A Book I Couldn’t Finish – And How It Taught Me About Truth, Authority, and Conspiracy Thinking

I was raised with a deep respect for books. That came from my grandmother, who believed that reading wasn’t entertainment; it was a moral act. She told me early on: 

“Before you start a book, consider it carefully, because you are committing to finish it.”

And I honored that. Through a lifetime of reading far above average, I’ve left only a handful of books in my lifetime, unfinished. Literally, four or five. When I do, it isn’t casual. It means a trust has been broken.

One of those rare unfinished books was General William Westmoreland’s memoir, A Soldier Reports, written after his military career to explain, justify, and defend his role in the Vietnam War. When I picked it up in the late 1970s, I fully intended to finish it. I respected the office, the burden of command, the enormity of history pressing down on him. I gave him enormous leeway. I was open to nuance, rationalization, defensiveness. Trauma does that to a writer; I understood.

But as I read deeper, something in my mind shifted.

It wasn’t that I disagreed with him. Disagreement is natural. It wasn’t even that he tried to justify his choices; every leader does that to some extent. What disturbed me, and ultimately stopped me, was when his narrative drifted away from reality itself.

As I'm writing this I'm watching a documentary on Netflix, COVER-UP.  I'm about 30 minutes into it and the reporter says: "The whole army ran on body count. You measure success by how many kills you have. Westmoreland needed numbers. And so how do you get the kind of body count you want? You had to go into places like My-Lai and tell them that everybody there is a Viet Cong. Kill everybody."

That's, madness.

He's talking about the My-Lai Massacre incident where soldier slaughter an entire village of civilians, including children. I remember when it happened and it had massive news coverage. But not until this journalist tracked the story down. Fascinating documentary so far. 

I had read widely. Since I was young, and I was at the time in the USAF with a secret security clearance. I knew the historical record, the reporting, the complexities, the moral ambiguities. Yet near the latter part of the book, I watched Westmoreland confidently build a world where facts bent to ideology, where uncomfortable truths were replaced with explanatory fantasies, where victory had been possible if only others hadn’t betrayed it, misunderstood it, distorted it. It wasn’t analysis anymore; it was an alternate psychological universe. Even in my early 20s I could recognize something wrong in a very well-seasoned soldier, and a General, with war experience, had jumped the shark.

And that was when I learned something essential about conspiracy thinking.

For notes on Conspiracy Theories:

Guide to researching conspiracy theories and mystery topics (University of Minnesota LibGuide)

For more approachable, practical guidance for (easy to use for a general audience):

PBS NewsHour Classroom: Conspiracy Theory and misinformation resources

It does not always come from the fringe. It does not always look like insanity. Sometimes it comes dressed in medals, authority, dignity, reputation, and the steady voice of a man who believes completely in his own story. Sometimes it comes not from delusion, but from the human need to protect pride, identity, ego, and worldview from collapse. Sometimes it isn’t born of madness at all, but of refusal.

That realization stayed with me. I didn’t finish the book. That decision wasn’t rebellion against authority; it was loyalty to reality.

I also didn't buy what he was selling. In researching his beliefs I came across the concept of conspiracy theory and rather than leap right down into that rabbit hole of a conspiracy itself, I studied the concept of conspiracy theory itself. And that, is the primary difference I see between those seemingly inured to falling victim to it and so many misguided conspiracy theorists, today. 

Beyond knowledge and critical thinking, what really protects people from falling into conspiracy belief is the human foundation beneath their thinking. People who feel connected to real communities, who have purpose, emotional resilience, and a sense of belonging grounded in everyday life are far less likely to need conspiratorial narratives to make sense of the world. 

Conspiracies thrive where trust collapses, where loneliness or alienation take hold, and where ego needs validation through “secret truth” identities. Humility, the ability to tolerate uncertainty, engagement with art and meaningful work, exposure to different people and ideas—these create an anchor in lived reality. When our emotional, social, and existential needs are met in healthy ways, the seductive pull of grand, simplifying falsehoods loses much of its power.

