If God showed up on your doorstep, would you recognize him?

 I'm a little hesitant to write about God, for a few reasons. One, I'm not an expert by any means, all I can do is offer my perspective. I've been wanting to do this for some time, because frankly, I think about God a lot. Two, Obviously, there are many religions in the world, each with its own unique interpretation of God. Theologians estimate there are 4,000 to 4,300 'religions' worldwide. This includes:

• Major world religions
• Indigenous and tribal religions
• New religious movements
• Localized folk beliefs
• Revived ancient traditions

Looking at the 'big picture', there are five major world religions:

• Christianity
• Islam
• Hinduism
• Buddhism
• Judaism

I'm not going to mention how many people practice each religion, because I don't think it really matters. Each one of us practices the religion we choose for personal reasons. Numbers are important to win elections, but not to validate religion. 

But this is not an analysis of religions. It's a chance to offer some of my thoughts and hopefully, to encourage you to think about your own thoughts about God.

To be fair, not everyone believes there is a God. Roughly 7% of the global population identify as either atheist or agnostic. If you include those who say they are not 'affiliated' with any particular religion, that number increases to around 16%. It's important to note that the 'unaffiliated' population worldwide is increasing. Data as recent as 2020 suggests that the number is about 24%. 

Most countries in the world allow for freedom to practice the religion of one's own choosing. Not all do. For the five major religions of the world, each has its own concept of God. They are not all similar by any means. 

Hinduism teaches that Brahman is the ultimate, infinite, formless reality; the source of everything. Brahman is not a "god" in the Western sense. It is the essence of all existence. 

Buddhism rejects the idea of a creator deity who made the universe or controls human destiny. There is no all-powerful God, there is no God who judges or saves, and there is no need worship a deity. Buddhism focuses on:

• understanding suffering
• ethical living
• meditation and mindfulness
• enlightenment
• understanding the nature of reality (impermanence)

In a word, Buddhism can be described as non-theistic. It is not centered around a god.

Islam definitely has one, single, absolute God; Allah. Allah is not a separate or different deity from the God of Judaism or Christianity. "Allah" is simply the Arabic word for God. Some of the key characteristics of Allah according to Islamic belief are, God is:

• One and indivisible
• The creator of the universe
• All-powerful
• All-knowing
• Merciful and compassionate
• Eternal
• Just and wise
• Not human and not part of creation

In Islam:

• God has no partners
• God has no children
• God is not incarnated as a human

A common misconception about Islam is Muslims do not worship Muhammad. It teaches that Muhammad is a prophet, not divine. God alone deserves worship. And associating partners with God is the greatest sin. 

Judaism, of course, also has a singular God. No Trinity, no incarnations, unique, absolute, and alone. The major difference in  Judaism from Christianity is the belief in the incarnation.

Now that we've had a look at how the five major religions of the world see 'God', we're going to shift to how Christians see God. Christianity is a cornerstone of western civilization. It, in some way influences practically every facet of life in the western world. Government, society, culture, education, the core values of humanity are based on Christian beliefs. 

Now, let's get to the point. Whatever religion one may practice, whatever one's concept of 'God' may be, we must ask ourselves, if God were in our presence, would we recognize him? This question is intended for believers, of course. But if you believe there is a God, and he were in your presence, would you recognize him? Would you know if he were there? 

To answer that question, let's look at how some of the greatest thinkers in the history of humanity thought of it. Michelangelo was deeply religious. He attended Mass frequently, prayed daily, and considered his art a form of worship. Late in life, he wrote: "Neither painting nor sculpture will be able to any longer to calm my soul; my only hope now is turning toward God." 

Aristotle's God was an eternal, immaterial, unchanging source of all motion in the universe. Aristotle's God did not create the universe, did not intervene in human life, did not perform miracles, and did not answer prayers. The universe, like God, is eternal. Aristotle's view didn't quite fit with Judaism, Christianity, or Islam. 

Albert Einstein did not believe in a personal God, but he did believe in a type of divine order behind the universe. He rejected the idea of a God who intervenes, miracles, divine judgment, and prayer effecting events. He said plainly, "I do not believe in a personal God." He did believe the universe showed rational structure, mathematical beauty, and deep order. To Einstein, God is the laws of nature. 

