Search
1000 results for “Skepticat”
-
I’m not sure that the mass market shares the tech industry’s vision for smart glasses
One recent change among early-adopter circles was plain on the faces of many fellow attendees of Qualcomm’s Snapdragon Summit in Maui this week: “smart” glasses with cameras, microphones, speakers and sometimes screens. But then my flights home Friday reminded me that for the overwhelming majority of people, “eyewear” means electronics-free glasses.
Qualcomm’s invitation-only conference–that company paid my airfare and lodging, as it did on my prior trips to cover it in 2021, 2022 and 2024–allowed me to get some brief face time with Snap’s Spectacles ’24, running newer software than the version I tried at last year’s summit. The event also treated me to a parade of tech execs testifying that smart glasses were the next big computing platform.
But despite all those optimistic assurances and my own earlier, brief tryouts of such smart glasses as Meta’s camera-enabled Ray-Bans and a prototype set of Android XR glasses, I remain unsold on the entire concept. So, it seems, do most customers: A Forrester Research survey released in September found that 79 percent of respondents had no interest in buying smart glasses.
On one hand, smart glasses with cameras, speakers and microphones are not particularly cheap–the Ray-Ban-branded models from the conglomerate EssilorLuxottica cost $379 and up–but perform worse than phones at taking pictures and playing audio.
Plus, they have the potential to annoy friends and strangers who aren’t keen on the possibility of surreptitious photography.
On the other hand, more advanced smart glasses with built-in displays could finally make hands-free augmented-reality overviews of the world a reality, but first somebody has to bring them to market at a not-crazy price. Snap’s Spectacles, which require a $99/month developer subscription, are not there; Meta’s Ray-Ban Display glasses, available starting Tuesday for $799, aren’t that much closer.
And somebody also has to solve battery-life concerns: What’s my motivation to strap a computer to my face, however stylish it might get, if that electronic eyewear will only run six hours on a charge and therefore need recharging much more often than my phone?
Meta championing this cause gives me further cause. That company has shown a history of careless indifference to the consequences of its actions, including repeated episodes of bad-faith behavior towards my own industry, that does not make me want to give it my money.
But Meta has also been so spectacularly wrong about consumer-electronics trends–topped by Mark Zuckerberg renaming Facebook to “Meta” and losing tens of billions of dollars on the delusional notion that people want to spend prolonged time in virtual-reality environments–that Zuck pushing smart glasses itself seems reason to eye the concept skeptically. Through dumb, software-free glasses.
#AndroidXR #ARGlasses #faceComputer #GoogleGlass #GoogleGlasses #Hawaii #MarkZuckerberg #meta #metaverse #privacy #Qualcomm #RayBan #smartGlasses #SnapSpectacles #SnapdragonSummit
-
I’m not sure that the mass market shares the tech industry’s vision for smart glasses
One recent change among early-adopter circles was plain on the faces of many fellow attendees of Qualcomm’s Snapdragon Summit in Maui this week: “smart” glasses with cameras, microphones, speakers and sometimes screens. But then my flights home Friday reminded me that for the overwhelming majority of people, “eyewear” means electronics-free glasses.
Qualcomm’s invitation-only conference–that company paid my airfare and lodging, as it did on my prior trips to cover it in 2021, 2022 and 2024–allowed me to get some brief face time with Snap’s Spectacles ’24, running newer software than the version I tried at last year’s summit. The event also treated me to a parade of tech execs testifying that smart glasses were the next big computing platform.
But despite all those optimistic assurances and my own earlier, brief tryouts of such smart glasses as Meta’s camera-enabled Ray-Bans and a prototype set of Android XR glasses, I remain unsold on the entire concept. So, it seems, do most customers: A Forrester Research survey released in September found that 79 percent of respondents had no interest in buying smart glasses.
On one hand, smart glasses with cameras, speakers and microphones are not particularly cheap–the Ray-Ban-branded models from the conglomerate EssilorLuxottica cost $379 and up–but perform worse than phones at taking pictures and playing audio.
Plus, they have the potential to annoy friends and strangers who aren’t keen on the possibility of surreptitious photography.
On the other hand, more advanced smart glasses with built-in displays could finally make hands-free augmented-reality overviews of the world a reality, but first somebody has to bring them to market at a not-crazy price. Snap’s Spectacles, which require a $99/month developer subscription, are not there; Meta’s Ray-Ban Display glasses, available starting Tuesday for $799, aren’t that much closer.
And somebody also has to solve battery-life concerns: What’s my motivation to strap a computer to my face, however stylish it might get, if that electronic eyewear will only run six hours on a charge and therefore need recharging much more often than my phone?
Meta championing this cause gives me further cause. That company has shown a history of careless indifference to the consequences of its actions, including repeated episodes of bad-faith behavior towards my own industry, that does not make me want to give it my money.
But Meta has also been so spectacularly wrong about consumer-electronics trends–topped by Mark Zuckerberg renaming Facebook to “Meta” and losing tens of billions of dollars on the delusional notion that people want to spend prolonged time in virtual-reality environments–that Zuck pushing smart glasses itself seems reason to eye the concept skeptically. Through dumb, software-free glasses.
#AndroidXR #ARGlasses #faceComputer #GoogleGlass #GoogleGlasses #Hawaii #MarkZuckerberg #meta #metaverse #privacy #Qualcomm #RayBan #smartGlasses #SnapSpectacles #SnapdragonSummit
-
I’m not sure that the mass market shares the tech industry’s vision for smart glasses
One recent change among early-adopter circles was plain on the faces of many fellow attendees of Qualcomm’s Snapdragon Summit in Maui this week: “smart” glasses with cameras, microphones, speakers and sometimes screens. But then my flights home Friday reminded me that for the overwhelming majority of people, “eyewear” means electronics-free glasses.
Qualcomm’s invitation-only conference–that company paid my airfare and lodging, as it did on my prior trips to cover it in 2021, 2022 and 2024–allowed me to get some brief face time with Snap’s Spectacles ’24, running newer software than the version I tried at last year’s summit. The event also treated me to a parade of tech execs testifying that smart glasses were the next big computing platform.
But despite all those optimistic assurances and my own earlier, brief tryouts of such smart glasses as Meta’s camera-enabled Ray-Bans and a prototype set of Android XR glasses, I remain unsold on the entire concept. So, it seems, do most customers: A Forrester Research survey released in September found that 79 percent of respondents had no interest in buying smart glasses.
On one hand, smart glasses with cameras, speakers and microphones are not particularly cheap–the Ray-Ban-branded models from the conglomerate EssilorLuxottica cost $379 and up–but perform worse than phones at taking pictures and playing audio.
Plus, they have the potential to annoy friends and strangers who aren’t keen on the possibility of surreptitious photography.
On the other hand, more advanced smart glasses with built-in displays could finally make hands-free augmented-reality overviews of the world a reality, but first somebody has to bring them to market at a not-crazy price. Snap’s Spectacles, which require a $99/month developer subscription, are not there; Meta’s Ray-Ban Display glasses, available starting Tuesday for $799, aren’t that much closer.
And somebody also has to solve battery-life concerns: What’s my motivation to strap a computer to my face, however stylish it might get, if that electronic eyewear will only run six hours on a charge and therefore need recharging much more often than my phone?
Meta championing this cause gives me further cause. That company has shown a history of careless indifference to the consequences of its actions, including repeated episodes of bad-faith behavior towards my own industry, that does not make me want to give it my money.