And it is important to acknowledge something honestly: conspiracies do exist. History has proven that powerful people and institutions sometimes lie, coordinate in secret, and abuse authority. But real conspiracies are rarely the omnipotent, world-controlling forces many people imagine. They tend to be smaller, messier, driven by greed, incompetence, or short-term advantage, and they almost always collapse eventually. 

Secrets leak. People talk. Evidence surfaces. The larger and more elaborate a supposed conspiracy is, the less likely it is to survive reality. Healthy skepticism means questioning power while remaining grounded in evidence, not surrendering to fantasy.

Do not buy into a conspiracy until you understand where it came from, what it is actually claiming, and what you are really embracing beyond its surface idea. Many of these narratives are interconnected; one belief leads to another, and before you realize it, you are deep in a rabbit hole of manufactured nonsense. That is how we ended up with Trumpism, MaGA culture, and a whole ecosystem of unstable, shape-shifting “belief communities” built on anything but reality.

From Catholicism to Critical Reverence

I grew up Catholic. I served as head altar boy. I lived inside ritual, authority, certainty, and sacred structures. Eventually, I stepped away from that faith — not out of bitterness, but because my relationship to truth demanded it. I found myself resonating more with a Buddhist orientation toward life. Not ritual. Not cosmology. Not metaphysics. But clarity. Awareness. Responsibility for one’s own mind. A quiet reverence for reality.

Yet I never lost the sense of reverence itself. It didn’t disappear; it transformed.

Today, I hold books and musical instruments in a near-sacred category — not religiously sacred, but existentially meaningful. They represent the best of human engagement with the world.

Books are minds speaking across time. They demand honesty. They deserve sincerity. They are not disposable. Reading is an ethical act.

Musical instruments are vessels of human expression. They require care, discipline, devotion, humility. You don’t treat a violin or a guitar like a tool. You treat it like a responsibility — a conduit to something deeply human.

I don’t bow to these things. I respect them.

---

Reality as a Moral Commitment

In my life, I have come to believe this:
Reality deserves loyalty.

Not institutions. Not ideologies. Not powerful men writing history in their own image. A person can be decorated, intelligent, influential, and still build castles out of narrative rather than truth. Authority does not guarantee accuracy. Sincerity does not guarantee honesty.

That Westmoreland book was where this lesson crystallized for me.

It taught me that conspiracy thinking is sometimes just wounded certainty evolving into mythology. It showed me that some narratives aren’t created to illuminate the world, but to protect the self. It reminded me that reverence should never be for image or status — only for truth, creation, and honest engagement with life.

And it reminded me of my grandmother’s wisdom. Consider a book before you start it. Commit to finishing it. But if finishing it requires betraying reality, then set it down. Respect isn’t obedience; sometimes it is knowing when to walk away.

That book tried to ask me for reverence without truth.
And I couldn’t give it.

Instead, I saved my reverence for the things that deserve it:
facts, reality, music, literature, human integrity… and the lifelong discipline of staying awake to what is real.

Cheers! Sláinte! Na zdravie!

Compiled with aid of ChatGPT

When Conservatism Makes Sense — and When It Holds Us Back

On this anniversary of Donald Trump's January 6th, 2021 insurgency in refusing to leave office as POTUS45, we still have, we again have, that clown in office. Sigh. Give me a break...how is such a clod brain President of the United States, ever, or AGAIN? Now we've enabled him yet again in his this time, foolishly invading another country? Unbelievable. 

World is less safe after US action in Venezuela, says UN Human Rights Office

OK...

I have long held a simple but deeply considered belief, conservatism is simply wrong-minded. That's never been more supported than today, under Donald Trump and whatever the hell this/his GOP is anymore.

Conservatism is most valuable in times of danger, but in times of strength, stability, and prosperity, progress — sometimes bold progress — is what truly moves societies forward.

That belief is not about partisan sorting or emotional preference. It comes from philosophy, history, and watching what actually happens when societies choose fear over possibility, or recklessness over stability. Understanding the difference matters, especially in an era where the word “conservative” is too often used as a costume for something far more chaotic and destructive than traditional conservatism ever intended to be.

