#voting #voters #elections #economics #politics #jobs #FinancialWellBeing Voters feel as if they’ve lost control of their lives, and no politician(s) are going to be able to give it back to them. That point was made during a discussion among Katy Tur, Catherine Rampell and Mark McKinnon on Tur’s show “The Moment” on MSNOW Sept. 22, 2026. Rampell, an economics commentator on MSNOW, and McKinnon, a political consultant, were discussing how voters may react in the upcoming midterm elections. The Republicans this cycle have made promises, but didn’t keep them. In past cycles, Democrats did the same. With gasoline, grocery, housing and health-care prices skyrocketing, with employment prospects uncertain as artificial intelligence comes to the fore, it’s no wonder people are feeling as if they have no control over their lives. In more cases, young people feel destined not to do as well as their parents financially. In past decades, the opposite was true in most cases. When you have to buy clothes for work, gas up your car to get you to work etc., it may cost some people more to go to work than to stay home, if they work for low pay. For these folks, hope isn’t going to cut it. Tomorrow will be a better day rings hollow. Becoming better off over time is, well, a fallacy – or, perhaps, fantasy. Still, when evaluating whom to vote for, one has to rely on promises. When politicians break those promises, regardless of party affiliation, voters get discouraged. When they get discouraged, a gut reaction is to not vote for anyone. But, almost every time, when one doesn’t vote, the result is disappointing at best, disastrous at worst. Voting is an act of faith. Therefore, when voting, one has to assess the person’s record, affiliations and overall personality. As with many life choices, one has to choose something. Making the best choice sometimes is hard, but making a choice often is bold. Avoiding a choice is, well, chickening out. All decisions have consequences. If no decision is a decision, it WILL have consequences. If you can stop the immediate bleeding by making a decision, that is bold. Sometimes, voting decisions are based on having nothing left to lose. Though it may be tempting to make an emotional decision in the voting booth, it’s best to go into the booth armed with real evidence. A good rule of thumb on which to base one’s voting decision: look at who is most benefiting from the status quo, and who is not. If you are not benefiting from the status quo, vote for change. Certainly, if change comes, it may not be everything you want. But, if the status quo is not giving you much of what you want, change can be better. The 1940s and 1950s are viewed by many as the best years for America. It’s impossible to go backward. It’s inevitable to move forward. If whom to vote for is not a cut and dried decision for you, make the best decision possible. If it is cut and dried – at least in your mind – think about why that is. To borrow from a Lee Ann Womack lyric, if you have the choice to sit it out or vote, I hope you vote. Make a plan to vote, based on the rules in your jurisdiction. But, please vote. Don’t sit this one out. Peter
#hypocrisy #honesty #HonestHypocrisy #human #advantages #SmallBusiness #cheating Is there such a thing as honest hypocrisy? Consider this Tower of Power lyric: “I can’t stand to see the slaughter, but still I eat the meat. I can’t stand dishonest people, but still sometimes I cheat.” Or, this advice from a small business owner to a friend considering starting a business: “I know you’re an honest person, but if you don’t cheat a little, you won’t survive.” By such standards, honest hypocrisy might be defined as being honest about one’s hypocrisy. But, as humans who want to do the right thing all the time, one may face times when “the right thing” may not be the best thing to do at the time. In the above examples, “the slaughter” is ordinary meat production. Animals are raised specifically to be eventually killed for their meat. Of course, no one really likes the idea of killing animals, but even in nature, one animal kills another to feed itself. Also, it’s human nature to want an advantage, even when you may have been told that taking that advantage is wrong. Look at demographics as an example. In recent decades, certain demographic characteristics gave some people an advantage over others in the job market. As much as many politicians want to take away those demographic advantages today, they are still a reality. Those who hire people often use them. Applicants who possess those advantages often include a photo to prove they match certain demographic groups. Of course, they also have to be qualified for the jobs they are seeking. Cheating on one’s taxes, even a little, is against the law. But, there are some parts of the tax code that some may consider “wrong,” with respect to struggling small businesses, or even struggling individual taxpayers. They see it as right to cut through that “wrongness” by cheating a little. No one really gets hurt by such action, the rationale goes. But, when cheating becomes a way of life, as with some with all the advantages in the world to begin with, it can rile “honest” hypocrites. Because we are human, complete honesty at all times can be illusive. That’s why the term “white lie” came into being. Do you want to know how honest you really are? Ask yourself: If I found a $50 bill on the ground in a crowded area, what would I do? Would I put it in my pocket, as in, “finders keepers, losers weepers?” Or, would I ask people in the area whether they had dropped it, knowing that anyone can lie and say it’s theirs? It may depend on your personal financial situation. It may depend on how you would feel if you had dropped it. Or, it may depend on how guilty you would feel if you’d kept it. Most of us grapple with life decisions all the time. None of us is perfect, but most of us consider ourselves virtuous. Being an honest hypocrite may not always make a person feel good, but, sometimes, it may feel like the right thing to do at the time, as long as no one else gets hurt. So, as you go through life, be as honest as you can. Try not to be a hypocrite. Peter