Let's take a look at the man who developed the theory of evolution, which is somewhat antithetical to the belief in a single creator of all species, Charles Darwin. Early in his life, Darwin was a conventional Christian who believed that God designed nature, species were created by God, and nature reflected divine purpose. He even studied theology at Cambridge. During his midlife years, as he developed the theory of evolution, several issues challenged his earlier faith. Predation, parasites, disease and cruelty in nature troubled him deeply. He wrote, "I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have created the Ichneumonidae (Darwin wasps) with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of caterpillars." The death of his daughter Annie in 1851 devastated him and contributed to his loss of traditional Christian belief. He stated, "I think that generally... an agnostic would be the more correct description my state of mind." 

Stephan Hawking, the renowned physicist did not believe in a personal or creator God; he viewed the universe as fully explainable by the laws of physics and considered "God" only a poetic metaphor for the ultimate laws of nature. He once said, "There is no physical evidence of God, but I'm not going to rule it out."

Ultimately, each of us has to do the same as the great thinkers before us, come to our own conclusions. The unavoidable fact is there are limits to human knowledge. Whether there is a God, how, or in what form he may exist, and his role in our lives is up to each of us to determine. If, and when, we come to that conclusion, if God were to present himself to us, say at our doorstep, would you know it was him?...

The "New" Assassins

 As investigators continue to dig beneath the surface and look into the online activity of some recent assassins, questions grow about how digital spaces are instigating a new wave of politically motivated attacks. At the top of the list are the Charlie Kirk Assassination and the attempted assassination of President Trump. 

A recent post from the Libs of TikTok that went viral listed several recent shootings and noted multiple suspects identified as transgender or non-binary, calling it an "epidemic of trans violence." 

Experts say those claims aren't entirely accurate. The real danger, they warn, is brewing in the dark corners of the internet such as Reddit, Discord and other chat platforms, where grievance and validation feed off one another and inspire isolated individuals toward violence. 

A former Homeland Security advisor said that assassinations have risen over the past decade and the targets are no longer limited to politicians. "We're seeing activists and media figures targeted," he said.  These are people who feel aggrieved and/or insignificant and believe they'll commit a heroic act. The Charlie Kirk case is an example of how the threat landscape has expanded. He described the online hatred as the incubator for turning the feelings of grievance into action. Here, angry participants can find each other and fan the flames. 

"Like-minded folks feed off one another in social media spaces until somebody takes the next step and decides to kill someone. That is the incipience of radicalization. As investigators dig deeper into digital evidence, they are finding similar digital footprints from other cases. The Buffalo supermarket shooter kept a private "Discord diary" according to the NY State Attorney's investigative report. 

The Uvalde gunman used the teen chat app Yubo and Instagram DM's to send disturbing messages before his attack. Previous shooters in El Paso and Christchurch posted manifestos on 8chan before live-streaming their crimes. 

The common thread according to the experts isn't gender or political identity, it's digital isolation. The radicalization pattern emerging in these shootings mirrors what agents once saw with international terror networks. "Their reasons for being radicalized are often very similar to what we saw with ISIS recruits; a mix of ideology, personal grievance, and a search for belonging." It's a slow process, happening over time as they find validation in online communities. 

Extremists exploit familiar digital environments such as gaming servers and chat apps to reach young users. Those same gaining and chat sites that were once harmless now give extremists direct access to impressionable minds. Lots of young people live in these digital spaces, making them the most vulnerable. 

A retired FBI Special Agent who has responded to multiple mass shooting scenes, said the temptation to see a demographic pattern is understandable, but misleading. "Identity does not predict violence. Trying to forecast danger based on labels alone is like trying to predict weather with a fortune cookie." The focus now, is on behavior, not biography. 

The FBI's behavioral model focuses on a pathway to violence, which includes grievance, fixation, validation in online communities, planning, and finally the "breach point" when an attacker decides violence will solve a problem. The niche forums provide people drifting toward violence anonymity, validation and a sense of belonging they lack in real life. These dark corners of the internet allow internecine evil ideals to foment. And, as we have seen in some cases, these evil ideals have lead to deadly criminal behavior. 

These environments that breed such attackers have been years in the making, from pandemic isolation to fears of automation and artificial intelligence. Add to this deep feelings of political polarization and you get people online being told they're being dismissed by society. Some, inevitably decide to act. 