So let’s slow the noise. Let’s talk about what conservatism is supposed to be, where it genuinely shines, where progressive governance excels, and why the right approach depends not only on ideology — but on the moment we are living in.

---

Conservatism Was Built as a Philosophy of Caution

Traditional conservatism — the intellectual kind associated with Edmund Burke, Michael Oakeshott, Russell Kirk, and others — was never about rage politics, enemies lists, or constant cultural warfare. It was about prudence.

Traditional conservatism says:

• Human institutions are fragile

• Social orders take generations to build

• Fast, sweeping change risks unintended harm

• Stability is a moral good

Conservative thinking performs its best work during unsteady times:

• when institutions are threatened

• when social cohesion is fraying

• when economic foundations feel shaky

• when the primary danger is collapse rather than stagnation

In those circumstances, slowing down can be wisdom.
Restraint can be virtue.
Continuity can literally save civilizations.

There is real dignity in the idea that not every moment demands upheaval.

---

But Prosperity Requires More Than Holding Still

There is another truth political conservatives often ignore:

Societies do not grow simply by preserving themselves. They grow by daring.

When a nation is strong — when it has capacity, confidence, economic strength, and resilient institutions — excessive caution becomes paralysis. Conservatism in a time of prosperity can quietly transform into something less virtuous:

• a defense of entrenched privilege

• a fear of modernization

• a refusal to expand rights

• a distrust of creativity and change

In other words, it stops being about “stability” and becomes about keeping others from advancing too.

History is full of examples of moments where progress didn’t destroy a society — it renewed it:

• Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal rebuilt economic stability and dignity

• Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society made rights real rather than theoretical

• Postwar Europe rebuilt modern social democracies blending capitalism and social protection

• Civil rights expansions did not break the United States — they fulfilled it more fully

Each of these required risk. Each required the belief that improvement is worth trying for. Progressivism, at its best, is not reckless revolution. It is the conviction that we should keep building a better society while we can — not freeze time out of fear.

---

Risk Tolerance Is the Real Difference

Strip away the slogans and tribal loyalties and political philosophy eventually comes down to one fundamental question:

How much risk are we willing to accept in pursuit of improvement?

Conservatism answers:
Not much. Stability matters more than improvement. Human systems break easily.

Progressivism answers:
Some risk is necessary. Human systems stagnate without reform.

The truth is not that one is always right and the other always wrong. The truth is that each is situationally wise. Healthy societies need:

• conservative instincts to keep us from blowing ourselves up

• progressive instincts to keep us from falling asleep in our comfort

But context matters.

---

When Conservatism Stops Being Conservatism

There is an additional complication in our moment: much of what calls itself “conservatism” today — especially in its MaGA form — has abandoned conservatism’s core principles entirely.

Traditional conservatism valued:

• institutions

• constitutional constraints

• civic responsibility

• moral character

• measured change

MaGA politics often values:

• disruption for its own sake

• loyalty to leaders over loyalty to law

• grievance instead of civic duty

• chaos disguised as “strength”

• rejection of expertise, tradition, and restraint

That is not conservatism. It is populist reaction, opportunism, and frequently authoritarian sympathy wrapped in conservative language. Conservatives used to see themselves as guardians of democracy. Today too many embrace rhetoric that treats democracy as legitimate only when their side wins.

So when critics argue against “conservatism,” they often are not arguing against prudence or stability. They are arguing against a movement pretending to be conservative while actively attacking the very institutional and moral principles conservatism was built to protect.

---

A Healthy Society Needs Forward Motion — and a Steady Hand

The idea I keep returning to is simple:

Conservatism works best when danger threatens collapse.
Progress works best when strength allows ambition.

Neither philosophy is evil. Neither is inherently superior in all times. But a society that forgets how to adapt dies slowly. And a society that abandons stability destroys itself quickly.

The goal should never be permanent revolutionary fever or permanent stagnation. It should be balance — with the wisdom to recognize when we need stability most, and when we should dare to build something better while we are strong enough to do so.

The tragedy of our modern politics is that we treat this as a permanent war rather than an ongoing conversation about timing, context, and responsibility.

