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: Political Views

Daily writing prompt
How have your political views changed over time?

I’m far less intense in my belief, allowing more room for nuance. The biggest change is seeing the value in a dialectical competition of ideas that would benefit from all political parties being at their most competent and making their most sound arguments. Unfortunately, both political parties where I live are – each in its own way — complete and utter shit.

FIVE WISE LINES [November 2025]

Taken at Fo Guang Shan, near Kaohsiung in Southern Taiwan.

A thing is mighty big when time
and distance cannot shrink it.

Zora Neale hurston; Tell my horse

…if you want to be elected, it is better
to be Mean than to be Funny.

hunter s. thompson; Better than sex

And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile,
go with him twain.

jesus; Matthew 5:38-40

The only gamblers who will talk openly
are the ones who don’t make money.
The successful ones keep their mouths shut.

Kit chellel; lucky devils

To live a creative life,
we must lose our fear of being wrong.

joseph chilton pearce

PROMPT: Famous or Infamous

Daily writing prompt
Who is the most famous or infamous person you have ever met?

The most famous people I’ve met are famed for their scholarly or political contributions to society, which is to say 98% of the population have never heard of them.

What I am really sad to say is that I’ve never met anyone truly infamous. I keep hoping one of those scientists will turn evil, but they just stay nerdy.

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: First Thing

Daily writing prompt
Jot down the first thing that comes to your mind.

We’re all screwed. Embrace the chaos or head for the hills.

There is a class of problems that brute force solutions, even when they nudge the needle in the desired direction, always end in devastation.

One can’t drive an aircraft carrier like a jet-ski and expect anything other than a bunch of drowned sailors and destroyed planes.

[Guess who’s been reading the news.]

BOOKS: “The Cultural Revolution: A Very Short Introduction” by Richard Curt Kraus

The Cultural Revolution: A Very Short IntroductionThe Cultural Revolution: A Very Short Introduction by Richard Curt Kraus
My rating: 4 of 5 stars

Publisher Site – OUP

The decade-long Cultural Revolution in China is generally looked upon as a bleak time and place to be alive. This brief guide reflects on the political, economic, and cultural dimensions of Mao’s attempt to root out capitalist and middle-class influence from Chinese society. The book also reflects upon other events in China during the period (e.g. detente) and how they related to the Cultural Revolution. It also explores how China came out of the Cultural Revolution.

The author makes efforts to be diplomatic and evenhanded about the event. Some readers will find this beneficial to their purposes and may even see the occasional glimmer of a bright side to a dismal period in human history. However, one should not expect to gain any visceral insight into the sadness and chaos of the era. While there was discussion of not only the end of the Cultural Revolution but what China’s continued path looked like, it didn’t get much into whether there was a long shadow to the revolution and what that shadow might look like.

I found the book informative though there were dimensions into which I would have liked to gain more insight (e.g. it doesn’t go much into the influence on religion, nor on more peripheral arts,) but that’s the challenge of such a concise guide. Also, the author is of a political science background, and this informs what elements are given more or less discussion.

View all my reviews

PROMPT: Elections

Do you vote in political elections?

Not as religiously as I did in my youth. Counter to the general trend of younger people hollering and protesting but not showing up to the polls, and thus not influencing change because politicians are cued into to the older crowd that tends to show up hell or high water.

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.