After the American Century

The Great Energy Transition, 25% discount

2026-03-24T08:45:00.000+01:00

Until midnight March 26, SAVE 25% - PRE-ORDER at Barnes and Noble.

A Plea for Justice: Should Trump Stand Trial for Murder?

2026-01-15T11:09:00.001+01:00

After the American Century

Beginning on September 2, 2025, Donald Trump has ordered the execution of civilians on the high seas, without identifying them, charging them with a crime, attempting to capture them alive, or providing them an opportunity to surrender. These people were executed without due process or even evidence. The American Friends Service Committee, a Quaker organization, notes that, "The U.S. government claims the men killed were 'narco-terrorists' and members of Tren de Aragua but has provided no evidence. Interviews with victims’ families indicate that some of those killed had no ties to the drug trade."

These crimes must not be forgotten or ignored. The International Criminal Court could determine whether Trump and his Secretary of War are guilty of the murder of more than 120 people in the Caribbean and the Pacific Ocean. It appears that, without a declaration of war, members of the United States military violated international law with these attacks, which continued long after the probable illegality of these murders was widely discussed. There are also reports that in some cases the military has disguised an attacking plane as a civilian aircraft. If true, this constitutes the crime of perfidy, and that also violates international law.

The attacks have not ceased in 2026, and this has become a systematic military program of the murder of civilians. The Court could uphold the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, notably Article 3, “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person,” and Article 6, “Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.” Bombing small boats on the high seas and slaughtering everyone on board does appear to be an intentional violation of these articles. A thorough investigation is urgently needed.

I do not imagine that either of these men will appear in person to stand trial for murder. But if a warrant were issued for their arrest, it would send a clear signal that other nations deplore these murders and wish to live in a world governed by international law. It would repudiate these murderous acts, and would also will encourage American lawyers and courts to hold these men to account for these and any other criminal acts they may commit.

For more information, see

The Guardian

Amnesty International

A story on National Public Radio

Did the U.S. commit a war crime in the Caribbean?

The Great Energy Transition from 1876 to 1929

2025-12-30T10:19:00.001+01:00

After the American Century

In March of 2026 I will publish The Great Energy Transition, America from 1876 to 1929, my 13th book with The MIT Press. This new book is far more than a summary of my previous studies. It examines how new forms of energy transformed every aspect of American life in a span of 50 years after 1876 – and how these changes seeded our current polarization.

The Great Energy Transition has already been endorsed by several reviewers, including Professor John Stilgoe of Harvard University, one of the finest scholars working on the history of the American landscape, and Julie Cohn at Rice University, an expert on energy history.

"A magisterial analysis of technological and social whirwinds that still sway everyday life, this is the rare book that takes on major issues and does so well. This is a truly milestone book."

– John Stilgoe, Harvard University

"With this book, the reader is in the hands of a master historian. Nye reminds us that energy transitions are a long game, and the kaleidoscopic era·1876 to 1929–echoes today."

– Julie A. Cohn, Rice University

334 pages, 35 illustrations
Publication date, end of March 2026

For more information, here is the link to MIT Press

at https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262052122/the-great-energy-transition/

You can also order it from any bookstore, including:

Penguin Random House Amazon

Barnes and Noble Bookshop.org

Comparing the Electrical and Digital Revolutions

2025-11-21T09:35:00.000+01:00

After the American Century

I was interviewed by a journalist a few days ago about the comparison between the electrical revolution between 1890-1930 with the adoption of digital technologies. This is complicated and I literally could write another book, but here are my reflections on this question.

Fireless Fireworks, Aurora Effect

Hudson-Fulton Celebration, New York City, 1909

for more information, see

David E. Nye, American Technological Sublime, 153-165

The electrical system was deployed by equipment manufacturers beginning in the 1880s. Almost immediately came horizontal integration as many firms merged. By the middle 1890s a duopoly of GE and Westinghouse dominated the market, and they pooled their patents in 1895. Both sold equipment to local utilities, which were gradually linked into regional systems, and later joined large scale power-sharing agreements. To some extent GE and Westinghouse owned stock in these local utilities, but they did not come to dominate that part of the industry. Rather the equipment manufacturers early became international, while the utilities were local and later regional monopolies. There was also a third tier of the industry, consisting of many small companies whose products plugged into the electrical system. There was some vertical integration between these fairly independent layers, but it was regulated by state utility boards and to some degree by the federal government. At the time, it was thought that many utilities, including those that sold gas, electricity, water, and other products delivered by networks, were "natural monopolies." It seemed to make no economic sense to build more than one set of gas lines or electrical transmission networks.

This situation only roughly corresponds with the division today where (1) some corporations produce computer chips and other vital components, (2) those who assemble components into products such as laptops, mobile phones and tablet, (3) those focused on software development as Microsoft did in its formative years, and (4) those making making printers or other peripherals (they are roughly equivalent to those who in 1925 made electrical clocks, radios, appliances, etc.)

How do these two systems differ?

(1) Today, there is less government regulation, which also declined as a part of the electrical system after c. 1980. The old utilities were governed by state boards that oversaw pricing of electricity and had some influence on the structure of competition.

(2) There is less horizontal integration and more vertical integration. Apple is a prime example. It designs its own chips, produces hardware, and the software for its operating system, and also chooses which software products can be purchased through its online store. Google takes a somewhat different approach, as it does not make computers, but it has created a mobile phone standard, etc. Microsoft at first focused on software but later realized it might best sell computers and tablets. There is some interoperability, notably in email, but to a considerable degree each corporation attempts to create a suite of software and services that can capture and hold the attention of users. Facebook is attempting to market a digital world of its own, the Metaverse, which is intended to be a 3D virtual world where users will work, socialize and be entertained. Google has an expanding range of apps designed to serve every need, whether to work, play, or explore. Note that each corporation seeks to become all encompassing, and each one is independent. The consumer can leave one and go to another, but it is not possible to integrate them. The horizonal integration is quite limited.

(3) In this situation, there are no equivalents of local utilities subject to state regulation. Instead, corporations compete with one another to create a suite of useful products that together define a universe or system that supplies an ever-expanding range of services. There was only one local utility for each city or town in 1920, as this was thought to be inherent in the technology - natural monopolies seemed the only sensible option. Today's tech companies all seek to serve every market, and given weak regulation the profits being made are enormous. Look at the largest corporations making up the DOW Jones industrial average in c. 1925, and one finds a list of companies that emerged after 1880 to dominate the economy, many of them energy related, such as GE, Westinghouse, GM, Ford, and many oil companies. In 2020 these have been dethroned from the top of the list. As late as 1990, the top five companies were General Motors, Ford, Exxon, IBM, and General Electric. In 2020 only Exxon remained among the top five, which was made possible by merging with Mobil Oil. Otherwise, the top five were Wal-Mart, Amazon, Apple. and CVS Health.

(4) Electrification interfaced with all aspects of society, as every part of society eventually was included in the network. The electrical system of power generation, transmission, and installation involved wiring up millions of buildings and building the infrastructure needed to supply them with power. It took more more than fifty years to establish. A great deal of standardization was built into the electrical system. This created ideal preconditions for the rapid adoption of digital technologies.

(5) The electrical system developed slowly, reaching various markets in a sequence of expansions that took decades, as described in Electrifying America (MIT Press 1990). The digital transformation began slowly after World War Two, but it is now stampeding ahead, reaching into almost all sectors of the economy simultaneously. The pace of change is far faster than the design of legislation to control it. Governments struggle to keep up. For example, during the development of AI there has been a massive violation of the laws of copyright, and the government and the courts are struggling with a wave of lawsuits. There are many other examples, of course, as each of the separate corporate universes seeks to maximize profits.

(6) At first this digital transformation only took a small amount of the energy being produced, to some extent offset by efficiency improvements in lightbulbs, motors, etc. But now the demands of AI are sucking up vast amounts of energy, and there is an emerging crisis of supply. The electrical system, which grew extremely rapidly between 1900 and the 1990s, after that had begun to reach a stasis, in which per capita demand was falling due to improved efficiencies, roughly counterbalanced by population growth. But in 2025 demand is surging, and the systems are close to being overtaxed. Increasing the generation and transmission systems is a slow business, and therefore a crunch is coming.

(7) One final difference has developed from the confluence of the differences discussed above. The electrical system, given its design, did not lend itself to gathering extensive information about consumers. Each utility had the names and addresses of its customers, and it could keep track of how much electricity they used. But they had no way to track the consumer choices among various electrical products, which they might buy anywhere. Only in the first years did utilities themselves sell light bulbs or appliances, and soon this aspect of the business was handled by independent retailers. The digital system, in stunning contrast, has used its vertical integration to assemble vast, detailed databases on every consumer within its orbit. In effect, the consumer has become a product for sale in a new attention economy, as this database is used to design and pinpoint advertising messages.

If one looks ahead, there are many unknowns. How much will AI grow? Will it prove to be overhyped? How long will solar cells and wind turbines continue to become more efficient? Where is the limit in their development? Steam turbines kept getting more efficient (and larger) for 75 years or more. If alternative energies do the same, then the average homeowner or business building could become a mini-utility, supplying its own needs, charging automobiles, and selling significant amounts of power to the grid. But the problem now is that government is playing catch up, and some inefficiencies and disincentives may be institutionalized before suitable controls are created.