But Meta has also been so spectacularly wrong about consumer-electronics trends–topped by Mark Zuckerberg renaming Facebook to “Meta” and losing tens of billions of dollars on the delusional notion that people want to spend prolonged time in virtual-reality environments–that Zuck pushing smart glasses itself seems reason to eye the concept skeptically. Through dumb, software-free glasses.
#AndroidXR #ARGlasses #faceComputer #GoogleGlass #GoogleGlasses #Hawaii #MarkZuckerberg #meta #metaverse #privacy #Qualcomm #RayBan #smartGlasses #SnapSpectacles #SnapdragonSummit
-
I’m not sure that the mass market shares the tech industry’s vision for smart glasses
One recent change among early-adopter circles was plain on the faces of many fellow attendees of Qualcomm’s Snapdragon Summit in Maui this week: “smart” glasses with cameras, microphones, speakers and sometimes screens. But then my flights home Friday reminded me that for the overwhelming majority of people, “eyewear” means electronics-free glasses.
Qualcomm’s invitation-only conference–that company paid my airfare and lodging, as it did on my prior trips to cover it in 2021, 2022 and 2024–allowed me to get some brief face time with Snap’s Spectacles ’24, running newer software than the version I tried at last year’s summit. The event also treated me to a parade of tech execs testifying that smart glasses were the next big computing platform.
But despite all those optimistic assurances and my own earlier, brief tryouts of such smart glasses as Meta’s camera-enabled Ray-Bans and a prototype set of Android XR glasses, I remain unsold on the entire concept. So, it seems, do most customers: A Forrester Research survey released in September found that 79 percent of respondents had no interest in buying smart glasses.
On one hand, smart glasses with cameras, speakers and microphones are not particularly cheap–the Ray-Ban-branded models from the conglomerate EssilorLuxottica cost $379 and up–but perform worse than phones at taking pictures and playing audio.
Plus, they have the potential to annoy friends and strangers who aren’t keen on the possibility of surreptitious photography.
On the other hand, more advanced smart glasses with built-in displays could finally make hands-free augmented-reality overviews of the world a reality, but first somebody has to bring them to market at a not-crazy price. Snap’s Spectacles, which require a $99/month developer subscription, are not there; Meta’s Ray-Ban Display glasses, available starting Tuesday for $799, aren’t that much closer.
And somebody also has to solve battery-life concerns: What’s my motivation to strap a computer to my face, however stylish it might get, if that electronic eyewear will only run six hours on a charge and therefore need recharging much more often than my phone?
Meta championing this cause gives me further cause. That company has shown a history of careless indifference to the consequences of its actions, including repeated episodes of bad-faith behavior towards my own industry, that does not make me want to give it my money.
But Meta has also been so spectacularly wrong about consumer-electronics trends–topped by Mark Zuckerberg renaming Facebook to “Meta” and losing tens of billions of dollars on the delusional notion that people want to spend prolonged time in virtual-reality environments–that Zuck pushing smart glasses itself seems reason to eye the concept skeptically. Through dumb, software-free glasses.
#AndroidXR #ARGlasses #faceComputer #GoogleGlass #GoogleGlasses #Hawaii #MarkZuckerberg #meta #metaverse #privacy #Qualcomm #RayBan #smartGlasses #SnapSpectacles #SnapdragonSummit
-
Wed. Dec. 31, 2025: Sliding Out of the Old Year Literally
image courtesy of pixabay.comWednesday, December 31, 2025
Waxing Moon
Chiron, Uranus, Jupiter Retrograde
New Year’s Eve
Cloudy and cold
Happy New Year’s Eve to you! May you have the night for which you wish, be it social or quiet.
We hope for quiet, here in this house!
The past few days, I’ve read the most recent memoir by a well-known author who set herself up to be adored, and then pretends to be humble and fails miserably. Her writing is beautiful, but I’ve encountered her several times in person, and don’t like her. I keep my distance. This is not someone I want in my life, much as I respect the career she’s built and admire her writing. This memoir is beautifully written, made me dislike her even more, and, oh, she’s “found God.” After spending decades riding the goddess wave and profiting from it, she figured to cash in on the evangelical front and “find God.” Blech.
I am not a fan of the way organized religion is often weaponized, especially in this country at the moment. I do, however, have several friends with deep faith in their chosen organized religion who actually walk their talk, and I have enormous respect for them and their beliefs. I do not have respect for someone who cashes in on whatever religious or spiritual trend is popular at the time.
Another author who set herself up for decades as oriented in women’s spirituality when it was profitable also “found God” in her latest book (which otherwise re-treads everything her first book and all subsequent books have, under their various titles). I don’t live in either of these individual’s skins. Maybe they genuinely changed belief systems. But since they’re making money from that switch, I am skeptical.
Both of these individuals, for decades, perform as being kind and generous with great knowledge and wisdom, and Teachers (rather than teachers). Yet each time I’ve encountered them in person, I’ve witnessed them treating people like absolute crap, which, in my eyes, makes them hypocrites. Once is a bad day, and we all have those. But I’ve watched this be consistent patterns with both of them.
They have not treated me badly, because I haven’t orbited close enough to allow it. I’ve trusted my instincts and kept my distance. Although when I was able to intervene and cut them off at the metaphorical knees in one of their inappropriate rants at someone, I have. And, like all bullies, they back down.
On a happier note, I managed to get the sticky thrift store label off the pot I bought for less than $3 a few days ago, and got to the maker’s mark. Researching it, I was quite stunned. I was right, it is pewter (and I have to look up how to best care for it). This piece in particular was made by a highly regarded firm in Albany in the mid-1800’s. Researching some listings, similar pieces are selling for anywhere from $95-$220. I have no plans to sell it; I will simply honor it and care for it. I am, however, going to learn more about the story behind the company that made it, because it sounds interesting.
I received three decks for the holidays: the NO BAD DAYS affirmations deck, which is very 1960’s mod and fun; THE MYSTIC STORYTELLER TAROT (which includes pencils and notebooks and typewriters in the artwork); and the GREEN WITCH’S ORACLE DECK, by the same author who did the GREEN WITCH’S TAROT, which I love and use often. I’m looking forward to getting to know the decks better in the coming months.
Yesterday morning was stormy. I did my work as best I could, crossing my fingers that the power wouldn’t go out, although I can still use my laptop offline until the battery runs out. Or write in longhand. We have the skills, people, and we adjust as needed.
I wrote the opening of BETTING MAN, massaged it a few times, popped it into the back of the VICIOUS full, and got that off to my editor. Only a day early, but early! I set up the tracking sheets, so I don’t drop any of the details as I go.
By then, it was well after lunch time. I got some work done on the ghostwriting, but I’m not where I want to be with it, so I may do some more work on it today or Friday.
I walked up to yoga. While we were in class, the snow started (it wasn’t supposed to start until after 7, after I got home). I was glad I hadn’t driven; maneuvering out of that tiny parking lot with everyone slip sliding would have been tough.
Unfortunately, I fell walking home, on sidewalk ice that hadn’t been cleared away that I couldn’t see under the snow. Feet right out from under me, landed on my back, glasses flew off, hit my head.
For a minute, I worried I broke something and only wasn’t in pain because of shock. But I found my glasses, tried all the bits and pieces, and nothing was broken. I was especially worried about my neck, but I was so wrapped up between a turtleneck and the hood of a sweatshirt rolled up under my coat, the hood of my coat, and a scarf that I was okay. In fact, I have more mobility and less pain in my neck than I’ve had in weeks, as though I had a chiropractic adjustment. Go figure.