The future belongs not to those who cling terrified to the past, and not to those who tear down merely for joy, but to those who understand that preservation and progress are not enemies.

They are tools.
And wise societies know when to use each one.

Cheers! Sláinte! Na zdravie!

Compiled with aid of ChatGPT

The Next Technology Revolution Must Start Now: Beyond Silicon and Beyond Lithium

If you trace enough NASA careers, aerospace engineers, deep-tech innovators, and advanced research scientists back to childhood, you eventually end up in the same place:

Sitting in front of a television watching Star Trek.

Before I get started:

CES 2026 is officially underway! Stay up to date with the latest announcements, product reveals, and show floor highlights:

🔗 Live updates from Tom’s Guide 🔗 In-depth coverage from Wired

Okay then...

People don’t always say it out loud, but it’s true. Star Trek didn’t just entertain an era — it inspired one. The communicator shaped early thinking around mobile devices. Shipboard computers helped normalize the idea of talking to intelligent machines. Replicator concepts pointed minds toward automated manufacturing and 3D printing. Tricorder-like medical tools shaped portable diagnostics.

The image above is of Spock with a phaser because it was his use of a phaser battery to power a downed shuttle craft on his episode of "his first command", that inspired me to wait for decades for a more powerful battery. Also, I spoke to Leonard Nimoy in the 1960s with my younger brother when he was with Shatner at a Jerry Lewis Telethon and mom called to donate money and talk with "Capt. Kirk", but he was so desired for a phone call we got "Spock". Which was still amazing, and over time, even more so.

Here are some well-documented names of astronauts and NASA professionals who have publicly said Star Trek influenced or inspired them when they were young:

• Dr. Mae Jemison – First Black woman in space; has repeatedly credited Star Trek (and Nichelle Nichols’ Lt. Uhura) as a major inspiration. She later even appeared on Star Trek: The Next Generation.

• Mike Fincke – NASA astronaut; lifelong Trek fan who has openly said the show inspired him to dream of space. He later appeared in an episode of Star Trek: Enterprise.

• Chris Hadfield – Though Canadian Space Agency, he trained and worked extensively with NASA and has said Star Trek helped shape his love of space as a child.

• Terry Virts – NASA astronaut who has talked about growing up with Star Trek and the role science fiction played in pushing him toward space.

• Scott Kelly – NASA astronaut who has spoken about being influenced by science fiction growing up, including Trek’s depiction of exploration.

• Bobak Ferdowsi – NASA/JPL “Mohawk Guy,” Curiosity mission engineer; has credited Star Trek and science fiction as early motivators for getting into space engineering.

• Charlie Bolden – Former NASA Administrator has discussed how shows like Star Trek expanded cultural vision and made space careers feel possible for future generations.

Meanwhile, Stargate came later and influenced a different kind of thinking: power density. ZPMs (Zero Point Modules) were fictional, but the underlying idea was rational — civilization changes when energy stops being a constraint.

Stargate SG-1: Colonel (later General) Jack O’Neill with character Sam / Samantha "Sam" Carter (Amanda Tapping), with ZPM

Science fiction never “tricked” anyone into believing fantasy. It gave engineers permission to imagine boldly and ask harder questions of physics.

And in 2026, that mindset matters more than ever.

Because two of the most important technologies humanity relies on — silicon computing and lithium energy storage — are running out of road.

---

Silicon Has Been Brilliant. It Is Also Finite.

Moore’s Law carried us for six decades. It didn’t just make computers faster. It made them cheaper, smaller, and everywhere. It fueled economic growth and reshaped civilization.

But physics has limits.

Transistors are now so small that we are brushing atomic boundaries. Heat and quantum tunneling are no longer theoretical hurdles; they are daily engineering reality. Fabrication complexity and cost keep climbing. The industry responded brilliantly with:

• chip stacking

• massive parallelization

• domain-specific accelerators

• architectural optimization

Those are ingenious — but they are extensions, not the next era.