There are no organized terror cells involved, these are not individuals on law enforcement's radar. There is obviously online activity, but encryption and overseas hosting complicate detection. Encrypted sites are sometimes impossible to penetrate, even with current technology. These forums provide a sense of community and tactical instruction that accelerate radicalization. And it's very well hidden.

In the Kirk shooting, escalating partisan violence was the initial suspected motive. A deep-dive into online activity revealed online relationships and personal grievance were more to blame more than ideology. Multiple experts agree that the solution lies in vigilance and connection, not profiling. The connection isn't necessarily law enforcement. Sometimes that's family, sometimes it's friends, sometimes it's faith that reminds them they're not alone. 

Understanding AI

Artificial Intelligence is all around us—helping our phones recognize our voices, suggesting movies we might like, and even assisting doctors in spotting early signs of disease. But for many people, AI still feels mysterious or intimidating. This post breaks AI down into simple, everyday terms so anyone can understand what it is, how it works, and why it matters.

First, let's answer the question, what exactly is AI? In the simplest terms possible, it's when computers perform tasks that normally require human intelligence. A few good examples are recognizing photos, translating languages, and making recommendations. Some examples that you are probably already using include:

• phone assistants such as Siri, Google Assistant
• Spam filters
• Netflix/Amazon recommendations
• GPS navigation and traffic prediction
• Photo apps targeting faces

From these examples you can see that AI is no longer futuristic, it's already familiar to practically everyone. Now, let's dig a little deeper. What are the different types of AI? 

• Narrow AI: does one specific task
• Generative AI: creates text, images, audio, etc.
• Machine learning: a method where computers learn patterns from data
• Neural networks: Loosely inspired by how the human brain works

How does AI "learn" something? There are a few ways. One, by feeding large amounts of data (images, text, recordings...), finding patterns in that data, and making predictions or generating responses based on those patterns and the content of the data. Keep in mind, this is meant to be a simplified explanation of AI. The capabilities of AI are advancing rapidly. One of those capabilities in particular that is quite advanced today, is facial recognition. Facial recognition (FR) has existed since the 1960's. In the 70's to 80's it became automated. In the 90's it went mainstream and in the 2000's commercial use began. Digital cameras and faster computers made FR practical. In the 2010's, AI breakthroughs made it accurate. Deep learning and neural networks revolutionized facial recognition. Systems became good enough for smartphones, social media photo-tagging, and real-time detection. Recognizing and identifying wanted criminals passing through airports isn't just fantasy futuristic fiction for movies any more. It's real. 

Neural networks are a type  of computer system designed to learn patterns, loosely inspired by how the human brain works. They are computer models made up of layers of small units called 'neurons' that work together to recognize patterns in data. They don't 'think' or 'understand' like humans, they simply find patterns and make predictions based on examples they've seen. A simple analogy could be; imagine an assembly line. Layer 1 looks at the raw data, like pixels in an image. Layer 2 identifies simple patterns, like edges and shapes. Layer 3 combines those shapes into meaningful parts, such as eyes or wheels. Layer 4 makes a decision, this is a person, or a car...

Why are they called "neural"? The human brain has neurons connected in networks. The 'neurons in computer 'neural networks' also have neurons, but they are simply math functions, not biological cells.  Think of computerized neural networks as an analogy of the human brain, not a replica. Neural networks 'learn' through a process called training. They look at lots of examples (pictures, text, audio), they make guesses, they get corrected when wrong, they adjust to do better the next time. After countless repetitions they can make accurate predictions. 

Around 2012, bigger datasets and powerful graphics processors made neural networks dramatically better than previous technology. If you haven't noticed, there is a construction booming on for "data centers" worldwide. Unlike distribution centers for goods and services, data centers need not be located near densely populated areas. They are often located in rural, obscure areas. The datasets that these neural networks rely upon have become massive. Never before in the history of mankind has so much information and computing capability been literally, at our fingertips. And it just keeps getting better, every day...

Grade Inflation, what exactly is causing this insidious problem?...

 Time for an apolitical topic to discuss. At least, I'm assuming it's apolitical, I've yet to uncover any evidence to the contrary. It's been in the news of late, and quite an interesting topic. It caught me by surprise anyway. Grade inflation is the trend in which students receive higher grades today than students with the same level of work and intellectual levels would have received in the past. In other words, grades go up, but learning or performance doesn't necessarily increase. 