The big question is whether the corporations that now dominate the digital world will be allowed to continue in their present form, or whether like Rockefeller's Standard Oil, like IBM, and like AT&T, they will be reformed and to some degree broken up by legislation. A century ago the Progressives saw the need for such change. The European Union now grasps the need for it. But the current American government under Trump accepts million dollar gifts from the largest digital companies and encourages an emergent Silicon Valley authoritarianism. The once popular idea that digitization and the Internet would lead to greater democracy, mutual understanding, and increased freedom has hardly been realized. For further reading, I recommend the excellent book by Shoshana Zuboff, of the Harvard Business School: The Age of Surveillance Capitalism (2019).

The President Has No Clothes

2025-10-06T10:25:00.007+02:00

After the American Century

Hans Christian Andersen wrote a prophetic story about a king who thought he was acquiring magical clothing that was of superior quality. In fact, he had been fooled into thinking the clothing existed, when in fact he was "putting on" nothing at all. Two men who claimed to be weavers had pretended to make magical garments that were so fine that only intelligent people could see them. The King wanted such clothing, for he would not only appear splendid but he would be able to discover which subjects were fools. However, no one would admit that they could not see the new garments, because then they would appear stupid and unfit to keep their position. And so, the entire city praised the non-existent garments. The King strutted before his court and his subjects, convinced that he cut an impressive figure. Until a child said the obvious thing, that the King was stark naked.

I used to think that Hans Christian Andersen exaggerated, for surely it would not be possible for an entire society to pretend their monarch was beautifully dressed when he was buck naked. But the spectacle of Mr. Trump in the White House has shown that this fable is grounded in a deep insight into human nature.

Any child can see that Trump is not in his right mind. When he speaks, he rambles. He claims that there is an insurrection in the United States and sends troops to places where the crime rate is low, while ignoring other places where it is high. He orders the death of people in small boats in the open waters of the sea, claiming without a shred of evidence that these people are terrorists or drug runners. He has a large navy and air force, and these boats could be captured without killing anyone, but he bombs them instead. He continually makes statements at odds with irrefutable facts, and then orders out the National Guard. He posts strange videos from the White House depicting magical beds that will cure anyone who lies in them or demeaning political opponents. He appears to be out of his mind. If anyone else said and did these things they would be sent for psychiatric examination or put on trial for murdering people on the high seas.

Instead, news reporters, government officials, foreign heads of state, and legions of followers treat Mr. Trump as if he were sane. He clearly is not, but the United States seems as a whole to be deranged. The man suffers from vast delusions of grandeur. He claims he ought to get to the Noble Peace Prize, yet he commits murder, arrests citizens without a warrant, slanders judges, and does his deranged best to intimidate opponents.

During the first Trump administration, the Washington Post kept a list of the lies Trump told, and it eventually contained more than 25,000 items. Many of those lies are still being repeated with new absurdities added daily, to the point that half the public is convinced of supposed conspiracies and non-existent dangers. They have become as deranged as their leader.

As a result, the nation has become a state in national paralysis. The government is in lockdown and the Republicans will not even call the House of Representatives into session. They have abdicated their role in the political system. Representative national government has ceased to function, leaving a vacuum to be filled with the lunacy of a madman and his entourage at the White Asylum, where a new ballroom is being built.

Anderson ends his tale this way:

‘But he hasn’t got anything on,’ all his people finally cried out. This gave the emperor the shivers, for he sensed they were right, but he reasoned: ‘Now I’ll have to stick the procession out.’ And the chamberlains walked on bearing the train that wasn’t there."

(translation by John Irons)

Trump Has Weakened the American Economy

2025-09-09T09:26:00.006+02:00

After the American Century

[updated Oct. 7, to include information on stocks, declining foreign student enrollments, and the government shutdown]

When Trump took office the dollar was strong, but since then it has fallen, weakening the purchasing power of Americans in the world economy. The short term effects are worrying; the longterm effects are dire

Short Term Effects

ON January 13, 2025, at the end of the Biden presidency, the dollar and the Euro were almost equal in value. For $102 you could buy €100. Yesterday, it cost $117 to purchase €100. The dollar lost roughly 15% of its value in 8 months.

Add the tariffs to this equation. Assume the smallest tariff that any nation gets, 10%. That pushes up the price to €110, or $128.70. An increase of more than 25%!

Furthermore, consider this along with other trends under the Trump Administration

1. The dollar has fallen 15% against the Euro since Trump became president.

2. The job market has stagnated since April, with almost no new jobs.

Comparison: The last two months under Biden there were 500,000 new jobs.

3. Trump's policies have angered Canadians and Europeans. Fewer are coming to the US in 2025. Current estimates are that the loss of tourism in 2025 will mean $12.5 billion loss of revenue. Add to this a sharp decline in the number of foreign students, a loss of more than 75,000 according to the New York Times. Some have been frightened away by the arrest and persecution of many foreign students in the spring 2025, others have been put off by a slow down in visa processing.

4. Demand for electricity is increasing. Some experts think the demand for electricity will rise 25% in the next ten years. But Trump is killing wind and solar projects that could help meet that demand. When supply is inadequate, energy prices rise.

5. Inflation is up. The Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland tracks and predicts inflation. The Consumer Price Index has moved from 2% to 3% already since Trump took office, and the tariff effects are only beginning to be felt. Prices of new cars, for example, will increase due to tariffs. If energy costs continue to rise, it is possible the rate of inflation could reach 4%.

6. To reduce inflation, the usual strategy is to raise interest rates, which dampens demand and slows down economic growth. But that is not an attractive option when the labor market is already stalled. Trump is pressuring the Federal Reserve to lower interest, which could lead to the higher inflation, rising even beyond 4%. At the same time, the goveernment shutdown means that no data will be available on the levels of unemployment or inflation, which means the Federal Reserve decision will be based on guesswork.

7. Stock markets in other countries have had a better 2025 than the US. According to Fidelity, in 2024, US equities were up 25%, well ahead of Europe at just 2.4%. But as of the end of June in 2025, the US equities were sharply up and down, with a half year result of 6.7%. In contrast, Europe, at 9.7%, is ahead of everyone else, including Asia. Factor in the declining value of the dollar, and foreign investment in US equities during 2025 was a losing proposition. Assuming one invested $100 at the start of the year, it grew to $106.70. But the value of $100 fell by more than $6.70. Buying US government debt was an even worse investment.

8. The government has been closed down now for a week, with no end in sight. There is no budget, and the Republicans have refused even to hold sessions in the House of Representatives. They have abdicated all responsibility! With most federal employees sent home without being paid and many vital institutions closed down, the economy will contract a little. J. P Morgan estimates that "“Each week, a shutdown subtracts about 0.1% of annualized GDP growth." Now entering the second week with no end in sight, it seems GPD will contract a minimum of 0.2% on this factor alone

In short, Trump's policies have weakened the dollar, stalled the labor market, driven away tourists and foreign students, halted energy development, relied on deficit spending, pushed up inflation, and brought the government to a standstill. He has also alienated traditional allies, notably Canada and the EU, and angered nations the US once was trying to woo, notably India and Brazil.

Long Term Effects

Those are immediate effects. More longer term, Trump's policies are driving away top scientists and handing China the chance to take global leadership in science. Indeed, one could argue the US is already in second place. The World Population Review reports that "China has authorized over 2.53 million patents in the past five years, with a 13.4% average annual growth rate." In 2023 the Chinese received almost 800,000 patents. By comparison, the number of US patents has been declining slightly for several years, hovering just under 600,000. The US ought to be pumping more money into scientific research, but Trump has cut funding instead. The US is falling behind already, and it is likely to get worse because thousands fewer foreign graduate students enrolling due to Trump policies. In the past, many engineering and science graduates have remained in the US after graduation. So many, in fact, that four out of ten employed in these fields were born abroad.

Annual GDP Growth per capita, China vs The United States, 1980-2024

As the above chart from the World Bank shows, in every year since 1980 China's economy has grown more rapidly than the American economy. Note that this graph concerns growth per capita. China has by far the larger population. China has been rapidly raising the income level for its more than 1 billion citizens. The Americans are still ahead in income per person, but the advantage is eroding. Note, however. that the spectacular Chinese growth rates between 1980 and 2010 probably cannot be duplicated.

Conclusion

Trump's first 8 months as president have been a disaster. He inherited a strong economy with rapid job growth and low inflation, but he has squandered both in a quixotic quest to revert to the American economy of 1925, an economy based on extensive use of fossil fuels, low taxes, and high tariffs. But these short term mistakes pale by comparison with his failure to understand that in the long-term the United States can only prevail with strong foreign alliances and through leadership in science and innovation. He has undermined the US internationally, angering allies, and driven away potential friends with abusive tariffs. China appears, by comparison, to be a dynamic nation, both economically strong and technologically agile.

If these trends continue for three more years, then the Trump presidency will mark the end of American leadership, leading to a global realignment. A new order is already emerging, and it can take more than one possible form. The worst scenario is that Trump will continue to dither over what to do about the Russian invasion of Ukraine. His inaction and unreliability have already pushed Germany to begin rearming and troubled the NATO alliance. Trump may pretend otherwise, but to lose Ukraine would be to lose the world order that prevailed in the Cold War. If "America First" means no meaningful support for Europe and going it alone, then Trump has chosen decline. By 2028 the nation may find itself mired in debt, plagued by stagflation, and distructed by former allies. The dollar might even cease to be the world's currency, as no foreign nation will want to buy the trillions of dollars in US bonds needed to pay for runaway national debt. But surely, you wonder, could that ever happen to the "land of the free and home of the brave.'' We shall see.

Renaming: Suggestions for the Trump Administration

2025-09-05T11:11:00.003+02:00

After the American Century

Trump has decided to rename the Department of Defense, as the Department of War.