I didn’t say anything to my mom when I got home. Either she would worry and ask the same questions over and over again, or she’d forget and ask a different set of questions over and over again, and I wasn’t up to dealing with either of those scenarios. I cooked dinner, read in the evening, monitored how I felt. I was a little sore, but fine, and no headache or double vision or lump on the back of my head or anything like that. I was lucky. That it wasn’t much worse, and that I’d basically bubble wrapped myself in puffy fabrics for the trek. I was more shaken up than actually hurt.
So on brand for 2025. Glad to kick this year out the door, in many ways, although there was also a lot of good.
Slept reasonably well, don’t remember the dreams, so hopefully that means June will be quiet. I woke up a couple of times feeling sore, but fell back asleep pretty fast, and woke up after 6:30. Tessa Was Not Amused, and even Bea was outside my room squeaking.
Fed everyone, usual morning routine. I’m a little sore, but really, fine. The morning yoga wasn’t a problem, and it’s good to keep moving. I had to go out on the back balcony – because of the high winds, part of the tarp came unfastened over the bench, and I had to resecure it.
This morning, I have to do a quick trip to the grocery store to pick up a few things like the salmon for tonight’s dinner, an orange for tomorrow’s sauce, and a few things for a Thai chicken peanut butter soup I want to do in the crockpot over the weekend.
I hope to get some writing done, on both BETTING and on the ghostwriting. I will make some devilled eggs, and bake a cranberry coffee cake. We stay up until midnight, and watch the ball drop over Times Square.
I have a greeting post scheduled for tomorrow, but I’m not posting a regular blog. We will catch up on Friday, though, when it is 2026!
-
Wed. Dec. 31, 2025: Sliding Out of the Old Year Literally
image courtesy of pixabay.comWednesday, December 31, 2025
Waxing Moon
Chiron, Uranus, Jupiter Retrograde
New Year’s Eve
Cloudy and cold
Happy New Year’s Eve to you! May you have the night for which you wish, be it social or quiet.
We hope for quiet, here in this house!
The past few days, I’ve read the most recent memoir by a well-known author who set herself up to be adored, and then pretends to be humble and fails miserably. Her writing is beautiful, but I’ve encountered her several times in person, and don’t like her. I keep my distance. This is not someone I want in my life, much as I respect the career she’s built and admire her writing. This memoir is beautifully written, made me dislike her even more, and, oh, she’s “found God.” After spending decades riding the goddess wave and profiting from it, she figured to cash in on the evangelical front and “find God.” Blech.
I am not a fan of the way organized religion is often weaponized, especially in this country at the moment. I do, however, have several friends with deep faith in their chosen organized religion who actually walk their talk, and I have enormous respect for them and their beliefs. I do not have respect for someone who cashes in on whatever religious or spiritual trend is popular at the time.
Another author who set herself up for decades as oriented in women’s spirituality when it was profitable also “found God” in her latest book (which otherwise re-treads everything her first book and all subsequent books have, under their various titles). I don’t live in either of these individual’s skins. Maybe they genuinely changed belief systems. But since they’re making money from that switch, I am skeptical.
Both of these individuals, for decades, perform as being kind and generous with great knowledge and wisdom, and Teachers (rather than teachers). Yet each time I’ve encountered them in person, I’ve witnessed them treating people like absolute crap, which, in my eyes, makes them hypocrites. Once is a bad day, and we all have those. But I’ve watched this be consistent patterns with both of them.
They have not treated me badly, because I haven’t orbited close enough to allow it. I’ve trusted my instincts and kept my distance. Although when I was able to intervene and cut them off at the metaphorical knees in one of their inappropriate rants at someone, I have. And, like all bullies, they back down.
On a happier note, I managed to get the sticky thrift store label off the pot I bought for less than $3 a few days ago, and got to the maker’s mark. Researching it, I was quite stunned. I was right, it is pewter (and I have to look up how to best care for it). This piece in particular was made by a highly regarded firm in Albany in the mid-1800’s. Researching some listings, similar pieces are selling for anywhere from $95-$220. I have no plans to sell it; I will simply honor it and care for it. I am, however, going to learn more about the story behind the company that made it, because it sounds interesting.
I received three decks for the holidays: the NO BAD DAYS affirmations deck, which is very 1960’s mod and fun; THE MYSTIC STORYTELLER TAROT (which includes pencils and notebooks and typewriters in the artwork); and the GREEN WITCH’S ORACLE DECK, by the same author who did the GREEN WITCH’S TAROT, which I love and use often. I’m looking forward to getting to know the decks better in the coming months.
Yesterday morning was stormy. I did my work as best I could, crossing my fingers that the power wouldn’t go out, although I can still use my laptop offline until the battery runs out. Or write in longhand. We have the skills, people, and we adjust as needed.
I wrote the opening of BETTING MAN, massaged it a few times, popped it into the back of the VICIOUS full, and got that off to my editor. Only a day early, but early! I set up the tracking sheets, so I don’t drop any of the details as I go.
By then, it was well after lunch time. I got some work done on the ghostwriting, but I’m not where I want to be with it, so I may do some more work on it today or Friday.
I walked up to yoga. While we were in class, the snow started (it wasn’t supposed to start until after 7, after I got home). I was glad I hadn’t driven; maneuvering out of that tiny parking lot with everyone slip sliding would have been tough.
Unfortunately, I fell walking home, on sidewalk ice that hadn’t been cleared away that I couldn’t see under the snow. Feet right out from under me, landed on my back, glasses flew off, hit my head.
For a minute, I worried I broke something and only wasn’t in pain because of shock. But I found my glasses, tried all the bits and pieces, and nothing was broken. I was especially worried about my neck, but I was so wrapped up between a turtleneck and the hood of a sweatshirt rolled up under my coat, the hood of my coat, and a scarf that I was okay. In fact, I have more mobility and less pain in my neck than I’ve had in weeks, as though I had a chiropractic adjustment. Go figure.
I didn’t say anything to my mom when I got home. Either she would worry and ask the same questions over and over again, or she’d forget and ask a different set of questions over and over again, and I wasn’t up to dealing with either of those scenarios. I cooked dinner, read in the evening, monitored how I felt. I was a little sore, but fine, and no headache or double vision or lump on the back of my head or anything like that. I was lucky. That it wasn’t much worse, and that I’d basically bubble wrapped myself in puffy fabrics for the trek. I was more shaken up than actually hurt.
So on brand for 2025. Glad to kick this year out the door, in many ways, although there was also a lot of good.
Slept reasonably well, don’t remember the dreams, so hopefully that means June will be quiet. I woke up a couple of times feeling sore, but fell back asleep pretty fast, and woke up after 6:30. Tessa Was Not Amused, and even Bea was outside my room squeaking.
Fed everyone, usual morning routine. I’m a little sore, but really, fine. The morning yoga wasn’t a problem, and it’s good to keep moving. I had to go out on the back balcony – because of the high winds, part of the tarp came unfastened over the bench, and I had to resecure it.
This morning, I have to do a quick trip to the grocery store to pick up a few things like the salmon for tonight’s dinner, an orange for tomorrow’s sauce, and a few things for a Thai chicken peanut butter soup I want to do in the crockpot over the weekend.
I hope to get some writing done, on both BETTING and on the ghostwriting. I will make some devilled eggs, and bake a cranberry coffee cake. We stay up until midnight, and watch the ball drop over Times Square.
I have a greeting post scheduled for tomorrow, but I’m not posting a regular blog. We will catch up on Friday, though, when it is 2026!
