#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
#tools #weapons #AI #logic #damage #evil #CommonGood #IndividualEvil The T-shirt reads: “If guns kill people, I guess pencils misspell words, cars drive drunk and spoons make people fat.” There’s a lot of illogic to unpack there, but let’s try to imagine. Do people actually blame the tools for the damage THEY do? One could carry this idea into the future. If something good happens, the person did it. If something bad happens, the tool (read: AI, for example) did it. There currently are people in very high places who use that illogic. Sometimes, if a tool isn’t available to blame, another person usually is. Here’s how the real logic goes: if you have a tool that you can use for good, by all means use it for that. But, if that same tool can be used for evil, it’s on you to make sure that doesn’t happen. Tools are tools. Most do good, but also inflict damage. Which way it goes depends in whose hands the tool resides. How do we keep damage from occurring? It’s not always possible, but we can attempt to mitigate, if not eliminate, damage. We can try to keep “tools” out of the wrong hands. It’s not always possible, but we can try. Then, we can teach our children the proper use of tools. Just because we can make a tool do something, doesn’t mean we should – or even consider it. Tools were designed to accomplish things that we cannot do with our bare hands. Most animals have the equipment to do damage or good with their bodies alone. We humans, who also invent tools, need tools to accomplish necessary things. AI is, or will become, a great tool. But, in the wrong hands, can also do damage. In fact, it will be like the gun mentioned above. Do we want to use AI as a weapon or as a constructive tool? We, as a people, will have to decide that. By the way, guns can be used constructively in sports, hunting etc. They can even be a good self-defense weapon. But, they can also kill unnecessarily. When they kill unnecessarily, they have ended up with the wrong people. We have to do everything possible to make sure guns and the wrong people are parted. We used to ask whether a gadget was a tool or a toy. In today’s world, we have to ask whether a gadget is a useful tool or a weapon. Let’s use every tool in our box in its designed constructive way. Let’s not use them to deliberately injure people or property. Writing implements don’t misspell, but AI can. Cars don’t drive drunk, but AI can make self-driving cars move erratically if not functioning properly. Eating utensils do not make one fat, unless they are used (by people) too often. So, let’s tool up for the common good, not the individual evil. Peter
#bogeyman #BogeymanIssues #politicians #farmers #farmland #voting #China A politician criticizes his or her opponent for allowing, or at least not being concerned about, China buying up farmland in their state. Were that true, a governor or state legislature might be hard-pressed to stop it. A quick fact check showed China purchased no farmland in said state, though it has purchased other non-farm properties there, and farmland elsewhere in the U.S. It seems to be one of those “bogeyman issues” a politician likes to use to rile up his or her base and avoid talking about issues people really care about. There might be two reasons farmers might sell their land to China. Either: farmers are going bankrupt because the cost of raising a crop might be more than they get for the crop in the marketplace. Or, farmers want to retire, and their kids do not want to take over the farm. The “bogeyman issue” of China interferes with real discussions about government policies that might help farmers. The farmers trying to make ends meet between costs and crop prices would be helped by the government trying to keep prices down. Starting wars in the Middle East raises prices for fertilizer and diesel fuel, which most farm equipment runs on. Shutting down USAID, which not only helped starving people around the world, but also gave U.S. farmers a stable market for their products, also did no favors to farmers. That indicates that government may be contributing to farmers’ distress, rather than trying to help it. Then, there’s the matter of passing family farms to the next generation. Studies show that only between 15 percent and 35 percent of students who study agriculture in college go on to become hands-on farmers. Most of the others pursue careers in other parts of agribusiness. Farming life is hard. One has to love it to deal with so much they can’t control, like the weather, climate change etc. If students with an interest in agriculture would rather pursue careers in which they might sit at a desk or in a lab, rather than be out in the hot sun working a field, how can you blame them? It would be tough for any government to incentivize agriculture students to take over farms. For the retired or retiring farmer, much of his or her nest egg rests in his or her land. If farmers can sell their land for a decent price, regardless of the buyer, why wouldn’t they? It all goes back to