PROMPT: Patriotic

Daily writing prompt
Are you patriotic? What does being patriotic mean to you?

I am. I wish my country the best, am pained to see ailments of what have always been the country’s greatest strengths (the government being limited and at the command of the people and the law [rather than the other way around] and the courage to boldly lead by building the new technologies and adapting to the world that came to be,) and will not stop bitching about it unless and until the situation rights itself. When I was a young man, I served in the military and waved flags. Now, as an old man, I’m not eager to see America go gently into that good night.

I realize that may sound excessively Pollyanna about America’s past and pessimistic about the present / future. I do realize that the country has always had its flaws, as humanity always does. (And loved it all the same.) There have been missteps and mass movements that would later come to be viewed as wrongheaded and self-defeating. But we always had checks and balances, an Enlightenment norm for tolerance, and a respect for decorum and gravitas in our leaders. Now, as I see the “Putin-Orban Manual for New Populist-Nationalist Dictators” being played out, I wonder if the shark hasn’t been jumped on all that was good, honorable, and impressive in the America in which I grew up.

PROMPT: Law

Daily writing prompt
If you had the power to change one law, what would it be and why?

If such a situation were to avail itself, I would make a law so that no one person — even a high elected official — could change the law unilaterally. (Administrative policies for the bureaucracy not being laws, said high elected official could go to town on them.) Why? Because one person being able to change law is an affront to democracy and to the very concept of rule of law, and if we make it the object of fantasy to be able to do so we are cooked.

We had such a law in the US. It was called the Constitution, and it was glorious. It said that only the legislature (a body consisting of many representatives) could make law, and only the judiciary could interpret and evaluate the legality of a law. And it was okay that the executive was the least democratic of branches because it was to stay in the lane of enforcing the laws as they were written (and shaped by judicial interpretation,) and if the executive started getting too big for his britches, the legislature would turn off the flow of money.

So, my great fantasy is not to be able to unilaterally change law, but to have three functioning branches of government who stay in their own lanes, applying checks as (and only as) described in the Constitution.

PROMPT: Complain

Daily writing prompt
What do you complain about the most?

The state of the modern world. Increasingly, I feel humanity has jumped the shark.

Years ago, I heard someone wise use the term “information inflation” to describe the fact that we were so awash in information that each piece of information became virtually valueless. [Not to mention that with so much information it becomes harder to distinguish quality information from junk information or quasi-information.] I think we are now treading water in an ocean of [mostly shit] information and quasi-information, and the exhaustion is setting in.

This makes people crave simplicity, which would be great except that we often try to simplify the complexities that must be accepted to have a bit of tolerance and humility.

[The one thing I learned in years of education involving policy is whenever anyone says, “This problem would be so easy to fix, all you’ve got to do is ____________.” that person has no idea what he is talking about and is completely blind to the challenges, complexities, feedback effects, and externalities of the issue at hand.]

BOOKS: “The Activist” by Daniel Fried

The Activist: A Daoist Protest ManualThe Activist: A Daoist Protest Manual by Daniel Fried
My rating: 4 of 5 stars

Publisher Page — Prometheus Books/

Release date: March 3, 2026

Taoist philosophy has been applied to many a subject over the centuries, from war to business to governance to relationships, but this is the first time I’ve seen it applied to activism in a substantive way. The book caught my eye because I’ve long recognized the central truth behind Fried’s work, which is that the tactics and mindsets of protesters often does them no favors and may even ensure failure (if one presumes the objective to be to change behavior and attitudes on a given topic into line with the protesters’ stance.) The problem is that protesters are often angry and combative, characteristics which may keep the choir (preaching to itself) warm and feeling self-righteous, but which seldom brings in new converts from among the undecided [let alone from the opposing side.] And if you didn’t need converts to your side, you wouldn’t have to protest in the first place. Given this tendency, Taoism could be argued to be an ideal source of strategy. Taoism proposes going with the grain, not leading with a fight, and avoiding useless activity.

This book provides interesting food-for-thought about how protesters might have more impact by adopting fewer belligerent and self-serving tactics. Unfortunately, the book also has stretches of stream-of-consciousness writing that — while perhaps consistent with the Taoist love of spontaneity — can be a bit of a strain on the reader’s ability to follow. This mostly takes place in the latter chapters.

I found this book to be intriguing. I can’t say that I came away from it having answered the question of whether Taoist philosophy is reconcilable with activism on a practical level. Taoism asks one to let the natural unfold, while protest movements want to guide a society in a particular direction (notably one by definition at odds which that which has fallen into place organically.) It’s not for lack of discussion that I haven’t reached a conclusion, but rather that questions remain for me on the pragmatic level (rather than the level of theory.) That said, I found the book well worth reading, despite a few points of low readability.

View all my reviews

PROMPT: Freedom

Daily writing prompt
What does freedom mean to you?

Of the universe of all possible actions, one can choose to attempt any (or refrain from any) but those curtailed by a small number of laws intended to keep one from impinging upon the freedoms of others or imposing costs / burdens on them to which they did not consent, or by self-imposed limitations (e.g. one’s own ethical belief system or one’s physical / mental limitations.)

Often it is wrongly confused with comfort. A maximally free society is not maximally comfortable for anyone, because one has to accept that others will make all sorts of choices that one would not make oneself (and that it’s none of your business.)

PROMPT: Disagree

Daily writing prompt
What public figure do you disagree with the most?

