Amy Acton, the Democratic candidate in the Ohio Gubernatorial race, was sexually abused by her stepfather. Acton’s stepfather was arrested and her mother lost custody of Acton and her brother.^[i] Charged and facing prosecution, he and Amy’s mother fled the state.^[ii] Her mother chose to protect her abusive husband rather than her children.

One might think that Amy Acton’s mother would have no standing to weigh in on the qualifications of a woman that she abandoned as a child. Vivek Rama Swarmy (nee Ramaswamy) thought differently. He used Acton’s mother to deliver a televised attack on her daughter’s character and emotional well-being. Rama Swarmy distinguished himself in the malignant pantheon of the Trump era Pornocracy. Rama Swarmy has committed $4 million to promote the ad before the election.^[iii]

Vance’s defense of the ad

While many, including Ohio’s Republican Governor, chastised Rama Swarmy for the ad, Just Despicable Vance defended him and chastised elected Republicans for “whining about an advertisement” and to get back to the task at hand – “to win the race in 13 days.” Later, at a rally, Just Despicable said “Vivek Ramaswamy had the audacity to run a TV commercial which calls it out like it is and calls Amy Acton a liar.” Vance’s remarks brought to mind what Nikki Haley said about Rama Swarmy during a 2023 debate. She looked at him and said, "Honestly, every time I hear you, I feel a little bit dumber for what you say." Was Vance on that debate stage as well?

Despicable Vance expressed the moral clarity about sexual predators and pedophiles that has become a hallmark of the Trump Era of Pornocracy. They nominate a Supreme Court Justice accused of sexual assaults, erect barricades to full exposure of the Epstein Files, defend a president found guilty of sexual assault and defaming those who made their case in court, and have a handful of staffers and cabinet members who stand accused of similar behavior. Rama Swarmy’s political ad is right down Main Street for these guys.

Trump’s reaction

Trump himself defended the ad. When told about the back story of the stepfather’s sexual assault of a 12 year old, Trump retorted, ““I don’t know anything about a stepfather,” and “I don’t know anything about stepfathers from many, many years ago.” After insulting the reporter who posed the question he added, “No. I don’t care. It’s a mother speaking badly against [Amy Acton].

The broader political pattern

Just Despicable has had a busy week. He blamed the riots in France on immigrants, applied the concept of restrictive country clubs (we want people like us in the club) to his view of the optimal immigration policy and then, had time to defend the employment of a woman in a political ad, who abandoned her children to protect a pedophile. Just Despicable, according to recent polls, is the leading contender for the 2028 GOP’s presidential candidate. If the ad didn’t make you sick, think about Just Despicable Vance sitting in the Oval Office.

^[i] https://www.wbaltv.com/article/ramaswamys-ohio-governor-ad-amy-actons-mom-facts/74208506

^[ii] By

· Lizzie Kaboski, cleveland.com

COLUMBUS, Ohio — Amy Acton’s stepfather, who was indicted in 1978 on charges of sexually assaulting the then-12-year-old Acton, remained at large for more than two decades until he died in 2004.

^[iii] Amy Acton Hits Back at Vivek Ramaswamy Over Ad at Obama Rally, Newsweek.

Published

Oct 24, 2026 at 04:17 PM EDT

updated

Oct 24, 2026 at 04:20 PM EDT

In Michelle Goldberg’s recent editorial,^[i] she cites Hannah Arendt’s prescient quote that ““One is almost tempted to measure the degree of totalitarian infection by the extent to which the concerned governments use their sovereign right of denationalization.”^[ii] Arendt wrote about the tragedy of statelessness in the aftermath of World War I. Extreme intolerance of immigrants ended the lofty ideals of The Rights of Man, Lafayette’s treatise on inalienable human rights. Arendt argues that the dehumanization of immigrants and forceful deportation of “others” – those without a shared history with their foster country – reverberated throughout Europe and the world and expressed itself in rising totalitarianism.^[iii]

In 1933, Hitler’s Reichstag Speech, he put forth the proposition that “Our judiciary must serve first and foremost the preservation of the Volk community... The focus of the law must not be the individual, but the Volk.” This concept eventually became popularized by Hess, Hans Frank, and others as “Right is what is Right for the German People.”^[iv] This concept permitted the courts to abandon adherence to settled law and, instead, to interpret the interests of the state and the German people. As such, there were no legal barriers to stripping Jews of citizenship, property, and legal rights. The concept is expansive. If more territory is useful to the German people, then aggression is appropriate. Putin has taken a page out of Hitler’s playbook: “Right” is what is right for Mother Russia.

“Otherness” might begin with rhetoric about immigrant populations but, as Arendt points out, the infection spreads quickly. ICE agents begin by targeting “criminal immigrants” but end up murdering dissenting citizens. When Trump describes Somalis as “garbage” and Congresswoman Omar as “crooked” and urges Minnesotans to take back their state, we hear echoes of fascists past. Nuance and layered messaging are not Trump’s strengths. His transparent racism is direct and unapologetic. His acolytes, though, couch their march to intolerance in the siren songs of religious and cultural appeal.

In his speech to the Munich Security Council, Marco Rubio made the transition from immigration control to his view of a cohesive, homogeneous community with a common religious platform. He began innocently enough, lauding the Greeks and their contributions to Western Civilization. Then came the pivot: the key contribution of ancient Greece was that “It paved the way for the gospel of Jesus Christ to find fertile soil in Europe and flourish into the empire of Christendom. It was the foundation of the riches of Christian theology … It gave birth to a civilization marked not just by a common culture; it was marked by a common anthropology…” Rubio’s worldview excludes those not on the same page.

According to Rubio, this was a sacred inheritance that many have rejected, taught to feel ashamed of their history “And so we tore down our monuments; we condemned our own history. And in too many places, we taught our children to be ashamed of the countries they would inherit.” One wonders if Rubio was lamenting Germans who removed statues and institutions that memorialized Nazis or the United States removing statues of those who killed other Americans to protect the institution of slavery.

Vance cloaks his racism and xenophobia in similar fashion but sounds more like the president of an exclusive country club where people simply want to be with other people like them. He substitutes “social cohesion” for “segregation” or “exclusion.” In a CBS News town hall, Vance stated that “My goal here is to make it so that we can have a country with some baseline of social cohesion and sense of community.” He added that it is “not unreasonable for an American citizen to want to share their community with people they have something in common with.”

Vance consistently conflates immigration with social unrest. This past weekend he said, “Western liberals imported the third world into France and other countries in the name of diversity and compassion…They ignored fundamental questions of assimilation and compatibility. They were told it would lead to this and they didn’t listen.” Not to be outdone, Trump wrote on (un)Truth Social that “the migrants have taken over France. They must close the borders, fast!” In their rhetorical escalation, Vance warned American voters, “this is the future congressional Democrats seek for your country.”

The real danger for America is that the “otherness” of immigrants will become one plank in the political platform of the far right, adjacent to another that defines “otherness” of certain citizens. Rubio’s homage to the Christian roots of our democracy and to American “heroes” who defended slavery complement Vance’s emphasis on assimilation. If these worldviews dominate the political landscape, who else will fall into the black hole of “otherness,” deprived of rights and full citizenship?

The distinction that matters here is between belonging as a shared civic commitment and belonging as an inherited identity. The former allows people of different backgrounds to become fully American; the latter leaves their acceptance dependent on how closely they resemble those already inside the circle.

Ronald Reagan once spoke eloquently about immigration and how one becomes an American, contrasting the United States with other countries.

“You can go to live in France, but you cannot become a Frenchman. You can go to live in Germany or Turkey or Japan, but you cannot become a German, a Turk, or a Japanese. But anyone, from any corner of the Earth, can come to live in America and become an American.”

Reagan defined citizenship as independent of ethnic or religious heritage and proudly declared that America was a “country of immigrants” that allowed anyone from anywhere in the world to become fully American. When you contrast Reagan’s perspective with Trump’s complaint about immigrants from “shithole countries,” one wonders what comes next. When Orwell’s animals forcibly removed people from their farm, all animals were equal. Then some animals became “more equal than others.” Those in power constructed that equation.

If immigrants can be cast outside the community in the vague name of social cohesion, what prevents those in power from drawing the same boundary around other Americans? Arendt’s warning gives us a way to read the rhetoric of Trump, Rubio, and Vance: the question is not only who is excluded today, but who gets to define belonging tomorrow. The danger begins before the jackboot stomps on our rights. It begins when equal rights become privileges that those in power can grant or withdraw.

^[i] Michelle Goldberg, Trump’s Attempt to Deport Ilhan Omar is Another Leap Toward the Abyss, NY Times, 10-16-2025.

