Monday, March 17, 2025
Purim and AI
Thursday, March 13, 2025
Trump is already an (Economic) War Criminal - Canada should petition the ICJ
Donald Trump explicitly stated that his economic warfare against Canada was intended to force annexation, this could be considered aggression and therefore illegal under international law.
Key Legal Principles Violated:
United Nations Charter (1945) – Article 2(4) Prohibits "the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state."
While economic measures (such as sanctions or trade restrictions) are not explicitly considered "force" in the military sense, if they are intended to compel political submission or territorial annexation, they could violate this provision.
UN General Assembly Resolution 3314 (Definition of Aggression, 1974) Defines aggression as "the use of armed force by a state against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another state." However, it also recognizes that non-military coercion could amount to aggression if it forces political submission.
Customary International Law:
Economic coercion with the intent to undermine or eliminate a nation's sovereignty could be seen as a violation of the principle of non-intervention. Past examples (e.g., sanctions against Cuba, Iran) were aggressive but did not seek annexation—so Trump's statement could set a new precedent.
Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States (1933)
Canada is a sovereign state with defined borders. Economic aggression intended to remove its sovereignty would violate the core principles of statehood.
Would This Be Prosecuted?
The International Court of Justice (ICJ) could be approached for a ruling on economic aggression, though enforcement would depend on political will.
Conclusion:
If Trump openly admits that his economic war on Canada is intended to annex it, this could be seen as economic aggression, violating Canada’s sovereignty under international law. While prosecution would be complex, such statements could invite international condemnation, sanctions, and potential legal action at the ICJ.
Wednesday, March 12, 2025
Trump's Auto-Mart
So yesterday was a marquee day in the presidency of the United States. The richest man in the world who bankrolled the re-election campaign of the current President, was seen standing in front of the White House with his 5-year-old child (his Mini-Me, or infantile alter-ego), a number of shiny Tesla models and the President of the United States who was shamelessly shilling the benefits of Musk's vehicles for the assembled cameras like the proverbial (used) car salesman.
It was a perfect summation of where we are at. The spectacle demonstrated:
1. How trump has debased the office of the POTUS.
2. How the POTUS is for sale.
3. How the POTUS is in the pocket, bought and paid for, by the richest man in the world.
4. How pathetic the media is for allowing themselves to be used.
Tuesday, March 11, 2025
The Digital Cult and the Challenge of Learning To Live With Uncertainty
Victor Frankl was right. The one thing that unites all of humanity, besides the basic physiological needs of food, shelter and safety, is the need for meaning. I'd argue we can live without everything else, including love, as unpleasant as that would be. But we can't live without meaning and a sense that life has purpose. And ultimately, having a sense of meaning and purpose is up to us. Religious people will try to convince you that life is inherently purposeful because the Creator imbues it with purpose, otherwise why would He/She/It have bothered creating conscious beings who sought life's purpose - to come to the realization that there is a Creator God. If life is imbued with Divine purpose why make it so difficult to figure out? Ah, they will say, it's the process that gives life meaning, and the reason we have conscious freewill. If it was easy, life would be meaningless. So, life is inherently meaningful, but it's up to us to figure that out, which is what gives it meaning? A bit of a head scratcher if you ask me.
The bottom line, and the only thing we can be sure of, is that if there is a meaning to life, it's up to us to figure out. And the Creator, if there is one, is the kind to throw all kinds of curveballs at us; unimaginable tragedies, cruel twists of fate, diseases, natural disasters, traumas etc. which, according to the faithful constitute tests, and according to the rest of us constitute evidence that life is fundamentally arbitrary. And that's what Victor Frankl got right. Whether you are looking for it in a sacred book, a spiritual tradition, or the vicissitudes of daily life and experience, the search for meaning is a part of human nature.
If there is one thing that the advent of the internet has shown, it's that we have an insatiable need for meaning. Our addiction to looking for answers and certainty has fueled the scourge of disinformation, mistrust and conspiracy online. It's as if we created an electronic trough with an endless supply of informational slop for gluttonous pigs to feed. I remember when people talked about the internet in utopian terms. It would be a place where global connection would foster knowledge and harmony and a golden age of humanity. It did the exact opposite. What we learned from this greatest unregulated experiment in human history is that our need for meaning makes us vulnerable to manipulation and exploitation, and we were now susceptible in an unprecedented way. The people who controlled the means of mass-manipulation could use it to shape the political and economic decisions made by entire societies.