politicians not wanting to discuss issues that affect most people, or that most people care about. The “bogeyman issues” may get a small percentage of the electorate’s attention, but they do not contribute to solving real problems. When going to the polls, ask yourself what Person X, presuming he or she is an incumbent or has served in other capacities, has done for you and your needs. Then, listen to what their opponents say THEY will do for you and your needs. If you don’t like Person X, give Person Y a try. If Person Y is elected, and doesn’t at least try to fulfill what he or she said he or she would do, then vote for someone else the next time. Politicians all face realities that inhibit them from being able to do all they promised. But, if they appear to be doing all they can to do so, they deserve the seat. Whatever your persuasion, you must vote whenever you have the opportunity. Not voting at all is sure to give you someone you don’t want – like a “bogeyman.” Peter
#GenZ #GenX #YoungAdults #elections #RunningForOffice #FutureLeaders The ominous headline reads: “No one’s coming to save us.” One might think the story was about disaster victims. But, The New York Times story by Emma Schartz and Pooja Salhotra is about Gen Z folks (young adults) who are running for political office and, in many cases, winning. They are beating, in many cases, much older opponents. The article was also published July 1, 2026, in The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. The point of the story is that since growing up through the COVID-19 pandemic, these young folks are finding that the government, usually run by much older people, is not working for them. Therefore, they are taking matters into their own hands. Another interesting point in the article is that they are not all of the same political persuasion. There are Charlie Kirk conservatives and Democratic Socialists in this mix. If you are older, perhaps the age of their parents or grandparents, do you feel threatened by these young folks taking over? If so, relax. This is a good thing. We’ve been hearing a lot about youth and their mental health recently. Some older folks are scratching their heads, because they believe the kids never had it so good. But, in fact, this is the first generation not expected to do as well as their parents financially and, perhaps, otherwise. With artificial intelligence either already here or on the horizon, their future looks even more uncertain. Their regular use of devices is not helping in many cases. We need kids to be technologically literate. We need innovators to innovate. But, for some, online addiction and bullying are real issues. We need them to interact more with people live, rather than through a device. When kids go through what they are going through, or have gone through, it’s really good that many of them are stepping up to control not only their own lives, but to help others. Their elders, rather than fearing this phenomenon, should instead go quietly into retirement and let the kids take over. Certainly, kids don’t always adopt the same attitudes, viewpoints and worldview of their elders. But, that is part of maturing. It’s part of becoming an adult. It’s part of becoming less dependent on mom and dad. Of course, there are those who can’t seem to find their way out of their parents’ basements. But, this article makes it clear that there are future leaders out there, like James Thibault. He’s running for re-election as a Republican state representative in New Hampshire at age 20. And, Melat Kiros, 29. She’s already beaten 15-term Democratic incumbent Diana DeGette, 68, for a Colorado congressional seat nomination. If you have a Gen Zer, or young Gen Xer in your family who is not satisfied with the way things are going for them, refer the Times article to them. Providing they don’t have a disability – or, even if they do – they, too, can take matters into their own hands. They CAN run for something. Feel free to help them as needed, but also cut them enough slack to make their own decisions about who they want to be. Yes, indeed, as the movie title says, “The Kids Are All Right.” Peter
#IndependenceDay #July4 #history #AmericanHistory #TeachingHistory #AmericanExceptionalism “American Exceptionalism” was once celebrated. Then, others came along and told us that America has done so many bad things throughout history, that it may not be such as exception. Beverly Gage, a history professor at Yale University, has taken a road trip to historical sites in America, and believes that all history, good and bad, should be taught. She highlights it in her book, “This Land is Your Land: A Road Trip Through U.S. History.” She talked about the book on “Fareed Zacharia GPS” on CNN May 10, 2026. History is often viewed with a point of view. Some don’t want the bad parts of U.S. history to be taught in schools. But, to paraphrase an old adage, ALL history needs to be taught, or the bad things will be repeated. Those who believe in “American Exceptionalism” want to downplay, or not teach at all, America’s history