^[ii] Arendt, Hannah. The Origins of Totalitarianism. Penguin Random House UK, 1951

^[iii] Arendt, Hannah, Chapter Nine in The Origins of Totalitarianism: The Decline of the Nation-State and the End of The Rights of Man.

^[iv] “Recht ist, was dem deutschen Volke nützt” (translated as “Right is what is useful to the German people” or “What is right is what benefits the German people

Omar emigrated from a Kenyan refugee camp to the U.S. in 1995 when she was 12. She became a citizen in 2000 when she was 17.^[i]All this happened 26 years ago. The DOJ is looking for evidence that she was really 18 at the time which may have influenced her naturalization process. What we do know is that she is vocal critic of Trump and he dislikes her and Somalis in general.^[ii]

Her criticism of Israel rankles many Americans. She’s made comments about the U.S. support being “all about the Benjamins” ($100 bills) which sparked outrage over the use of well-worn anti-Semitic tropes. She’s condemned Israel’s response to the Hamas massacre, claiming that Israel has engaged in genocide and ethnic cleansing, and resisted funding for Israel’s military. She has, in the end, apologized for comments that she recognized as causing emotional pain and she has signed onto a Democratic resolution in February 2023 that formally recognized Israel as America’s legitimate and democratic ally and explicitly condemned anti-Semitism. Still, she is no friend of Israel.

There is a lot that people dislike about her position on various issues. The question that we must answer, though, is what do we fear more? Omar’s statements and feelings about Israel or attacks on Free Speech and targeted prosecutions?

AIPAC – The American Israel Political Action Committee – plays a single note: support for Israel. They lobby, dole out campaign funds for supporters, and oppose those that they see as threat to Israel’s support. They spent over $30 million in their attempts to defeat Abdul El-Sayed in Michigan. They also provided financial support to Omar’s primary opponents.

AIPAC’s brand, once highly regarded, is now tainted. The frontal assaults on candidates that question Israel’s conduct of the war, has hurt their reputation. AIPAC has come under sharp attacks for their use of dark money channels, disguising the origin of campaign financing. Other candidates have shunned AIPAC’s support.

AIPAC should think outside of the box. Why not declare support for Representative Omar? They should set aside, for the moment, their policy disagreements, and focus on the potential danger of government agencies targeting elected officials for their views. It should not be difficult for AIPAC to state:

We strongly disagree with Representative Omar’s position on Israel and her incendiary descriptions of its efforts to defend itself and combat terrorist organizations. We welcome public debate with Representative Omar and remain confident in our ability to explain the complexities of the Middle East conflict and Israel’s importance as a U.S. ally.

We do not fear Omar’s position on Israel. What we fear is that our democracy could die on the sword of jack-booted government agents ransacking homes and using deportation as a threat while interfering with the ability of an American citizen to run for re-election.

It is challenging to support those that hold different views, but we draw our inspiration from the words of Rabbi Hillel:

“If I am not for me, who will be for me? And when I am for myself alone, what am I? And if not now, then when?”^[iii]

How would Omar respond? Omar should graciously accept this support. It would be good for her reputation. She may have objections to Israel’s conduct of the war, but she could show respect for the commitment of its supporters to democratic institutions and to express – without fear - disagreements and beliefs publicly. She might issue this press release:

I welcome the support of AIPAC and all Americans who will not tolerate the militarization of our justice department and the targeted harassment of public officials who oppose the current administration. There is much that separates our views on many issues. There is more, however, that connects us when we stand in support for our country’s values.”

AIPAC and Representative Omar should reflect on the great regret expressed by Martin Niemöller (1892–1984), a German theologian who initially supported the Nazis then rebelled when the Nazis struck too close to home - the church. He spent eight (8) years in Nazi concentration camps. Reflecting on his failure to recognize the danger of the Nazi’s attack on individual groups, Niemöller wrote:

First they came for the Communists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me

The right to disagree means little unless we defend it for those with whom we disagree.

^[i] (“Glorified and Vilified, Representative-Elect Ilhan Omar Tells Critics ...” By Sheryl Gay Stolberg

Dec. 30, 2018, New York Times.

^[ii] Trump has repeatedly referred to Somali immigrants using derogatory terms, calling them “garbage”, “all crooks”, and claiming that “they should be out of here” and “I don’t want them in our country”. He has also described Somalia as “filthy, dirty, disgusting,” a place with “no government, no military,” and “one thing that’s really strong — crime” (AI summary).

^[iii] Rabbi Hillel the Elder—a prominent first-century Jewish sage—famously taught this three-part aphorism in Pirkei Avot (Ethics of the Fathers 1:14). Rabbi Hillel the Elder(Hillel HaZaken) was a prominent Jewish sage, scholar, and religious leader who lived from around 110 BCE to 10 CE. He is one of the most influential figures in Jewish history and a central figure in the Talmud. He also summarized the Torah with his negative formulation of the Golden Rule: “That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow. That is the entire Torah! All the rest is commentary!”

Who is telling lies? Trump’s Justice Department has taken a page out of their boss’ well-worn playbook. Trump’s accusations are transparent confessions. We know that Hutchinson took career and other risks to faithfully report what she saw and heard and we also know that Trump orchestrated the assault on the capitol to undermine his election loss. He simply flips a switch and accuses rather than confesses and he has directed the (in)Justice Department to follow suit. They lack the time and resources, of course, to investigate ICE shootings and murders of American citizens.

Trump accuses the Biden administration of corruption. He replaces an accusation with what should be his confession to amassing billions in plain daylight. The vast corruption of Trump’s Era of Pornocracy^[ii] rivals the self-enrichment of Putin. It has no parallel in American history. The sampling captured in Chart One excludes the pay for play contributions to Trump’s self-adulation renovations and monuments.

Chart One

Trump plumbed new depths in his stewardship this past week. He claimed that Ukraine’s Zelensky could have ended the war “many times,” shifting responsibility from the country that invaded to the country defending itself. He then thanked Russia’s Vladimir Putin for making diesel fuel available to the United States in time, he hopes, to influence the midterm elections. He neglected to mention that, in exchange for this “generosity,” Trump directed the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) to suspend economic sanctions imposed to pressure Putin to end the war he started. Trump concluded this twisted narrative by declaring that Ukraine needs a new president. The pattern is the same: he accuses Zelensky of responsibility for a war Putin began while his own words and actions reveal where his allegiance lies. Once again, the accusation is a confession – although it is certainly true that at least one country deserves a new president.1

^[i] https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/read-the-transcripts-of-cassidy-hutchinsons-closed-door-jan-6-testimony

^[ii] Pornocracy: a system or condition of government in which holders of public power, and those who seek to purchase, court, or manipulate their influence, disregard standards of civic decency, impartial justice, and social obligation in the pursuit of private wealth, privilege, and dominion; government characterized by the shameless subordination of the common good to personal appetite and advantage. Martin Singer, 2026.

Anti-Semitism has always been low-hanging fruit on the right. In his 2016 campaign, Trump ran an ad with the intent of attracting support from white nationalists. The message: our economic problems reflect Jewish control. In addition to the televised ad, Trump gave a speech in West Palm Beach emphasizing the role of prominent Jews in controlling the global economy:

“The establishment has trillions of dollars at stake in this election…For those who control the levers of power in Washington and for the global special interests, they partner with these people that don’t have your good in mind.”

After stating this “fact” the ad goes onto show images of George Soros (liberal philanthropist), Janet Yellen (Chair of the Federal Reserve), and Lloyd Blankfein (Goldman Sachs CEO).^[i] They are all Jewish.

According to Trump “they” represents the “global power structure that is responsible for the economic decisions that have robbed our working class, stripped our country of its wealth and put that money into the pockets of a handful of large corporations and political entities.” The implication: the Jews are responsible for these calamities.

Trump’s language appealed to the KKK. Charles Bethea (New Yorker) interviewed James Zarth, who claimed to be “Grand Klaliff,” of a branch of Loyal White Knights of the Ku Klux Klan. Charles Bethea recorded Zarth saying, ““I think we now have a President with some of the same ideals.”^[ii]

Zarth, in a preview of the culture wars to come, complained that television shows used to have a “Christian moral…but now that the Jews own the majority of the media stations, they’re showing things that are against God’s law, like race-mixing and homosexuality.” He added that since Trump’s election, “people have been calling us left and right wanting to join…”

Those fretting about Michigan’s Democratic Senate candidate Abdul El Sayed’s views on Israel, might hit the pause button on their Facebook posts and consider the danger on the right. It took 3-4 seconds for Marco Rubio to throw Israel under the bus as the primary force behind the Iran “excursion” and J.D. Vance could not help himself from agreeing with Joe Rogan that there was a strong connection between the Mossad and Jeffrey Epstein. They might also reflect on who showed up for Trump to overthrow the results of the 2016 election: the Proud Boys, the Oath Keepers, and (whatever this is) the Groypers/American First led by the prominent anti-Semite, Nick Fuentes.^[iii] The Republican tent offers a comfortable home for these white nationalists.