-
While I am often skeptical of the efficacy of a protest, part of me realizes that the value is not limited to one dimension.
https://www.perfectduluthday.com/the-event/duluth-no-kings/
The exercise of the right to assemble.
The community sense of belonging.
The demonstration of political will.
The hope that change can be made.
The test of media to report on it.
Maybe just being outdoors on a nice Autumn day with like minded reasonable folks.
-
Autopens, Executive Orders, and the Rule of Law – A DWD Special Report
Autopen DWD Report, WP AI image 2025.Autopens, Executive Orders, and the Rule of Law
What really happens when one president tries to erase another’s signature?
Donald Trump has announced that he is cancelling all executive orders and “anything else” from the Biden administration that were signed using an autopen, claiming those documents are invalid and even hinting at perjury charges if Joe Biden says he personally authorized them. The move has thrilled some supporters and outraged critics, but beneath the rhetoric is a basic question of law:
- Are autopen-signed executive orders legally valid?
- Can a sitting president simply declare them void?
On both counts, the short answer from mainstream legal analysis is: autopens are lawful, and Trump’s blanket cancellation theory is on very thin ice.
Editor’s Note: The analysis here is by Perplexity Plus, and my review and edits. Here’s a sample article that announces Trump’s actions. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-cancels-biden-orders-signed-autopen –there are several. So let’s deep dive a bit…
Screenshot of CBS News Web page, November 28, 2025.What Trump Is Claiming
In recent statements and social posts, Trump has argued that a huge share of Biden’s executive actions were signed not by Biden’s own hand but by an autopen—essentially a mechanical signature device—and that these are therefore “null and void.” He has suggested that aides, not Biden, made the decisions and that if Biden now claims personal involvement he could face perjury charges.
That claim rests on two big leaps:
- That the physical act of handwriting the signature is required for legality;
- That using an autopen inherently proves the president wasn’t really the decision-maker.
Both propositions collide head-on with modern practice and with existing legal opinions from the Justice Department.
What Is an Autopen and Why Has It Been Used?
An autopen is a device that reproduces a person’s signature with real ink. It is not new, and it is not unique to Biden. Presidents from at least George W. Bush onward have authorized autopen signatures on official correspondence, and Barack Obama famously used an autopen to sign a Patriot Act extension while traveling abroad, based on prior legal clearance from the Department of Justice.
The core idea is simple: the decision must be the president’s; the ink stroke can be delegated to a machine, as long as it is done under his direction.
Are Autopen-Signed Orders Legal?
Yes. The key legal backdrop is a 2005 opinion from the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC). In that memo, OLC concluded that the president may “sign” a bill within the meaning of Article I, Section 7 of the Constitution by directing a subordinate to affix his signature—explicitly including use of an autopen—so long as the president has made the underlying decision and authorized the signature.
That logic carries over to executive orders and other presidential instruments. The law cares about:
- Who made the decision? — The president cannot delegate the actual decision to approve or disapprove.
- How is that decision manifested? — The physical act of writing the name can be delegated or mechanized.
In other words, an autopen signature authorized by the president is treated as the president’s signature. The courts, Congress, and multiple administrations have proceeded on that assumption for nearly two decades. If Trump were to argue that autopen use is categorically invalid, he would be challenging not only Biden’s practice, but settled executive-branch legal interpretation and a bipartisan history of use—including his own administration’s reliance on mechanical signing for lower-stakes documents.
Can a President Revoke a Predecessor’s Executive Orders?
Here Trump’s position is on firmer, but still limited, ground. As a general rule, any sitting president may:
- Amend,
- Rescind, or
- Replace
executive orders issued by a prior administration, so long as he stays within constitutional and statutory limits. Executive orders are internal directives for the executive branch; they are not statutes and do not bind a successor president forever. That’s why one administration can undo or rewrite the regulatory priorities of another.
So, yes: Trump can revoke Biden-era executive orders as a matter of policy choice. We’ve already seen him move to roll back or rewrite specific Biden orders. Future litigation will focus on what he does in the substance of those revocations, not the mere fact that he did them.
What is novel—and shaky—is his attempt to tie the legality of those orders to the method of signature and to retroactively declare large swaths of them void because they were signed by autopen.
The Problem with Retroactive “Autopen” Invalidation
Trump’s announced approach tries to do something different from the normal policy-based revocation of executive orders. Instead of saying “I disagree with these policies and am replacing them,” he suggests:
These orders were never valid in the first place, because they were signed with an autopen, so I am cancelling them as illegal and potentially criminal.
That creates several rule-of-law problems:
- It contradicts existing legal guidance. OLC’s 2005 opinion and subsequent practices assume autopen signatures are valid when authorized by the president. Calling them inherently “forged” would require either repudiating that legal framework or proving that Biden never authorized the decisions.
- It is retroactive. For years, agencies, states, and private parties have relied on those Biden orders as valid. Retroactively invalidating them on a technicality invites chaos in programs, contracts, and rights that grew up under those orders.
- It is categorical, not case-by-case. Instead of alleging specific instances of fraud (“this particular order was not actually authorized by Biden”), the rhetoric paints nearly all autopen-signed actions as suspect. Courts usually prefer tailored remedies, not sweeping retrospective erasures.
- It looks politically targeted. The move singles out one predecessor, on a theory that—if truly accepted—would raise questions about other administrations’ autopen practices as well. The selectivity underscores the political, rather than legal, impulse.
How Would Courts Look at This?
If lawsuits follow—and they almost certainly would—courts are unlikely to start by deciding whether they like Biden or Trump. They will ask:
- Was the original executive order within the president’s lawful authority?
- Did the president (Biden) actually approve the action?
- Is the current president (Trump) acting within his authority in revoking or refusing to recognize the order?
On the first two questions, the existence of a longstanding OLC opinion and decades of executive practice with autopens will weigh heavily in favor of validity. On the third question, courts generally accept that presidents can revoke prior executive orders—but not that they can rewrite history to say those orders never legally existed if they were properly authorized at the time.
The Supreme Court has also shown institutional concern for stability in government operations. Even justices skeptical of “administrative overreach” have not shown much appetite for retroactively vaporizing large categories of past acts based on novel procedural theories. Doing so here could destabilize not only Biden-era orders but potentially any action signed via autopen going forward.
What About Pardons and Other Acts?
Trump and some allies have also gestured at Biden’s clemency decisions, suggesting that pardons or commutations bearing an autopen signature might be revisited. Here the law is even clearer:
- Once a valid presidential pardon is issued, it is generally understood to be final and irrevocable.
- The method of signature does not change the constitutional nature of the clemency power, so long as the decision was the president’s.
In practice, that means attempts to claw back already-granted pardons on an autopen theory would face extremely stiff resistance in court. Even legal scholars sympathetic to a strong executive are wary of letting a later president un-pardon people based on how the document was signed.
Politics, “Enemies,” and the Rule of Law
From a political perspective, the autopen narrative functions as another tool in a larger project: casting a predecessor as illegitimate or incapacitated and suggesting that their official acts are suspect on that basis. The language of “forgery,” “perjury,” and “null and void” is aimed less at administrative lawyers and more at a political audience already primed to see Biden as unfit.
From a rule-of-law perspective, that is precisely why the theory is dangerous. If every change of administration brought not only policy reversals but retroactive attacks on the very validity of the prior president’s signature, the stability of executive governance would be at risk. Agencies, states, businesses, and ordinary citizens would never know which actions are safe to rely on.