Presumably, other parts of the government also will be renamed, hence the following suggestions

Present name Proposed change

President Godfather

FBI Federal Bureau of Intimidation

Department of Justice Department of Payback and Reprisal

Supreme Court Court of Presidential Rubber Stamping

ICE American Gestapo

State Department Department of America First

Treasury Department Department of Deficit Spending

Department of the Interior Department of Resource Exploitation

Department of Agriculture Department of AgriBusiness

Department of Labor Department of Wonderful Statistics

Department of Health Department of Just Say No to Science

Center for Disease Control Center for Home Cures and Quackery

Department of Energy Department Promoting Fossil Fuels

Homeland Security Department of Urban Occupation

Department of Education Department of Mythology

Department of Transportation Department of Gasoline

Foundation for Humanities Foundation for Prejudice, Pride & Patriotism

Federal Trade Commission Arbitrary Tariffs Commission

Civil Service Commission Employee Termination Service

National Science Foundation Department of University Shakedowns

Social Security Ephemeral Pensions Administration

Trump's Hundred Days of Infamy Provide Three Grounds for Impeachment

2025-04-30T17:51:00.007+02:00

After the American Century

Donald Trump has violated his oath of office multiple times in his first 100 days. Why is no one saying this? The servility of the Republicans and the cowardice of many Democrats explain it only in part. Just as serious is the failure of the legal profession to take a stand and the failure of the press to hold Trump to the same standards that have protected the government from tyranny for 250 years.

There are many grounds for impeachment, but here are three of the most egregious problems with this would-be monarch. Each would have triggered a demand for impeachment had any earlier president done the same.

(1) Trump has grossly and repeatedly violated the emolument's clause of the Constitution.The President and his family are not allowed to use the office to enrich themselves with gits from foreign governments or individuals, but this is precisely what they have done on many occasions. The most egregious is creating a new crypto currency corporation and the promoting its sales, which have created millions in profits for the President, while hiding the origins of the money coming in.

Another matter that cries out for investigation is the extent to which Trump and his close associates have used insider knowledge to play the stock market. It is not clear how much this has been going on, but certainly there were sudden purchases of stocks by some people immediately before Trump announced reductions in tariffs, which caused a sudden rise in the market. See the ABC news report, one of many on this matter. Trump's sons have alos made lucrative real estate deals with foreign governments, and Trump has held a golf turnament at his Florida Doral goft course, where one literally had to pay to play. The sponsor of this tournament? The Saudis. (See New York Times for more details.) This is a short list. Trump has trampled all over the emoluments clause on many occasions, and this alone should never be allowed. He is using the office of president to enrich himself. Impeach Trump!

(2) Trump has overseen the deportation of American Citizens, legalimmigrants, and others to a prison in a foreign nation, without allowing them due process of law, without making formal charges, without even allowing them to have a lawyer. What crime could they possibly have committed that would land them in a Central American gulag? Instead of defending the Constitution, he is intentionally violating it. Impreach Trump!

(3) Trump has repeatedly defied the courts, followed up by verbal attacks on the justices. This violates the Constitution in an unmistakeable way, and he ought to be rebuked by Congress. But instead, Congress has failed in its duties. In the first 100 days it passed only 5 laws, none of which were substantial. Meanwhile, Congress allowed Trump to carry out continual violations of the Constitution in the form of executive orders. It is not the role of the President to destroy programs that have been passed into law and funded by the Congress. If he wishes to close down a department or a program, rather than allow it to function with the allocations that it has received from Congress, then he first must get the approval of Congress. Instead, he has created an extrajudicial, unelected cadre of people who have no legal standing, and he has allowed them to fire people and close federal agencies. The Republican controlled Congress does nothing. They have failed to do their duty, and in their arrogant apssivity they show contempt for the Constitution. The Republicans will go down in history as a party that lost its way in 2016. That is why it will be difficult to Impeach Trump.

Trump is the worst president in the history of the United States. He has alienated American allies, disrupted the economy with exaggerated tariffs followed by backing down followed by new crazy tariffs. He has weakened the dollar, enabled widespread destruction of the federal government, and appointed a cabinet of toadies who have seriously damaged every government department, most notably the Departments of Justice and Defense. His tenure as of April 30 has been 100 days of infamy. The nation will be the laughing stock of the world if it proves unable to stop his inanities, provocations, and predations.

Impeach Trump.

Make America Civil Again

What if Putin Wins Ukranian War?

2025-04-25T13:12:00.003+02:00

After the American Century

President Trump has demonstrated the "art of the deal." He posed to be a peace-maker, when in fact he was collaborating with the Russian leader Vlad PutinTrump.

If this deal goes through, Ukraine and Europe will lose. The United States will get mineral resources from Ukraine, in exchange for support given in the past (under President Biden). AND the United States will get investment opportunities in Russia in exchange for support given during the "peace negotiations."

Russia will be rewarded with territory, and the economic sanctions against it will be lifted. Its bombing of hospitals, schools, and other war crimes, and its kidnapping of thousands of Ukrainian children will not be punished. It also appears likely that Russia will not object should Trump-putin acquire Canada and/or Greenland.

Ukraine will get nothing. The war has given it billions of dollars of damage, plus thousands of dead and wounded. If the plan goes through, Ukraine will be crippled. shrunken, bankrupt, and denied membership in NATO or the EU. President Trump says this is only fair because Ukraine started the war by forcing Russia to invade. (Trump repeats this nonsense!)

Europe gets a lesson. Do not count on the United States. When the United Nations was founded, the Americans signed the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It promised to uphold the right to national self-determination, and the rights to freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and due process of law. President Trump-putin is actively working against these rights at home and abroad

The era of international law appears to be coming to a close. This marks the end of the American Century. When entering World War I, Woodrow Wilson wanted to make the world safe for democracy. But the US Senate embraced isolationism instead, and it refused to ratify American membership in the League of Nations. Trump is the political descendant of those Senators.

His policy is "America First," which apparently means "Russia second, Britain third, Europe fourth, Canada fifth, Mexico sixth, and far down the list, Denmark, while at the bottom will be Ukraine. This ranking can also be seen in the Trump-imposed tariffs. There are no tariffs for Russia, low tariffs on Britain, higher tariffs on Europe, higher still for Canada, etc.

Some possible long-term consequences of Trump's policy toward Ukraine.

1. Europe rearms; Germany reasserts itself as a military power.

2. Europeans join Canadians and Mexicans as "former friends" of the US, and as a result no longer support the American dollar, travel less to the US, and move some of their trade elsewhere.

3. A wave of Ukrainian refugees floods into Europe.

4. China avoids tariffs by exporting through shell companies. More importantly, China grows stronger and becomes the world's dominant economy.

5. The United States, its moral leadership in tatters and its military support uncertain, withdraws from NATO.

6. Russia rebuilds its armed forces and plans further attacks, in order to realize its ambition to recreate the geographical boundaries of the Soviet Union before it fell apart.

Greenland: Not American Security but World Environmental Security Is at Stake

2025-01-25T10:52:00.009+01:00

US ownership of Greenland is the path to environmental insecurity.

After the American Century

Every generation or so, some American politician gets the notion that the United States ought to acquire Greenland. Often, this is justified by reference to the Monroe Doctrine, proclaimed in the 1820s, which proclaimed that European powers should stay out of the Americas. However, this is a rather silly attempt to dignify acquisition of Greenland, which has been part of the Kingdom of Denmark for one thousand years. Long before Columbus discovered America, the Vikings had explored Iceland and Greenland. The idea that the Monroe Doctrine applies to events more than eight centuries before it was proclaimed is absurd. Nor is the US close to Greenland, which lies between Iceland and the coast of Canada. The people of Greenland do not want to be bought or sold. Nor does Denmark want to sell Greenland.

Map courtesy of the Arctic Center, University of Lapland
Its extensive home pages provide a wealth of useful information.

Whatever the justification for buying (or seizing) Greenland, there are two reasons why its acquisition looks attractive: Natural resources and military bases. There seldom seems to be any US government interest in the Greenlanders themselves, whose language and culture could easily be utterly destroyed after acquisition. There are only about 60,000 people living on the vast island, much of which is frozen all year round. Almost the entire population lives along the southwestern coast, one third in the capital, Nuuk. There are no roads connecting most of the towns together.

In military terms, Greenland looks important because it is halfway between Washington and Moscow. For that reason, the Americans already have one base on the island, Thule, which is on the west coast, just about the only settlement in the far north. Another American base, called Century, was located inland on the great Greenland ice sheet. Established in 1959 in a series of tunnels and excavations into the ice sheet, it was occupied full time until 1964, it became a seasonal base (closed in winter), and then was abandoned in 1967. Today it lies buried in ice and snow that have since accumulated. In other words, at the height of the Cold War, the US did not find it necessary, and they found it expensive and difficult, to maintain an inland base. Greenland has an extreme environment, and after struggling to sustain bases, it became clear that the Soviets could hardly sneak in and create a meaningful military site, much less continually supply one. It is exceedingly difficult to move around on the inland surface of Greenland, which is why almost all communities are on the coast. In short, this is not a place for ground forces, base camps, and troop movements. It is rather a place for early warning systems and other equipment designed to monitor the sea and the sky. Denmark is a member of NATO, and in addition the Americans have a treaty with the Danish government, allowing them to operate the Thule military base. They can also move ships and submarines around the coast to their heart's content. In short, from a military perspective, owning Greenland will not suddenly improve American security, and if new bases are necessary (although no one seems to have said they are) that could be negotiated. I cannot see any important military advantage to be gained. "National security" is a bogus argument for acquiring Greenland.