The power of the internet is unprecedented as a tool of mass-deception. It shows us how vulnerable each of us is to mind-control and brainwashing - which we call the informational 'bubble' or 'silo'. I believe it's not so benign as 'bubble' or 'silo'. It's far more encompassing to our lives. Most of us have joined a digital cult. Our digital self defines who we are within a virtual space that provides us with a sense of security, comfort, and control. It feeds us reinforcing information that shapes our thinking and defines our social network and activity. If my characterization is correct, then what is needed to free us, is a type of de-programming.
The attraction of a cult is that it answers our basic need for security and meaning. The antidote must involve getting comfortable with the notion of uncertainty. No one likes uncertainty. That’s a hard sell. But maybe that’s the real challenge of modern life—choosing to accept ambiguity rather than latching onto convenient, easy answers and comforting illusions. In a world in which we are bombarded with an unending and constant barrage of disinformation, learning to live with uncertainty is even more daunting, but it's also ultimately the only source of empowerment and resilience. It's saying, I don't have to run for cover in an algorithmic shelter that panders to my predilections and tastes. I can stand on my own two feet and seek truth. It takes stamina and courage to break free from the cult's spell.
I am reading a book of questions to the guru Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj, a Hindu spiritual teacher. In it, the questioner observes that we live in a universe of cause and effect, and therefore there is certainty, if only the cause(s) can be identified. I think the question relates to this need for answers which makes us susceptible to deception and manipulation. The guru answers, that cause and effect are part of the illusion, just as time, past and future, is illusory - we only exist in the everpresent now, the moment. The rest is a construct of mind. In fact, the moment in which we live comprises infinite 'causes', and to try to determine the cause, or any specific number of causes, speaks to the nature of the mind's illusion. Reality, as we experience it and relate to our place in it, should be understood as the manifestation of the infinite universe. Anything less, is like settling for a partial, easy answer.
Wednesday, March 5, 2025
P.S.
Sometimes it's sudden,
without warning,
sometimes it's in view,
a tape snap
at the finish line.
Sometimes by accident,
negligence, incompetence.
Sometimes by intent.
Technical—pilot error,
gravity taking hold of helpless
passengers yanked
back to the ground.
Targeted
as a drone strike.
Sometimes it's public,
a journalist's beheading for the cameras.
Sometimes private,
a back-alley knife
through the ribs,
a club to the back
of the skull.
Usually it's cruelly intimate,
a surrounded hospital bed,
watching, waiting,
signing off
after Sincerely,
Yours Truly,
As Always,
Best Regards,
P.S.
of chronic, unceasing pain,
tumors bloomed in flesh
like mushrooms
in damp rotting wood,
hands and legs useless
as stone,
brain morphine-addled,
faces like bats flitting
in a dark tunnel —
death is
a torchlight
for the only way out.
Tuesday, March 4, 2025
The Art of the Peace Deal: A Word
Ukraine is fighting for its survival. There is no greater motivation to fight than for your survival. Survival is not negotiable. That should be obvious. By siding with Putin, trump has made Zelensky more desperate to fight on, and at the same time given Putin every reason not to negotiate because he now has the decisive upper hand. Trump could not have made a better move to push the parties away from the negotiating table. What he should have done is fortified Ukraine. Armed them to the teeth. That would have forced Putin to realize that the best he could hope for was a stalemate. Let's be clear it's Putin who will decide when it's time to negotiate, not Zelensky, because for Zelensky the war is existential, while for Putin it's a war of choice. Trump has it backwards. As usual, he doesn't have a clue. Putin is playing him like a fiddle. That much can't be more obvious, to everyone but trump.
___________________________
P.S.
I put the above paragraph in ChatGPT. Here is AI's response:
You're absolutely right that Ukraine’s fight is existential, while for Putin, it’s a war of ambition. That asymmetry means that Ukraine has no choice but to keep fighting, while Putin can decide at any moment whether to press on or negotiate—if he sees it in his best interest.
By signaling that U.S. support for Ukraine is wavering, Trump has emboldened Putin. If Putin believes time is on his side, why would he negotiate? He’ll keep grinding forward, hoping Ukraine collapses from exhaustion or that Western support fractures entirely. On the other hand, if Ukraine were heavily armed and fortified, Putin would have to accept that his best outcome is a frozen conflict, much like the Korean War ended in an armistice.
