I’m not much of a people person, so I can usually ignore gossip. Self experience and reading are my preferred methods of learning. Unlike my wife, I’ve never much cared what “they say.” “Who they?” I often respond. 

“They” do have meaning and some value, just like “common sense.” Both are equally contradictory and unreliable, although each often contains a germ of truth. They help to sort out the clearly impossible like “by taking this drug, pigs can fly.”

The real issue with gossip, common sense, and “they say” is that all are usually not directly impactful to me. Oh, there is some usefulness, but – again – what is the value to me, personally, if pigs can fly. How does it change my life today? 

We live in an age of miracles, when almost anything that can be imagined might be possible. The problem becomes not sorting the “true” from the “untrue” as separating the “relevant to me” from the whole mass. 

Like many phrases, “they say” is a social relaxer. It puts you at a little distance from whatever the claim may be. It automatically lowers the level of direct antagonism, which makes it truly socially useful. 

But an equally useful source of knowledge? No. And that’s actually okay because if I respond I don’t believe something “they say”, there is no real challenge to the person I heard it from. Such makes complicated conversation a useful, enjoyable, game

The Wall Street Journal is shocked – shocked – that a few shareholders can redirect a company’s goals. The economic myth has been that wise investors – like our wise and mature electorate – will inevitably lead corporations into the best and most productive economic and social goals.

Further, that paragons of virtue sitting on the “board” will make the right decisions to aid all the “stakeholders” – investors, employees, the public, the original owners. But, of course, that is not true and never has been. 

For one thing, in “public” corporations, “investors” are really speculators, seeking to make vast returns on often highly leveraged stock positions. Since the days of canals and railroads – if not before – the only goal is to raise the stock price. If that requires looting a company’s assets, destroying its business, “downsizing” old employees – so be it. Dynamic free enterprise capitalism at work we are told. 

Or just nasty people out for a quick buck. And even they often have little control over a business unless they manage to pack the boardroom. The little “investors” who put money in stocks rarely understand this. 

Does it really work? Kinda. Wealth is produced, especially in the beginning. Some large firms – “too big to fail” – become in effect bureaucratic outposts of government. 

But that isn’t how they teach it in books.

When the United States was founded 250 years ago, it took three or four days for the fastest message to travel from Boston to Philadelphia. Current print and cable journalists seem to believe the same rules are in effect now. Or so I would gather from the consensus that “90 days” is a frantic whirlwind for a political campaign. 

The saying used to be that ”  lie can travel around the world before truth can get its boots on.”  Now a meme can “go viral” almost before it is spoken. A gigantic news sheet in 1795 had maybe a hundred local readers. An internet post today instantly informs millions or even billions. A day is an eternity.

In those olden times, the larger world had very little, very delayed, effects. Crossing the Atlantic could take months, most remote happenings were of no relevance whatsoever. Now markets crash at bank news reported in minutes from Japan, and the entire planet can be incinerated in an hour or so, at the whim of an angry old fart who feels particularly cranky. 

In that context, “90 days” is far longer than most news cycles ever were. People “meet” candidates not from months-long train whistle-stops but in minutes on media. 

A true whirlwind might be “9 days”. But then, what would all the writers and talking heads have to talk about? 

I’m afraid that this is symptomatic of the endless cynicism I’ve developed about just about every political discussion lately, what “they” say just doesn’t quite match my own reality, in distance, speed, or effect. 

We know more about life than anyone ever did. We control life processes more completely. In the future, almost total understanding will be achieved. Application, especially of medical care, becomes unsustainably convoluted – but that is a different topic. “Perfect health” seems within sight. 

There are several problems with “perfection.”

Sometimes, thinking about how hard it is to achieve perfection is enough to prevent any attempt at improvement. We know we will never be able to adhere to a “perfect” diet, lifestyle, or exercise regimen, so we say “the hell with it” and sit on the couch.

Then there are those who do follow the perfect path. Inevitably entropy takes its toll, the tarnished methods seem no longer glorious, and – well – maybe not the couch, but a definite let down and degradation of effort. 

The most corrosive aspect of a perfect goal is that the goal may be wrong. I may seek a perfectly shaped body to find friendship or love. If those additional side benefits fail to materialize, the whole nonsense seems a complete waste of time. 

The message is simply not to be trapped into perfection – especially not narrow perfection. The universe is wide, contradictory, cruel, enchanted and completely imperfect. 

Except, of course, in its own existence and our consciousness.  

“Alien” is the latest code word for some people to turn selected groups of people into “others”. It has a satisfying ring _ based on themes from B movies _ of intelligences that are evil and cannot think the way “we” do and who will eventually destroy “us.” So far, however, it has not been banned in polite circles, like similar derogatory labels nor eviscerated by academic study.

Many humans and their families, tribes, and population groups have always traveled. A lot. Some driven by ecologic disaster, some by population pressure, some _ honestly _ just for the hell of it adventure( like Alexander the Great.) The folks being “invaded” would variously welcome or resist. 

In the US there were aliens arriving from the beginning. To the native American all settlers were aliens. To the Protestants the real aliens were Catholics. To the southerners, of course, slaves. And pockets of Asian, Pennsylvania Dutch, Southern Europeans…

So “aliens” _ illegal or otherwise _are nothing new. The cry was always that if allowed to gain power they would destroy our way of life or racial purity. It’s just that now in these more genteel times, the dehumanizing connotations the word has accumulated allow it to be deployed in encoded but just as vicious attacks on anyone we don’t like much. 

To me, all these attackers are more “alien” than the folks against whom they direct their venom. 