If we want another leap, it will not come from squeezing silicon harder. It will come from thinking differently:

• Photonic processors that compute with light

• Spin-based and quantum-inspired effects instead of charge movement

• Neuromorphic architectures modeled after biological brains rather than calculators

• Graphene and 2D materials that surpass silicon’s physical constraints

• Quantum computing — not for everyday laptops, but for chemistry, cryptography, physics, and problem domains previously unsolvable

Progress does not come from worshiping yesterday’s miracle. It comes from graduating from it.

---

Batteries Changed the World — But They Won’t Take Us Far Enough

Parallel to the silicon story is the quiet plateau of lithium-ion batteries. A couple of years ago a futurist was being interviewed and when asked what the next big revolution needed was he said: batteries. And then explained what I'm saying here. We need a massive revolution in battery tech but far beyond where most of us are thinking today.

Batteries have enabled laptops, smartphones, wireless everything, and electric vehicles. They reshaped energy strategy. They made portable computing possible. They are one of the most important technologies ever built.

But like silicon, they have theoretical ceilings — and we are getting close.

Incremental gains remain, but they will not power the century ahead.

If humanity expects:

• resilient global energy grids

• serious renewable storage

• large-scale electrification

• aviation and transportation breakthroughs

• automation at planetary scale

• meaningful space capability

then we need new energy storage thinking, not just better lithium.

Viable pathways already exist:

• solid-state batteries — safer, denser, transformative

• lithium-sulfur — potentially massive energy density increases

• metal-air systems — extraordinary theoretical capacity

• sodium-ion — cheaper, more abundant, geopolitically stable

• graphene supercapacitors — nearly instantaneous charging paired with endurance

• advanced nuclear micro-generation where appropriate

• and yes, increasingly realistically, fusion as real infrastructure rather than fantasy

This is not a shortage of science.
It is a shortage of commitment.

---

This Isn’t About Fantasy. It’s About Will, Effort, Desire.

Star Trek didn’t make people foolish.
It made them ambitious.

It helped shape NASA. It helped shape entire technology sectors. It inspired generations of problem-solvers who refused to accept “good enough.”

And for those of us who grew up in that era, the message landed deeply. Many of us have been waiting since the 1960s for:

• a battery breakthrough that unlocks a different kind of world, and

• a computing paradigm that doesn’t just extend Moore’s Law, but surpasses it in a completely different direction

We have waited patiently, believing — correctly — that physics still offers headroom.

The barrier is not imagination.
The barrier is hesitation.

---

2026 Should Be the Year We Stop Hesitating

Silicon gave us the digital age.
Lithium gave us the mobile and electric age.

But the next era of human capability will belong to new architectures of computing and new architectures of energy.

That doesn’t require fantasy.
It requires courage, investment, and the willingness to think the way we once did — when we believed new frontiers were worth pursuing simply because they defined the horizon of what was possible.

Many of us have been waiting since the ’60s for that next leap.

And what about magnets? 

Because they may quietly be one of the most important keys to the next era of technology. From spintronics that could replace silicon logic, to magnetic brain-like chips that run AI with almost no heat, to fusion reactors and superconducting energy storage that could redefine global power, magnets are no longer just for motors and hard drives. They are shaping the future of computing, energy, and possibility itself — and most people don’t even know it yet.

It's time to build it. To conceive it and built it all. 

I'll leave you with this on batteries: 

The development of next-generation energy storage: an interview with Zaiping Guo, and this on computing: Blocking out the noise: An interview with a quantum computing expert - CEO and cofounder of Alice & Bob, Théau Peronnin, shares his insights into the value of quantum computing and what companies can do to prepare for its arrival.

Excelsior! Right?

Cheers! Sláinte! Na zdravie!

Compiled with aid of ChatGPT

Special Edition: Chaos as a Governance Strategy — and What It Keeps Us From Seeing

On January 3, 2026, news outlets reported that the United States carried out a major military operation in Venezuela that struck key locations in Caracas and elsewhere and resulted in the capture of President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, according to statements from the U.S. administration. President Trump announced that they had been flown out of Venezuela and were en route to the United States to face prosecution. 