No one should dismiss the threat of anti-Semitism and the ignorance and racism underlying the core beliefs of too many people. One might feel politically orphaned – not comfortable on either the right or left. The Stealers Wheels captured that sentiment in 1972:

Clowns to the left of me
Jokers to the right
Here I am, stuck in the middle with you^[iv]

That said, before you get comfortable with the right side of the political spectrum, let the image of an unrepentant, South African white nationalist giving a Nazi Salute burn a hole in your retina. Hail Victory aka Sieg Heil.

^[i] https://forward.com/news/351984/at-florida-rally-trump-evokes-specter-of-international-banks-and-jews-cheer/

https://www.jpost.com/diaspora/latest-trump-ad-contains-prominent-jews-in-positions-of-global-power-471874

^[ii] What a White Supremacist Told Me After Donald Trump Was Elected

By Charles Bethea

August 17, 2017

What a White Supremacist Told Me After Donald Trump Was Elected (The New Yorker)

· ^[iii] Proud Boys: A far-right, neo-fascist militant organization whose members turned out in large numbers at post-election protests and played a central coordination and leadership role in the events leading up to and during the breach of the U.S. Capitol. While leadership rejects the label of white supremacist, the group has extensive ties to white nationalist ideologies and figures. [1]

· Oath Keepers: A large anti-government militia organization whose members engaged in organized, paramilitary-style operations during the January 6 Capitol attack to obstruct the certification of the electoral vote.

· Groypers / America First: A network of white nationalist internet trolls and activists led by white supremacist Nick Fuentes, who mobilized supporters to attend the Washington, D.C., rallies to protest the election results.

^[iv][iv]

Trump has erected a Golden Calf on the White House lawn. Those who revere it seek power through money, sacrificing basic decency—health care for all, food assistance for those in need, and protection from a private military (ICE)—so that billionaires can receive tax relief and can pursue the unconstrained expansion of monopolies. Pornocrats parade through the White House, taking a dump in a gilded bathroom and doing the same on our government institutions.

What is pornocracy? It is a system or condition of government in which holders of public power, and those who seek to purchase, court, or manipulate their influence, disregard standards of civic decency, impartial justice, and social obligation in the pursuit of private wealth, privilege, and dominion; government characterized by the shameless subordination of the common good to personal appetite and advantage.

It is unsurprising that the Pornocrats who worship Golden Calves are unqualified for public service. What do they value? A democratic system of representative government? Quality of life for its citizens? Concern about our environment? Educational and vocational opportunity? Support for those who served in the military and now require health care and other assistance?

Most Americans should already know that, in the ironically entitled Big Beautiful Bill, Trump and the GOP-controlled Congress sacrificed health care benefits to fund tax cuts for the wealthiest. The top 10 percent of Americans by income received $2.3 trillion in tax relief over 10 years.

The charts below summarize what other Americans sacrificed to fund this billionaire bonanza.

What “Other” Americans Sacrificed

Pornocracy favors this imbalance. Those who have paid for power and influence receive benefits and privileges at the expense of others. In the case of health insurance, one Pornocrat, Scott Bessent, provides an object lesson in pornocracy. Bessent plays for both teams. As a Pornocrat, he benefits from rules regarding Medicare taxes, and he sets the rules.

As part of his confirmation process, we learned that he took advantage of a 1977 tax law that permitted him to treat earnings as a “non-guaranteed partnership return.” In other words, income was magically transformed into capital gains. This bit of alchemy meant that he avoided paying self-employment and Medicare taxes. Now, as Pornocrat-in-chief of the Treasury Department, he oversees the IRS and can ensure that this loophole survives any reconsideration.

Bessent’s willful disregard for the public’s welfare—and, certainly, his unwillingness to pay his fair share for that welfare—recalls James Talarico’s recent appearance on the Jimmy Kimmel Show. 1Paraphrasing portions of the New Testament, Talarico wondered what a modern-day Jesus might say about the Senate:

“For I was hungry and you cut my food assistance. I was sick and you kicked me off Medicaid. I was a stranger and you deported me and my family. And then I think he would flip over those fancy desks on the floor of the U.S. Senate and demand that we take care of all of our neighbors, especially the least of these.”

James Talarico

The separation of church and state sets necessary boundaries, but it does not require public life to be stripped of moral judgment. The story of the Golden Calf endures because it asks a timeless civic question: will a society worship wealth and power, or will it hold both accountable to justice? Pornocracy begins when private appetite becomes public policy and the vulnerable are treated as expendable. It ends only when citizens insist that government is a public trust—bound by decency, equal justice, and commitment to the common good. We can only hope that those sentiments find their way into the midterm voting booths.

How would Santayana view the war on immigrants? The original aim was to secure the border. ICE relocated the border to urban areas. Local mayors were accused of colluding with illegal immigrants and the effort to deport those with criminal records morphed into harassment of non-whites, non-English speakers, protestors and Uber and Lyft drivers. Americans were shot and killed and legal immigrants detained. Santayana would describe this as fanaticism – excessive effort without the original purpose. Chuck Jones would point out that ICE could stop anytime.

Fanaticism abounds in today’s world and, notably, in the White House. Trump and his incompetent economic advisors touted tariffs as the financial solution to underfunded social programs, the decline in U.S. factories, the trade imbalance, and our enormous budget deficit. Despite repeated failures – the U.S. had to grant refunds to business owners and the American consumer now pays more for everything – the Trump administration has doubled down on tariffs, transcending reason and fact. He launched an economic war on Canada – you know, our closest neighbor and long-time ally – because they would not become a 51^st state and, he thought, Canada would buckle. Trump renamed Lake Ontario to Lake America to let everyone know how serious he was about the trade war. Like Wily E. Coyote, Trump could stop this nonsense anytime. He would if he could clarify the purpose of his tariffs.

The War in Iran? The War on the Free Press? Renaming memorials and historic sites in Trump’s honor? Trump and his acolytes have turned into the proverbial Sorcerer’s Apprentice. They have become automatons without purpose, going faster, taking more risks and no longer guided by purpose. We bombed an Iranian nuclear storage silo and “obliterated” their nuclear capability. Yet the war, once an excursion, continued. Hegseth declared a Holy War, rather than a military action as a prelude to a new Nuclear Treaty. Now, we are part of a regional war to ensure the oil flows, not to secure regional peace. Trump threatens annihilation of Iran at the U.N. and invasion of Cuba. He angrily bans the free press from covering these re-doubled efforts. Worried that no one will remember him, he wants his name on a building where a beloved president was assassinated (the Ford Theatre)! and on a cultural institution that honors the memory of an assassinated president. Do you have an image of Trump holding several sticks of dynamite with the fuse already lit?

Trump, Hegseth, Stephen Miller, Patel, Blanche, and the entire ICE organization are the Wiley E. Coyotes of vindictive politics and aggression of choice. Santayana warned us about the fanatics who redouble their efforts while forgetting their original intent. Fortunately, Wile E. Coyote only blew himself up. We face far greater danger.

George Santayana

^[i] George Santayana, A Life of Reason, 1905

In the 10th century, powerful Roman families manipulated the Catholic Church and the papacy. Wealth, power, family ties, influence, and romantic and sexual entanglements shaped the Church’s leadership and direction. The period came to be described as a pornocracy—a term formed from the Greek pórnē, meaning “prostitute,” and krătĭ́ā, meaning “rule” or “government.”^[i] Often rendered as the “rule of harlots,” the word can also suggest a broader form of corruption: leaders who surrender public responsibility for private benefit, and influencers willing to use any means available to secure power.

The Catholic Church refers to this period as “The Dark Age” or Saeculum Obscurum.

The Modern Parallel

Just as “unprecedented” falls woefully short in its description of the current administration’s actions, customary labels fail to capture the obscene nature of Trump’s behavior and the actions of his cabinet and his financial benefactors. Oligarchy, Plutocracy, and Aristocracy do not convey the depredation of the presidency and the transparent grift and grab of the president and his family. Pornocracy better describes the government’s transformation under Trump.

Examples of Governance for Personal Gain and Fanatic Ideologies

Pornocracy is governance by those who prostitute themselves in the service of power and fame. Obscenity and outrage abound. Pardons granted in return for Trump family profit. Hand-picked lackeys suckling on Presidential nectar, grant him a legacy on another man’s memorial. We witness a Tesla auto show on the White House lawn to support a businessman doing Trump’s bidding. In a quest for influence, a Putin friend and Russian oligarch pays for the President’s son’s wedding party. Our justice department corrupted by unprincipled lawyers, thirsty for power, doing the President’s bidding: attacking political adversaries, going after universities and the press, and arresting an Olympic athlete for “sabotaging” the reflecting pool to distract the public from under the table deals with incompetent contractors.