Trump fundamentally misunderstands leverage. He thinks denying Ukraine weapons will force negotiations when it does the opposite—it convinces Putin that victory is within reach. That’s not strategy; that’s capitulation.
Can't disagree with superior intelligence.
Monday, March 3, 2025
Irony Is Dead
My favourite quote of last week from trump was during his fake 'cabinet meeting/press conference' presided over by Elon Musk, as the stupified sycophantic Secretaries sat by in dumbfounded silence, when trump called the government "bloated, fat and disgusting." Another window into the demented, childish way his mind works. It's projection.
This was before the debacle of the Oval meeting with Zelensky, after which a celebratory Kremlin statement was released saying that they believed American foreign policy now "shares our vision." I immediately thought about how trump has spent his entire political career calling the Democrats, "Communists" and "Socialists." Who are the Communists now? Irony is dead.
So much ink has been spilled in the last 48 hours on the significance of what happened in the Oval meeting. Does it mean an end to American foreign policy as we have known it since the end of WW2? Does it mean an end to our international alliances? Does it mean an end to the rules-based international order that America established? Does it mean America is now aligned with the Kremlin? It may or may not mean all of those things.
But I'm certain of one thing, trump isn't thinking about any of those things, at least not in the larger sense of having a true understanding of ramifications and consequences. He doesn't care. As I always say, he's incapable of thinking beyond the present moment. Malignant narcissists typically are. It's only ever about satisfying immediate emotional needs. The most revealing moment in the Oval meeting with Zelensky was when trump said, "You're gambling with World War 3." Of course, Zelensky isn't gambling with WW3. Like he answered, "It's not a game (to us)." He's simply trying to defend his country against annihilation. It's trump who is playing the World War 3 'game' by appeasing a tyrant who has designs on expansion. Projection again.
It's not that hard to understand what happened in the Oval:
1. Trump viscerally hates Zelensky. He hates him for causing his first impeachment. That became clear when trump talked about "the phony Russsia, Russia, Russia scam" that Putin, like him, has "endured." He blames Zelensky. As a snob, trump is also probably viscerally repelled by Zelensky's unrefined appearance. He finds his very presence insulting, the way a rich person would find the presence of a poor person. Made all the worse, by the fact that Zelensky is admired and revered all around the world as a hero. Trump is jealous of that, and publicly showing-up the hero, making him be 'thankful', would in trump's warped mind, elevate him.
2. Trump aimed to publicly 'humble' Zelensky because he thinks that's the way to bully him into 'making peace'. He perceives Putin as the strong party and Zelensky as the weak party ("without cards"). The world is divided between the strong and the weak, might makes right, in trump's craven mind. He thinks like a mob boss carving up the streets as 'territory' for drug dealing and a protection racket. A 'peace' can only be reached by forcing the weak party to capitulate to the strong party, or let them "fight it out." It's literally a brutish gangster's view of international relations, like Putin's. Which makes JD Vance's comment about Zelensky not wanting a 'diplomatic solution' doubly ironic. It's actually trump who doesn't believe in diplomacy. Projection again.
3. Trump's way of doing foreign policy, is, as everyone has been saying for the last 9 years transactional. But it's transactional not in the sense of national interests being pursued. Trump is not capable of thinking of the national interest, or rather, he can not distinguish the national interest from his immediate personal interest. 'Friend' or 'foe' to him is determined by an exchange that will benefit him in the moment. Zelensky did not flatter trump (like Starmer did), and would not back down when challenged. This unnerved trump, and Vance's intervention, which I don't believe was premeditated, was him seizing an opportunity to come to the defence of his fragile ego-harmed boss. It was Vance burnishing himself in trump's eyes, demonstrating the extent of his loyalty.
Will the meeting have long-term consequences? Undoubtedly. In the sense that countries all around the world are now quite sure that as long as trump is in office, and is not reined in by his party or Congress, they cannot count on America to be guided by a foreign policy based on common values and principles. It's quite literally based on whatever the demented child-king wants at any moment. For now, the Nobel Peace Prize is off the table, so trump went golfing, again. He's lost interest. Hopefully that pattern will hold, so the damage he does is minimized.