Healthy democratic accountability means we absolutely can argue over policies and revoke prior orders through lawful channels. But turning autograph style into a weapon against a former president’s entire record is a different move—and one that courts, if asked, may well decline to endorse.
Key Takeaways
- Autopens are legally recognized tools for presidential signatures, as long as the president makes and authorizes the underlying decision.
- Any sitting president can revoke prior executive orders as a policy matter, but cannot simply declare them historically void due to autopen use.
- Retroactively invalidating large categories of actions would create legal chaos and undercut reliance interests across government and society.
- Courts are likely to view broad “autopen invalidation” moves as politically motivated and legally weak, compared to ordinary, case-specific challenges.
- The real story is less about pens and more about power: who gets to define which presidential acts “count” when the political winds shift.
Editor’s Note
This essay is researched and sourced, with commentary and analysis, not legal advice. It reflects the public record on autopens, executive orders, and presidential practice as of late 2025, along with mainstream interpretations from constitutional scholars and legal observers, and the analysis and edits by the authors. –DrWeb & Perplexity
Sources & Further Reading (MLA 9)
- Justice Department, Office of Legal Counsel. “Whether the President May Sign a Bill by Directing That His Signature Be Affixed to It.” U.S. Department of Justice, 7 July 2005, https://www.justice.gov/olc/opinion/whether-president-may-sign-bill-directing-his-signature-be-affixed-it .
- Congressional Research Service. Executive Orders: An Introduction. 29 Mar. 2021, https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF11032 .
- Bomboy, Scott. “Defining the President’s Constitutional Powers to Issue Executive Orders.” National Constitution Center, 29 Jan. 2025, https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/defining-the-presidents-constitutional-powers-to-issue-executive-orders .
- “Executive Orders.” American Bar Association – Public Education, 2021, https://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_education/resources/law_related_education_network/how_courts_work/executiveorders/ .
- “Judicial Review of Executive Orders.” Federal Judicial Center, https://www.fjc.gov/history/courts/judicial-review-executive-orders .
- Whelan, M. Edward III, et al. “Whether the President May Sign a Bill by Directing That His Signature Be Affixed to It.” Office of Legal Counsel Opinions, vol. 29, 2005, pp. 97–104. justice.gov .
- “Obama ‘Autopens’ Patriot Act Extension into Law.” CBS News, 27 May 2011, https://www.cbsnews.com/news/obama-autopens-patriot-act-extension-into-law/ .
- Turnipseed, Tony L. “The President and the Autopen.” Journal of Technology Law & Policy, vol. 17, 2012, https://scholarship.law.ufl.edu/jtlp/vol17/iss1/4/ .
- Associated Press. “Presidents Have Used Autopens for Decades. Now Trump Is Attacking Biden’s Use.” AP News, 17 Mar. 2025, https://apnews.com/article/biden-autopen-trump-executive-orders-00e8e0dfca0284 .
- “What Is an Autopen and Why Can’t Trump Stop Talking About It?” The Guardian, 29 Nov. 2025, https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/nov/29/autopen-trump-biden-executive-orders .
- “Trump Says He Is Canceling All Biden Executive Orders Signed With Autopen.” The Wall Street Journal, 28 Nov. 2025, https://www.wsj.com/politics/policy/trump-biden-autopen-executive-orders .
- “Trump Threatens Biden with ‘Charges of Perjury.’” New York Post, 28 Nov. 2025, https://nypost.com/2025/11/28/news/trump-threatens-biden-over-autopen/ .
- “Legal Analysts React to Trump’s Plan to Terminate Biden Executive Orders.” Newsweek, 28 Nov. 2025, https://www.newsweek.com/trump-biden-autopen-legal-experts-react-1861234 .
- U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Oversight and Accountability. The Biden Autopen Presidency: Decline, Delusion, and Deception in the White House. 24 Oct. 2025, https://oversight.house.gov/release/the-biden-autopen-presidency-report .
- “Reviewing Certain Presidential Actions.” The White House, 4 June 2025, https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2025/06/04/reviewing-certain-presidential-actions/ .
#2005OlcOpinion #2025 #autopens #bibliography #cancellingBidensAutopenOrders #cbsNews #courtsPredictions #doj #donaldTrump #dwdSpecialReport #executiveOrders #history #howSigned #legal #mla #modernPractice #opinion #pardons #perplexity #perplexityPlus #politicalEnemies #politics #resistance #revocation #ruleOfLaw #trump #trumpAdministration #unitedStates
-
Going to try this this weekend. If it's reasonable I'll migrate over. Their rationalle is pretty compelling.
"KeePassXC asks us to be skeptical of them if we are skeptical of LLMs. This is a convincing argument. A password manager doesn't need 300 regular contributors armed with 14 LLMs; it just needs to do its job, be stable, and be ported to Qt 6 already."
-
The magic carpet ground plane is grounded, but the GTU keeps flying.
Ham Radio Outside the Box receives quite a lot of email every week from readers with questions, comments and suggestions. One such email came about as a result of an article in the outstanding newsletter from the Surrey Amateur Radio Club called the Communicator. The editor of the Communicator is Canadian Amateur Radio Hall of Fame member John Schouten VE7TI. John approached me some time ago to see if I would be willing to be a regular contributor to the Communicator. I readily accepted and I am indebted to the Communicator for publishing a regular series of posts from this blog to the Communicator’s international readers in over 150 countries.
A recent article in the Communicator triggered an email from Guy VA7GI and that sparked a chain of correspondence beginning with a request for more details of the Ground Tuning Unit featured in recent posts on this blog. Then Guy suggested I conduct a test to compare a GTU combined with a Faraday cloth (“Magic Carpet”) capacitance plate on the ground, to a regular set of radials. That sounded like an interesting challenge so I set up a test antenna out in the backyard to find out how the two compared.
An old, bruised and battered, long retired MFJ 20m telescopic whip was mounted on a tripod and promptly caught a gust of wind which sent it crashing to the ground. Fortunately it just missed a large birch tree and landed softly on the grass. More bruises! It was re-erected and secured with cordage to prevent any further falls. Then a 17ft raised wire counterpoise was attached via an RF current sensor.
RF current sensor and RigExpert antenna analyzer pictured in another experimentRF was applied to the antenna by a RigExpert antenna analyzer and a strong deflection was observed on the current sensor. The meter reading was set to mid-scale by adjusting the instrument’s sensitivity control. Now it would be possible to determine whether the current through the GTU/Faraday cloth was higher or lower than the current passing into the wire counterpoise.
Next step; the counterpoise wire was disconnected and the GTU was attached with a wire to the Faraday cloth on the ground. Once again RF was applied and the relative current was observed on the meter. NB: the current sensor does not measure absolute current values; its job is only to compare relative values. I expected the GTU/Faraday cloth ground arrangement to compare favorably with the wire counterpoise, after all I had made multiple contacts with this arrangement. But, to my surprise, the ground current was now lower than the wire counterpoise result.
Linear-loaded monopole with Magic Carpet held down with rocks to withstand the wind coming across 100 miles of Lake Huron!My “magic carpet”, made of Faraday cloth ordered from the company named after a Brazilian River, was a purchase made for the purpose of experimentation. To its credit, it served its purpose, but I had some reservations about its suitability for field portable radio operations. The first time I laid it out on my backyard lawn was during a day of bright sunshine. I was dazzled by the sunlight reflected from its surface. Those reflections were probably observable from Earth orbit and certainly detracted from the stealth of a field installation. Stealth was restored with a coat of dark green, non-reflective spray paint.