Grade inflation means that A's and B's become more common and lower grades, like C's and D's become more rare - even though the overall difficulty or quality of student work hasn't changed much. If an "A" used to mean excellent but now it's average, the value of the grade declines. This makes it harder for schools, employers, and graduate programs to distinguish truly exceptional performance. It's notable to clarify: rising grades can reflect better-prepared students or improved teaching. Grade inflation specifically refers to unearned increases. 

This begs the question, why is this happening? There are a number of reasons/possibilities.

• Schools want to keep students happy to protect enrollment numbers, reputations, and evaluations.
• Higher grades will obviously help students get jobs or grad-school placements, which boosts the schools statistics. 
• Professors who give higher grades often receive better course evaluations. 
• Some systems reward universities for high pass rates or short-time to degree. 
• COVID-Era leniency; remote learning policies temporarily relaxed grading, which increased top grades in many universities. Personally, I believe this has had a greater effect than any of the other items mentioned, though they all contribute. 

So, what, if any is the long term negative effect? Or, is there a long term negative effect? There is an intensely profound long term negative effect. First and foremost, grades lose their meaning. It becomes harder to identify the top performers if the average grade is 3.7+. Let's be honest for a moment here. Is  the majority of any one sampling of university students really 3.7+ GPA caliber students? Honestly, no. Let's face it, we're not all super achievers. A 3.7+ overall GPA for a four year degree is, well, maybe not super achiever, but it's undoubtedly high achiever. Not being a high achiever doesn't mean one is not an intelligent, competent, serious student. I have not done the statistical analysis to prove it, but I'm willing to bet that on a valid sampling, a bell curve would show that the majority would fall into the 2.8 to 3.5 GPA range. The 3.7+ group should consist of 5 to 10 percent of the sample. That percentage will, of course vary amongst universities, and would likely be somewhat higher at elite universities whose entrance requirements are obviously more stringent. However, there is growing evidence that 80% of the Harvard class of 2024 received 3.7 or above. 

National databases from the National Center for Educational Statistics and other sources typically report that average GPA's are above a threshold of 3.7. To clarify, GPA scales, weighting rules (e.g. honors/AP course) and other institutional policies vary widely, so a 3.7 at one school may not mean the same as 3.7 at another. 

Times change, and things change with time. But there are some things that shouldn't change. And the standards, significance and meaning of university grades are of the things that should not change. Grades, like any other meaningful, valuable metric in life must be earned. And they should reflect a level of objective performance. If such are not truly earned, then what we'll see is more people reaching their level of incompetency much sooner...

You say you want a revolution, well, you know...

 First, let's bring up a few observations. A CBS News survey found that 51% of a survey sample expected a peaceful transfer of power after the 2024 election. 49% thought the year would end in violence. Surprising? It sure as hell is to me. Seems maybe the events of January 6, 2021 have cast a spell on many. There was plenty of violence in 2024, and it has not abated in 2025. If anything, it's gotten worse. Polling by Politico suggests that Americans are getting accustomed to the threat of political violence. 

Politico has found a majority of Americans believe that the 'assassination culture' will grow and that a high-profile candidate for office will be killed. Just as Charlie Kirk was senselessly killed by a deranged cretin. For the record, most assassinations are committed by deranged cretins, who typically claim some invalid political cause. Truth be told, they themselves don't really know if their political inclinations lie to the left or the right. All they really care about is they didn't agree with what their victim said. 55% of those polled by Politico said political violence will become increasingly common. Most Americans are not aligned with this prospect, but shockingly, nearly a quarter of the poll respondents told Politico that political violence can be justified...

Sorry, I just fell out of my chair, and at my age it took a few moments to get up.  have to make an assumption here, that most of the Politico respondents have some awareness or knowledge of some sort to at least offer a 'valid' opinion. "Political violence can be justified"? It cannot. At no time, anywhere, at any place can it be justified. "Younger Americans were significantly more likely than older ones to say violence can be justified. More than one in three Americans under the age of 45 agreed with that belief." 

