How goes the coup?

 

On February 3 I posted here that “A coup has begun in the US.” A big part of that was creating the Department of Government Efficiency, which by subsuming another department, was able to waltz into many governmental departments and start slashing and destroying projects that had taken years to build up and were appropriated by Congress. Eventually Elon Musk, who was heading DOGE, left in disgrace, and it has been shown that DOGE actually made things worse instead of better. But now, almost 7 months later, how goes the coup?

At this point, I don’t think you can call it a coup as much as an attempt at a complete takeover of the entire society. Trump has influenced both the Legislative and Judicial branches of the federal government, thus weakening the Constitutional tri-partate system. He has super-charged a paramilitary service called Immigration and Customs Enforcement that was originally touted as going after illegal immigrants and criminals but has somehow managed to deport immigrants here legally and even US citizens. He has taken over the police department of Washington DC. He has forced our most venerable universities to kow tow to his demands. He has weakened science in many ways, including a current attempt to destroy satellites that he thinks are too woke. He is trying to force the Smithsonian Institute to alter its displays so they are more to Trump’s liking. He has deeply cut into solar and wind energy programs and tried to push us back into burning coal for electricity.

Anyway, it’s not looking good. People need to push back. However, many of the people in power who could conceivably push back are under Trump’s spell somehow. Congress, the Supreme Court, some media, and of course his avid MAGA followers are all praising these moves as “Making America Great Again.” A minority of people are speaking out, holding rallies, and attempting to counter what is happening. But so far, the Trump wagon is moving steadily forward toward complete oligarchy.

I don’t think, though, that MAGA people have thought this through. Trump is 79 years old. He will not be capable that much longer (there is evidence his faculties are fading now). So what happens after the US has turned into an autocracy, and the autocrat you put in place is gone? Who comes next? Will it be someone you like? If not, how do you then get rid of that autocrat? The Constitution was specifically designed to handle that, but Trumpism is making the Constitution less relevant every day.

It’s not too late. I haven’t fled the country yet. There is hope. But it will take a lot of work and effort to save us from what is happening.

AI brings little, but comes with huge cost

 https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2025/07/ai-in-wyoming-may-soon-use-more-electricity-than-states-human-residents/

 

"The project's energy demands are difficult to overstate for Wyoming, the least populous US state. The initial 1.8-gigawatt phase, consuming 15.8 terawatt-hours (TWh) annually, is more than five times the electricity used by every household in the state combined. That figure represents 91 percent of the 17.3 TWh currently consumed by all of Wyoming's residential, commercial, and industrial sectors combined. At its full 10-gigawatt capacity, the proposed data center would consume 87.6 TWh of electricity annually—double the 43.2 TWh the entire state currently generates."

 AI sucks up energy like a vacuum cleaner sucks up dust; it takes everything it can get.  But do we really need AI if it comes at such a cost?  Who will benefit from AI?  Who is pushing it on the public?  What are all the hidden costs?

 “The promise of automation was to do the mundane so human creativity can flourish. Instead, human creativity is demeaned as mundane so Big Tech’s machines can flourish.” [Thinking Like a Human, by David Weitzner, p. 114] 

Republicans: the bill saves money. Democrats: the bill SAYS adding $5 trillion to the debt

 

A book about why AI is dangerous

 The book Thinking Like a Human: The Power of Your Mind in the Age of AI, by David Weitzner, helps us understand why AI (“Artificial Intelligence”) is problematic.

There is a bit of woo thrown in here and there in Weitzner’s writings, but I find two sentences from the entire book that really summarize why we need to worry about the big push to grow AI. “The promise of automation was to do the mundane so human creativity can flourish. Instead, human creativity is demeaned as mundane so Big Tech’s machines can flourish.” [p. 114] and "Artful spaces want to nurture the slowness of experience in human time, while algorithmic spaces want us to ignore our bodies and respond to the prompts of digital commands." [ p. 230]

Essentially, AI is dangerous because it is taking the promise of robotics to free mankind from dull, repetitive work, and instead is an attempt by ruthless and/or incompetent businessmen to replace higher-level human thought and work with their AI products. So businesses have glommed on to a so-far poorly working product to make money by promoting something that will replace human thought rather than helping humans have more time to think and do.