Pornocracy aptly captures the obscenity of a Fox News talking head, taking over the Defense Department. Trump rewards Fox News with another government appointment and Fox News secures a leg up on its competition. The country gets a stooge leading the most powerful military force on the planet. Hegseth is so careless and ego-driven that he included family members and a reporter on calls about an upcoming attack. Hegseth is convinced that DEI undermines the military (damn that Colin Powell!) and that higher testosterone levels will help build a fighting force. Hegseth wrote the American Crusade—and sports tattoos (a Jerusalem Cross and “Deus Vult”) that are symbols of The Crusades. He leads prayers for “overwhelming violence of action against those who deserve no mercy” in the name of Jesus. Obscene.

Pornocracy is the only way to describe a pill-popping, former drug addict, anti-vaxxer conspiracy theorist who is financially-tied to “alternative medicines.” What does he do well? Kennedy puts children at risk. Children are dying because of Kennedy’s irresponsible and unsupported claims regarding vaccinations. He pushes raw, unpasteurized milk despite the outbreak of foodborne illnesses linked specifically to the Mark McAfee Raw Milk farms, a Kennedy and Trump supporter.^[ii] No child should die from measles and it is obscene – a deadly result of Trump’s pornocracy – that the Republican Senate confirmed an unqualified ideologue to lead Health and Human Services.

Nothing captures more clearly the pay to play Pornocracy than Jeff Bezos financing and marketing of “Melania,” a vapid box office failure that grossed $16 million against the $40 million that Bezos gave to Melania and the $35 million he invested to market the flop. An anonymous viral Craigslist ad in Boston offered free tickets plus $50 for people willing to survive a screening during opening weekend.^[iii] As Shakespeare said, “"What's in a name? That which we call a bribe/ By any other name would smell as bad?”. In a competitive Pornocracy, Bezos might be the chief Pornocrat.

The Age of Pornocracy and the Rise of Pornocrats

The media and journalists strain to describe the outrages of the era with a constant stream of stale and time-worn words and phrases. We hear the daily cadence of “unbelievable,” “unprecedented,” “outrageous,” and “offensive.” We complain about the “oligarchs,” and “plutocrats” gaining power and privilege. The descriptions fall flat. Pornocracy and “Powerful Pornocrats” might cause tongues to wag, eyes to pop, and people to experience a more visceral reaction to the corruption and obscenity of Trump’s administration. Pornocracy will be his lasting legacy. It won’t be his name on a war hero’s memorial. It will be an age etched in history books – The Trump Pornocracy - an age in which democracy dimmed.

^[i] The pornocracy (also known as the saeculum obscurum or “dark age”) was a 60-year period in the 10th century from 904 to 964 AD when the Roman Catholic papacy was heavily controlled by a powerful and corrupt aristocratic family, the Theophylacti.

^[ii] https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/health/raw-milk-intensifies-illness-outbreaks-scientists-warnings/4076743/

^[iii] https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/know-craigslist-ad-offering-people-140000408.html

Wiener’s warning was not simply that powerful creations can escape their makers. His deeper insight was that creators often confuse technical success with moral control: they may bring a system into being, but they cannot guarantee that it will continue to serve the human purposes that justified its creation. That concern helps explain why Wiener turned to the Golem: an ancient story in which the act of creation immediately becomes a problem of command, obedience, and restraint.

Although his parents kept secret his Jewish identity, Wiener traced his paternal ancestry to prominent European scholars, rabbis and, incredibly to the 12^th century philosopher, rabbi and physician, Moses Maimonides.^[ii] Secret or not, his connection to Jewish folklore informed his views on the relationship between creator and the created. He relied upon the legend of the Golem to convey the potential dangers of creating powerful forces. The Golem, a mythical creature – a giant android – could be brought to life by the incantations of a mystical rabbi to defend the Jews during a crisis. Invulnerable with super-human strength it pursued without thought the destruction of those that threatened the Jewish community. Ultimately, the Golem grew too powerful and the destruction devolved into indiscriminate violence. The rabbi who created the Golem erased the “e” from “emet” (truth) written on monster’s forehead, changing the word to “met” (death), the rabbi’s magical circuit-breaker destroyed the Golem.^[iii]

Cautionary tales about human overreach preceded and followed the story of the Golem. Pygmalion, Frankenstein, the Sorcerer’s Apprentice, and the whimsical “My Fair Lady” all speak to the creator’s responsibility and imperfect control.^[iv]

In reflecting on these cautionary stories (secular and religious), Norbert challenges the reader with paradoxes dismissed as cognitive parlor games. He asks, “Can God create a rock which (s)he cannot move?” The paradox illuminates the limits of creation. Ask anyone who created a teenager. Are humans the rock that God cannot move? Douglas Hofstadter in Gödel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid (1979), introduced the fictional dialog, “Contracrostipunctus” that describes destructive conflict between the perfect phonograph that can play any note and the record that has a note, that if faithfully played, can create a vibration that destroys the phonograph. Hofstadter’s dialog examines the uncertainty principle – one limit of creation – while Wiener’s paradox reveals the limit of a creator’s control.

Absence of control and uncertainty cross secular and religious boundaries. Consider creation. For the religious, humankind comes pre-packaged, the consequence of a divine 6 day plan to populate the earth, not an evolutionary process. Providence, though, having created all that exists, enjoys little control over human behavior as portrayed in liturgy or history. And the secular? A big bang spews cosmic dust and hurtles orbs throughout the universe. Unpredictable zones support life, and single cells coalesce over eons. Cells morph into organs as intricate as eyeballs, brains, and hearts. The outcome? We will find out but “control” describes neither the process nor what has evolved. Neither religion or science can lay claim to predicting outcomes for what has been created.

Norbert Wiener famously said, “render unto man the things which are man’s and unto the computer the things which are the computer’s.” Perhaps that is where we begin. Humans get to ask the questions, “Is there AI code that an AI system cannot control?” or “Is there AI code that can vibrate so violently that it destroys the fabric of the AI engine?” Can processing speed governors be embedded into the AI CPU’s? Perhaps there are questions that we should explore, secreting away the answers from artificial eyes and ears, to provide the guardrails to a force that we must control. We have international standards bodies that govern communication, data products and a wide range of electronics.^[v] AI industry giants and government bodies could lead implementation of such controls. There must be modern day equivalents to the mystical rabbi who erased the “e” from “emet” (truth) to “met” (death) on the Golem’s forehead. Let’s find them before we discover, like Icarus, that we have flown to close to the sun.

^[i] Joseph Lappin, Professor Emeritus, Vanderbilt University

^[ii] Maimonides is noted for “A guide for the Perplexed” and his legal writings which are prominent in the Talmud. He also served as the Egyptian Sultan’s court physician.

^[iii] Read more about the origin of the Golem legend: https://www.history.com/articles/golem-legend-jewish-folklore-bible

^[iv] Wiener’s reference to the Golem offers more than commentary on uncontrolled products of human innovation. The biblical origin of “golem” describes the creation of Adam. The mystical rabbi forms his Golem out of clay from the river; God creates Adam from the dust of the earth. Adam reflects on his creation in Psalm 139:16:

“Thine eyes,” he says to God, “did see my golem” (Heb. golmi), my unformed embryo, its limbs not yet fashioned, lying in the dark depths of the Earth. You cared about me and attended to my needs before I was even a fully formed human being.”^[iv]

^[v]  International Telecommunication Union (ITU): A specialized agency of the United Nations that manages global telecommunications, radio spectrum allocations, and telephone numbering plans. Its ITU-T sector handles telecommunication wiring and protocols, while ITU-R manages wireless and radio frequencies. [1, 2]

 International Organization for Standardization (ISO): An independent, non-governmental international network of national standards bodies. It partners with the IEC through joint committees (like ISO/IEC JTC 1) to govern core IT, data storage, and information security frameworks. [1, 2, 3]

 International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC): A leading global organization that prepares and publishes international standards for all electrical, electronic, and related technologies

In the Trumpian school of idolatry and self-adulation, names represent unique branding opportunities waiting for a political or gold-plated veneers. Anything that sounds too old, too foreign, too academic, or insufficiently glittery can be rescued by relabeling it “American,” “Trump,” or, in emergencies, “White.” Geography loses boundaries and history, institutions their meaning, and culture bows to presidential overreach.

Lake America née Ontario and Gulf of America née Mexico are low-hanging fruit. To prime the sump pump for Trump, my associates have provided several naming opportunities for his consideration. To the Substack and Facebook readers, please flex your cynical and creative muscles and offer your assistance to Trump’s quest for a labeling legacy.. Have fun.