So what exactly is leading younger Americans to believe that political violence is justified? According to some sources, almost half of Americans believe America's best days are behind us. Amongst Americans aged 18-24, 55% "agree" that the American dream no longer exists. 52% said that to "make life better in America" we need radical change. The age divide is distinct. Nearly two-thirds of adults aged 24 and younger endorsed radical but unspecified revision to the 'social compact'. Majorities in every age bracket said the same save those over 65. 

I am in no way endorsing Politico's 'polling' but they claim 35% say the US needs a revolution. A view that cuts across party lines, roughly a third of both parties, right and left. It appears that the populist view is now political violence is a revolutionary act. Digging beneath the surface, it would appear that contemporary political violence is more manifested in promoting a political agenda. There seems to be a false presumption that their cynicism is widely shared, when in fact it is not. 

Every generation has its own set of difficulties to overcome, whether they be a result of politics, economics, world affairs or anything else. Life is hard, it was for our ancestors and so it shall be for our great grandchildren. Todays' graduates are struggling with getting good jobs, buying a house, just generally getting a foothold on a good life. Is political violence going to solve, or even improve the situation they face? Or, heaven forbid, assassinate someone you disagree with? Or will it only serve to continue the insanity or perhaps make it worse for themselves and possibly even, their offspring?...

The US and the UK. We now have something miserable in common...

 Immigration has strained Britain to it's breaking point. England is experiencing a virulent sense of frustration that isn't going away anytime soon. Just as we have in America, going back to the beginning of the Biden administration. More than 12 million immigrants were allowed to pass unvetted through our borders during that time. Included in that number were a very large group of violent criminals. Hundreds, perhaps thousands of American lives have been brutally victimized by these violent immigrants. This doesn't even mention the countless lives lost at the hands of these criminals. The Trump administration is doing its level best to rid the country of the vermin, all the while tolerating absurd and often violent protesters impeding the efforts of law enforcement. To Trump's credit, at least the US borders are closed to illegal immigration. England is yet to reach that milestone. 

English citizens are outraged and angry. Justifiably so. London, Manchester and Birmingham are no longer majority English. In 1971, London was 97.7 percent English. By 2021, it is only 36.8 percent English. Manchester was 95.8 percent English in 1971 but only 48.7 precent by 2021. Birmingham was 99.6 percent English in 1951, but only 44.4 percent English in 2021. Astonishing. It gives the phrase "open borders" new meaning...

A former professor of political science at the University of Kent has argued that unless something is done, the British people will become a minority in their own country by 2063. Considering that native birthrates have drastically declined, it's likely that this date will arrive sooner rather than later. The Office for National Statistics reports that in 2023, 37.3 percent of all live births in Britain were to parents "where either one or both were born outside the UK". That number is actually much higher in London. 

The situation has sparked rioting, including outside of hotels housing immigrants. The rioting will likely continue to escalate in reaction to the broad demographic changes, in particular to the Muslim "grooming gangs" and widespread immigrant crime. Non-European immigration began to increase in small levels in 1948 with the passage of the British Nationality Act. Almost immediately, reports of migrant sex crimes began in Bradford, Kent, West Yorkshire, Lancashire, Hartlepool, Faversham, Nelson, Halifax, Oldham and many other locations. Operation Stovewood found that nearly two thirds of convicted grooming gang offenders in Rotherham -62%- were known to be of Pakistani background even though Pakistanis then made up only about four percent of the town's population. 

The increase of non-European immigration to more than a million a year during PM Boris Johnson's term has aggravated the issue. Sustained mass immigration took root as a Tory norm during David Cameron's term. Statistically, Britain has now overtaken Sweden as the rape capital of Europe with 71,227 cases reported in 2024 according to the ONS. 

Another very negative fallout from immigration has been the increased competition in the job market for younger generations. Their opportunities are dwindling and their quality of life is being threatened. In 2024 the unemployment rate for young people (16-24) was 14.2 percent, which is almost three times higher than Germany's. The Institute for Public Policy Research indicated in 2011 that Britain would be 750,000 houses short of housing demand by 2025. This year the Center for Policy Studies has revealed that that number is closer to 6.5 million. 

Britain is multicultural and no longer even close to 'distinctly' British. Like the US, they have allowed far too many to enter the country that not only fail to assimilate but actively destroy long-standing customs, traditions and norms. An arm of the British NHS recently published a defense of first-cousin marriage... There have been countless occurrences of arrests due to saying or publishing on social media the harms to England and the English imposed by foreigners. 