This represents the most direct U.S. military action in a Latin American capital since the 1989 Panama intervention. Reuters+1

The U.S. government has characterized Maduro as responsible for narco-terrorism and narcotics trafficking, and the Justice Department has indicted him on related charges. Trump and his advisors indicated that this intervention was rooted in those allegations and framed as part of a broader campaign against drug networks. The administration also suggested future involvement in Venezuela’s oil sector. The Guardian+1

The Venezuelan government, international legal scholars, and several foreign governments have condemned the operation as a violation of international law and national sovereignty. Although some Republican lawmakers have praised the operation, others — including Democratic members of Congress — have raised serious questions about its legality, particularly regarding whether Congress had any formal role or authorization under the U.S. Constitution. Wikipedia

This dramatic escalation did not emerge overnight. In mid-2025, the Trump administration expanded military pressure on Venezuela, including airstrikes against vessels the U.S. alleged were linked to narco-trafficking via operations in the Caribbean Sea and Eastern Pacific, and deployed significant naval assets to the region. The administration designated groups tied to the Maduro government as foreign terrorist organizations and authorized the Pentagon to use military force against specified drug cartels — moves that were highly controversial and raised legal scrutiny at the time. Council on Foreign Relations+1

---

Why This Matters: The Promise and the Peril

1. Legality and Domestic Process

Under U.S. law and the Constitution, the power to authorize war or major military engagement rests with Congress. Historical debates over executive military actions without congressional authorization — such as in Iraq, Kosovo, or Libya — are long-standing precisely because they test the balance of powers. The legality of the Venezuela operation is already being questioned, and many foreign governments have condemned it as violating international norms that prohibit forceful regime change without Security Council approval. Wikipedia

Regardless of political perspective on Maduro’s governance, the precedent of unilateral military action without clear legal authorization sets a significant constitutional and diplomatic marker.

---

2. Likely Scenarios in Venezuela’s Future

Removing a long-standing authoritarian leader does not, in itself, create stability. Instead, it opens a series of plausible outcomes, many of which have historical analogues in other nations that experienced sudden leadership disruption:

Scenario A — Fragmentation and Internal Power Struggles

Political factions within Venezuela — including Maduro loyalists, opposition forces, and regional strongmen — could compete for control. When a ruler who controlled state mechanisms for more than a decade is suddenly removed, no clear successor or unified transition process may exist. This kind of power vacuum historically leads to:

• competing militias or armed groups gaining influence,

• breakdowns in security and governance at local levels, and

• heightened risk of internal conflict.

Similar dynamics have occurred in Libya and Iraq after sudden regime change, where the absence of stable succession structures contributed to prolonged unrest.

**Scenario B — Foreign Influence Escalates

Venezuela’s strategic importance — especially its vast petroleum reserves — attracts interest from multiple global powers. Over the past decade, Russia, China, Iran, and Cuba maintained political or economic links with the Maduro government, while Latin American neighbors navigated competing pressures. With the central authority suddenly removed, outside states could intensify their influence, seeking to shape the next governing configuration. Congress.gov

In such cases, external actors with different geopolitical agendas can deepen divisions and fuel proxy rivalry inside the country.

**Scenario C — Economic Turmoil Deepens

Venezuela was already facing severe economic collapse, hyperinflation, and infrastructure deterioration long before any military action. Political disruption — especially involving military strikes in urban centers — risks exacerbating:

• shortages of basic goods,

• breakdowns in public services,

• displacement of civilians,

• refugee flows to neighboring states.

This creates a humanitarian crisis alongside political instability, with real consequences for ordinary people.

There's still people in Venezuela who support Maduro.
There's still people in America who support Trump.

That tells us what, exactly?

It tells us that even obvious failures can still keep loyal followers when identity, fear, propaganda, and grievance politics do their job.

---

3. The Geopolitical Ripple Effects

A U.S. military operation of this scale in Latin America — involving strikes on territory and the capture of a sitting head of state — invites diplomatic pushback from other nations and international bodies. Countries such as China and Russia have already criticized actions in Venezuela as violations of sovereignty. Such international responses carry consequences for global alliances and regional stability. Wikipedia

The reaction from regional organizations, neighbor states, and global powers will shape international norms about the use of force, diplomatic engagement, and conflict resolution.