Philosophers who concentrate on philosophy are among the stupidest of people. Their heads become filled with the fluff of words, unanchored logic, and meaningless fog. They dwell in lives unencumbered by eating breakfast, sleeping, going to the bathroom, making love, or stubbing toes. Following their advice too closely often leads to ruin. And their own lives are usually not exemplary. 

The main problem is language logic. Philosophy is useless unless words mean something “true”. Its logic crumbles in the face of contradiction and connotation. Any adolescent can point out glaring holes in their conclusions. 

Yet out of “respect” for dead European white men (mostly) schools continue to either teach or pay lip service to the frothiest schemes of philosophical discourse. Yes, I do mean all of them, Kant and the rest. Not excepting ancient Greeks, religious sermons, and anyone favoring any “ism” anytime, anywhere. 

Think about it. If all the science or technology knowledge were lost, civilization as we know it would collapse in an instant. If all the philosophy ever “known” were to vanish, how much of daily life for the rest of us would really be affected? 

“Philosophy” has become one of those affectations of elite snobbism, where those who can use its jargon are able to separate those “like us” from the masses. I guess it may be as effective as wearing red feathers in their hair.

Vanity usually means you know you are perfect. It’s like hubris but worse, for you not only believe you are right, but also can do no wrong. Every fault becomes a virtue. Everyone disagreeing with you becomes a bitter enemy. In short, vanity is not a pretty sin. 

It is, however, a sin rampant in our culture, from educators to “influencers” to corporate officers, to politicians and the mobs that follow them. One can no longer be successful without being completely certain that they are infallible _ at least in the “truths” they are promoting. 

Vain people are truly intolerant. At best they simply ignore anyone who does not worship their perfection. At worst they seek to destroy any opposing viewpoints. That is bad enough in a family or small organization which can be easily escaped. It is disastrous in national politics.

Sometimes a quick remedy is possible. A child shouts “the emperor has no clothes!” But often horrible excesses occur until a final crash and burn out, usually ending in the death of the powerful or arrogant. 

Only then does history call “vanity” “hubris.” Blind stupidity. And maybe in these times of miracles – both good and evil – an immortal big brother will come into existence. True vanity will be able to rule forever, naked, wrong, or whatever. 

A few hundred years ago, leather was a critical commodity. Hides were processed in local tanneries, requiring noxious chemicals. Always dumped in local ponds and stinking to high heaven. Over time, the industrial processes were moved away from towns, isolated, and eventually even cleared up to the extent of not dumping untreated refuse into streams and rivers. 

The point is that it was a lot easier to eventually clean up the effluents from a few concentrated plants than it would have been to restrict millions of local businesses. That is the true impetus behind electrification of such things as cars and houses, for a few power plants can be cleaned up or replaced a lot more easily than billions of distributed customer pollution sources. 

Tanneries were so nasty they were an easy target. The effects of fossil fuel are more subtle: stronger more frequent storms, rising seas, heat waves, and drought. Until crop failures become widespread many will continue to believe there is no crisis at all. 

I’ve lived through too many apocalyptic projections to believe the worst about this one. But I am annoyed at industry apologists who think there is no problem at all. And at my neighbors who in the old days would have claimed that there is always cleaner water on the other side of the hill, and a lungful of stinking fumes helps clear the sinuses. 

Although the modern fairy tales spun by fossil fuel apologists can be morbidly entertaining. 

An effective military must be a little paranoid and clearly focused on goals. The ending of Dr Strangelove with the winners (top brass, friends and family, lots of girlfriends) living in a deep coal mine while the rest of the world is sterilized is pretty close to true. 

In real life there is the aggravating issue of definitions. What is a crime, who are the guilty (the individual, the tribe, the government, the whole society, the situation)? What is the government (legitimate, historic faction, fractional, de jure, de facto)? How are “crimes” committed? Who is not involved in the “war”? 

It’s all silly. The idea that populations are not legitimate targets of war became irrelevant during the American and French revolutions. The idea that there are limits to what must be done for victory was obliterated during world war I. Today, anything goes, and once again – “might makes right.” 

And yet, and yet. There has been in fact, a global civilization established, with instantaneous news and porous borders on land and ideals. If “war crimes” are to have any meaning, we must accept that the de facto legitimate government accepts those common limits or pays the price by being delegitimized by everyone else. Those “limits” always end up being pretty much close to the “golden rule.” 

The military mind? Ah that’s a different story. 

I’m not sure, in these days lacking absolute judgments of any kind, that this problem will ever be resolved.

We have become accustomed to a “mass production” world, in which vast amounts of identical goods are turned out endlessly. Even services such as “fast food” have traveled the route. It is familiar and comforting and mostly inexpensive – and sometimes infuriating in its planned sameness. 

If civilization holds together, we will discover that advances in technology (computers, automation and AI in particular) are about to change all that. Machines such as 3D printers can easily adjust anything. Algorithms can “remember” and guide everything about us. 

Good news. Every item of clothing we purchase will fit perfectly. Every bit of food we eat will be adjusted to exactly provide correct nutrition. Entertainment services will be pre-sorted by what you want already fully vetted. Your world becomes an aristocratic playground catering to your every desire. 

Bad news. There is no escape. Everything you do in public or private will be noted and taken into account. Your habits, your actions, your heroism or bad behavior. are applied. Each insurance bill, for example, will differ from everyone else’s based on fully known risks. Already in China you can be denied a railroad ticket if you have unpaid debt – and your taxes and opportunities go up or down depending on what the ubiquitous cameras and internet robots have observed. 

Worse. Computers can manufacture data that seems more real than reality and easily fool other computers. 

Truly, the best of times, the worst of times.