#AI #GoodUseOfAI #BadUseOfAI #ThreatsOfAI #AIRegulation Some people who are working on AI research are blowing the whistle on its unchecked development. They are saying that AI could kill off all humanity in a few short years. Some AI companies are offering options for how best to regulate AI to only do good. But something that powerful in the wrong hands, or even left to its own devices unsupervised by humans, could be devastating. Some of us might sit back and say the hyperbole is just that. Others might curl up and think the worst is inevitable. Uncertainty can activate impulses in one’s imagination, but it’s best for rational thinkers – even if they don’t yet know fully what AI can or can’t do – to plan the ultimate AI rollout with the proper vetting and, yes, imagination. First, establish what AI can do, how best that function can be used for good and pass rules and regulations preventing the bad things from occurring. That’s easier said than done, of course, but a good start might be to make the developing companies responsible for what their product(s) does and causes. They reap the rewards and cover the damage(s). That may confine research, and it won’t stop every bad actor. Still, it’s a good start, considering the uncertainty. Every tool developed over time has its good and bad applications. A hammer used on nails is good. A hammer used on, say, people, is bad. But, a hammer is a simple tool. AI is much more complicated. The good potential that it has is combined with as much or more bad potential. Having just celebrated the 25th anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, we see the good and bad things airplanes can do. Airplanes can do much more good, and much more evil, than a hammer. The perpetrators of the Sept. 11 attacks wanted to kill us all. They killed some of us, but didn’t kill us all. AI is much more complicated than an airplane. It must be rolled out with caution, careful consideration and with proper guardrails. We cannot leave the creators to their own devices. Remember, the creators have incentives to be careful. If their product kills all of humanity, who will pay them for their work? As the average person, it’s important here to get a grip on AI. Just as it is unwise to presume that the better angels will prevail as it rolls out, it’s also unwise to believe that ONLY bad actors will control it. Make sure you do all that you can to elect people who have courage to encourage the good and stop the bad. This is no time for laissez-faire attitudes. Whether AI destroys humanity may not be in the hands of its creators and users entirely. It may be in the hands of those who set boundaries for the creators. As with anything, bad actors can create weapons from very useful things. We must be diligent in making sure as few bad actors as possible get their hands on this technology. What happens to you personally may not always be in your control. But, if it doesn’t kill you, it could make you stronger. Peter
#FlockCameras #surveillance #SurveillanceAbuse #AI #AIManipulation #privacy Someone is always watching you. Or so it seems with the proliferation of Flock cameras. These devices are license plate readers that police in various jurisdictions, also perhaps private security operations, are placing throughout an area to read license plates. For police, they seem to be a great law enforcement tool. If a crime is committed in a certain area with a surveillance camera, it’s easier to find and capture the criminal. But, recent news reports are showing that police officers themselves, perhaps spying on an ex-spouse or significant other, are abusing the advantage the cameras give them to fight crime. And, to take it a step further, these cameras can be used to spy on any of us, for any reason. We, as Americans, value our privacy. We should be free to undertake normal life activities sight unseen by law enforcement – unless we are actually breaking the law. In the 1960s, a TV show called “Candid Camera” secretly filmed people doing funny (read: stupid) activities that were set up for them without their knowledge. They not only didn’t know what they were about to get into, they had no idea they would be filmed doing it. It was all in good fun, and provided some amusing entertainment. Most of those filmed were not in places they were not supposed to be, and most actually got a kick out of it. It makes one wonder, though, whether there were any objections to being filmed, and whether those people forbade the show from airing them. But, as discussed last week, AI, data centers and now surveillance cameras are giving government and other big entities a leg up on getting information about people in general. There’s no doubt in most people’s minds that this gathering of information is going to be used for purposes not in keeping with the free American life. Big Brother, from the novel “1984”, is watching. But, they may not be watching to look out for everyone’s safety. There are certain activities that most people would call “wrong,” but are not illegal. If such activities get filmed, entities can use that information against the person being filmed. Should police departments decide to become corrupt, they cannot be trusted with such information. Someone with access could have a swindle side hustle selling that information. Of course, there are those who argue that if one isn’t doing anything wrong, what’s the problem with filming them? They might be doing something embarrassing, but not necessarily wrong. Combining AI manipulation with unnecessary surveillance, a situation can look a lot worse than it is. The person involved would have no way to disprove or refute it, even though he or she did nothing wrong. America and the world is coming into a new age. We may go kicking and screaming, protesting the “advantages” of technology. But, once the capabilities are created and meshed, it is tough to stop it. We would all be better off presuming that whatever we are doing, even inside our own homes, could be filmed. Because we are human, perfect behavior will not be the outcome. It’s been said that a person can be judged by what he or she does when no one’s watching. Now, we have to believe everyone’s watching. There are degrees of “wrong.” Inflating those degrees through technological surveillance and manipulation is the real sin. Peter