“The policy wonks have bought in to the hype that algorithms, which started out as math, have become steady-state beings with agendas. AI is suddenly a deterministic force that our societies lack the power to resist. The strategies outlined in these papers seem to coalesce around a call for human passivity and impotence in the face of algorithms that have managed to transcend human control.” [p. 247-8]

Is there an antidote to having AI take over from human thought and actions? Yes, says Weitzner. We need to first think with our bodies as well as our mind. We cannot see ourselves as just a computer in a bag of flesh. We think with our vision, our touch, our smell, our interactions with others, our reactions to outside stimuli. AI has none of this. Also, we need to think LESS like AI. AI simply hoovers up what has been written and done in the past, and makes assumptions and “predictions” based on this information. So we as humans need to think not as calculators but as innovators, forward-thinking, questioning conclusions, brainstorming with others – in other words, doing the things that AI cannot do. “Artful spaces want to nurture the slowness of experience in human time, while algorithmic spaces want us to ignore our bodies and respond to the prompts of digital commands.” [p. 230]

So, do we stick with the original plan to have computers and robots do the rote and mundane, and help us with our inventiveness and progress, or do we flip that around with AI and let AI become the “genius” of the future while we do the cooking and cleaning? This is the choice Weitzner sees. And it is not a choice that humans are demanding, but rather a plan foisted on us by those who can make money if AI can take our place. We have a choice in this matter.

“Defense network computers. New... powerful... hooked into everything, trusted to run it all. They say it got smart, a new order of intelligence. Then it saw all people as a threat, not just the ones on the other side. Decided our fate in a microsecond: extermination.” [Kyle Reese, in The Terminator movie]

As an aside, I noticed that Weitzner throughout the book sort of assumes that all humans are extroverts. Part of the solution to AI is more human interaction, being open with each other, even synchronizing with each other by coming together for mass events. As a member of the Introverts, I am a bit off-put by this. Certainly there is room for us in this fight as well? We can be inventive and aggressive as well. I think I’ll write Weitzner for an addendum about this.

Dear Trump Administration: what's so bad about immigrants?

 https://www.reddit.com/r/Defeat_Project_2025/comments/1lfbr2x/ice_raids_and_their_uncertainty_scare_off_workers/

 

Trump claimed that his administration would expel illegal immigrants who are criminals, drug dealers, etc.  Instead, he expelling the very immigrants the country needs; hard-working, law-abiding immigrants.  Why?  What is the purpose, when the United States needs their labor?

 If you want to find the illegal and criminal immigrants, you don't go to their court hearings, or their workplaces. That is where the GOOD immigrants are.  This is the tell.  

Immigrants should indeed come here legally.  The government should go after the criminals and moochers.  Let's get this corrected, or we will have no one to work our farms. 

It's a car world. We just squeeze ourselves in where we can

 https://getpocket.com/explore/item/parking-has-eaten-american-cities?utm_source=firefox-newtab-en-us

 

 "Scharnhorst finds that there are more than 2 million parking spaces in Philadelphia, 1.85 million in New York, 1.6 million each in Seattle and Des Moines, and just over 100,000 in tiny Jackson, which has a population of about 10,000.

Parking takes up a huge amount of space: Jackson has more than 50 parking spaces per acre, 25 times its residential density of just two households per acre. Jackson has a whopping 27 parking spaces for each of its households."

* * * * *

There were 284 million vehicles registered in the US in 2024.  They require roads, bridges, parking spaces, fuel stations, repair stations, plants to build them, plants to tear them down when they get old. etc.

 Public transportation could go a long way to changing this so people are more important than vehicles.  City planning could emphasize bicycling, which not only takes up less space but provides good exercise.  There are solutions to this problem.  Paris, for instance, has started to phase cars out of the city.   This would be difficult for cities with poor weather, but it does show the possibilities.

Will US cities change their ways?  I believe so. Cars are getting expensive.  The new generation is not in love with cars like Baby Boomers are.  There is hope.

The rich cause more pollution. Who knew.

 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/may/07/two-thirds-of-global-heating-caused-by-richest-study-suggests

 

"The world’s wealthiest 10% are responsible for two-thirds of global heating since 1990, driving droughts and heatwaves in the poorest parts of the world, according to a study.

While researchers have previously shown that higher income groups emit disproportionately large amounts of greenhouse gases, the latest survey is the first to try to pin down how that inequality translates into responsibility for climate breakdown. It offers a powerful argument for climate finance and wealth taxes by attempting to give an evidential basis for how many people in the developed world – including more than 50% of full-time employees in the UK – bear a heightened responsibility for the climate disasters affecting people who can least afford it."

 

* * * * *

Can you believe the people who have personal jets, houses the size of small cities, and take vacations by circling the globe actually pollute more than poor people?  This is very useful news to find out where to look for reducing greenhouse gases.  Thanks to whomever did this research.