Nick Fuentes Has a Foothold...

 Younger audiences, especially Gen Z men, tend to gravitate toward online-first political figures for a mix of format, psychology, and context. Gen Z, for others like me who get a bit confused at the ages of the generations, are young people between the ages of 13 and 28. To give some insight into the mind-set of this age-coterie, let's take a look at a prime example; Nick Fuentes. Fuentes is a 27 year-old far-right political commentator and livestreamer who is the founder of the America First movement. He emerged in the late 2010's through online platforms, especially live video streams, where he blended nationalist rhetoric with provocative humor and confrontational tactics. 

Fuentes promotes a strain of white nationalism and Christian nationalism, while opposing immigration, feminism, and mainstream conservatism. He has made numerous statements widely criticized as antisemitic, racist, and misogynistic. His notoriety grew via livestreams and social media, though he has been frequently banned or restricted across major platforms for policy violations. Fuentes is a polarizing fringe figure, yet wielding significant influence within a narrow online subculture, but largely marginalized in mainstream politics. This, owing to sustained criticism, legal scrutiny around events, and platform bans. 

So, how does an uneducated, banal, bellicose young man come to occupy such a position of influence among his age group? What collection of circumstances blend and meld to make this possible? You may have heard detectives say, 'to catch a criminal, you have to think like one.' To understand the psyche of this generation, we have to get inside their heads. First, let's look at their media habits. Livestreams, memes, Discord chats feel personable and interactive. They provide real-time engagement and a sense of belonging, as opposed to passive consumption. Traditional conservatism still centers on TV, op-eds, think tanks, formats younger users rarely, if ever, seek out. 

There's a sense of rebellion against institutions. Gen Z has a tendency to distrust universities, legacy media, political parties, and corporations. Anti-establishment rhetoric feels transgressive, especially when it provokes bans or outrage. Deplatforming, which Fuentes is acutely familiar with, paradoxically increases credibility among audiences primed to distrust authority. Younger men, especially this age group, often feel economically deprived, socially sidelined, and opportunity-starved. Movements like America First offer:

• clear villains
• simple explanations
• a strong in-group identity

This contrasts with mainstream conservatism's abstract language about markets and institutions. Fuentes' style of rhetoric provides shock humor, irony and taboo language which feels riskier and more exciting, not to mention appealing, than policy debates. The line between politics and entertainment becomes blurred; controversy becomes content. Younger audiences raised on viral culture favor attention, not moderation. The online platforms they favor tend to push: highly emotional content, conflict-driven clips, and "us vs them" narratives. 

To be a part of this 'landscape', there is no need to read books, attend meetings, or understand policy. Online content can stimulate a feeling of being politically awakened. Traditional conservatism, on the other hand requires patience, historical knowledge, and gradual engagement. 

As Gen Z ages, many of these young idealists will shift their perspectives toward stability. They will come to appreciate policy over provocation. Careers and families will leave little time for online identity politics. Younger audiences aren't necessarily attracted to extremism, they're attracted to immediacy, identity and defiance. Figures like Fuentes meet those needs far more effectively than traditional conservatives, even if the appeal soon fades to an erstwhile fad. 

Can the Middle Class Be Saved?

 Achieving the trademarks of middle class life in America has become increasingly difficult, and there are no signs of reversals of that trend in sight. Life is constantly changing, as we all so well know. Life includes economics, politics, cultural shifts, socio-demographic changes, technology, and more. They're all changing. Literally, life around us is constantly changing, and there is little we can do about it. Actually, close to nothing. All we can do is buckle up for the ride. Sadly, I have to admit, this 'life ride' is for the most part not a fun experience. In fact, it can, and does get 'fierce and ugly'. 