In terms of resources, Greenland potentially is a bonanza. Even with much of it explored primarily from the air, it is clear that it has uranium, rare earth minerals, oil, and gas, with potentially far more still undiscovered. Why have these resources not been exploited already? First, there is the high cost of development. There are no harbors convenient to or roads to most of these resources. The weather makes it difficult or impossible to operate outside for much of the year. Such practical problems make it uncompetitive with other locations where resources are more accessible. The second reason is important. Many Greenlanders fear that an influx of mining companies will despoil the landscape, pollute the environment, and undermine their way of life. Possibly some limited mining could be negotiated, provided strong environmental safety regulations are enforced. However, the US has a disgraceful history with mining on Native American lands, notably with the uranium mining of Navajo land. More than 30 million tons of uranium ore was extracted. As the American Environmental Protection Agency summarizes, "a legacy of uranium contamination remains, including over 500 abandoned uranium mines as well as homes and water sources with elevated levels of radiation. Potential health effects include lung cancer from inhalation of radioactive particles, as well as bone cancer and impaired kidney function from exposure to radionuclides in drinking water." The mines were closed in 1986, but even in 2025 after spending more than $1 billion, many of the mines are not cleaned up. Something similar could easily in Greenland if mining companies operated with the weakened standards and poor oversight likely under the Trump administration.

Furthermore, if oil drilling is permitted, Greenland will contribute to the global warming that already is melting their ice sheet. This is not a small matter. Greenland impounds an astonishingly large portion of the earth's fresh water. Its ice has been shrinking every year for 28 years. The United Nations estimates that during 2024 it lost "50 million litres per minute, 9,000 million litres per hour" for a total of 80 gigatons of water during that single year. Scientists estimate that were all of Greenland's ice to dissolve into the sea, the oceans would rise about 7 meters. If CO2 emissions are not drastically reduced, within one lifetime the ice melt from Greenland (with even more water released from Antartica) will flood coastal cities in all parts of the world, including Copenhagen, New York, much of Bangladesh, about half of Florida, and many island nations, to make a suggestive short list. Greenlanders take global warming seriously, but the current President of the United States does not. Trump calls global warming a hoax, and he is passing legislation designed to increase fossil fuel exploration and consumption. If the he acquires Greenland, it will be in order to "Drill, baby drill." This makes the United States the worst possible owner of Denmark.

Ownership of Greenland is a matter of security. But it is not a matter of American military security but the security of Greenland, as a landscape and a people. Allowing the United States to seize Greenalnd endangers the world's environmental security. It also violates a fundamental principle of international law: respect for international borders.

The Supreme Court's Decline in the Polls

2025-01-24T11:30:00.005+01:00

After the American Century

A court without legitimacy is a danger to democracy.

For decades the Supreme Court enjoyed a high rating in the polls. It was generally approved by more than half the population, who believed it upheld the law and the Constitution. Back in the middle 1990s the Court enjoyed immense popularity with approval ratings as high as 80%. In 2000, more than 60% of the public approved of the court, and less than 30% disapproved. But as the Court has become increasingly polarized, public trust in the Court has fallen. Between 2014 and 2018 more people disapproved than approved of the Court. Then it briefly recovered its good standing with the people until 2022 when it fell precipitously. Since that time, its disapproval rating has never been higher than 50%. In January, 2025, just 38.8% approved of the Court.

Courtesy of the Library of Congress

More than 60% of the public do not trust the justices to do the right thing. It does not help that the Court lacks ethical guidelines concerning conflicts of interest. Nor does a majority of the public agree with its decision that presidents are immune from prosecution for their actions. Nor are the Court's decisions on abortion approved by a majority of Americans. Nor are Clarence Thomas's acceptance of many expensive trips and gifts from wealthy conservatives acceptable. Nor has it been a good thing for American democracy that the court has sanctified unlimited private spending by candidates, equating campaign donations with freedom of speech. The Court no longer seems impartial or wise.

Back in the 1990s, both Repblicans and Democrats had extremely high levels of satisfaction with the Court. No more. Today, only one in four Democrats approves of the Court. In contrst. 3 out of 4 Republicans like what it is doing. The Court has adopted a partisan agenda, and in doing so it has lost its aura of impartiality. It risks seeming an illegitimate rubber stamp that most Democrats and a majority of the American public disdain.

In short, the legitimacy of the Supreme Court was once unassailable, but now it is questionable. Will the Court's reputation decline further during the Trump second term? How much lower can it go before it loses the credibility and respect that are necessary before its decisions will be accepted? A court without legitimacy is a danger to democracy.

Trump's illusion of a "Golden Age"

2025-01-23T11:51:00.003+01:00

After the American Century

In one of the worst inaugural addresses in American history, the new Felon in Chief spouted falsities and insults, made vague promises, and proclaimed that the United States had entered a new golden age. There was not a single new idea in the speech, nor a single line that will be recalled with respect generations from now. The Republicans who repeatedly rose to their feet and clapped at his inanities demonstrated a level of servility and stupidity that I never thought possible in the United States.

Trump has pardoned the treason and in some cases murderous acts of thousands of men and women who attacked the Congress of the United States on January 6, 2021. That day will live in infamy, along with his false characterization of these convicted criminals as "political prisoners." They physically attacked the Congress. They maimed and murdered police officers, and they will always be remembered as a rabble of traitors inspired into action by Trump himself, who watched the attack on Congress seatedin the White House and did nothing for hours. That he could be nominated and elected president is a now a permanent stain on the national character.

Trump denies the reality of global warming, and he has become a tool of the oil corporations, amping up CO2 emissions instead of leading the adoption of the wind and solar power, which are cheaper, which create more jobs, and which produce less pollution, than drilling for petroleum. Far from creating a golden age, he is hastening a global warming apocalypse. It will be measured in forest fires, frequent hurricanes, tornados, and irregular rainfall. And to make certain that these disasters cause long-term damage, he is now threatening to get rid of FEMA, the federal agency that deals with disasters. He says the problems can be dealt with at the state level. This is nonsense, as disasters do not respect borders. When the Mississippi rises over its banks, state borders do not halt the flood, and states without FEMA will have to invent ways to coordinate their response to disaster.

Trump has withdrawn from the World Health Organization, offering the reason that the US pays too much. If that were the problem, then he could negotiate a different payment rather that withdraw. He also attacked the WHO's handling on the COVID crisis, when it is he, Donald Trump, who spread disinformation about the disease, politicized the response to the crisis, and undercut the medical profession. Any doubts about Trump's stupidity on this issue are laid aside by his appointment of Mr. Kennedy to oversee the nation's health. He rejects the very idea of vaccination, including well-tested shots that have saved millions of lives.

Trump has resurrected the jingoistic language of Manifest Destiny and made factually inaccurate statements to justify his demands that the United States take over the Panama Canal, acquire Greenland, and annex Canada. This is naked imperialism and colonialism, and it has nothing to do with national security. The United States already has bases in Greenland, for example, which means it is under the protection of NATO, since Greenland is part of the Kingdom of Denmark, a NATO member. Trump's language and actions have aroused anger in Latin America, Canada, and the Nordic countries and they have poisoned relations with the European Union. A nation that attacks its friends on all sides is not entering a golden age.

Further lowering American prestige, Trump has threatened to raise a high tariff wall against imports from the EU, China, Canada, and Mexico. Such threats and blustering do not bring in a golden age. They bring in protectionism, bankrupt companies, higher prices, and weaker economies. Indeed since Trump took office the economy has stopped growing and has shrunk slightly.

And to end a short list of Trump's malicious behavior, he has launched an attack on undocumented immigrants to the United States and sent the army to close the Mexican border. This macho posturing is popular with his base, but it will not solve the problem, as many illegal immigrants come by plane, on student visas, or as tourists. Moreover, several million "illegals" were brought to the United States as children, and they know no other country. Through no fault of their own they are caught in a no-man's land with no citizenship. Nor will the economy improve if Trump drives out millions of people, many of them working in housing construction or caring professions, such as nursing homes. The immigration problem is complex, and it will not be solved by sending troops to the border.

There is nothing noble about Mr. Trump. He is a bully, a liar, and a charlatan, and this is a short list of his predations. If he remains in power for four years, the United States will enter not a golden age but a dark tunnel of distrust. division, hatred, and chaos. The nation has already lost much of the world's respect. This is a wannabe emperor, not a president, and the "golden age" he conjures up is an illusion. The minister of the gospel and the teacher will long struggle to explain why this vain, corrupt, licentious, litigious, prevaricating felon could ever be elected president. He brings shame on the United States.

Electric Vehicle Sales predict state political alignments

2024-07-11T14:52:00.002+02:00

After the American Century

A poll by PEW Research has found a correlation between sales of electric vehicles (EVs) in a State and its presidential preferences. California had by far the highest sale of new EVs, around 25 percent, and it voted solidly for Biden in 2020. At the other extreme, with less than 2 percent EV sales are some extreme Trump states: North Dakota, Mississippi, West Virginia, Louisiana, and Wyoming. In fact, every one of the seventeen states with the fewest EVs sold voted for Trump, while nineteen of the twenty states with the highest EV sales voted for Biden. (The exception was Utah, but Mormons are exceptions in many things). All the swing states were in the middle, including Michigan (3.96%), Wisconsin (4.08%), Pennsylvania (623%), Georgia (7.35%), and Arizona (9.06%).

It seems likely that EV sales will be weak in a state like Mississippi where few people believe that global warming is real. But there is another reason why states might not want EVs to sell well: such cars do not pay fuel tax. Most states get between 4% and 8% of their annual tax revenue from a tax on gasoline. If the public gets EVs, then the state budget will be in trouble.