of slavery and other types of discrimination. Though over the 250 years of the country’s existence the country has prospered, not everyone has shared in that prosperity, nor, have shared in it to greater or lesser degrees. Those who believe in “American Exceptionalism” generally want to take the country back to a time when life was simpler. But, history IS the past and the present may or may not resemble it. It might be fair to say that today’s America does not resemble America from 50, 60 or 70 years ago. As much as we may want to relive those eras, the progress the country has made over that time will never allow it. But, those past decades can teach lessons. They can teach us what we SHOULD do now, and what we SHOULDN’T do now. The actions in each category differ depending on the point of view. We tend to think of history as a set of facts that we memorize in school. But, even children need to learn to discern the good and bad from history. They should learn to cherish and preserve the good, and not to repeat the bad. One can appreciate and be grateful to his or her ancestors, but do not have to emulate some of their behaviors. One can appreciate the hardships his or her ancestors endured, and be grateful he or she no longer has to endure them. One can also see the behavior of current Americans, and make wise choices whether to emulate them. As the country celebrates 250 years of existence, it’s good to embrace the good, but learn the bad so as not to embrace it. Compared to the history of other countries, there is much to appreciate about America’s journey. The next 250-year journey may be totally different from past journeys. Hopefully, then, Americans will then embrace the good about the past and learn about the bad so as not to embrace it. So, this Independence Day, celebrate. Know that the road to get where we are was, at times, rocky and, at other times, a glide path. Know that our individual experiences could be very different. But, all are worth celebrating. Peter
#people #machines #AI #ArtificialIntelligence #hospitality #jobs #tasks The Chase ad portrays the man in the self-driving car and the robot serving him coffee (not the way he wants it) with the song, “Tired of Being Alone” playing in the background. Chase promises that when you go into its offices, you’ll have real people to serve you. Machines are great for some tasks. They can actually replace some people for menial tasks. But, the line should be drawn for public-facing jobs. Chase is correct. People should serve people. The advancement of AI holds great promise, perhaps for some back-of-the-house tasks, to use a hospitality term. But, the front of the house should be people. Of course, robots could bring things to the people who serve. In fact, part of the reason people go to banks, restaurants and other public spaces is to interact with people. That isn’t to say that some tasks could not be automated. For example, one could envision going into a restaurant, choosing a seat yourself, placing an order via a computer, laptop or tablet and, when finished, paying the bill via that same device. But, there should be actual people to consult if there are questions about certain menu items, and to bring the food to the table. Can anyone envision asking a machine whether a certain dish is spicy? If it comes to that, how could anyone believe what the machine is saying? Hospitality, by definition, is human-to-human contact. People serving, or caring for, people. Much of banking, meanwhile, has become automated. You can make a withdrawal or deposit by ATM. But, you can’t get financial advice – at least good, reliable advice about your personal situation – from a machine. Of course, if you don’t need advice and just need to, say, buy a mutual fund or a CD, a machine can probably do that. But, the point of the Chase ad is that we, as people or as customers, prefer interacting with people. We can only hope that Chase, and other institutions like it, prefer using people, rather than machines, to serve its customers and clients. You can certainly cultivate relationships using electronic devices, Web sites and social media. But, it is definitely not the same as talking to someone in person. Such mechanical interactions have prompted lots of loneliness and, as has been alleged, created mental health issues, particularly among younger people. A young person who’s grown comfortable with online interactions may have difficulty with interpersonal interactions in a workplace. The lesson here is that not only is it good business to have real people for customers and clients to talk to, it’s also good for society. When given the choice of talking to a real person live, or communicating online, one should always choose the former. That isn’t to say that online communication doesn’t work in some scenarios. In the 1964 Broadway musical “Funny Girl,” Barbra Streisand famously sang: “People who need people are the luckiest people in the world.” Whenever you are able to interact with someone in person, you should. When you do, consider yourself lucky. Peter