Allow me to articulate. I'm a 'boomer'. Born in the early 50's, a few years after the end of WWII. Thousands of GI's came home and 'got happy' with the war's end, hence, my generation. The US emerged from the war economically dominant, with Europe and Japan rebuilding. Massive industrial expansion and high productivity were the hallmarks of the period. Government investment was strong in the areas of GI Bill benefits, infrastructure spending, housing affordability and assistance... Housing was cheap relative to income. Many, if not most families could live comfortable on one income. Mine did. College tuition was low. I attended a state supported university, world renowned today, tuition was $3 per semester hour (1972). These years, 1945-1965 are considered by many to be the golden age of the American middle class. Jobs were plentiful upon graduation, you literally had your choice, often multiple choices. For competent achievers there was nowhere to go but up. And, it's important to note that there was far less competition for those jobs than those of today. 

I bought my first house when I was twenty-seven years old. I can't even remember how many I've bought and sold in the years since. The economic and political conditions of the boomer years I suppose you could say created a perfect storm of sorts. Boomers have become the wealthiest generation in US history. Subsequent generations undoubtedly hold some feelings of disdain and contempt for this, but bear in mind, boomers didn't set the stage for these circumstances. In fact, there is no one party, group, previous generation, cadre, cabal or any collection of humans anywhere singularly responsible for this. It came to be through the unfolding events of history. Humans have an innate tendency to seek answers to  events both good and bad, as to 'why', and whose fault was this. Which is understandable and reasonable, yet the truth too often unfortunate. Why did conditions evolve to economically favor the boomers? There are answers, but they're buried in volumes of history. World history, not just the U.S. . Whose fault was it? Again, I refer you back to the volumes of history. 

Make no mistake, not all boomers are wealthy. The gains were not evenly distributed. Women, minorities, and non-college workers often did not receive full benefits. Deindustrialization hurt many working-class boomers late in life. Could this be a bit of deja-vu, staring into the barrel of the "AI" gun aimed at us currently?

We are not a socialist society. Our founding fathers, our forefathers, fathers, and the vast majority of people today have made the deliberate choice not to be. 250 years ago, our system of government was not framed to distribute wealth amongst the masses. It was designed to create opportunity. It was designed with provisions for  charity and welfare, yet sanctions work, ambition, and opportunities for self-improvement. Our system of government and laws is rooted in the empirical knowledge of the successes and failures of history. To them, at the time it probably seemed to be nothing more than common sense. Today, it seems genius. 

To reach what was considered "middle class" of the boomer generation has become "nigh impossible" for current generations. High home prices, the cost of education, raising children, medical costs, groceries, transportation, no facet of the cost of living has been untouched. The lack of jobs, competition of available jobs, wages, have pushed all the trappings of "middle class" out of reach for so many. Technology has advanced perhaps more rapidly than inflation and rising costs, but it too has become radically expensive. Bought an iPhone lately?... I can recall when a mortgage payment was about a week's pay. Now a week's pay won't buy most people the latest iPhone. We're a free market society and they're charging what the market is willing to pay...

One of the biggest influences of my life, to whom I was not related, but consider him to be a brilliant soul, once said to me as I was graduating from college, "Life is hard. It's only what you make of it."  Thirty some odd years later, the gravity of his words hit home. Fifty some odd years later, I still think about what he said. It was hard when I graduated from college, it was hard thirty years later, it's still hard today as a retiree. I have had the privilege of traveling and working all over the world. I have lived and worked in third world countries and developed countries. Yes, it's hard here in America. But there's nowhere else on earth that it's any easier. Not even close. There's still opportunity here, plenty of it. Young people have to be smarter and work harder. Strangely, I was told the same thing myself, fifty years ago. 

I often revert to analogies between life and baseball. In baseball, it's often said to aspiring young players "you've got to want it." I dont mean simply desire it, or long for it, you've got to constantly crave it in your core kind of want it. Success in life, and maybe even being 'comfortably middle-class' requires the same now. 

We are Sorry Hong Kong. Truly Sorry.