"The Constitution does not shield a former President from answering for criminal and treasonous acts"

2024-07-02T11:07:00.007+02:00

After the American Century

The Supreme Court has ruled that the President of the United States cannot be held legally accountable for his actions as head of the government. This is an absurdity in a democratic nation, but more to the point, it violates the intentions of the founding fathers of the United States. The fought a Revolution to escape from the rule of the King of England, and they had no desire to make the president a replacement monarch.

But this week. the Court decided that presidential immunity applies to all official acts of the president, including acts that discredit and interfere with elections, as well as actions that encourage mob violence against Congress. I urge everyone to read the decision in its tortured and incompetent reasoning, but here are the main points, as summarized by the justices themselves:

A federal grand jury indicted former President Donald J. Trump on four counts for conduct that occurred during his Presidency following the November 2020 election. The indictment alleged that after losing that election, Trump conspired to overturn it by spreading knowingly false claims of election fraud to obstruct the collecting, counting, and certifying of the election results. Trump moved to dismiss the indictment based on Presidential immunity, arguing that a President has absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions performed within the outer perimeter of his official responsibilities, and that the indictment’s allegations fell within the core of his official duties. The District Court denied Trump’s motion to dismiss, holding that former Presidents do not possess federal criminal immunity for any acts. The D. C. Circuit affirmed. Both the District Court and the D. C. Circuit declined to decide whether the indicted conduct involved official acts.

Held: Under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power entitles a former President to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority. And he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts. There is no immunity for unofficial acts.

On the following page: "The Court thus concludes that the President is absolutely immune from criminal prosecution for conduct within his exclusive sphere of constitutional authority."

This is rank treason. The Supreme Court's decision subverts and undermines the Constitution, giving unlimited power to the chief executive, making him immune from the checks and balances envisioned by the architects of the federal government. Given this decision, neither Congress nor the Courts have any power to prevent crimes by the chief executive. They have left a gaping hole in their decision, failing to define what are official acts as distinguished from unofficial acts. The specific case involves an attack on Congress on January 6th, 2021. Can a mob attack Congress, encouraged by the president in a speech immediately before it occurred, and these proceedings be considered an official act? Apparently, the justices think so. The six justices who made this decision have lost credibility. They have severely undermined the reputation of the Court. They have created legal sanctions for dictatorship.

The majority who made this decision have also discredited their own institution. Why should anyone respect court opinions in the future? There is a bit of satisfaction in knowing that the six justices who signed the decision have inscribed their names in history as incompetents who failed in their duty to uphold the Constitution. They will be reviled forever by historians and legal scholars, and Chief Justice Roberts in particular will go down as the worst head of the Court since it began. If the nation survives his tenure, it will be no thanks to him.

In contrast. history will honor the three dissenting justices.

"JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR, with whom JUSTICE KAGAN and JUSTICE JACKSON join, dissenting.
Today’s decision to grant former Presidents criminal immunity reshapes the institution of the Presidency. It makes a mockery of the principle, foundational to our Constitution and system of Government, that no man is above the law. Relying on little more than its own misguided wisdom about the need for “bold and unhesitating action” by the President. . . the Court gives former President Trump all the immunity he asked for and more. Because our Constitution does not shield a former President from answering for criminal and treasonous acts, I dissent."

The Failed Presidential Debate: Presage to Chaos?

2024-06-29T09:38:00.001+02:00

After the American Century

The so-called debate between Joe Biden and Donald Trump was a sad farce and a warning that both political parties are unable to choose acceptable candidates for the office of president. Both were an embarrasment, but for different reasons.

Trump did not answer many of the questions but rambled on about whatever he felt like, often repeating himself. He made sweeping generalizations, seldom had a correct fact or example to support his argument, and lied outrageously about almost every topic. He refused to promise he would abide by the election results, and he misrepresented and defended the attack on the Congress made after the last election. There was not a pleasant word or intentional joke in his whole performance, in which he was sour, angry, focused on the past, and unable to articulate any specific plans. Had he been taking an oral exam at a university, he would have failed.

Biden, in contrast, would have passed based on content, but receive a low grade for his presentation. He did answer the questions, and tried to go into detail, which was not a good idea given the tiny one or two minute time slots. The format demanded sound bites, not analysis. The viewer had to work to understand what Biden was saying. His content was actually good, but it was so poorly presented that the focus became his frailty. He did not look like a man who could continue to be president until 2029. Biden did not fail the exam, but he did not appear able to carry on.

The debate was also a failure due to its organization. There was never a challenge to exaggerations or false claims. Candidates could get away with saying ridiculous things, particularly Donald Trump. Nor did the format give either candidate sufficient time to articulate a vision of what they hoped to achieve in a second term. Future debates ought to include an opening statement from each candidate, so they could explain their vision for the country.

On every level, this was a depressing event. I disliked the gaudy decor of the studio where it was held. The questions were often poor, with little insistence that they be answered. The insertion of advertisements into the middle of the debate was offensive, distracting, and an unacceptable trivialization of the seriousness of the occasion. On every level -- aesthetics, content, style, organization, -- this event was an embarrassment. It showed the world not only a polarized nation, but one incapable of holding a serious debate on its future. It is hard to see how it could have been worse.

Was this the nadir of American democracy, or intimations of its demise? The Republican Party at present appears beyond any hope of change, so long as it is in the grip of Trump. The Democratic Party might be able to rescue itself and the country by finding another candidate, but it might also fritter away the chance to do so with internal strife. There are times in human affairs, when inaction inexorably leads to doom.

Trump: Abuse of Power, 2016-2020

2024-04-29T08:58:00.002+02:00

After the American Century

The most serious aspect of Trump's perforance as president from 2017-2021 was how he abused his position and seized power. A Constitutional crisis emerged in the Trump years. The office of the president was abused, the foreign service weakened, scientific expertise dismantled, and the Justice Department turned into a political tool. The problems began with Trump’s 2016 campaign and continued in the White House. As the New York Times summarized the conclusion of the Republican-controlled Senate Intelligence Committee, released in late August 2020: “Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign sought and maintained close contacts with Russian government officials who were helping him get elected. The Trump campaign accepted their offers of help. The campaign secretly provided Russian officials with key polling data. The campaign coordinated the timing of the release of stolen information to hurt Hillary Clinton’s campaign.” The Times concluded: “the American people could reelect a man who received a foreign government’s help to win one election and has shown neither remorse nor reservations about doing so again.” Only in a deeply troubled country could a politician receive 70 million votes in 2020 after such revelations.

Trump not only received Russian help, but orchestrated many illegal actions by his closest aids, many of whom ended up pleading guilty to felonies. His longtime personal lawyer, Michael Cohen paid $130,000 in hush money to two women whom Trump had affairs with. Cohen pleaded guilty to bank fraud, tax evasion, and violating campaign finance laws. Trump’s campaign chairman Paul Manafort was convicted on eight counts of bank and tax fraud, and he was accused of obstruction of justice and conspiracy to launder money. Trump’s assistant campaign manager, Rick Gates, was convicted of money laundering, tax evasion, and bank fraud. George Papadopoulos, Trump’s foreign policy advisor, served as a go-between to the Russians and relayed valuable information about what they had hacked from Hillary Clinton’s campaign. He was convicted of lying to the FBI about these activities. All of the crimes were committed by close associates to assist Trump. Yet after these crimes and other suspicious activities were uncovered by the House of Representatives’ impeachment enquiry, the Republicans blocked all attempts to investigate further. Trump was never questioned in person, and he was not held accountable. His closest associates were convicted as criminals, but the Republican-controlled Senate found it unnecessary to call a single witness in a sham impeachment trial.

The fact that Trump was never held accountable for his collusion with Russia was part of a larger pattern. The federal government under his control operated with inadequate Congressional oversight or control. The Constitution decrees that only Congress can allocate funds. But when Congress refused to pay for a wall along the Mexican border, President Trump seized money allocated for other purposes and used it illegally to start building the wall. Furthermore, the president often ignored Congress in other ways. He refused to send officials to testify before Housecommittees, including matters of national security.

Many departments of government were headed by appointees who had never been approved by the Senate, as required by the Constitution. Trump fired cabinet secretaries and other important officials and then appointed an “acting” head who was never vetted by the Senate. They included individuals with grossly inadequate qualifications, who were selected because of their loyalty to the president. Acting secretaries may temporarily fill a position until there is time for a Senate hearing. But repeated appointment of loyalists with little or no experience while avoiding Senate hearings violated Trump’s oath of office. Like every president, he swore to abide by the Constitution, which declares that the Senate must approve cabinet appointments. He had 21 cabinet secretaries confirmed in Senate hearings, but he fired many of them and appointed 28 acting secretaries without hearings. They included the acting director of national intelligence, Richard Grenell, an outspoken conservative and Trump loyalist with no qualifications in the area of intelligence. Grenell replaced another acting director, Joseph Maguire. Even Homeland Security has had an acting director, Chad Wolf. The Republican-controlled Senate did not fulfill its constitutional duty to evaluate, and if necessary to reject, those nominated, and the press did not treat the massive avoidance of confirmation hearings as a major problem.