Note: After two somewhat heavy essays on Israel, anti-Semitism, and the arguments for moral pluralism, I needed a break. Stuff like re-naming bodies of water, states, and memorials makes for easy satire and opportunity to laugh rather than cry.

Isaiah Berlin exposed the paucity – and betrayal - of political philosophies dominated by a single, dominant moral principle.^[ii] For example, Berlin takes aim at Kant’s concept that rational beings will abide by shared universal moral rules. Disagreement with “rational Law” disqualifies one’s perspective. Berlin’s question? What happens when others lay claim to the “true” universal moral code? Raskolnikov’s dream in the epilogue of Crime and Punishment provides a glimpse.

“The whole world was condemned to a terrible new strange plague that had come to Europe from the depths of Asia. All were to be destroyed except a very few chosen. Some new sorts of microbes were attacking the bodies of men, but these microbes were endowed with intelligence and will. Men attacked by them became at once mad and furious. But never had men considered themselves so intellectual and so completely in possession of the truth as these sufferers, never had they considered their decisions, their scientific conclusions, their moral convictions so infallible. Whole villages, whole towns and people went mad from the infection. All were excited and did not understand one another. Each thought that he alone had the truth and was wretched looking at the others, beat himself on the breast, wept, and wrung his hands. They did not know how to judge and could not agree what to consider evil and what good; they did not know whom to blame, whom to justify. Men killed each other in a sort of senseless spite.”

Berlin takes on the key philosophical offenders responsible for Raskolnikov’s nightmare. They were drawn to the concept of a dominant principle, a clarifying moral code, or a single unifying principle. The magnetism of absolutes trapped them all in a black hole of intolerance.

Berlin proposed, instead, a moral pluralism. Equally valid and compelling moral imperatives drive political and social structures through debate, elections, and compromise. Unfettered individual freedom must come to grips with the need for order and safety. Control over one’s body and health compete with the collective interest of preventing disease or the termination of life. Border security competes with the value of ambitious, hard-working immigrants. Berlin argued that we must recognize the “messiness” of weighing the merits of equally valid moral imperatives. Humans must sort this out in a stew of opinion, biases, expert opinions, economic and political impact, and cultural disparity.

Berlin supplies the philosophical frame; Ari Shavit supplies the tragic case study of the Middle East. Shavit attempts to explain the destructive conflict between Israel and its Palestinian adversaries in the context of moral pluralism.^[iii] Shavit argues that a Jewish state made possible the survival of secular Judaism in the wake of unspeakable destruction. This accomplishment, however, took place on land already occupied by others. Arab communities lost homes and autonomy when the world gave birth to Israel. Did Arabs have a valid, moral claim to their land and generational homes? Of course. Did Jews who survived the Holocaust deserve a safe homeland and a return to their ancestral land? Yes. Hence, the tragedy of choice.

Shavit recounts the horror of this endless conflict and the hardening of both groups. Competing moral claims played out on the pitch of an ethnically charged land dispute. Since the 1930’s, the conflict has claimed thousands of lives, displaced millions of people and spawned terrorist violence by renegade states and their proxies. In the U.S., many conflate Zionism with colonialism while others see Palestinians as terrorists. Strident voices carry the debate, while hate and fear make impossible any progress towards peace. Raskolnikov’s dream describes the Middle East nightmare. Are we trapped in this nightmare or can we wake up?

There have been moments where leadership replaced blind advocacy. Anwar Sadat and Menachem Begin, long-term adversaries, set aside moral absolutism for the pragmatism of peace. Guided by President Carter, Israel ceded land for peace and recognition. They traded economic interests instead of exchanging fire. Sadat forfeited his life. Extremists on his side of the fence would not abide by a world of moral pluralism.

Sadat, Carter, and Begin

Yitzhak Rabin and King Hussein negotiated a similar compromise. Jordan’s borders were expanded and formalized and Israel’s statehood was recognized. President Clinton committed resources. Again, a great leader sacrificed his life. An Israeli zealot, committed to a moral absolute, gunned down Rabin.

Rabin, Hussein, Sadat and Begin were credible leaders who governed - albeit in different ways - their constituencies. They had a political base and the authority to consider the moral pluralism required to envision a peaceful future. Carter and Clinton helped guide visionary leaders to a place where competing moral principles could co-exist in the interest of a shared future.

These conditions no longer exist. Iran sponsors terrorist surrogates with illegitimate claims to political power in Gaza. Hezbollah hijacked Lebanon. The Houthis, acting as a regional proxy for Iran, expanded across the Red Sea into Sudan. Netanyahu systematically undermined the Palestinian Authority by funneling Qatari and other resources to Hamas-controlled Gaza. Hamas demonstrated their appreciation by massacring 1200 civilians so that they could disrupt the growing Saudi and UAE acceptance of Israel. The Netanyahu regime coddles brutal and racist West Bank settlers who harass Palestinian communities and show little regard for civilian life in Gaza. His religious-right cabinet members support the expulsion of Arabs from “biblical” lands. They all have concluded that war will establish the supremacy of their moral absolutes.

They ignore the success of attempting to resolve competing moral claims. Egypt and Israel agreed to peaceful co-existence just four years after the October 1973 war. Lifelong adversaries abandoned the absolutism of “we are right; you are wrong” to “we are both right” - just not exclusively. That acknowledgement created a space of new possibilities.

The practical path is regional, not bilateral: Arab recognition and support, Israeli territorial compromise, Palestinian political legitimacy and Israeli security guarantees must move together. As Rahm Emanuel argues, the Middle East is the playing field, not the tiny swath of land that includes both Israel and the two Palestinian enclaves.^[iv]

The success of any plan, however, must begin where moral absolutism ends: with the recognition that both people possess legitimate, enduring claims. Israel’s claim rests not only on ancient attachment to the land, but on the modern necessity of Jewish security and self-determination after centuries of persecution and annihilation. The Palestinian claim rests on the equally compelling facts of rooted communities, dispossession, occupation, and the denial of political sovereignty. Isaiah Berlin would tell us that any workable settlement must refuse the false comfort of declaring one claim righteous and the other fraudulent. It must instead create a structure in which both claims can survive: secure and recognized borders for Israel, meaningful sovereignty and economic viability for Palestinians, the disarmament of terrorist organizations, restraints on settlement expansion and removal of illegal settlements, regional guarantees from Arab states, and international support – for example, U.S. military support - tied to coexistence.

War is a failure of imagination. Peace is the only way to end this conflict. That peace would disappoint tribal leaders who see the world through a parochial lens of moral certainty. It would honor, though, the pluralist truth at the center of the conflict: each side must accept that the other’s story is real, painful, and morally legitimate.

^[i] AI Overview: Isaiah Berlin’s concept of the “tragedy of choice” arises from his core philosophical belief in value pluralism—the idea that fundamental human values (like liberty, equality, justice, and tradition) are multiple, genuine, and often fundamentally incompatible with one another.

What Makes a Choice “Tragic”?

· Incommensurability: According to Berlin, human values cannot be neatly ranked on a single scale or harmonized into a utopian final solution. Because they are incommensurable (meaning they share no common standard of measurement), choosing one good often means permanently sacrificing another. [1, 2, 3, 4]

· Inevitable Loss: A tragic choice is not simply a difficult decision with a bad outcome; it occurs when every available path requires sacrificing a core moral commitment. For instance, one cannot live a life of total uncompromised security while simultaneously maintaining absolute individual liberty or radical artistic freedom. [1]

· Rational Regret: Because the path not taken possessed genuine, unrecoverable worth, deep regret remains a completely rational and honest human response—even when an agent makes the absolute best possible decision under the circumstances. [1]

The Danger of Utopianism

Berlin argued that the great political slaughters and fanaticisms of history often stem from the dangerous illusion that a society can achieve a final, harmonious state where all good things coexist without friction. Believing in a “final solution” to human conflict justifies sacrificing real living people today for an abstract, perfect tomorrow. [1, 2, 3]

The Burden of Freedom

For Berlin, accepting the tragedy of choice is essential to safeguarding human freedom. It strips away the comfort of historical guarantees or cosmic certainties, leaving us with the sober responsibility of recognizing that our moral and political decisions carry real, unmitigated costs. True maturity, in Berlin’s view, means having the courage to live with that complexity rather than surrendering to totalizing ideologies that promise a world without trade-offs.

^[ii] Berlin, Isaiah. Freedom and Its Betrayal, Princeton University Press, Second Edition, 2001.

^[iii] Shavit, Ari. My Promised Land: The Triumph and Tragedy of Israel, Random House, 2013.

^[iv] In Israel, Rahm Emanuel Calls for End of Unconditional U.S. Support, July 7, 2026, New York Times.

The former Chicago mayor, a Democrat exploring a 2028 presidential run, delivered a speech in Tel Aviv that was sharply critical of Benjamin Netanyahu.