 The deadly apartment building fire that claimed 160 lives in Hong Kong recently has launched a debate over construction safety, lax regulatory enforcement, and the failures that allowed such a catastrophe to unfold. The city's leaders ordered an investigation into the cause of the fire and police have made several arrests of individuals  suspected of negligence. In the recent past, such steps would have been seen as the initial moves in a process of public accountability that would be scrutinized, debated, and grilled by an outspoken press, civic groups and elected representatives. But in the Hong Kong of today, the response to the tragedy reveals something more disturbing. The city now operates under a political setting indistinguishable from that of mainland China. The island country once known for free speech, civil society, and grassroots community activism has been replaced by a firm deference to Beijing determined to silence independent voices that dare to question the official narrative. 

The tragedy didn't only expose the weaknesses in building safety, it confirmed that Hong Kong was now governed by Beijing. Gone is the public debate criticizing fire code enforcement to demands for transparency about how aging residential towers are maintained. Scrutiny and compassion have been replaced with mandates and oppression. 

The Hong Kong National Security Law imposed by China fundamentally changed the city's political and legal landscape. This "law" was passed by the National People's Congress Standing Committee and inserted into Hong Kong's basic law. Hong Kong's legislature had no say in the matter. None.

The NSL, to say the least, is controversial. Terms like subversions and collusion are loosely defined, allowing wide discretion in enforcement. Peaceful political activity, journalism, or advocacy can fall under the law. Peaceful political activity? Like a protest? Wasn't that what was happening in Tiananmen Square in 1989? The entire world knows how that turned out...

Much of the direction of how the high-rise apartment fire is being handled is undoubtedly coming from the Office for Safeguarding National Security which is staffed by mainland officials in Hong Kong. And, of course, the law overrides local law if there is a conflict. Why even have local laws?...

One very interesting and, might I say peculiar aspect about the NSL is that it claims jurisdiction over any person anywhere in the world, even non-residents, for actions or statements about Hong Kong. Has China single-handedly decided to relinquish the entire world of right to free speech? Take it up with America, Xi, and lotsa luck.

Since the NSL took effect, pro-democracy groups, parties and organizations have been disbanded. Many activists have been arrested, jailed, or gone into exile. Elections have been restructured so only "patriots" approved by Beijing can run. Independent media outlets have shut down (most notably Apple Daily). Journalists, media outlets and NGO's now operate under self-censorship. Large-scale protests that were common before 2020 have effectively disappeared. 

The United States, the United Kingdom, the EU and others say the law violates the Sino-British Declaration. No surprise there. Several countries imposed sanctions, ended extradition treaties, or offered immigration pathways to Hong Kong residents. China rejects criticism, arguing the law restored stability and order. No surprise there either. 

The fire of the Wang Fuk Court high-rise towers was a tragedy of immense proportions. Authorities have detained people suspected of safety violations, including issues with fire alarms and construction materials. The fire has deeply affected the community and stirred public debate about building safety, regulatory enforcement, and emergency preparedness. Our hearts go out to the people of Hong Kong and those affected by this tragedy. 

Claudia Sheinbaum - A New Kind of Leader

 Claudia Sheinbaum Pardo was elected President of Mexico in October 2024. She is a scientist by training, originally studying physics, then earning a doctorate in energy engineering from the National Autonomous University of Mexico. Prior to becoming involved in politics, she authored over 100 academic articles and books on energy, environment, and sustainable development. Her technical background shapes how many see her governance style. 

Her scientific credentials give her credibility when dealing with climate, energy, and sustainability issues. She is seen as supportive of gender equality, women's rights, and social welfare initiatives. During her time as Mexico City mayor, she pushed for better public transport, environmental regulations, and social supports; blending technocratic and social-justice approaches. 

Since being elected president, she has become the first woman and first Jewish person to hold the office of President in Mexico. She has maintained strong public approval: at times reaching about 70%, which is among the highest for Latin American leaders in recent history. She has continued parts of the social-welfare and the state-centered economic approach associated with her predecessor, while integrating her science and environment-oriented background. She is often described as more measured and technocratic compared to the more fiery style  of previous leaders. She relies on data and policy over rhetoric. Her leadership will likely reshape how environmental, social, and urban policies are framed in Mexico, combining technical expertise with social priorities. 

There are several major challenges and controversies facing Sheinbaum's presidency. There are four major categories of concern. 