---

4. A Moment of Decision for U.S. Policy

The Venezuela episode poses fundamental questions for U.S. foreign policy:

• Should military action against another country’s government be used as a tool against criminal networks?

• What are the long-term implications of replacing diplomacy and sanctions with direct military intervention?

• How do constitutional processes factor into decisions of war and peace?

These are not partisan questions; they are structural ones about how a democratic republic conducts itself on the world stage.

---

Conclusion

The reported U.S. operation in Venezuela marks an escalation with far-reaching consequences — legally, regionally, and geopolitically. What happens next in Venezuela will depend on how local political factions respond, how neighboring states act, and whether international actors push for a negotiated, peaceful transition or a more fractious struggle for control.

The removal of a long-entrenched leader is a pivotal moment. Without stability mechanisms, inclusive governance structures, and multilateral support, the risk of prolonged turmoil — not the promise of peace — is high.

As the United States heads into a pivotal election year, we are doing so under a president who has repeatedly demonstrated an autocratic style of governance — one who concentrates power in the executive, marginalizes congressional authority, disregards international norms, and treats military force like a political instrument rather than a last resort. 

The Venezuela operation is not just about one country; it is a reflection of how power is being wielded here at home. Voters are being asked a fundamental question this year: do we want a presidency defined by unilateral action, chaos governance, and erosion of democratic guardrails, or do we want a nation anchored in constitutional process, stable leadership, and respect for the rule of law? 

The stakes are not abstract. They are immediate, they are global, and they are ours to decide.

Cheers! Sláinte! Na zdravie!

Compiled with aid of ChatGPT

The Americans Made Me Think About Our Own Failures to Protect Democracy

I'm rewatching The Americans. I really liked this show on the first run it had when it premiered in 2013.

Widely hailed as one of the greatest television series of all time, FX’s The Americans is far more than a standard spy thriller. Created by Joe Weisberg, this period drama ran for six seasons (2013–2018) and swept the awards circuit, earning Peabodys, a Golden Globe, and Primetime Emmys for its writing and lead actor Matthew Rhys. 

Set against the high-stakes backdrop of the 1980s Cold War, the series explores the lives of two KGB officers posing as an average American couple in the suburbs of D.C., blending white-knuckle espionage with a profound exploration of marriage and identity.

On the surface, The Americans is a show about the FBI vs. the KGB in the 1980s; at its core, however, it is a complex portrait of a marriage. Created by Joe Weisberg, the acclaimed FX drama follows Philip and Elizabeth Jennings (Matthew Rhys and Keri Russell), two Soviet intelligence officers hiding in plain sight as a married couple with children in Falls Church, Virginia. 

Over six seasons, the series masterfully used the Cold War as a metaphor for the conflicts of matrimony and parenthood, creating a tension that was heightened by their neighbor...an FBI counterintelligence agent.

I'm on the final sixth season, episode one, there is a scene where one of them, the wife, meets with a Soviet general in Mexico. He tells her that they have created a system wherein if the Soviet leadership is disabled, this project, "Dead Hand" will finalize the launch of missiles destroying America if they had attacked.

At that moment, she should have executed him for such a project. But that wouldn't have cut out the cancer in their system. That kind of thing was after all, part of her job, to acquire or eliminate enemies of the Soviet Union. 

He then explains that if Gorbachev attempts to negotiate away this doomsday system in exchange for Reagan’s Star Wars program, elements within the Soviet military would be prepared to remove him from power. In other words, they were willing to overthrow their own legally installed leader simply to preserve their grip on a failing system.

Execution or coup, the method of removal is left unspoken. History would soon prove that such threats were not empty. A failed coup attempt came only a few years later, accelerating the collapse of the Soviet Union and setting the stage for Vladimir Putin to take power in 1999, eventually becoming the despotic, aggressively imperial leader we see today.

She should have executed the general in that moment. He is after all, describing himself and his cohorts as criminal. For the fictional world of the USSR in that time period, it would have been the best course of action, and arguably in the interest of humanity. But history and human behavior rarely align with what might be morally necessary. 