The outdoor environment challenged the installation with another trial – wind. The wind had already laid the antenna whip down, now it blew under and around my one square meter of Faraday cloth making it difficult to secure it to the ground. No spring gusts were going to defeat this scientific experiment, so reinforced grommets were attached to each corner of the cloth which was then tightly and securely held in its place with tent stakes.
After a few deployments the edges of the Faraday cloth began to fray and were secured with Gorilla tape, but the non-reflective paint was beginning to crack where the magic carpet was folded between uses. And then it failed the current test!
The image shows the Ham Radio Outside the Box Linear-Loaded Monopole with Magic Carpet deployed along the shore of Lake Huron during a recent OOTA activation. No, that’s not a typo, OOTA is “Out On The Air”. Check it out online.
So is the Magic Carpet idea dead in the water? Guy VA7GI had another suggestion: “I have two friends with ham rigs on sailboats. They each use a backstay with insulators as a vertical antenna. You’d think with a saltwater ground they have the perfect ground plane. But it’s not that simple. They use folded copper wire in the bilge for a ground. They don’t want to drill a hole in the hull or dangle a wire near the prop. Alternatively, they could use Faraday cloth and your GTU. I bet that’d make a huge difference, especially for trans-ocean sailing.”
So magic carpet rides on the wayward wind are grounded, at least for now. My home QTH is surrounded by the Great Lakes so maybe the the idea of a “floating ground” is worth exploring?
The magic carpet is grounded, but not the GTU!
In a later email Guy VA7GI said: “My intuition is that most verticals have compromised radials, placed wherever convenient or possible. Perhaps all vertical antennas would benefit from a GTU.” On the first point Guy may be right. There is a lot of discussion online about the placement of radials. On the ground, or raised above ground? Positioned to direct an antenna’s radiation in a particular direction? Or spread evenly to enhance the widest ground coupling? And, of course, how many radials?
Guy’s second point: “Perhaps all vertical antennas would benefit from a GTU” got me thinking. Could that idea be of benefit in implementing a limited footprint, vertical quarter-wave field antenna? How does a Ground Tuning Unit work? It resonates a capacitive ground path which increases the current in “the other half” of an antenna. That is an idea worth exploring, so a further test was conducted.
A new, improved linear-loaded monopole was erected. The ham-made ladder line previously used has been replaced with a slightly longer (11.5ft) section of 450 ohm commercial window line. When erected as a quarter-wave vertical worked against a GTU tuned counterpoise, the length is not critical within certain restraints because the electrical length of “the other half” is adjustable by the GTU. A shorter radiating element with a longer counterpoise works, as does a longer radiator with a shorter counterpoise. The antenna impedance changes, but unless taken to extremes, it remains close enough to keep the SWR presented to the transceiver within acceptable limits.
This new test was designed to discover whether a GTU could resonate short raised radials sufficiently well to make the antenna an efficient radiator. This arrangement would get a passing grade if the current through the GTU/short radials combination matched the current passing through full-length radials. It didn’t work out too well with the Faraday cloth so I was skeptical about the outcome of this test.
My 11.5ft linear-loaded monopole was paired with two raised radials each 16.5ft long but with links at 11ft and 13ft. Once again, the current was monitored with the full-length radials and set to mid-scale on the meter as a benchmark. Then the radial links were opened at the 11ft point and the GTU was adjusted for maximum current. This time there was a different outcome. The current matched the result obtained with the full-length radials. So Guy – you were right!
Further tests will be conducted with even shorter raised radials to determine whether the current can be maintained with a minimum possible ground footprint. The objective is to design a simple pedestrian portable antenna that can be deployed in a limited space environment such as small clearings in the woods.
The man from the future
Another project remains on the slate and that is the idea of using a helically wound radiating element as suggested by a reader in New Zealand (the “man from the future” – New Zealand is 16 hours ahead of the Eastern Time Zone). Ham Radio Outside the Box will cover that in a later post.
Meanwhile a package arrived in the mail
I was very pleased to receive a package in the mail from Tim KQ4TQ. Tim sent me a GTU he had built himself and asked me to evaluate it. Tim’s GTU is a slightly different build to my own and I will certainly evaluate it fully and report back here soon. Thanks Tim!
Thanks to all Ham Radio Outside the Box subscribers
I put a lot of work into preparing posts for this blog, but it is a labor of love. I seek no financial return, nor will I accept any; this is a hobby not a business. My motivation is to stimulate discussion and learn from experiments and the feedback of other hams. So it was gratifying when WordPress informed me recently that Ham Radio Outside the Box has now surpassed the modest level of 1000 subscribers. Knowing there is a steadily growing interest in the content generated here makes all the work worthwhile. Thank you!
Help support HamRadioOutsidetheBox
No “tip-jar”, “buy me a coffee”, Patreon, or Amazon links here. I enjoy my hobby and I enjoy writing about it. If you would like to support this blog please follow/subscribe using the link at the bottom of my home page, or like, comment (links at the bottom of each post), repost or share links to my posts on social media. If you would like to email me directly you will find my email address on my QRZ.com page. Thank you!
The following copyright notice applies to all content on this blog.
#AmateurRadio #Antennas #Counterpoise #Ground #OutdoorOps
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. -
The Texas House gave preliminary approval Monday to a bill that would eliminate STAAR, the high-stakes standardized test that the state and school districts use to monitor student learning and teacher performance.
#Education #Texas #Staar #StandardizedTesting #TexasHouse #TexasLegislature2025
-
Why I’m a reductionist
The SEP article on scientific reductionism notes that the etymology of the word “reduction” is “to bring back” something to something else. So in a methodological sense, reduction is bringing one theory or ontology back to a simpler or more fundamental theory or ontology. The Wikipedia entry on reductionism identifies different kinds: ontological, methodological, and theory reductionism. I think the ontological one is the most interesting here, the proposition that all of reality consists of a small number of building blocks.
Most reductions aren’t particularly controversial, at least not in science. There aren’t many arguments that chemistry doesn’t reduce to physics, or geology to both those sciences. Today it’s not controversial that biology reduces to them as well, although this is a relatively recent development.
As late at the early 1900s there were people arguing that life was somehow different, that it was distinguished by a vital force, an ancient idea. Few talk about vital forces today. Biologists learned about evolution through natural selection, genetic inheritance, proteins, DNA, RNA, and overall organic chemistry. Life is now seen as largely a molecular chemical enterprise, albeit a hideously complex one.
This raises an important point. Most reductions are conservative, retaining the reduced concept, but not all. Sometimes it’s eliminative, as in the case of a vital force, or other things like phlogiston or a luminiferous ether. It seems to depend on whether the reduced concept remains useful.
Today there remain at least two areas where people tend to resist reductionist accounts: consciousness and quantum measurement.
The consciousness one goes back to Rene Descartes’ famous distinction between mental and physical substances. Descartes saw no issue with a mechanistic understanding of reality, except for the mind, which he could not conceive of being reducible to mechanisms. He was far from alone. Gottfried Leibniz presented his mill thought experiment, that if the mind were a mill which we entered, we wouldn’t find anything there that explained perception. The mind, he agreed with Descartes, had to be a different kind of thing entirely.
Although a lot of what these guys saw as irreducible has been reduced. Today, psychological concepts like memory and cognition are understood to be neural processes, albeit with still many unanswered questions. But contemporary philosophy of mind often draws a new line at perceived characteristics, typically called qualities or qualia. Because these characteristics are introspectively opaque, they seem irreducible. And studying some of them has proven hard, therefore many assume they’re fundamentally inaccessible to anyone but the subject.