• High expectations and mixed results: Since taking office there has been a reported drop in homicides, some sources claim an approximate decrease of 32%. The overall picture still remains worrisome, though. Other serious crimes, especially extortion and disappearances continue to rise. 
• Cartel violence and "hot-spots": Certain regions, e.g. Sinaloa, Michoacan, have seen dramatic spikes in violence, including turf wars among rival factions and killings of public officials. 
• Systemic corruption and collusion risk: Critics and observers claim that tackling cartel power cannot succeed unless networks of collusion - which often reach into local governments, security forces, or even political allies are dismantled. 
• Public perception and fear: Even when official stats improve, many citizens still feel unsafe. Crime remains a leading concern and distrust in institutions remains high. 

Security isn't just a public safety issue, it affects investment, social stability, migration, and overall confidence in institutions. If cartels remain strong, they can erode governance and the rule of law. In spite of the progress she has made, Sheinbaum hasn't broken from the legacy of her predecessor, some institutional weakness and informal networks remain. The government's push for major judicial reforms has drawn significant criticism from oppositional parties, as well as international observers. Her administration inherited high public debts and structural problems, especially in the energy sector and social services. Addressing the debt while supporting social and security programs is going to be a tough balancing act. 

Without sustainable economic growth and structural reforms, social gains risk being ephemeral. Lack of investment can suppress many Mexicans in precarious labor, unemployment, and poverty, which in turn fuels social discontent and can even stoke the conditions for crime and instability. Public support and trust are key for democratic legitimacy and long-term stability. If people begin to feel the government is failing on security, justice or economic opportunity, popular discontent could grow potentially undermining her governance. 

Sheinbaum's success will require establishing a long-term vision, institutional overhauls, and transparency. She will have to dismantle the roots of corruption, build economic opportunity, strengthen judicial independence, and most of all, restore public trust. But if any leader in the recent history of Mexico has the mettle to pull this off, it's Claudia Sheinbaum. 

Captain Mark Kelly, Stand Down, Sir.

 If you live in America, you have no doubt seen or at least heard about the presumptuous video circulating on social media. The participants in the mentioned video included five other lawmakers, four US Representatives, one other senator and Senator Mark Kelly. Those six "spoke directly to members of the military" in the video, telling troops "you can refuse illegal orders." 

Here in America we have become somewhat 'accustomed' to weird behavior from members of Congress, at times. Weird behavior is OK, under most circumstances. This is a free country and there is certainly no law against "being weird." Of course, when it comes to members of Congress we expect a little more in terms of decorum. But even members of Congress have the same rights to free speech as every other American. 

The video in question though, is a patent exhibition of aberrant, arrogant and perhaps seditious behavior. For six members of the United States Congress to make a video and allow it to be circulated on social media while making blatant statements directly to members of our armed forces that it is acceptable to "refuse illegal orders" is nothing less than profane. Lesser adjectives cant even begin to describe such absurdity. 

What descries Captain Kelly's participation in this folly is his background and 'alleged' credibility. Captain Kelly has a distinguished military background. Make no mistake about it, active and retired military members such as Captain Kelly deserve the respect of every single American. All of them, including Captain Kelly certainly have my respect. His participation in this video and his statements however, deeply erode his credibility. Captain Kelly is a well-educated and highly intelligent individual. He is assumed to be capable of sound and reasonable judgment. His participation in this video brings that last assumption into question. 

Personally, I have blood-kin relatives who have given their lives in defense of our country. I have blood-kin relatives who have flown numerous combat missions, just as Captain Kelly has. None of those relatives ever had any doubt in their minds that every member of the military followed the chain-of-command, from the Commander-in-Chief on down. To do otherwise would lead to severe consequences. Captain Kelly knows this too. He knows it well. 

I thank you and commend you on your service to our country Captain. But regarding this matter, I suggest you stand down. If you choose to obfuscate your position and not atone for your statements, you should be subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice and be court martialed. Just like every other American, Captain Kelly, you must "keep it between the white lines" or suffer the consequences. 

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, in whatever form He may be, 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, performs 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.