During the Trump years, the placement of the Justice Department in the executive branch became a major problem, because it was investigating the president and his advisors. The Justice Department does not simply carry out programs mandated by Congress. It must seek out and prosecute crime. The problem with locating Justice in the Executive branch of government became obvious in the case of Michael Flynn, one of Trump’s close associates. Flynn confessed to several crimes and was awaiting sentencing. But under pressure from the White House, the Justice Department suddenly announced that it no longer would prosecute the case. Likewise, when a special prosecutor of impeccable reputation was assigned to investigate the possible collusion between Russia and the Trump election campaign, the president obstructed and openly attacked the investigation. It would be more sensible to place Justice under the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. Then the president could not fire or intimidate attorneys who prosecute cases that affect him or his associates. To preserve the integrity of the Department of Justice, it ought to be removed from the Executive’s control. That change requires an amendment to the Constitution.

The president illegally reallocated funds for projects that Congress did not approve, he brazenly ignored Congress when it suited him, he interfered with the work of the Justice Department when it investigated him, he escaped accountability for felonies committed for him by his lawyers and campaign managers, and he misused his office by pardoning associates convicted of felonies, so that they never went to prison. When the legislature loses control over the expenditure of funds, when it loses control over leadership appointments, when the president orders the civil service not to testify at its hearings, when he constantly interferes with the Department of Justice, when he pardons those convicted for crimes by associates to aid him, then there is a deep constitutional crisis. The federal government became unbalanced under Republican control. Crimes went unpunished, and the president’s usurpation of power was not challenged.

Encouraged by his successful contempt for Congress and the rule of law, the logical next step after he lost the 2020 election was to attack the election itself and the legal system, and then orchestrate an insurrection. Should be be elected again in 2024, then the worst is yet to come, and it is certain.

Trump: The Anti-Science President

2024-04-29T08:32:00.002+02:00

First paragraph revised, Jan 27, 2025

After the American Century

At the beginning of his second term, Trump again curtailed many activities at the NIH, including the distribution of research funds and all research on race and gender. He has appointed Robert Kennedy Jr. to the top position, and he rejects the safety and validity of vaccination. He has also withdrawn the United States from the World Health Organization.

Perhaps readers have forgotten that during his first term Trump displayed an ignorance of science matched by his attacks on such scientific insitututions.

The Trump attack on science was so egregious that respected journals which never took sides in politics felt they had to do so in 2020. During 175 years of publication Scientific American never endorsed a presidential candidate, but in 2020 it broke with tradition and endorsed Biden, declaring, “Donald Trump has badly damaged the U.S. and its people—because he rejects evidence and science. The most devastating example is his dishonest and inept response to the COVID-19 pandemic.” It noted, “Trump has proposed billion-dollar cuts to the National Institutes of Health, the National Science Foundation, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, agencies that increase our scientific knowledge and strengthen us for future challenges. Congress countermanded his reductions. Yet he kept trying, slashing programs that would ready us for future pandemics and withdrawing from the World Health Organization. These and other actions increase the risk that new diseases will surprise and devastate us again.” The damage to these major scientific institutions had to be repaired, along with establishing a science-based response to the COVID-19 pandemic, once Biden took office.

The most prestigious scientific publication of all, Nature, warned in January, 2024, that Trump "promised to limit the authority of federal agencies and employees, including scientists." That would weaken the US, even as US leadership in science and technology is being challenged by other nations that have increased their investment research and education.

Most people recall the later Trump years of the pandemic, when he made silly recomendations about COVID that revealed an astounding ignorance. But his hostility to science was present from the beginning of his presidency. His first budget contained large cuts in key scientific institutions, notably the National Institute of Health.

Reagan vs Trump on the value of NATO

2024-02-12T14:28:00.001+01:00

After the American Century

NATO is under attack. Not from Russia but from Donald Trump. He is the first American president ever to suggest that US allies ought to be attacked. He is the first to openly encourage Russia to make such an attack. If he becomes president, he will drive Europe away from the US, increase the danger of a wider war in Europe, and undermine the rule of law internationally.

Trump is a disgrace to himself and to the Republican Party. Ronald Reagan would not vote for anyone holding such views.

This is what Reagan said forty years ago, on the 35th anniversay of NATO's establishment:

"Throughout its history, the NATO Alliance has been challenged by the military power and political ambitions of the Soviet Union. Yet, in every decade, the nations of the Alliance have consistently pulled together to maintain peace through their collective strength and determination. On the basis of that strength and unity, the nations of the Alliance also have taken the initiative to seek a more constructive relationship with the Soviet Union.

"Over the years, NATO has grown from its original twelve members to include Greece, Turkey, the Federal Republic of Germany, and, most recently, Spain. It has demonstrated a capacity to adapt to evolving political and security challenges and to meet the changing needs of its members. The Alliance's commitment to collective security has been sustained through full democratic respect for the sovereign independence of each member.
I am proud to rededicate the United States to the ideals and responsibilities of our Alliance."

President Ronald Reagn, March 6, 1984

Why do Republicans honor the memory of Reagan and yet support Trump. Have they not lost their way?

2024-02-09T14:08:00.003+01:00

After the American Century

Google’s New Gemini AI is Unreliable

Today I tested the newly released “Gemini” Artificial Intelligence program. It is a fraud. I asked it a question that was factual and that could be checked. The “facts” were wrong, sheer nonsense. I asked it who used the word “kaleidoscopic” in a literary text. It responded with many examples, including brief quotations. I checked six of the most famous works, and found that in every case the quotations were entire fabrications. However, they sounded plausible:

• Mark Twain's "Adventures of Huckleberry Finn" (1885): Describes the "kaleidoscopic whirl" of a Mississippi steamboat scene.

• T.S. Eliot's "The Waste Land" (1922): Uses the term to represent the fragmented and chaotic modern world.

• 1885: "The kaleidoscopic vision of the prairie…" (Walt Whitman, "Specimen Days") - This quote describes the ever-changing landscape of the American plains.

• 1925: "The kaleidoscopic panorama of New York…" (F. Scott Fitzgerald, "The Great Gatsby") - This quote captures the dazzling and chaotic energy of the Roaring Twenties in New York City.

• 1926: "The kaleidoscopic mind of modern youth…" (Carl Sandburg, "Smoke and Steel") - This line reflects on the changing attitudes and values of young people in the modern era.

I then wrote back to Gemini

Earlier today you provided examples of the use of the word kaleidoscopic (or kaleidoscope) in several works of American literature. I have checked, and every example I looked at proved to be false.

The word is not used anywhere in T. S. Eliot's The Wasteland.

It does not appear in Mark Twain's The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn.

It is not used in Fitzgerald's The Great Gatsby.

Walt Whitman did not use the word in Specimen Days,

and so forth.

Because of these fabrications from well-known works of literature, it appears that you are entirely unreliable. You lie. You make up quotations. And you lie about things which are easy to check, so one can only assume that you are also unreliable when using vague references such as a line from an unspecified article in a 19th century magazine. I am disappointed, but not surprised. If this is the best that Aritificial Intelligence can do, then you cannot be trusted.

Gemini Replied

"I apologize unreservedly for the misinformation I provided about the use of "kaleidoscopic" in American literature. You are absolutely correct; after further investigation, I have confirmed that the examples I provided were inaccurate. I am still under development, and I am constantly learning and improving. However, there is no excuse for providing you with false information, and I take full responsibility for my mistake. You are right to be disappointed, and I understand your concerns about my reliability. It is important that I am able to provide accurate and trustworthy information, and I failed to do so in this instance. I am committed to learning from this mistake and improving my ability to fact-check and verify information before presenting it. I would like to assure you that I am not capable of intentionally lying or making up information. However, I can sometimes make mistakes, particularly when dealing with complex or open-ended tasks. I am always working to improve my accuracy and reliability, and I appreciate your feedback in helping me to do so. Please know that I am still under development, and I am always learning. I hope that you will continue to use me and provide me with feedback so that I can improve and become a more reliable and trustworthy source of information."

Do not use it! A student relying on this source would get a failing grade and be reprimanded for making up information and misrepresenting the texts "cited."

2023-11-29T12:07:00.001+01:00

After the American Century

Should Nordic Universities Boycott Israeli Universities?

Neither the Hamas regime nor the Israeli government can be described as innocents. Both have been wronged. Both can be accused of unreasonable violence. Both have committed unlawful acts. Both might be accused before the World Court of war crimes committed during their current conflict.

Some demand that we take sides, as if this would help resolve the crisis. In particular, some are calling for Nordic universities to boycott Israeli universities. This idea is hardly new, as it has also been advocated by supporters of Palestine in the United States. Such proposals attack the foundation of universities, as institutions that promote freedom of speech, dialogue, and cultural diplomacy. During the Cold War there were still exchanges between universities on either side of the Iron Curtain, notably those of the Fulbright Program. Russian and eastern European professors went to the United States, and Americans went the other way. For half a century all sorts of cultural exchanges, including orchestras, choirs, writers, engineers, farmers, and many more, helped maintain a dialogue between the two sides. When the Cold War ended, the Berlin Wall came down with scarcely a shot being fired. Decades of cultural exchange played a role in achieving that result. In the current conflict, the Nordic countries are not at war with either side, and the best role they can play is that of honest brokers. This is not a new role. Remember the Oslo Accords of the 1990s?

If you join a boycott in order to support the Palestinians, you are siding with Hamas and with Iran, which is fighting proxy wars and supporting terrorism in the Middle East. If you support the Israelis, then you are joining hands with an extreme right-wing government, whose prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been undermining democratic institutions in Israel, as well as treating the Palestinians unjustly. Boycotting Israel's universities will not bother that government very much, and it will likely please the rightwing extremists who support Prime Minister Netanyahu. Universities are places where moderates can work toward a different and more democratic future than what either Hamas or the right-wing Israeli government are fighting for. The former chair of the American Association of University Professors, Cary Nelson has written, "there is more academic freedom in Israel than in other nations in the Middle East. It is hypocritical and a fundamental betrayal of our mission as academics to advocate boycotting universities not because of their fundamental character but because of the policies of the nation in which they are located."