Shameful and failed leadership are to blame. From America, we feel your pain England.

The US is headed for tyranny, and fascism. Or is it?...

 "No Kings Day" recently set a record, or so it was claimed, of 2,600+ protests across the country. The protests were mostly peaceful demonstrations organized not only in the US but around the world. Their stated purpose was to express opposition to what the participants see as rising authoritarianism in the Trump administration. There is the perception, and I emphasize the word 'perception', that the constitutional democratic form of government of the United States is under threat of, I'm not exactly sure what the protesters are afraid of, but I presume, ceasing to exist. That we are entering into a fascist dictatorship ruled by Donald Trump. 

Peaceful protests and demonstrations are a civil right in the US, a right afforded to every US citizen. They are a hallmark of a free, civil society. Are we really on the brink of authoritarian rule? Fascism? Naziism? Dictatorship? In the United States every citizen is entitled to their own opinion, as well as the right to openly speak their opinion. However, while it may not be a requirement of law, every citizen also bears the moral responsibility of adhering to the principles of right and wrong. Every American has the right to call Donald Trump whatever moniker they choose. Nazi, fascist, Hitler, that's a civil right. Untold numbers of American soldiers gave their lives so that we may preserve that right. 

When the activist fervor carries into violence, then there are no rights. At that point, it becomes a crime and the rule of law comes into play. Attacking federal officers, ramming personal vehicles into Immigration and Customs vehicles, endangering the lives of federal officers conducting federal sanctioned operations is not only illegal, it's morally inept. Far too many activists are under the misconception that ICE, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, are conducting raids on innocent Americans. The vast majority of these raids have been targeted against illegal aliens with criminal records. And these criminal records are not pedestrian offenses. Rape, murder, drug offenses, human trafficking, assault, property crimes, et cetera. Unfortunately, the victims of these crimes are inevitably American citizens. It's worth noting that far too many of these victims are deceased as a result of the crimes inflicted upon them. And the claims of ripping innocent, hard-working victims from their homes and families is patently baseless. Illegal entry, re-entry or remaining without authorization is a crime. It's in the statutes and has been for generations. The fact that Biden and Obama chose to ignore immigration laws does not revoke them. The fact that the Trump administration is enforcing them does not make them inhumane. 

If leftist activists are frightened that we are devolving into authoritarian rule, I suggest enlightening oneself with some knowledge of history. Was czarist Russia a constitutional democracy before Stalin and Lenin took control? Was Germany a constitutional democracy before Hitler assumed power? Does anyone of sound mind and some knowledge of world history believe that 535 elected members of Congress who hold the power of impeachment believe that a president could choose to, and succeed in eliminating the legislative branch? About the same odds as a meteorite hitting planet earth and destroying all forms of life. It's a possibility, but highly unlikely...

The Age of Obama

 Is over. Even Barack Obama knows that, though he's reluctant to acknowledge it. As Trump was finalizing  a deal to end the war between Israel and Hamas which basically, repudiated everything Obama had ever had a hand in regarding the Middle East. In a recent podcast interview, the ever arrogant, pompous ex-pres demoaned the politicization of the FBI and Justice department as though he didn't play an instrumental part in their corruption. It's especially contemptible considering his role in various and sundry scandals is now documented public knowledge. 

Obama now appears nonplussed, wondering how the nation came to embrace Trump, a man who in almost every ideological way set out to undo everything he had 'accomplished'. Once thought to be a transcendent figure in American politics, despite the incessant media accolades and unmerited awards, Obama's legacy has been eclipsed by his Republican successor. And for very good reasons. 

Obama utilized the federal bureaucracy to push the country to adopt leftist social views. Which the Biden admin blindly and willingly continued. Most presidents leave Washington after their time in office is over to avoid the impression that they are trying to manipulate their successors. Obama pretentiously did not. It is clear and evident to even this most casual observer that Obama was directing the marionette that was Joe Biden. It was Obama who unleashed the intelligence agencies and the Department of Justice on political foes. And it was Obama who put into motion the DEI foolishness that permeated much of the Western world. 