The question is whether the notion of fundamental qualia really explains anything. Does it convey meaningful information? Certainly qualities understood as just perceived characteristics seem useful enough. But regarding them as fundamental seems to obscure rather than convey information.
As a reductionist, I think of qualities as categorizing conclusions. (If that seems radical, consider that the etymology of the Latin root phrase “qualis” is “of what kind.”) Our nervous system qualifies a stimulus for a category when a particular range of neural firing patterns trigger a galaxy of associations, some innate, but many learned, which collectively add to the richness of the experience of that perceived characteristic (redness, sweetness, pain, etc).
Am I completely confident this is the answer? No, but as an explanation, it seems like a more fruitful place to explore. I suspect future scientific studies will validate some aspects of it, but not others. But even if it’s completely wrong, these kinds of theories seem to spur more experimental work than simply assuming qualities are fundamental and inaccessible.
In the case of quantum mechanics, it’s observation that’s often taken to be fundamental. In its strongest forms, this ends up pairing with the idea of consciousness being fundamental. Although the more cautious variants see just measurement as fundamental (or interaction). This can be the idea that quantum states don’t really exist, that measurement itself creates reality, or that quantum states do exist but physically collapse in a measurement, a fundamental change in reality.
In the early years of quantum theory, something like these views seemed inescapable, and most of the physics community closed ranks around them. But there were holdouts, including Albert Einstein and Erwin Schrὅdinger, who kept digging, discovering the phenomenon of entanglement, which would later be used by David Bohm and Hugh Everett to posit mechanistic explanations for the disappearance of quantum effects. But it was the work of H. Dieter Zeh and Wojciech H. Zurek in the 1970s and 80s that really fleshed out the detailed explanation we now call decoherence.
Today, few question whether entanglement and decoherence happen, although many do continue to argue that they’re only useful mathematical tools. Even if they are real physical processes, whether they serve as a full explanation of what’s happening in measurement depends on your preferred interpretation of quantum mechanics. But the key thing is it’s an explanation that wasn’t found by those who were satisfied with measurement being fundamental.
Which gets to why I’m a reductionist. I can’t prove that ontological reductionism is true. Maybe there are unique aspects of reality that aren’t built on a few common building blocks. But there seems to be a lot of history showing that assuming it’s true is far more fruitful than assuming complex concepts are fundamental. From Thales positing that water was the fundamental substance to later Greeks assuming there were four fundamental elements, the history of assuming anything is fundamental seems cautionary at best.
Which is why when I hear “X is fundamental,” I’m reflexively skeptical. We can’t even confidently say that about “elemental” particles, quantum fields, space, or time. We only seem able to talk in terms of something being more fundamental or less fundamental. Scientific theories are always provisional, subject to change on new data. Absolute fundamentality seems like an assumption we can never justify. Calling something fundamental seems to say, “There’s nothing left to explain here. Stop digging.” A lot of progress seems to happen from the people who ignore these prescriptions.
What do I mean by “progress”? None of this is to argue that higher level concepts aren’t useful; thermodynamics, for instance, didn’t cease being a useful concept once it was reduced to particle physics. Or that holistic takes on phenomena can’t be beneficial. Or that in art or daily life, we can’t appreciate things without reducing them.
But reduction aids in acquiring more structurally or causally complete explanations, while assuming something is fundamental often seems to paper over structural or causal gaps. Closing these gaps, when achievable, provides more reliable knowledge, knowledge which gives us new abilities, abilities such as medical scanners, drugs, computers, and many other things. Yes, that does include nuclear weapons and other ills. It doesn’t seem like we can have the good without the bad, although usually the bad can be managed with more reliable knowledge.
At least that’s my view today.
What do you think? Are there benefits to non-reductive approaches I’m overlooking? Or drawbacks to reductionism I’m missing? If you think an alternative approach is better, what are the benefits of that alternative?
#Philosophy #PhilosophyOfMind #PhilosophyOfScience #reductionism #Science
-
@tg9541 OK, I have read Stuart Kauffman’s book “At Home in the Universe”, and am familiar with the concept of ‘emergence’, as well as the philosophical conflict concerning #reductionism. But I am also skeptical of #math substituting for #science - as in #StringTheory.
To get to the point of this limited toot, I recall from long ago the discovery (by radiolabeling) that “biological structures are replaced every 8 weeks”, but more recent experiments refuted its generality.
-
A16z crypto scams: A skeptical reading of the latest attempt by the venture capitalists to hype various fraud-related investments
https://newsletter.mollywhite.net/p/andreessen-horowitzs-state-of-crypto#%C2%A7dont-look-too-closely-at-the-charts
#via:metafilter #crypto #pmarca #fraud #a16z #scam #vc #- -
Tuesday's Question for #Builders
What's a tool or library you were skeptical about but ended up loving?
#programming #devlife -
Being #evangelical once suggested regular church attendance, a focus on salvation & conversion & strongly held views on specific issues such as #abortion. Today, it is as often used to describe a #cultural & #political identity: one in which #Christians are considered a #persecuted minority, traditional institutions are viewed skeptically & #Trump looms large.
-
Being #evangelical once suggested regular church attendance, a focus on salvation & conversion & strongly held views on specific issues such as #abortion. Today, it is as often used to describe a #cultural & #political identity: one in which #Christians are considered a #persecuted minority, traditional institutions are viewed skeptically & #Trump looms large.
-
Being #evangelical once suggested regular church attendance, a focus on salvation & conversion & strongly held views on specific issues such as #abortion. Today, it is as often used to describe a #cultural & #political identity: one in which #Christians are considered a #persecuted minority, traditional institutions are viewed skeptically & #Trump looms large.
-
Being #evangelical once suggested regular church attendance, a focus on salvation & conversion & strongly held views on specific issues such as #abortion. Today, it is as often used to describe a #cultural & #political identity: one in which #Christians are considered a #persecuted minority, traditional institutions are viewed skeptically & #Trump looms large.
-
Being #evangelical once suggested regular church attendance, a focus on salvation & conversion & strongly held views on specific issues such as #abortion. Today, it is as often used to describe a #cultural & #political identity: one in which #Christians are considered a #persecuted minority, traditional institutions are viewed skeptically & #Trump looms large.
-
“Stercus accidit”*…
The Wealth of the Nation (1942) by Seymour Fogel. Fine Arts Collection, United States General Services AdministrationAs we try to understand the rifts afflicting our nation and world, many turn to Marx and his framework of class. But in a provocative essay, Catherine Nichols suggests that it was David Hume (in an 1752 essay that identified the unfethering of wealth from land) who identified the origin of our political divisions…
Describing the political map in terms of Left and Right is an accepted convention all over the world, almost to the point of cliché. Yet it is surprisingly complicated to explain whose interests lie on each side of this spectrum. For example, if the Left supports the interests of workers over the interests of employers, why are Left-leaning regions of the United States and elsewhere in the world among the richest? When Japan and South Korea sought to become economic powerhouses in the later 20th century, they adopted Leftist policies such as strong public education, universal healthcare and increased gender equality – if countries seeking to compete in capitalist arenas adopt broadly Leftist policies, then how do we explain why Leftists are always talking about overthrowing capitalism? And if the Left is somehow both the party of workers’ rights and the party of material wealth, then whose interests are supported by the Right? Given such contradictions, how did these terms become so central to modern politics?