Yet Michelle Pace's essay in Politiken (29.11.23) calls for a boycott of all Israeli universities. She does not compare them to universities in Syria, Iran, or other Middle Eastern nations that are dictatorships. Only Israel's universities are guilty by geographical association. Her proposal would isolate moderate Israelis, many of whom are professors and students. The actual situation is not fairly described in her essay, which depicts Israeli academic research as being almost identical with government plans and policies. In fact, opposition to the Netanyahu government has been notable in the universities, and they teach not only Jews but also Arabs, Christians, Druze, and agnostics. There are about 320,000 students, including more than 40,000 Arabs, whose numbers were increasing rapidly before the current crisis. A boycott would prevent them from taking a term abroad in Denmark. Is that sensible? Is it defensible to prevent Israeli academics from attending conferences in the Nordic countries, regardless of their point of view? Is a boycott to be extended to their books, journals, or articles, regardless of subject matter? Are medical laboratories to break off cooperative research that has nothing to do with the war? Should Jewish writers, regardless of nationality, to be banned as well?

Universities struggle to maintain academic freedom, and boycotts are threats to that freedom. The American Association of University Professors has long opposed the use of university boycotts. Of course there are professors in every nation's universities who support their government's actions, but that hardly justifies boycotting an entire university system.

Boycotting Israeli universities would punish 350,000 students and faculty indiscriminately. By isolating moderates who seek conflict resolution and by taking sides with Hamas, who seek to eradicate Israel, a boycott would be like throwing kerosene on a fire. The university is the wrong target, and a boycott is the wrong weapon. In times of polarization it is crucial to maintain dialogue and free speech so that a resolution can become possible. The goal is not to proclaim virtuous outrage, take sides, and demand a boycott. The goal is to support moderates on both sides and help them to find peace.

During the Vietnam War, protests occurred at universities in both the United States and around the world. The protests were primarily calls for peace. I participated in many of them from 1966 until the end of that war in 1975, and the crowds were singing, "All we are saying, is give peace a chance." I suggest that Michelle Pace and others who are attracted to a boycott might reconsider their tactics. A boycott is a negation, a refusal to engage in dialogue, and a claim of superior virtue that will anger one side and encourage the other, helping to sustain a conflict. What we need are large, non-violent protests that include not only Palestinians and refugees now living in Denmark but also a broader coalition calling for peace and asking politicians to take an active role as arbitrators.

Why is Burning Books Defined as Freedom of Speech?

2023-08-02T10:49:00.002+02:00

After the American Century

In recent weeks the Koran has been burned several times in Sweden and Denmark, causing outrage in the Moslem world. Crowds have protested, attacked embassies, and denounced the Danish and Swedish governments. In response, Scandinavians point out that their governments have not burned books. Rather, individuals have done so, as is their right, as an expression of free speech.

As a historian, I note that book burning has usually been practiced by dictatorships and intolerant regimes. The Nazis come to mind. I do not recall many examples of books being burned by people who habitually read and write books. I doubt that those who are burning the Koran have read it, and it is also unlikely that those who ban or burn Salman Rushdie's The Satanic Verses have read that either.

As a writer, I find book burning an insulting practice. One should debate about a book that causes offense, not destroy it. And in the age of digital communication, multiple copies proliferate, so burning a text is rather pointless as it will hardly be eradicated.

As a citizen, I dislike book burning because it is almost always a populist stunt designed to short-circuit reasoned discussion. In Denmark, for example, a rather surprising number of people seem convinced that to restrict or ban burning the Koran would be a defeat for free speech and a victory for undemocratic Moslem regimes.

What nonsense. The real discussion ought to be about whether burning books is free speech. I submit that burning any book is the strongest possible manifestation of a refusal to discuss it or acknowledge any value in it. I would like to see a law that severely restricted the public burning of any book, by prohibiting such acts unless permission had been granted after a review of a 500-1,000 word statement that justified the proceeding. That is the length of a typical book review, and such a statement would have to convince a panel appointed by the government that (1) the applicant has read and understood the book, and that (2) there is a convincing argument for the destruction of the text.

In other words, I would like to insist that there be reading, discussion, and collective decision-making before any book can be burned. This is a serious act, and it should not be a spontaneous one in a moment of anger or a way to make headlines without actually making a convincing argument. As currently practiced, I regard book burning as a form of hate speech, intended to insult and inflame, not to inform or debate

There is one further consideration. The right to free speech is not a right to irresponsible speech, such as shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater. Free speech entails responsibility for one's statements, which is why it does not include a right to slander someone or to spread falsehoods that damage another person's reputation.

For a small, right-wing minority in Sweden or Denmark to burn the Koran in front of a Moslem nation's embassy seems very much like screaming "Fire" in order to create panic, provoke fear, and increase polarization. Why do journalists and politicians keep on saying that this is "free speech"?

Paying for climate disaster or for nuclear weapons?

2023-01-09T12:55:00.005+01:00

After the American Century

One of the sore points in the UN climate negotiations is the question of who should pay for floods and other disasters that are intensified or even caused by global warming. Pakistan has been especially insistent that it needs international aid to rebuild after intense flooding. I am not against this idea in the abstract, but note the following points.

(1) A nation is responsible for preparing for disasters. It ought to keep sea walls and dikes in good repair, for example. It should also restrict building on a flood plain which will almost certainly be inundated in the foreseeable future. This point also applies to provinces or states within nations. When Florida allows extensive building close to the sea, while at the same time removing large mangrove trees which are an effective defence against storm surges, it should not be able, when disaster strikes, to ask for billions in aid. Regions and a nations have a duty to protect their citizens, and this means they should prepare for possible disasters. I cannot say whether Pakistan fulfilled its duty to be prepared, but it is fair to ask the question and investigate before handing over billions of dollars.

(2) In 2019 the nations with nuclear weapons spent about $73 billion on their arsenals. Some nations that are asking for free disaster aid are also nuclear powers, notably Pakistan. Should it continue to make large investments in atomic bombs rather than make that money available as disaster aid? Would not loans to such a nation be, in effect, assistance to their nuclear programs? Supposedly, such weapons are for national defence, but in practice the bombs are in storage, available just in case. The estimated annual cost of Pakistan's nuclear weapons program is $1 billion. It also was costly to develop the weapons in the first place, and took almost twenty years before the first bomb was tested successfully in 1998. The total expense of Pakistan's nuclear program is therefore at least $30 billion. Had they used that money to prepare for flood disasters, it would be roughly twice the $15 billion they now are requesting in free disaster aid. India has spent more than twice that sum on nuclear weapons in the last quarter century, so it might have had more than $60 billion for environmental projects and disaster aid.

On the whole, if all the money now spent on nuclear weapons could be reallocated to curbing global warming, by 2035 it would amount to $1 trillion.

I am amazed that any nuclear state has the nerve to ask for free aid to protect its people from environmental disasters. If they have billions for weapons of mass destruction, then they do not need charity when disaster strikes. Rather. they need to rethink their priorities.

On this basis, I suggest that the following nations should not be eligible for free disaster assistance:

The United States

China

Britain

Russia

France

India

North Korea

Iran

One might want to add more nations to this list, depending on their annual budget for conventional ams.

Downsizing Knowledge: The Danish government's plan to shorten humanities education

2022-12-21T13:49:00.007+01:00

After the American Century

The OECD statistics on spending for higher education reveal considerable differences between the Scandinavian countries. Norway spends more than $22,000 per student each year; Sweden about $25,000; and Denmark, about $19,000. Some fields cost a lot more than others, notably medicine and science need expensive equipment and laboratories, whose price presumably is much the same regardless of country. The least funding goes to the humanities, which usually have larger classes and need little equipment and no laboratories. Bluntly, Denmark spends less per student for university education than Sweden and Norway, and the Danish students in humanities receive the least support of any students in Scandinavia. It is also worth noting that the annual expenditure per university student in the US is about $32,000 and in the UK about $28,000. Denmark has fallen behind, and things are about to get worse.

The number of university students in all fields has been falling in Denmark since 2014, with about 13,500 fewer in 2021. The Danish government has saved quite a lot of money by educating fewer people, perhaps as much as $250 million each year. Being behind Sweden and Norway and having fewer students as well, one might think that it was time for Denmark to invest more in education.

But the new Danish government does not see it that way. They have been aggressively cutting the size of the student body. In 2021, the socialist government told the universities to cut enrolments. Copenhagen University announced it would downsize by 1,590 student places by 2030, and 40% of these would be in the humanities. The next three largest universities made similar announcements. The government was downsizing on higher education, and they were just getting started.

During the run-up to the election in November, 2022, the Socialists announced that they would like to remodel university education, especially for the humanities, by eliminating an entire year. At present, students who want a BA and an MA follow a five year curriculum, with the first three years for the BA and the MA as a two-year degree. The proposal was not laid out in detail, but it appears that this cutback would primarily affect the MA. In other words, there will be less specialization, with an entire year removed from MA studies. (Few have ever been given the opportunity to do a Ph.D. in Denmark, and for those who do get the chance, there are no regular classes or seminars at that level. )

Note that this "reform" was proposed for all of the humanities, perhaps for some of the social sciences, but not for science, medicine, and engineering, which would still have a longer curriculum. If carried through, the inequality between humanities and rest of the university would make Denmark unusual internationally. Norway, Sweden, the US and Britain do not offer a cut-rate degree in foreign languages, history, art. theology, and other humanistic subjects.