It's not a well-known fact, but indeed is a fact that Obama issued an executive order to establish a "Coordinated Government-Wide Initiative to Promote Diversity and Inclusion in the Federal Workforce" back in 2011. This ignominious order coincided with the timing of legacy, mainstream media racializing practically every topic written about. 

The left has long sought to transform American culture not in alignment with its own cultural and political goals. Clearly, Obama played a significant role in the incipient stages of the Great Awokening. It appears Obama's legacy is that of abject failure. A century-old progressive movement that collapsed under its own contradictions, unrealized ideals and failure to connect with reality. 

Fewer young people are identifying as trans...

 A very surprising shift is taking place in the gender and sexual identities of young Americans. Data from the Heterodox Social Science Report shows that since 2023 both trans and queer identity among young Americans has dropped sharply with Generation Z. 

The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) which conducts a large annual survey of US undergraduates, polled over 60,000 students in 2025. Just 3.6% of respondents this year identified as something other than male or female. In 2024 that figure was 5.2% and 6.8% in 2022 and 2023. The number of trans-identified students has halved in just two years. 

This trend is especially marked in elite institutions. Andover Phillips Academy in Boston surveys over 75% of its students each year. In 2023, 9.2% identified as neither male nor female. In 2025, that number was 3%. A similar story comes from Brown University. 5% of students identified as non-binary in 2022 and 2023, by 2025 that share had dropped to 2.6%. 

More of the surveys inquired about sexual orientation than gender identity. Based on the data in the graph, the pattern appears to be rising non-conformity from 2010 until 2023, with a near 10 point drop in the ensuing two years. 

It's tempting to speculate about the reasons behind the rise and fall of trans and queer identities. Mental illness among American teens has fallen since 2021 as confirmed by the FIRE data.  Changes in mental health over time, especially depression, made s significant difference in the trend of trans and queer identities over this period. The drop in mental health issues encompassed all social groups, including trans and queer youth. The post-pandemic decline in mental illness did not immediately trigger a decline in sexual and gender non-conformity, that shift didn't occur until a year or two later. There is no clear evidence to indicate what is driving the retreat from alternative gender and sexual identity. However, there is clear evidence that it is happening. Ironically, "woke" attitudes such as shouting down those perceived as hostile to transgenderism hasn't changed much since 2020. 

It appears that trans and queer identification has declined among young Americans even as levels os wokeness and religion have not. For young people, gender and sexual identity are now independent fashions that rise and fall separately from other cultural and political currents. This is quite an unexpected post-progressive development that education and media establishments will be reluctant to acknowledge. 

Is legalizing marijuana really a good idea?...

 Over the last decade a handful of states have mulled the idea of legalizing the use of recreational marijuana. Some have forged ahead with the legislation to do so, some have not. As of 2025, 24 states have legalized the recreational use of marijuana. That's close to half of the 50 states. Fourteen states have legalized the restricted medical use of marijuana. Doctor's prescription only. The standards for obtaining a prescription are not known and not a subject of this article. I am making no contest as to the validity of medical use marijuana. My understanding is marijuana can be quite effective in alleviating the pain associated with certain cancers and the treatment of them. I have personal experience with the pain associated with cancer and chemotherapy and I am 100% behind anything that can alleviate this pain.

But this is not the point. Cancer patients who are suffering indescribable pain are not typically out driving and getting into accidents. Recreational users are. Data shows these 'users' are involved in a disproportionately high number of auto fatalities. We have known for a long time, a very long time the relationship between drinking and auto accidents and fatalities. There is no need to delve into those statistics. It is worth noting the relationships between driving while under the influence of THC and auto accidents and fatalities. 

Going back to the days of the repeal of prohibition and the invention of automobiles, there is a dark relationship between driving and the consumption of alcohol. The loss of life due to driving while intoxicated is inestimable, beyond frightening, and it continues today. But we have now included a new dimension to this lunacy. Driving while high. As I mentioned earlier, almost half of the states have approved recreational use. I might ask the question, what is the 'purpose' of drinking alcohol, if not recreational? I dare say, there's never been a medical professional ever who has prescribed alcohol for a medical condition. Obviously, alcohol is exclusively for recreational purposes. It serves no medicinal purpose. When these 24 states passed these laws, was due consideration given to the risks associated with driving while impaired? I think not.