Netanyahu’s militaristic government and a cabinet epitomized by Israel’s national security minister Itamar Ben Gvir, have greased the skids to a world of blood libels and conspiracy. Ben Gvir openly supports “relocating” Palestinians and, as the national security minister, he supports the vigilante actions of settlers in the West Bank. Netanyahu is the personification of a hammer for which every problem is a nail and the poster boy for anti-Semitic tropes about Jews controlling international affairs.

On the left, Netanyahu gifted a populist, anti-Semitic campaign theme to Chicago’s Mayor, Brandon Johnson. Chicago has problems, according to Johnson, because there is a “straight line” connecting the support for Israel’s “genocide” and inadequate funding for Chicago’s minority communities. ^[i] On the right, Joe Rogan, in his interview with Vice-President Vance, asked Vance about the connection between Epstein and the Mossad. Vance’s response? “Yeah, Mossad or C.I.A., or some other deep state, whether in America or Israel or another country,”^[ii]

The dangerous conflation of anti-Israel sentiment and anti-Semitic belief systems propels long-held conspiracy theories regarding pernicious “global control” over governments, finance and the media. Trump himself aired a television ad in 2016 that discussed a powerful global network undermining sovereign nations and showed images of three prominent Jews.^[iii] There are six health care lobbyists for every member of Congress that destroy access to low-cost insurance and medical services. They are legitimate but not AIPAC, according to the conflators. For them, AIPAC is an omnipotent and shadowy organization that controls international policies. The accusation of “genocide” sets aside the war crime of establishing military infrastructure under hospitals and schools but succeeds in equating Israeli military actions with the Holocaust – a transparent attempt to undermine a primary factor in the creation of an Israeli state.

Conflation, however, has a flip side. There are some within the Jewish community who interpret any criticism of Israel as anti-Semitic. One hears arguments such as “Oh, it’s not anti-Semitism but it just happens that Israel is a Jewish state?” For others, “the world already hated us. This gives them an excuse. They cannot deal with the concept of Jews who fight back.” Finally, “Assad killed 600,000 people along ethnic lines, there is an active annihilation of non-Arabs in Darfur,1 Hamas and the Taliban kill anyone not abiding by religious law, but it is Israel that stands accused of genocide. Why is that? It is because we are Jewish.”

Conflators offer simple explanations and theories. They are short on solutions. Their respective perspectives see the world through a pin-hole, narrowed by tribal biases and distrust. They see Hamas versus Israel, Jews and Muslims, and a land dispute. They see the war crime of shielding military infrastructure with civilians, or they see the displacement and killing of thousands of civilians, but not both. They see no path forward other than continued conflict.

Dwight Eisenhower once said, “Whenever I run into a problem I can’t solve, I always make it bigger. I can never solve it by trying to make it smaller, but if I make it big enough, I can begin to see the outlines of a solution.”

In this instance – conflict in the Middle East - the point of making the problem bigger is not to evade moral judgment but to escape the narrow tribal frame that makes judgment a substitute for strategy. If the conflict is viewed only as Israel versus Hamas, or Jews versus Muslims, every argument becomes a test of loyalty and every proposal is trapped inside accusation. Expanding the frame to include the region’s governments, security interests, economic incentives, and shared fear of instability creates room for a political solution that neither side, left alone, can produce.

Rahm Emanuel, in his recent speech in Tel Aviv, expanded the problem. ^[iv] He urged Israeli leaders and others to think regionally – the entire Middle East – rather than locally. Israel and Hamas are enemy combatants with absolutely no ability to reach a peaceful settlement. Their neighbors, however, along with the United States and others have the resources and economic power to impose a peace.

Emanuel proposed a 23-state solution that engages the 21 countries in the Arab League, Israel and representatives of a future Palestinian state. The Arab League countries want regional security and share concerns about Iran’s nuclear ambitions. They want to modernize the region while protecting sources of revenue, e.g., oil. The 21 Arab states would recognize Israel and Israel would accept a roadmap to a two-state solution. A NATO-like consortium would provide governance for the future Palestinian state, removing Hamas’ political authority. Emanuel called for an end to unqualified U.S. military support for Israel and contemplated Israel under different leadership.

For the region to move forward, Israel might take its guidance from David Ben-Gurion.^[v] Ben-Gurion delivered Israel’s Declaration of Independence on May 14, 1948. He served as Israel’s first Prime Minister and many view him as the “Father of the Nation.” Ben-Gurion presented his fellow Zionists with a political “trilemma.” Israel, Ben-Gurion argued, could only choose two out of three goals – Democracy, A Jewish State, and all the disputed land and territory. If they annexed all the land and its people, they could be a Jewish state or a democracy but not both. If they aspired to be both a Jewish state and a democracy, they must cede lands to the Arabs who had lived in the region for generations. To absorb all the land would require subjugation to establish a Jewish state. Alternatively, absorbing the land and establishing a democracy would abandon the goal of building a Jewish state.

Israel Only Gets Two out of Three

David Ben-Gurion

Rahm Emanuel’s 23-state solution, grounded in Ben-Gurion’s trilemma, offers a way out of the sterile arguments of the conflators on both sides. It replaces accusation with strategy, tribal certainty with political realism, and endless moral indictment with a practical framework for peace. If Israel can accept that it gets only two out of three, and their regional neighbors recognize the reality of Israel’s statehood, then the region can begin to imagine something more durable than permanent conflict.

^[i] On August 13, 2026, Mayor Brandon Johnson appeared on Jamal Bryant’s “Let’s Be Clear” podcast out of Atlanta, GA. During his interview, Mayor Johnson falsely accused Israel of genocide and blamed U.S. aid to Israel for insufficient funding to help at-risk Black and Brown communities in Chicago. When posting the interview on his social media, Mayor Johnson wrote, “There is a direct line between federal dollars that are taken out of Black communities and used to pay for bombing brown and Black people around the globe.”

^[ii] New York Times, “Yeah, Mossad or C.I.A., or some other deep state, whether in America or Israel or another country,” July 21, 2026.

^[iii]  he ad’s voiceover featured Trump stating, “The establishment has trillions of dollars at stake in this election... For those who control the levers of power in Washington and for the global special interests, they partner with these people that don’t have your good in mind.” [1]

 The Visuals: As the audio mentioned “control the levers of power” and “global special interests,” the video displayed photographs of billionaire investor George Soros, then-Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen, and Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein. [1, 2]

^[iv] The “23-State Solution” Overview

· Regional Integration: The plan brings together Israel, Palestinian representatives, and all 21 members of the Arab League into a single collective regional framework. [1, 2]

· Arab World Responsibility: It leverages the Arab League’s desire for regional security and economic modernization, pushing Arab nations to take greater ownership of Palestinian governance, economic development, and ending incitement or financial backing for violence. [1, 2]

· Self-Determination and Security: The proposal intends to grant Palestinians state sovereignty and self-determination while requiring them and regional bodies to officially accept the historic Jewish connection to the land and renounce terrorism. [1, 2]

· Reciprocal Constraints: Emanuel noted the plan requires Israel to stop unilateral actions in the West Bank that undermine peace, while the 21 Arab League members would grant Israel full diplomatic recognition. [1]

Key Criticisms and Context

· Scathing Critique of Netanyahu: Emanuel sharply criticized Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, arguing that his military-focused policies have turned Israel from a praised “start-up nation” into a “territorial pariah” and isolated the country diplomatically from Europe and global academic circles. [1, 2, 3]

· U.S. Support and Changing Tides: He warned that unconditional U.S. support is straining ties and that global public opinion—particularly among younger demographics in the U.S. and Europe—is shifting away from Israel. [1, 2, 3]

· Condemnation of Hamas: Emanuel firmly condemned the October 7 Hamas attacks and denounced violence against Jewish people

^[v] Home Regions Middle East & North Africa Israel

Israel’s Impending Demographic Reality

https://fpa.org/israels-impending-demographic-reality/

Remember being taught that saying something louder than everyone else doesn’t improve your point? Chris Nolan missed that day in forensics. Thankfully, the bland cinematography in shades of gray gave my eyes a rest. Closing them during the gratuitous scenes of graphic violence provided an additional respite.

Yes, yes, yes…Nolan had a point to make. We must confront the violence and horrors of current events. If not, we will be doomed, if not by the Greek gods, but by a future in which our children and grandchildren condemn us. Like Odysseus, the “heroism” and “military efficiency” of murdering enemies -the massacre of civilians at a music festival, launching attacks while negotiating treaties, indiscriminate bombing of civilians alongside combatants, disrespecting the environment - will morph into regret and unintended consequences.