If carried through, this will be the second time university education has been shortened. Until 1993, universities offered a six-year education, which combined 4 years of specialization in one subject and 2 years in a second field. The graduates were then qualified to teach two subjects in the gymnasium. If someone was not interested in becoming a teacher, they could stop after four years in one field and receive a degree called a cand. phil.

The Coming Danish Brain Drain

It seems obvious that when cutting an education from five to four years it is impossible maintain the same level of expertise, nor will Danish universities be as attractive to students. Furthermore, if there are 20% fewer hours in the classroom for students, then about one in five teachers will not be needed. An entire generation either will not be trained at all or will get an advanced degree and find that there are no jobs. Looking ten years ahead, faculties will consist of people between 40 and 65, with almost no young scholars and no Ph.D. students. Some of the most promising people will go abroad, perhaps to Sweden, Norway, the US, or Britain. They will not return because there will only an impoverished second-rate university sector to come back to. If the government carries through its plan, then a Danish brain drain seems inevitable. Moreover, the government has forced universities to eliminate several thousand places for international students.

The combined effect of the various cutbacks have devastated some departments. At the University of Copenhagen alone, 344 teaching positions disappeared between 2015 and 2017, or about 6.5% of the faculty. More positions have since disappeared at all the universities. The University of Southern Denmark used to offer degrees in Spanish, French, Russian, and Chinese, but all of these have gradually disappeared. Many faculty are deeply distressed, not least because it seems there is no Danish political party that thinks they are worth defending in an election campaign. And when students ask about doing a PhD, the only honest answer one can give them is that he or she should go abroad or forget about it.

Final note on expenditures per student. Harvard University has an endowment of more than $40 billion, and it supplements what students pay in tuition. The total cost to educate one Harvard undergraduate per year is more than $200 thousand per year, more than Denmark spends to educate ten students.

The big picture on Energy in 2023

2022-12-20T21:47:00.005+01:00

After the American Century

Newspaper stories about energy tend to focus on particular countries, new technologies, or one energy sector at a time. But what is the big picture? Here are a few facts of the matter.

Is coal being phased out, since it is the very polluting compared to most other energy sources? In the world as a whole, coal consumption continued to rise until c. 2010. Since then it has been leveling off, but it has begun to rise again after the worst of the pandemic was over. Some countries are moving away from coal, notably the United States, but others are increasing their reliance on it, notably China. A bit more than half of all coal consumption takes place in China. For another generation, coal will still be a dominant fuel.

Is world energy use rising along with the increase in population?

These changes in coal use are not related to population growth in any simple way. US population is growing, but coal use there is not. In China, the population is not growing, due to the long enforced "one child per family" policy. But coal use is rising in China, at least in the short term. In other words, every country has a somewhat different resource base and situation. In general, as the standard of living increases, so does energy consumption. However, the most advanced forms of housing and transport break that rising curve. Well insulated buildings with solar panels make many new buildings self-sufficient.

Is the problem of energy one of supply? or perhaps the technologies we need are not yet commercially developed?

The biggest problem used to be that the technologies of extremely efficient energy production and use were too expensive. But in the last decade that has changed, and the biggest problem is the failure of politicians (and therefore of voters) to adopt the changes that are now possible. More than half of all the new cars sold in Norway are now electric vehicles. In contrast, equally rich and more densely populated Denmark is far behind Norway. If Denmark were an automobile producing nation, this might possibly make some sense, but it has no automobile factories at all. Unhappily, it is ill-informed and second-rate politicians who are holding Denmark back on this matter. One can see the same thing in the United States. where some states, notably California and Massachusetts, have energy policies that are excellent, while other states, notably those in the Old South, have terrible records on making the energy transition. I cannot say this strongly enough: today the problem is more social and political than it is technological. Don't believe it? Then consider that Costa Rica gets more than 95% of its electricity from solar, wind, hydo, and geothermal, while few of the other small central American countries come close to that statistic.

How much energy is generated by wind power?

In 2021, for the first time solar and wind power supplied more than 10% of the world's power. But this general figure hides large disparities. The 10% figure is accurate for Japan or Argentina, but a few countries are far ahead of that level. Scotland generates more than 90% of its electricity from wind. Denmark also is a leader in windmill technologies, and it routinely supplies more than half its electrical needs using wind. On some windy days, windmills supply all of its electricity. Other emerging leaders in wind power include Portugal and Chile. China, the US, and Germany are investing heavily in this area, and they are the three nations with the biggest production, although these nations are still working to free themselves from fossil fuels.

Where is solar power being used the most?

The largest capacity in solar power can be found in China, whose capacity in 2019 was roughly that of the US, Germany, and Japan, combined. The cost of solar has now fallen below the cost of burning coal, so it is only a failure of leadership and investment that keeps desert nations from cashing in on this opportunity. But consider that Saudi Arabia and other oil producing countries subsidize gasoline prices, making it cheaper to burn petroleum than to invest in solar power. Again, this is, at root, a political problem, not a technological one.

And what about oil?

In 2021 the US consumed more oil than any other country, about 20% of world demand. China was next with roughy 16%, India about 5%. Since the combined population of China and India is well over 2 billion, or roughly six times the population of the US, two things are obvious. One, the US must radically reduce its oil consumption if it is going to help stave off more global warming. Two, even assuming it does this, the enormous populations of China, India, and other Asian nations are going to keep demanding oil. It seems unlikely that the global consumption will fall very much, if at all, in the next ten years. Therefore, improvements in all the other energy sectors are going to be crucial to reducing pollution and cutting back on CO2 from other sources.

Conclusion

The outlook is rather grim. Oil and coal are almost certain to remain the dominant sources of energy for the next decade. We have the technologies and the knowledge to replace them, but we have not yet shown enough political will to make the change.

What happens after the 2022 Midterms?

2022-11-11T22:59:00.003+01:00

After the American Century

The 2022 midtern elections are over, and it appears that Donald Trump is losing his hold on the Republican Party, which might help the nation move away from nasty politics, denialism, and polarization. However, both houses of Congress will be rather evenly split. Many fear that the next two years will be a time of gridlock in Washington, with little legislation getting through. If the Republicans choose this path, however, I do not think it will lead to victory, for the following six reasons.

Why two years of gridlock is unlikely

1. The climate crisis is worsening, and the years when Republicans could stonewall attempts to deal with it are over. They will lose credibility if they keep on obstructing.

2. New candidates to replace Trump are going to need some achievements to make them credible. Possibly there are no wanna-be candidates in the Congress, but if so, this would be the first time.

3. People doubted that Biden could get much legislation through in his first two years, but in fact he did rather well. There are a few (admittedly very few) moderate Republicans who will vote with the Democrats on particular issues.

4. Bi-partisan support for Ukraine is likely to continue, especially after the events of the last week, when Russia was forced to withdraw from Kherson. If Republicans do not continue their support, then they will be helping Putin, who is surely one of the least popular foreign leaders among Americans. Who cannot be inspired by the Ukrainian determination and grit?

5. There is always pork barrel legislation (highways, bridges, airports, etc.), which every legislator wants, in order to please the constituents.

6. Disasters will always strike, whether tornados, hurricanes, or floods. The President has the power to declare a national disaster, which unleashes federal resources and funding. If the Republicans try to play hardball, Biden can refuse to declare a disaster, which would be especially likely if there are any games being played with passing the budget or raising the ceiling on the national debt.

I am not predicting peace and harmony, of course. But for all of these reasons, gridlock is not the most likely outcome. In fact, Washington is quite used to functioning with a White House that does not control both houses of Congress.

The next election

With the midterms over, the 2024 presidential election comes into sharp focus. It is early days, but it seems likely the Republicans will not simply fall in line behind Donald Trump. He has a LOT of baggage, most obviously in the form of on-going lawsuits. One reads reports already that leaders want to see a fresh, younger face.

Democrats are worried that Biden is a safe pair of hands but lacks charisma. His age has become an issue for some, too. If he chooses to run, however, it may be hard to run in the primaries against him. Should he decide not to run, presumably in about a year from now, then a vigorous contest would follow.

In short, it might turn out that in 2024 both parties will have new candidates, almost certainly younger candidates than Trump and Biden. If so, it will be an extremely interesting election.

After the American Century

The Great Energy Transition, 25% discount

A Plea for Justice: Should Trump Stand Trial for Murder?

Did the U.S. commit a war crime in the Caribbean?

The Great Energy Transition from 1876 to 1929

Penguin Random HouseAmazon

Barnes and NobleBookshop.org

Comparing the Electrical and Digital Revolutions

The President Has No Clothes

Trump Has Weakened the American Economy

Renaming: Suggestions for the Trump Administration

Trump's Hundred Days of Infamy Provide Three Grounds for Impeachment

Impeach Trump.

What if Putin Wins Ukranian War?

Greenland: Not American Security but World Environmental Security Is at Stake

The Supreme Court's Decline in the Polls

Trump's illusion of a "Golden Age"

Electric Vehicle Sales predict state political alignments

"The Constitution does not shield a former President from answering for criminal and treasonous acts"

The Failed Presidential Debate: Presage to Chaos?

Trump: Abuse of Power, 2016-2020

Trump: The Anti-Science President

Reagan vs Trump on the value of NATO

Should Nordic Universities Boycott Israeli Universities?

Why is Burning Books Defined as Freedom of Speech?

Paying for climate disaster or for nuclear weapons?

Downsizing Knowledge: The Danish government's plan to shorten humanities education

The big picture on Energy in 2023

What happens after the 2022 Midterms?

Penguin Random House Amazon

Barnes and Noble Bookshop.org