She did not execute the General. Instead, the scene slowly allows the music to overpower the Russian dialogue, while the English subtitles keep revealing the message. It becomes clear that Elizabeth Jennings (Russian name, "Nadezhda", played by Kari Russell) understands exactly what she is hearing. She absorbs the full weight of it. 

Yet rather than act for a greater human good, of that of the Soviet, she accepts the general’s orders as a good soldier and chooses loyalty to the system over responsibility to the world. In the series, it is implied by the nature of the series at that stage, that the role of responsibility to a greater good will likely fall to her husband, Philip Jennings (Russian name, "Mischa", played by Matthew Rhys), who has always leaned that direction. Thus, setting up the heightened dramatic conflict between the primary characters, throughout the season's series finale.

Why do I mention all this? Because I really like this show. But further, because it points out a flaw in our system.

Donald Trump. When we realized he was a threat to this country, and others, that should have been enough to end his rise. And yet, it not only did not stop it, it fueled it. When it later time and time again because apparent and paramount that he be stopped or removed, he continued to rise. 

Two impeachments, being fired as POTUS45, convicted of 34 felonies, all did not stop him from becoming yet again, an American president as POTUS47. Both are top rated worst presidents in history.

Yet he remains at this time, so far, president of the United States of America, in a country thoroughly inappropriate for such a man.

So what am I saying here? I'm not making a call to action. Certainly nothing immoral or illegal, or even unconstitutional.

THAT'S how we GOT here in the first place.

What The Americans dramatizes so brilliantly is not simply ideology or geopolitics, but failure. 

The failure to recognize danger when it presents itself. The failure to confront rot when it spreads. The failure of people and systems to act when acting still matters. That is not a Soviet flaw. That is a human flaw. And it is one we, as Americans, have now lived through in real time.

Donald Trump did not rise in a vacuum. He did not endure because of one man’s will alone. He endured because far too many of us underestimated the danger, excused it, normalized it, or convinced ourselves that our institutions were strong enough to absorb anything. They were not. We were not. Inappropriate application of pressure at just the right pressure points and an autocracy rises to near fruition. 

And the price of that collective failure is the reality we are living through now.

I am not advocating violence. 

I am not calling for revenge. 

I am not arguing for anything outside the moral and legal framework of a civilized society. What I am saying, and what this show helped crystallize for me, is that democracies do not crumble simply because something dark appears. They crumble because people hesitate, rationalize, and allow that darkness to keep breathing. Or they simply "follow orders" (See, Nuremberg Trials of Nazi war criminals).

Also check out two very good podcasts: Burn Order and Bag Man. Both make it very clear we've seen this all, before.

But the story does not have to end this way.

If The Americans teaches anything beyond espionage and tragedy, it is that systems can change, people can awaken, and moral clarity, even if it arrives late, still matters. Our responsibility now is not to wallow in despair or pretend none of this happened. It is to be honest about where we failed. It is to refuse complacency. 

It is to reclaim the basic expectations we once held of leadership, truth, and civic responsibility.

That is why I am writing this. Not only because The Americans is great television, but because it reminds us that the line between fiction and history is far thinner than we like to admit. 

Recognizing our part in that story is the first step toward writing a better one.

And despite everything, I still believe we can.

We are evolving…politically, culturally, socially. The Right is changing. The Left is changing. Government and citizens alike are being forced to confront pluralism not as something distant or theoretical, but as a lived reality. It is here, now.

Multiple paradigm shifts compressed into just a few years have created strain and fracture: a Digital–Information Shift, an Economic and Class Shift, a Cultural and Identity Shift, an Institutional Trust Shift, a Technology and Reality Shift.

That strain is real. But fractures do not have to become permanent breaks. We can resolve this…if we choose to do it together. To heal together.

The greatest danger comes from those who want us divided, who refuse to accept a pluralistic America and cling to rigid hierarchy, fear, and a romanticized past instead of a shared future.

They do not define our destiny unless we let them. Our strength has always come from expanding who “we” are.

We are E Pluribus Unum…From Many, One.

We have been pushed to forget that.

It is time to remember.

Cheers! Sláinte! Na zdravie!

Compiled with aid of ChatGPT