Nolan’s muddled message takes center stage in the penultimate scene. Odysseus works out his guilt in a confession to Penelope. He recites his many acts of violence in a weirdly monotonic monologue. Athena appears to approve and, then, as a palate cleanser, he kills his enemies. In Nolan’s version, Odysseus’ expiation pleases the gods and they allow him to begin anew, killing 50 or so men before his self-imposed exile. In the “real” Odyssey, Odysseus kills all of the suitors and takes the throne. He never goes into exile. He takes the throne unrepentant. In the real story and years later, one of Odysseus’ other sons (Telegonus) actually kills Odysseus, mistaking him for a raider. Same old, same old. The capacity to make hasty, reckless decisions is a family trait, a congenital curse.

Nolan bludgeons his audience but he never really hits the nail on the head, no matter how big his hammer. He creates a fictional version of a fictional, mythological character and attempts to deliver a message of hope for the future.

If nothing else, Nolan’s deeply flawed, ear-damaging epic caused me to remember others who have written about the failure to change course, to effect change before political and social institutions crumble and a new, frightening world emerges. George Saunders, in “Love Letter,” counsels his beloved grandson – now an adult – to cautiously evaluate his options before intervening in the unjust detention of a girlfriend, a victim of an authoritarian United States justice system that evolved from dramatic changes made post 2016. It is a letter of regret but also an attempt to rationalize his own inaction. At the end, though, he acknowledges that there is no time left for him to confront the system crushing their lives but he worries only about the safety of his grandson. He asks his grandson, “What would you have done? I know what you will say: you would have fought. But how? How would you have fought? Recognition, Regret, but no Reform.1

Saunders made his point with a thumbtack, sharp, penetrating, and precise. Nolan contorted a myth into a chaotic life lesson, filled with horror, disingenuous regret and ear drum-damaging violence. Perhaps the pen is mightier than the sword.

Every day the Brat of the Beltway wants more. The latest outrage? He is selling insider information. Trump owns Trump Social, America’s version of Pravda. Trump’s curated views entertain his fans and excoriate his political enemies. In addition, he tells the public what he might do at home and abroad. He offers predictions on non-war excursions such as bombing other countries. People use this information to place bets on prediction markets, buying and selling stocks and bonds or just for edgy parlor games.

All that sounds un-presidential and very Veruca Salt-ic: “They won’t open the straits? I will end their civilization! I want the straits opened now!”

It gets worse. He is offering early delivery of market-altering information to those willing to pay $100,000 to get a leg up (or a bet down) on the prediction and other markets.

Let’s pause for a moment. Imagine a CEO who plans to speak to a group of investors at a financial conference. Suppose that two hours prior to her presentation, she offers a peek at the updated performance of her publicly-held company – if they pay her $100,000. How would the Board of Directors react? All other investors? The SEC under any administration other than our current one? She would certainly lose her job and, possibly, go to jail. Maybe next to Ghislaine.

Presidents used to have parents of sorts. The Justice Department or the SEC could intervene. Congress could initiate impeachment hearings and appoint a Special Counsel. Voters used to care about blatant corruption. Not so much these days. The Oompa Loompas know the answer:

Who do you blame when your President’s a Brat?

If no one says “You can’t do that!

Blaming him really isn’t fair –

(he told us who he was)

It’s the voters who just didn’t care.

Trump and those in Congress casting a blind eye at his transparent transgressions need to be voted out of office. Millions suffer while a Putinesque-Trump lines his pockets and transfers wealth to the wealthy. Broad issues must take center stage and many of us must lower the temperature on emotional issues that divide us. Perfect cannot be the enemy of good if we want to flip the Senate and Congress.^[ii]

^[i][i] Oompa Loompas:
Oompa Loompa doompadee doo
I’ve got another puzzle for you
Oompa Loompa doompadah dee
If you are wise you will listen to me

Who do you blame when your kid is a brat
Pampered and spoiled like a Siamese cat?
Blaming the kids is a lion of shame
You know exactly who’s to blame:
The mother and the father!

^[ii] Previously I had written that I would have trouble supporting Abdul El-Sayed because of his position on Israel and his apparent disregard of the horrors that Syria, Iran and others have committed. Alas, he is imperfect but on core issues he is light years ahead of any Trump supporter. I must take my own advice: good cannot be the enemy of perfect and it would be very good to flip the Senate.

King Tut -
Buried with a donkey. He’s my favorite honky!

The reason? I cannot get my head around the apathetic response to Trump’s abject corruption, self-dealing, pocket lining, and arm-twisting of patrons for “contributions.” Republican senators’ support for the longer-term protection scheme around his family’s feeding frenzy, panhandling, and tax dodging has rightly earned the moniker, “Hospice for the terminally spineless.”

But, still, why the apathy? Previously, I pointed out the Kellyanne Conway explanation: People react to what affects them, not offends them. That Trump’s grifts benefit him offends many but they fail to see any personal loss. Some stick to the rationale that we elected a “businessman” not a politician and getting rich by any means confirms their impression. There is no cognitive dissonance.

Steve Martin, though, might have the right answer. For the MAGA faithful, Trump is their favorite honky. Worried about the loss of demographic dominance to “others?” Their favorite honky opens the immigration flood gates to white South African who suffer in a post-apartheid country. Want more immigrants from nicer, whiter countries like Denmark, Norway, Finland and Sweden? Your favorite honky says so out loud! Worried about the Great Replacement Theory? Your favorite honky stops brown people at the border and has ICE agents harassing and killing those with darker skin tones. Hispanic singers at the Super Bowl? Trump offers up the honky-est alternative half-time show imaginable.

DEI at the Department of War? Hegseth the Hedgehog is fixing that. High-ranking positions available? Black generals need not apply. Women can apply but only if they bulk up with testosterone.

When Trump’s your favorite honky, policy takes a back seat to cultural assaults on the honky demographic. Costs are higher, we have a six-month excursion in Iran, Trump got a free plane that we paid for, he is getting richer, we are a bit poorer, and we lost our health care. But to the faithful, none of that matters as much as the refrain: “He’s our favorite honky!” It is the organizing principle for inexplicable political loyalty.

Few seem to care. Some argue that Trump gets away with the blatant scamming of America because – hold your nose – he is “transparent” about his self-aggrandizing behavior. Maybe. Kellyanne Conway, though, offered a better explanation long ago. In explaining away the absence of consequences for Trump’s “I grab them by the pussy” in the Access Hollywood video, Conway explained that people do not react to that which offends them, but what affects them.

Kellyanne would point out that it is the wrong chart if the goal were to touch a nerve with the reading public. The New York Times chart is useful as evidence of corruption, but it is rhetorically limited because it asks readers to be outraged by someone else’s gain. That kind of chart can confirm what many already believe about Trump, yet still leave the average voter emotionally detached: the money is his, the grift is complex, and the victim unclear. It’s a punch that doesn’t leave an emotional bruise.

A chart of public losses would be more powerful because it reverses the point of view. Instead of asking, “How much did Trump make?” it asks, “What did Americans give up so that this administration and its allies could profit?” When the bars show higher consumer prices from tariffs, lost health insurance, reduced food assistance, threatened prescription drug subsidies, diminished support for veterans, and higher fuel costs, the story stops being merely about scandal and becomes about household survival. It translates corruption from a moral offense into a balance-sheet injury. A chart identifying meaningful losses would carry more political force: it does not simply expose greed at the top; it measures the cost imposed on everyone else.^[i]

The Losers in Trump World

The picture comes into sharper focus when Trump’s self-dealing wealth growth is paired with the tax cuts he pushed through for the wealthiest Americans and corporations. The 2025 tax law makes the core bargain harder to miss: large benefits flow upward, while the costs are shifted downward through cuts to Medicaid, SNAP, ACA subsidies, and other public support. In other words, the corruption is not only what Trump and his allies take for themselves; it is what everyone else is asked to give up.

Who benefits, and who pays, under the 2025 Trump tax law

Trump’s ambition for a gold-plated legacy with his curated NIL (Name Image Logo) assault on American monuments, money, and toilets costs all of us. It is offensive. It wounds the soul and exhausts our sense of outrage. The outrage, though, fails to connect the dots – the straight line from financial stability and health to Trump’s excesses and tax reduction for the wealthy. Until Americans recognize that Trump’s corruption and coddling of the wealthy affects us - demonizing those with need and lionizing those with greed – we are angry but impotent rather than energized and effective.

What human cost will we have to pay to jolt Americans? This week we found out that the United States has recorded the highest number of measles infections since 1991 and we have five more months to get sicker. Kennedy’s Health and Human Services (HHS) slashed billions in federal public health grants that funded local clinics delivering measles vaccinations, but billionaires got tax breaks and Trump earned over $2 billion. Do you feel affected or just offended?