#DataCenters #AI #ArtificialIntelligence #neighborhoods #RuralAreas #transparency No one wants a big data center in his or her back yard. They use lots of power. They use lots of water. They emit disturbing noise, and who knows what else. But, at this moment, if the country wants to be the best in the world at artificial intelligence innovation, the data centers might be a necessary evil. Artificial intelligence has its own pitfalls, when it comes to people. Currently, there’s a real fear that AI will take away lots of jobs people now do. Still, it’s scientific progress, and that’s hard to stop when it’s in motion. Therefore, it’s incumbent on us, as a nation, to figure out how best to use AI, and to prevent evil uses of it. And, as data centers are proposed, everything should be done in the open at all phases. No tax breaks. Lots of public hearings during the process. AI is a big unknown. Even some of its creators are unsure exactly how best to use it once it’s perfected. And, large companies have invested big in AI, and most have yet to see it pay off. That spurs fears of an AI “bubble” bursting in the financial markets. When there is such an unknown, lots of imaginations run wild – good and bad. Those who fear for their jobs imagine the worst. Those who wish to innovate imagine the best. Those who imagine the good create it, then find unintended consequences that are not so good. So, as one imagines what AI might do, it might be best to either innovate or be flexible enough about one’s life to find ways to make the best of it when it throws a curve at you. Data centers, meanwhile, are big, hulking artifacts that occupy lots of space. Particularly if you live in a rural area, where most of them are being built or proposed, a data center could be a real eyesore to your neighborhood, and quiet way of life. It might be best to move them to already noisy industrial areas, and make them provide their own power and water, without affecting anyone else’s. The question not often posed is: If AI technology progresses to the extent that these big data centers ultimately require a smaller footprint, what happens to the big, hulking creations we might need now to bridge the gap? To illustrate that, remember that computer mainframes were reduced to desktop towers, then to laptop and tablet devices, then to pocket phones. This all happened in relatively few years. It’s not inconceivable that these big data centers could get smaller, and smaller again, over time. Then, those who live near the big warehouse data centers would be left with empty monstrosities. But, here’s the rub: Technology is created in stages. It’s impossible to know when, or even whether, those data centers will get smaller, and, thus, more palatable. The big centers offer new jobs, but what happens to those jobs when they get smaller? What do people do as they wait for technology to take its course? The hopeful thing is that technology usually evolves quickly. The concerning thing during the evolution is much damage to individual lives can be done, and can’t be undone. This is why it’s important, as individuals, to anticipate the worst and, when it happens, to make the best out of it. Some people will really prosper. Others will be left behind. It may be up to the individual to see on which side of the spectrum he or she will be. If you get stuck with a big data center near you, make sure those officials who brought it take whatever action necessary to mitigate the problems it will create. Peter
#labels #PoliticalCandidates #voting #ProductLabels #PoliticalLabels When someone labels you, it can be tough to soak off. But, as observers, we should all learn not to judge people by what someone else labels them. Conservatives like to call their fellow conservative opponents “liberals.” They are now fixated on calling their actual liberal opponents “communist.” When one goes to vote, is that person influenced by someone else’s label for a candidate? He or she should not be. Labels on food are designed to be factual. They let potential buyers know what is in the package they are picking up. Often, they let one know how many calories one would consume by eating or drinking the product. Hopefully, the product’s maker is not misleading consumers by lying on the label. But, when people are labeled, the intention is not to inform. The intention is to scare or mislead. It’s one thing for a person to call himself or herself something. That’s telling all who will listen who they are, and how they might react to certain situations. When others label a person, one should take it with a grain of salt. As voters, we should rely entirely on what a person has done, or has said. We should not rely on what others say about them. The exception here is when a person is accused by another of wrongdoing. The accused is very unlikely to admit guilt, at least right away. But, if the accusations are true, or the accusers show credible evidence to back up their allegations, one should take