The terms ‘left’ and ‘right’ come from the seating arrangements in the National Assembly during the French Revolution, where the combatants used the medieval estate groupings to define their battle lines. According to their writings, land-owning aristocrats (the Second Estate) were the party of the Right, while the interests of nearly everyone else (the Third Estate) belonged to the Left. This Third Estate included peasants working for the landowners but also every other kind of business owner and worker. Decades later, Karl Marx offered a different analysis of capitalism: he put owners of both land and businesses together on one side (the bourgeoisie), while grouping workers from fields and factories on the other side (the proletariat) in a single, world-wide class struggle. The trouble with both these ways of parsing Left and Right is that voting patterns never seem to line up with class. Both historic analyses leave us with questions about the contemporary world – and not just the paradox of why so many Left-leaning places are so rich. Why, for example, do working-class conservatives appear to vote against their material interests, year in and year out, across generations?
The 18th-century philosopher and political theorist David Hume had answers to these questions, though he was writing decades before the French Revolution. While his essay ‘Of Public Credit’ (1752) was a warning about the dangers of Britain’s increasing reliance on debt financing, his apocalyptic vision of the future turned out to describe some features of our current political map surprisingly well. Hume was writing because he believed that debt financing had the power to upend Europe’s traditional power structure and culture by creating a new source of money divorced from tradition or responsibility: stocks and bonds. Unlike land, anyone with some cash could buy war bonds and get an immediate passive income in the form of interest. This was the thin end of the wedge caused by the debt financing that Hume believed was destroying every part of society. The governments of antiquity, Hume argued, saved money to use in battle and then waged wars in self-defence, or else to expand their territory. But the British had invented a new form of warfare that Hume saw no precedent for, even in the merchant states of Nicollò Machiavelli’s Italy: war for trade, funded with money borrowed from private stockholders…
[Nichols unpacks Hume’s observations (centrally, that three groups with stakes in the status quo, heretability, and the sanctity of “family and family hierarchy”tradition”– landowners, aging parents, and want to preserve old power structures, including the family– and traces their relevance, from Hume’s time to ours…]
… There are many reasons for people aligning Right or Left, which is why analyses of class and material interests fall short of describing the realities of people’s politics. Hume foresaw that these specific groups would resent the economic sea-change of the 18th century – and he was correct. Many people would rather have land and power than money and liberty.
Still, the power of the Right hasn’t doomed the Left – no more than the Spanish Inquisition doomed the rise of the Left in 18th-century England and France. As long as governments want to keep the value of their currencies from falling, someone in their ranks will be using the methods of the Left and inventiveness that brought us everything from our banking system to gay marriage. We don’t need to resurrect communism or focus narrowly on class, following Marx. The experiments are far from over, and we should remember that the Left is generally where money comes from in modern times. We give away too much power when we forget it…
Rethinking Right and Left: “Landholder vs stockholder,” from @catherinenichols.bsky.social in @aeon.co.
As for how it’s going at the moment (and further to Hume and the quote in this post’s title), see: “MAGA’s Betrayal of Small Business,” from @pkrugman.bsky.social.
* “shit happens”– often attributed to David Hume, reflecting his skeptical view that human understanding, particularly of cause-and-effect, is limited to habitual belief from experience, implying that unforeseen, messy outcomes (“shit”) inevitably occur in life despite our reasoning.
###
As we sort the Whigs from the Tories, we might recall that it was on this date 1656 that Blaise Pascal (writing under the pseudonym Louis de Montalte) published the first of his Provential Letters (Lettres provinciales), a series of eighteen polemical letters using humor to attack Jesuits for their use of casuistry and their moral laxity. Though the Letters were a popular success, they had little immediate effect on politics or the clergy. But they influenced later French writers like Voltaire and Jean-Jacques Rousseau and ultimately persuaded Pope Alexander to condemn “laxity” in the church and order a revision of casuistic texts.
#BlaisePascal #culture #DavidHume #economics #history #JeanJacquesRousseau #Jesuits #KarlMarx #philosophy #politicalDivision #politics #ProventialLetters #religion #society #sociology #Voltaire -
Yet…brick-&-mortar facilities still account for about 80% of clinician-provided #abortions….
Hannah Harriman, a #Marquette County #Health Dept #nurse who previously spent 12 yrs working for #PlannedParenthood of Marquette, is skeptical of any suggestion that #telehealth can replace a rural brick-&-mortar #clinic. "I say that those people have never spent any time in the UP," she said, referring to the #UpperPeninsula.
-
In the first part of oral arguments, John Sauer, the #Trump admin’s lawyer, faced skeptical questions from key justices, but it wasn’t a rout. In the second part, some of those same justices vigorously probed the position of the #ACLU lawyer, Cecillia Wang. #DoubleStandard
#Kavanaugh asks the ACLU’s lawyer about possible ways of resolving the case & suggests it could be a short opinion if the justices were to uphold Wong Kim Ark & side with the ACLU. 🤞
-
In the first part of oral arguments, John Sauer, the #Trump admin’s lawyer, faced skeptical questions from key justices, but it wasn’t a rout. In the second part, some of those same justices vigorously probed the position of the #ACLU lawyer, Cecillia Wang. #DoubleStandard
#Kavanaugh asks the ACLU’s lawyer about possible ways of resolving the case & suggests it could be a short opinion if the justices were to uphold Wong Kim Ark & side with the ACLU. 🤞
-
In the first part of oral arguments, John Sauer, the #Trump admin’s lawyer, faced skeptical questions from key justices, but it wasn’t a rout. In the second part, some of those same justices vigorously probed the position of the #ACLU lawyer, Cecillia Wang. #DoubleStandard
#Kavanaugh asks the ACLU’s lawyer about possible ways of resolving the case & suggests it could be a short opinion if the justices were to uphold Wong Kim Ark & side with the ACLU. 🤞
-
In the first part of oral arguments, John Sauer, the #Trump admin’s lawyer, faced skeptical questions from key justices, but it wasn’t a rout. In the second part, some of those same justices vigorously probed the position of the #ACLU lawyer, Cecillia Wang. #DoubleStandard
#Kavanaugh asks the ACLU’s lawyer about possible ways of resolving the case & suggests it could be a short opinion if the justices were to uphold Wong Kim Ark & side with the ACLU. 🤞
-
"Groovin' & Cruisin'"
Teableau for 09/05/25This Ukrainian blend of black and green teas is flavored with grapes. I was skeptical of a tea that smells like a jar of jelly, but it's remarkably good.
#Tea #Ukraine #Teableau #TeaCozy #TeaCosy #BlackTea #GreenTea #VintageChina #Handmade #Sewing #VWBug #Dogs #Nostalgia #Lovare
-
"Groovin' & Cruisin'"
Teableau for 09/05/25This Ukrainian blend of black and green teas is flavored with grapes. I was skeptical of a tea that smells like a jar of jelly, but it's remarkably good.
#Tea #Ukraine #Teableau #TeaCozy #TeaCosy #BlackTea #GreenTea #VintageChina #Handmade #Sewing #VWBug #Dogs #Nostalgia #Lovare
-
"Groovin' & Cruisin'"
Teableau for 09/05/25This Ukrainian blend of black and green teas is flavored with grapes. I was skeptical of a tea that smells like a jar of jelly, but it's remarkably good.
#Tea #Ukraine #Teableau #TeaCozy #TeaCosy #BlackTea #GreenTea #VintageChina #Handmade #Sewing #VWBug #Dogs #Nostalgia #Lovare