^[i]  Tax Foundation, Joint Economic Committee minority estimate, and AP News for tariff-cost estimates. [taxfoundation.org], [jec.senate.gov], [apnews.com]

 KFF, CBO, and CBPP for Medicaid/ACA coverage and federal health-spending cuts. [kff.org], [cbo.gov], [cbpp.org]

 CMS and recent reporting on the Part D premium stabilization demonstration for prescription drug subsidy context. [cms.gov], [247wallst.com]

 ITEP, CNBC, and OilPrice.com for Iran-war fuel and energy-cost estimates. [itep.org], [cnbc.com], [oilprice.com]

 VA budget materials, Congressional Research Service, and Stars and Stripes for VA funding figures. [department.va.gov], [congress.gov], [stripes.com]

 CBO, CBO SNAP dynamic analysis, and CBPP for SNAP cuts and participation losses.

Indeed, the almost soothing reprimand of “inappropriate” allowed it to morph into an oft-used explanation of repulsive behavior. Convicted serial sex offender Larry Nassar, an Assistant Professor at Michigan State University who served as the team physician for the women’s gymnastics team and other athletes, wrote a letter to the judge characterizing his decades of criminal sexual assaults as “inappropriate behavior.” When Melania was asked about her husband’s comments that he “grabbed women by the pussy,” she told CNN that, “I said to my husband that, you know, the language was inappropriate.” She really laid into him.

Witness now the new generation of whitewashing wordsmiths. Unprecedented traditionally referred to that which we found exceptional or innovative and novel. It could be used as an adjective to amplify the goodness or badness of something: unprecedented athletic performance by Ohtani; unprecedented success in some field or unprecedented corruption (think Bernie Madoff).

Now, however, ‘unprecedented’ is treated as the whole verdict, not as a modifier attached to the actual offense. Trump scams the public and it stands alone, not as a modifier of an action. The $2.2 billion gained through his crypto-con is simply “unprecedented.” The media stops short of “unprecedented corruption” or an “unprecedented Ponzi Scheme.” It is just unprecedented. Is Trump is an innovator? He engineered an “unprecedented” mechanism to defraud millions of investors.

Trump assassinates a head of state. It is unprecedented. He puts his image on currency and passports. Unprecedented. He graffiti-trashes the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts with his name. Unprecedented. He demolishes parts of the White House and asks oligarchs to pay for the renovation in return for favors. Unprecedented. He sends agents to Georgia to pursue baseless claims about rigged elections. Unprecedented. He sells presidential pardons.

Do you think that Trump shrinks from being referred to as “unprecedented?” For him, it is a badge of honor. How many times have we heard Trump bloviate “No one has ever seen anything like it before”?

Is the media going to revert to “inappropriate” ala Larry Nassar? Is granting Bezos preferred status for providing data centers to the government in return for a Melania Mocumentary payday inappropriate? That would really make Trump sweat.

It is time for blunt clarity. Bezos bribed Trump. Trump scammed investors. Trump illegally trades stock on insider information and sells pardons in return for political and financial support. He ignores the courts and tramples the Constitution. “Inappropriate” sugarcoats the outrage and “unprecedented” sounds like a potential Oscar category. Enough.

Trump’s attention to this matter was notable. He was in the middle of promoting Dell stock at an oval office news conference, forcing Trump to take time away from this important event that had financial implications for his investment portfolio. He was unable to call Putin to implore him to stop the bombing in Kyiv as there was a time conflict with his FIFA call. Shots and shells are flying in the Straits of Hormuz – which is not a war but a small operation – but, again, he had no time to devote that conflict in the face of a goal-counting scandal.

It is unclear if FIFA will, again, bend the knee and honor Trump’s request. FIFA had previously reversed the red card penalty imposed on Folarin Balogun, an injustice far greater than Putin’s invasion and bombing of Ukraine and more important than the ongoing hostilities in the Middle East.

All kidding aside, Americans were grateful for Trump’s interference in a sporting event. While he added to the time that he spends NOT doing his job, he only degraded America’s global image. He did not invade another country, annex Greenland, assassinate another country’s leader, announce new tariffs, or have another lunch with an anti-Semite at Mar-a-Lago. Americans did wonder, however, if they could exchange a Red Card for the Get of Jail Free Card that Trump wheedled out of the Justice Department. Hope springs eternal.

In 1950, Alan Turing authored his seminal paper on the advent of Artificial Intelligence (AI) entitled Computing Machinery and Intelligence.[i] In that paper, he defined a procedure for determining if a machine had intelligence. Originally called “The Imitation Game” the procedure required a judge to pose a question – blindly – to a human and a machine. If the judge could not discern a difference, the machine was deemed intelligent. The Turing Test became the gold standard in early AI experiments.

Could we flip the switch on the Turing Test: A Reverse Turing Test that identifies an intelligence vacuum? Could the judge pose the question and determine if the human had intelligence comparable to AI? For example, suppose a judge would blindly ask Google’s AI Summary and Donald Trump a straightforward question: “Did the U.S. wage war against Iran?” and awaited a response that could be judged on accuracy, coherency, and clarity. What would the judge conclude?

Imagine the judge listening carefully to the machine generated speech from the computer and from the “human.” He repeats the question with a time span for clarity:

Judge: Did the U.S. wage war against Iran in the past year?

AI Response: Yes, the U.S. fought a major military campaign against Iran. Beginning on February 28, 2026, the U.S. and Israel launched coordinated airstrikes targeting Iranian leadership, nuclear sites, and military infrastructure. After extensive combat operations, hostilities paused following a memorandum of understanding (MoU), though intermittent skirmishes and tit-for-tat strikes have occasionally occurred.

Trump Response: It’s both a “war” and a “little excursion”…it’s an operation for the U.S., but “for them it’s a war”. It’s also a “short-term excursion” that is “a necessary action” because it turned out to be “easier than we thought” for our military.

Unsurprisingly, the judge determined that the first response suggested intelligence, the second did not. Indeed, the judge described the unintelligent answer as evasive and internally contradictory. When discovering that the second response was Trump’s, he uttered, “Turing never thought it would be so easy for a computer to appear intelligent. He might be upset, though, that there was no ‘imitation’ in the Imitation Game. The human was supposed to be the yardstick.”

To fairly implement the Turing Test, questions must be asked across a broad spectrum of human activity and concerns. The economy, and the machine’s ability to explain complex interactions between multiple variables, qualifies as a suitable discipline to test the machine’s intelligence. Tariffs have been in the news over the past couple of years and the judge produced a simple question.

Judge: Who pays a tariff?

AI Response: A tariff is paid to the government by the importer bringing goods into the country; the cost may then be absorbed by the importer, shifted to suppliers, or passed on to consumers.
Trump Response: Foreign countries are paying us billions. They charged us, so we charge them. It’s reciprocal. It’s about cheating, fentanyl, the border, trade deficits, and bringing back manufacturing.

When a judge checks his hearing prior to rendering a decision, it is not a good sign. The first response was concise, clear, and logical. The tax is paid at the border by the importers. The cost is often passed on to the consumer.

The second answer introduced new subjects (fentanyl?). The answer misidentifies the payer – it is not the seller but the buyer who wants the foreign goods. Then there is the punishment rant for cheating and, then, the manufacturing non-sequitur.

The judge concluded that only one response exhibited intelligence. The judge flirted with asking more questions. There were several that could identify the presence of intelligence. For example, questions regarding the Reflecting Pool, Conflict of Interests while in office, proper investigation of Epstein’s network and the remodeling of the White House. Ultimately, the judge sighed and concluded that no further tests were required.

The judge, in this test, concluded that intelligence, at a minimum, requires answers that respond to the question asked, uses words consistently, and does not collapse under the weight of its own contradictions. By that modest standard, the Reverse Turing Test produces an unsettling result: the machine does not need to imitate human intelligence when humans display none.

[i] [i] Turing, A.M. (1950) Computing Machinery and Intelligence. Mind, 59, 433-460.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mind/LIX.236.433

Prominent Features

· Social withdrawal: A tendency to disengage from conversation, community, or public life because the surrounding environment feels hostile or exhausting. Practices MAGA avoidance

· Perceived confinement: A sense of being trapped inside social, political, or informational conditions one did not create and cannot easily escape.

· Anticipatory anxiety: Persistent worry about future instability, loss of rights, social conflict, or further disruption.

· Loss of agency: A diminished sense of personal control, accompanied by frustration, helplessness, or civic fatigue.

· Hypervigilance: Heightened attention to news, rhetoric, policy changes, or public behavior as potential signs of worsening conditions.

Clinical-Style Note

People, otherwise unremarkable with respect to emotional characteristics, wake up in the middle of the night to see if Trump is still alive. They awake from dreams in which legal immigrants wear yellow armbands and bibles are placed in public school desks and five billionaires own transportation, the news media, entertainment monoliths, communication infrastructure, and medical institutions. A lesser nightmare invades the daytime as the Trumpdemic haunts their nights.

P