them seriously. Of course, people can redeem themselves and warrant forgiveness. But, observers should be wary of any redemption efforts. They could be a charade. When others label a person, it’s often to tell others what such person MIGHT do when he or she is in office. They are designed to let fearful imaginations run wild at the prospect of this person having power or authority. Make no mistake. Some politicians or candidates deserve what they are labeled. But, to deserve a label, there must be evidence to back it up. People often get labeled because what they are proposing, or offering, is good for the public. Good ideas can lead to bad labels. So, don’t judge a person by what others label him or her. Let them speak, or act, for themselves to tell you who they are. The act of fighting off a label can be a noble trait. The act of fighting for others who need help is honorable. So, in this election season, vote. Vote for good people who will work for you. Vote for people who will do their best to keep their promises. Not voting will get you nothing more than an imaginary label. Peter
#humanity #voting #elections #PoliticalCandidates #VoterIntimidation #vote We value humanity as integral to our existence. The Golden Rule says: “Do unto others, as you would have them do unto you.” But, some in public life are working very hard to try to tell us that SOME of us are worthy of our humanity, while others are not. If you favor X, you should be treated well. If you oppose X, you should be treated badly. As a result, we have public policies that literally dehumanize the opponents of those in power. The policy takes shape by first dehumanizing those who don’t LOOK like, or whose surnames are dissimilar, to those in power. Then, it moves on to those who look and have surnames similar to those in power, but express views differing from those in power. It goes further, thereby declaring those in science and others who live by and tell the truth as something less than human. If you believe this is not who we are, or this is not who we should be, YOU can do something about it. You can work for political opponents of those in power, who strive to restore humanity. If you can’t do that, make it a point to vote for those candidates at every level, and at every opportunity. Working for candidates requires a great deal of sacrifice. Voting may also require some sacrifice. But, if you want to restore our humanity, the sacrifice will be more than worth it. Those in power want fewer people to vote, because their dehumanizing policies are not popular. They will try to mess with elections. They may even try to interfere at polling places. That puts voters at some risk. But, don’t let their tactics deter you. Don’t let long lines deter you. In fact, if the lines are long, be thankful as well as patient. Local law enforcement and election authorities must do all they can to prevent ANY interference – foreign or domestic, federally authorized or otherwise – with our elections. Remember: State and local authorities control elections, not the federal government. Most of the local officials are dedicated to free and fair elections. They encourage ANYONE eligible to vote to vote by whatever methods are allowed. They ensure that if one votes, and follows the rules, his or her vote will be counted. The goal is to have as many eligible voters as possible at the polls casting votes. So, this year’s elections may not seem like a threat to our existence. But, they could be a threat to our humanity. Under no circumstances will sitting out the election solve this problem, particularly if you are looking for change. So, work for candidates if you can. But, having all eligible voters vote is a must. Peter
#parents #children #GoodBehavior #BadBehavior #respect In the Angi ad, kids are whacking adults with harmless weapons. In the VRBO ad, dad asks his teens whether there is room for him in the hot tub. They say no. He leaves. Isn’t dad paying for the VRBO with the hot tub? These two ads say a lot about how kids rule their households. It used to be the other way around. Even though the weapons in the Angi ad are harmless – they look like pool noodles – the adults getting whacked had to have been annoyed. In decades past, if a child annoyed an adult, he or she would have been punished. And, to show such annoying behavior in a TV ad would have been taboo. Are parents, or other adult family members, so oblivious to the children’s behavior that they don’t notice? In decades past, parents prioritized good behavior in children. It required work, for sure, but a parent could never allow their children to misbehave. In the VRBO ad, the hot tub appeared to be small, just big enough for two people. Dad would have made it cramped for everyone. But, if dad is paying for vacation, he should be allowed to take his turn in the hot tub. Perhaps he did, eventually. One should only spend so much time in a hot tub in one sitting. But for the teen girls to rebuff him would have been considered misbehavior decades ago. Children need to be taught good behavior and manners at as young an age as possible. Decorum is important to learn not just for their interaction with adults, but for their interactions when they become adults. If there have never been rules at home, they will be surprised when schools or future employers impose behavioral rules on them. Running wild and whacking adults with pool noodles is not good behavior. Not allowing dad a turn in the hot tub shows disrespect for the person responsible for your nice vacation. In fairness, some households are overly restrictive on kids. Kids need opportunities to blow off steam, particularly if they are bored. Bored children can create the kind of mischief that might be beyond the pale, because imaginations can run wild amid boredom. And, kids need time to be kids, just as teens need time to be teens. The good parents know when behaviors need to be curbed and respect for others – particularly elders – needs to be taught. That requires work on the part of both parents and children. Kids need established behavioral rules. Parents need to know when those rules can be broken. Good behavior among children is not just for the benefit of non-parental observers. It’s for parents’ sanity and children’s education. A good rule for both parents and kids: Treat others as you would like to be treated. If you practice that, good behavior, and good parenting, will be a natural outcome. Peter