A recent study conducted in Ohio, which is one of the 'legal recreational states' proffers the following statistics: 42% of drivers in Montgomery County Ohio who died in traffic accidents over a six year period from 2018 to 2024tested positive for THC. Any way you look at it, that is very competitive with traffic fatalities due to driving while under the influence of alcohol. I wouldn't expect results much different from other 'recreational use states'. 

Who exactly benefits from these liberal laws? The recreational users? Of course. It is without doubt a fledgling industry within itself, as was alcohol in the early days.  We are approaching the benchmark where about half of traffic fatalities are due to driving while high. Is the high from a joint worth dying for? Or taking the lives of innocents in an accident? How is this net effect any different from driving while under the influence of alcohol? The net result is people die, does it matter what the inebriated person was indulging in?... 

Having the right to indulge in the recreational use of THC products is not the issue. Just as the right to imbibe alcohol is legal. But no one has the right to operate a motor vehicle while under the influence of any substance that impairs the ability to safely operate a vehicle. This puts not only their life but the lives of others at risk. We have well over a century of evidence that the results of this can be catastrophic. About 12,000 people each year are killed in auto accidents involving drunk driving. In 2021, there were about 11,000 drug involved traffic fatalities reported. This includes crashes where one or more drugs were detected, not THC alone and not necessarily causal. Obviously, there is a surfeit of recreational drugs, most of which are illegal and will always be. A few peer-reviewed studies comparing crash rates before and after legalization across states estimate increases in fatalities that could amount to 1,000 - 1,400 additional traffic deaths per year. Data for traffic fatalities where THC was known to be the cause of the crash is in an incipient stage. But the pattern is already emerging. Legalization may have solved the issue of reducing the amount of drug offenses for a 'seemingly harmless' drug that many will indulge in anyway, but at what cost? It sort of seems like throwing fuel on the fire...

Colorado: beautiful state, ugly policy.

 When Americans think of Colorado, we think of beautiful, scenic mountains , clear mountain air, and not just freedom but a 'sense' of freedom. It is without doubt one of our most beautiful states, of many. Many alluring advertisements attempting to convince foreigners to visit the US shows photos of Colorado landscapes. Visitors from the world over as well as the US make a stop in Colorado a must. 

If you are a visitor, what Colorado has to offer cannot be beat. If you are a resident or a counselor, there are issues. In 2019, Colorado enacted a law that restricts counselors (lawyers) from having conversations regarding gender and sexuality with clients under the age of 18. Any counselor who engages in any such conversations with clients under the age of 18 could face steep fines, up to $5,000 for each violation, possible suspension from practice and even revocation of license. 

A Colorado lawyer challenged this lawsuit. The Supreme Court heard her case today, and there are aspects of her case that should lead to a ruling in her favor. A ruling leading to free speech prevailing. Colorado bans the expression of viewpoints with which it disagrees. If a young girl comes to this lawyer, whom we'll call "Beth' and says she thinks she may be a boy, and wants to realign her identity with her sex,  Colorado law bans that conversation. The law does, however, allow conversations to impel that girl down a path of gender transition, which might include dangerous drugs and procedures. Colorado is forcibly obliging counselors and their clients to succumb to its ideological demands or refuse help. 

Colorado's misplaced paternalism harms the very children it aims to protect. Colorado law declares 'change' a forbidden goal if a client seeks conversation to help them recover an identity consistent with the biological sex. Studies show that roughly 90 percent of children who struggle with gender issues before puberty  will regain comfort with their sex over time. Colorado's law encourages these children to a path of gender transition. Colorado law deprives children of the many reported benefits that can come from counseling, including a better understanding, improved mental health, and increased hope that they can live consistently with their faith. Many clients believe that their religious identity is more fundamental than their self-perceptions of gender and sexuality. 

For whatever reason, Colorado's state government goads counselors and clients into a forced ideological path. Unfortunately, this path ignores free speech, client autonomy, and restricts available help which leads to sabotaging help in the counseling room. The most helpful ways to discuss gender and sexuality, which are widely debated natters of moral and spiritual significance should be left to the counselor and client, not the government. 

This matter is now before the U.S. Supreme Court to reaffirm that freedom. By all means and matters it should protect free speech from Colorado's attempt to thwart it. The rule of law is the rule of law. No state is allowed to opt out... This includes Colorado...