These days? Trump — hands down. Beyond a few of his stated policy objectives, there is more and more I disagree with every day. (I emphasize “stated” because there is so little that’s coherent in his actions to prove he is really interested in advancing said objectives.) For example, I do agree that the swelling deficits (budget and trade) are something that should be treated as unsustainable. I’m not of the “a current account deficit is just a capital account surplus, so turn that frown upside-down” ilk. However, erratic and untargeted tariff policies that hurt successful sectors (e.g. agriculture and services) and which will only put the toothpaste back in the tube (bring [human] factory labor back to the US on a huge scale) by crashing the US into Third World status are not the way.

I disagree with this inexplicable monomaniacal obsession with heavy industry, while injuring those sectors that have done well in recent decades.

I agree with… Powell, that there is a high chance of stagflation if the Fed takes a loose money stance. The problem is… Trump. Ordinarily, it would be good to dump some money on an economy that is struggling. But the problem is that Trump is like a salesperson that would like to sell customers something, but he also enjoys chasing them around the store with an axe. The problem is that people and companies don’t make big purchases when they are afraid and the future is uncertain. (This is why even getting investment in robotic factories isn’t happening.) There’s uncertainty because of the tariffs. There’s uncertainty about whether companies will have to pay bribes to Trump, personally. There’s uncertainty about whether the legal and institutional frameworks that have so long made America an appealing place to invest and innovate will survive. So, if the Fed injects money but consumer confidence and investment are flat because of said uncertainty, then that money will be purely inflationary. [Remember, inflation is too much money chasing too few goods. More money needs to meet more demand for stuff.]

I disagree that one can have one’s cake and eat it, too. Specifically, tariffs need to be either for revenue generation or for policy negotiations, they can’t be both, but Trump talks like he doesn’t understand this. If tariffs are going to be the new primary source of government income, they need to bring in money sustainably. If they are a negotiating tool to lever policy, you need to be ready to negotiate them away in return for your own objective wins.

I definitely disagree with the ignoring of Supreme Court decisions. It’s particularly disconcerting to see him ignore 9 – 0 decisions, which means that even his own appointees could not find a hairsbreadth of wiggle room in the law by which his actions could be viewed as lawful.

I disagree with picking a raft of pretty-idiots / talking-heads for positions that require high levels of emotional intelligence and — you know — intelligence intelligence. If it weren’t for the fact that America has the most awesome and professional military in the world, I’d be especially afraid that Hegseth was going to destroy it. But while I think the US Military will be around long after he’s gone, I’m suspect he will have done damage to morale and operational efficiency.

I disagree with favoring dictators over longtime allies. [While I would agree that it’s good that Europe is taking on more of the burden of their own defense, I’m concerned that trashing relations to do so will not prove a sound approach.]

I disagree with all the attempts to play from the Putin-Orban Populist Dictators’ Playbook.

While I’m not at all averse to seeing cuts to the Federal bureaucracy, I do disagree with — you know — firing people before you understand what they do and whether it’s critical to health and safety, the necessary conduct of governance, or oversight against fraud and abuse.

I disagree that one should talk about making loophole end-runs around Constitutional prohibitions.

But, I ramble on…

PROMPT: Discuss

Daily writing prompt
What topics do you like to discuss?

Virtually anything but myself. Philosophy, literature, science, economics, public policy, meditation, martial arts, health / well-being, travel, nature, culture, food, the end of the world as we know it, etc.

I do have some blind spots where I could not speak intelligently (e.g. large swathes of history, sports, and pop culture.)

PROMPT: Law

Have you ever unintentionally broken the law?

Unintentionally, intentionally… there are a lot of laws, and some of them are, quite frankly, ridiculous. I would not have been able practice the martial arts that contributed so much to my personal growth and development if I had complied with all the state weapons laws of the various places I have lived. Unlike guns (speaking about the US here) which have a big lobby and voter block, the martial arts community is small and those who practice systems with weapons are a sliver of that. This means that any time some random yahoo does something nefarious with a nunchuck or samurai sword, the weapon gets banned without a moment’s thought for those who have benefited from practicing historical traditions that include said weapons.

I recognize the law as an instrument to prevent people from harming others through violence, fraud, etc. Also, to set common standards necessary for safety – i.e. rules of the road. I do my best to conduct my life in such a way as to not injure or adversely impact the lives of others. I would do this as an ethical matter regardless of the laws, but believe in the value and necessity of many laws.

However, like H.D. Thoreau, I believe there are laws on the books that it’s our moral duty to disregard. For example, if we don’t have liberty within our own skin, there is really no way in which we can be said to be free.

PROMPT: Power

If you had the power to change one law, what would it be and why?

It would be whatever law gave one person the power to unilaterally change a law. That would be a terrible thing.

PROMPT: Political Views

How have your political views changed over time?

While pretty much the same place on the spectrum, they have softened with the realization that abstract principles may have value for understanding, but for a system of governance to work it must be in tune with human nature ( which is far too messy for dogmatic principles.) In short, my political views have become more pragmatic.

Most importantly, I have come to believe that the governance we get comes of a dialectical battle of ideas, and – therefore – a wide diversity of views in the fray is beneficial. Far from wishing our political opponents would go away, we should hope they force us to do our best by putting their best argument out there in the most astute and persuasive way. It will always be messy, with some cover hog temporarily stealing the warmth, but ultimately it’s better (less bleak and cold) than sleeping alone.

It does require sound and strong rule of law, select depoliticized domains (i.e. the military and judiciary,) a willingness of people to accept that ideas they hate can only be defeated by engagement and persuasion (not by silencing or canceling – i.e. intellectual courage is essential,) but it will yield something better (if often messier) than any political ideology.