#AI #ArtificialIntelligence #government #RegulatingAI #progress #jobs #LostJobs Talk about push and pull? Technology, particularly artificial intelligence, is advancing quickly. Government, which is trying to figure out how to manage the AI onslaught, moves slowly. CNN commentator Fareed Zakaria discussed this on his “GPS” show July 26, 2026. His commentary begs many questions, including: Do people want AI to advance quickly? Do people want government to act more quickly to mitigate its bad effects or to regulate it? Would government be able to move that quickly? Many candidates for public office want to make government more efficient. They don’t want it to stand in the way of the progress AI is making. People, who don’t seem to like anyone in government, are still in the dark about what AI will do to their lives, their jobs, their creativity etc. They are not sure whether they want government to slow or help advance the progress of AI and related technology. So, what’s a person running for office to do or say to those still unsure whether they want AI to move more quickly, or slow it down? It’s a dilemma for those candidates, but they would be wise to figure out what they can and cannot do as part of government. It’s clear the technology will advance at its own pace. It’s not clear what that will mean, and what can be done to mitigate its ill effects on people. Almost everyone presumes that some jobs will go away, while others will be created. How individuals navigate that landscape in the job market is not something government can really control. Government can help find ways for people to cope with the effects of AI. Government can pass laws that will govern how best AI can be productive, while minimizing any ill effects. One might compare AI to a fast-moving car, and government to potholes. But, it might be better to compare AI to a tractor-trailer and government to a speed governor inside the vehicle. Some of today’s public officials want to harken back to yesteryear, when things were “good” for many people. But, during those “good” times, many people suffered. Therefore, some politicians today seem to be choosing sides, fighting for some people but ignoring, even hurting, others. Some even go so far as to fight for those who already have good, prosperous lives, and ignoring or hurting the rest of the population. In a few years, when more AI advances are prevalent, who will be the prosperous ones? Who will be left behind? None of us knows now. But, what is known is that AI is moving quickly. Government can do little, if anything, to stop it. People, in general, can do little to stop it. So, both government and people have to deal with results. How they do will make all the difference in who prospers and who doesn’t. Some may advise people to strap in and ride the tide. But, better advice might be to surf the tide. You could wipe out, but you also could find a beach on the other end. Peter
#restaurants #dining #EatingOut #DigestiveDistress #StomachIssues #SpicyFood #OverpricedRestaurants The well-dressed waiter brings out the pink elixir. In an ad for Pepto Bismol, a patron at what looks to be a fancy restaurant experiences some digestive distress, and the waiter brings out the Pepto wrapped in a cloth napkin. First, if one owned the restaurant, and a customer became distressed, wouldn’t you inquire about what he ate? Would you try to trace what might have caused the distress? And, why, as an elegant restaurant, would you make it a point to have Pepto on hand for customers? Finally, if you experienced digestive distress at a restaurant, how likely would it be that you would go back to that restaurant? These are all questions designed to illustrate how farfetched the ad is. But it also raises questions about dining out, and what you eat. Do you frequently eat spicy food? Do you relish enduring as much heat as possible when you eat? If so, digestive distress may be a regular occurrence, whether dining in or dining out. If you stay away from spicy food, and you get digestive distress after an elegant meal, then you may want to determine whether that restaurant is suitable. If you pay a big bill – which could also give you distress – on top of your queasiness, then you should re-evaluate your dining options. Restaurants, particularly elegant ones, often charge a premium. For that price, the food needs to be tasty, plentiful – or, at least, satisfying – and the atmosphere needs to be, well, elegant. The food should never make the clientele sick, or give them distress. Even less expensive restaurants shouldn’t give their diners distress. If they do, and they’ve made an honest mistake, they should own up to it. No one would expect them to do it deliberately. Offering them medicinal relief upon distress is a sign that you might expect your diners to get ill. That would not be good for business. The bottom line is if you have a sensitive digestive system, you should be careful what you eat, and where you might eat it. Some restaurants’ prices should indicate that they expect their food to be good, and distress-free. By the way, some restaurants are overpriced for no good reason. Others are worth the splurge. Know the difference. Bon appetit. Peter
