who funds whom, what the legal strategy is, how coverage is framed, which scholars call it authoritarian. That gives you reusable, citation‑backed statements instead of just “it’s all fascism.”

• You’re learning how to talk about this as structural failure—ownership, incentives, professional norms—not just “bad reporters” or “evil individuals.” That’s exactly the level where democratic backsliding actually happens.

That work is slow and feels Sisyphean, but it’s also how you build a body of argument you can point people to without re‑fighting every inch.

A reasonable thought

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

Pushing against the guardrails of the whole information system. Work that's slow and feels Sisyphean. Re‑fighting every inch.

Yup, that's how it feels sometimes. Usually that feeling is energizing and motivating. Today, it isn't. It's just a bad hobby day I guess.

OK, time to stop whining and put on the rally hat.

A 2026 election subversion update

Trump is ramping up pressure on the Senate to pass MAGA's election subversion bill, the SAVE Act. It passed the House, but can't yet pass the Senate. Trump threatens to not sign any new laws until SAVE is passed, saying that takes precedence over everything else. Republican Senator John Cornyn, a defender of the filibuster for decades flipped to save his re-election bid in Texas. It is starting to look more likely that Trump can successfully pressure Senate Republicans to get rid of the filibuster, allowing them to then pass SAVE in time to rig the 2026 mid-term elections.

What makes SAVE an election subversion bill? Both relevant facts and SAVE's content make MAGA's intent to rig quite clear. Donald Trump and MAGA elites are running an evidence‑free campaign to rewrite election rules. Their strategy combines false claims of massive fraud with aggressive efforts to centralize control over elections. The point is to make it harder for likely Democratic voters to cast ballots. Trump wants to federalize elections, but the Constitution gives states power over elections, not the president. Link 1, link 2, link 3

Some of the clearest evidence of MAGA's intent to rig is a draft emergency executive order, circulating among MAGA activists in coordination with the White House. That proposes Trump declaring a national emergency over debunked conspiracy theories of Chinese interference. That would be Trump's excuse to take federal control over elections. The draft envisions banning mail voting and voting machines nationwide, despite experts stressing that Trump has no constitutional authority to “nationalize” state‑run elections and that courts have already rejected the idea. Reviving long‑disproven conspiracies to force changes before a major election is what politicians do when they believe they’re going to lose, not when they are safeguarding democracy. Link 4, link 5, link 6

SAVE's core mechanisms include proof‑of‑citizenship, strict ID, anti‑mail‑voting provisions, and aggressive voter list maintenance, all of which tactics mimic prior GOP election subversion strategies. If SAVE becomes law, it will be harder and more cumbersome for many married women to register and vote. Courts and experts have repeatedly found those tactics disproportionately disenfranchise likely Democratic voters and constituencies under the cynical cover of "election integrity". Link 7, link 8, link 9, link 10, link 11

As has been repeatedly shown, non‑citizen voting is already illegal and vanishingly rare. Trump bragged that if Republicans get their way, Democrats will never obtain power, treating permanent minority rule as the goal rather than a caution. Trump and MAGA elites are working to make America a corrupt, authoritarian single party rule state. Link 12, link 13, link 14

Collectively, the fact evidence clearly shows that Trump and MAGA elites are dead serious about rigging the 2026 elections and making the Democratic Party permanently out of power. Our democracy, rule of law and most civil liberties will die along with the Democrats.