The United States can survive most policies – good or bad – carried out by a president.

What we may not be able to survive is the polarization fueled by the fiery waves of hatred emanating from President Trump, the latest of target of which were Democrats, when he declared on nationwide television that he “hates Democrats.”

I hate as well, but I hate misguided policies and the stupidity and cupidity of most of Trump’s supporters in government. But hating all Republicans?

My wife and I have friends, neighbors, and relatives who are staunch Trump supporters and often Republicans. Most of them are good people who’d do almost anything to help. While I cannot understand why they support unwaveringly a President who spouts vileness and hatred for anyone who disagrees with him and who espouses policies that, in many cases, will have severe adverse consequences on the country, I do not hate them. I find it hard to believe that they accept his lies unthinkingly, but I don’t hate them.

I also hate quite a few policies espoused by extreme leftist Democrats, but I don’t hate them, either. I do think their extremism enabled Trump’s victory and supplied fuel for his hatred campaigns.

As I’ve written here before, one of the greatest problems with unthinking or violent hatred is that it consumes people and makes them stupid, and that is exactly what Trump is accomplishing with his continuing hate-fueled tirades. He’s using hatred to enact laws and establish policies that are detrimental to the best interests of the nation.

Yes, among other things, we need to get our fiscal house in order and expel immigrants who have committed crimes other than merely being here without proper documentation. But the legislation just passed by Congress primarily gives tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans and actually takes more from most Americans in other ways. Unthinking spending cuts have already had to be rescinded in many cases because they targeted vital government functions, while not touching obsolete military bases even the Pentagon has wanted to close.

Trump’s immigration policies are expelling foreign students who entered the U.S. legally and who paid money to U.S. colleges and universities. Many of these students, as in the past, would like to stay and contribute to making America great. The vast majority of “illegal” immigrants swept up for deportation were not criminals beyond not having entered the country legally. Many others swept up entered legally, and ICE and even Trump have ignored the legality of their presence. Overall, the rate of criminal offenses among “illegal” immigrants is far lower than the rate of criminality among U.S. citizens.

And those are just a few of the stupidities created by Trump’s waves of hatred, and those stupidities will continue so long as unthinking hatred is widespread.

AI is coming, regardless. And while AI applications will have a strong impact on manufacturing and production, they’re also going to affect so-called white-collar clerical and lower-level data-management, as well as routine computer coding.

Authors and artists won’t be exempt, either. Artists who do illustrations for books and other publications are already complaining, and at least some publications are refusing to use artwork solely or partly AI-generated.

As for authors, a number of lawsuits have been brought in California and New York courts against various AI companies for copyright infringement because the companies employed unauthorized copying of authors’ works to train their generative AI models.

The discussions around this appear muddled, at least to me. Intelligence has to “learn” in some fashion. I’d read more than a thousand SF books and all the stories in ANALOG (including some from the Astounding Science-Fiction era) for fifteen years before I ever thought about writing a story, let alone a novel. So have a great many other authors.

The problem I have with the way the AI companies approached this was that while I had to pay (or occasionally borrow from the local library) to read and learn, these companies used pirated copies and paid no one. Some have attempted to claim “fair use,” which is absurd, given that “fair use” case law doesn’t allow use of extended prose in any form.

So why shouldn’t the AI companies pay royalties to authors whose works aren’t in the public domain? Shakespeare doesn’t need the royalties, but living, breathing, and working authors need and deserve them.

Since none of these legal suits have yet come to trial (so far as I can tell), we’ll see what the courts have to say.

Of course, those lawsuits don’t address the fact that dialogue from movies and TV shows has been used by companies such as Apple and Anthropic to train AI systems.

I could be underestimating the potential of generative AI, but I doubt that it will ever produce truly great prose or poetry, or even well-written mid-list fiction, but I have no doubt that, in time, it will be able to churn out serviceable methodical fiction with little uniqueness.

As in many fields, we’ll have to see, but in the meantime, the AI companies have no business pirating current authors’ works in an effort to eventually replace them.

Manufacturing in the U.S. isn’t declining. In fact, total manufacturing output has increased by thirty percent over the past twenty years.

Figures from the Federal Reserve in St. Louis show that, even in the so-called “Rust Belt” (Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Missouri, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Wisconsin), manufacturing output has increased by 14 percent over the last twenty years. In the south, output has increased 25 percent over the same period, while output has increased by 114 percent in Arizona, 78 percent in California, 70 percent in Oregon, and 39 percent in Colorado.

So why does everyone think the U.S. is manufacturing less?

The simple answer is that there are fewer jobs in manufacturing. Employment in manufacturing has dropped from roughly 16 million jobs in 2005 to 13 million at the end of 2024. At the same time, the hourly wage rate for manufacturing production workers has increased by 75%, but the cost of living has increased “officially” by 64% (I say “officially” because the official figures understate real inflation felt by most people).

At the same time, U.S. population rose from 296 million in 2005 to 347 million in 2025. So while the U.S. population increased by 51 million people, the number of manufacturing jobs dropped by 3 million. Put another way, one in eighteen Americans worked in manufacturing in 2005, but in 2025 only one in twenty-seven did.

All this translates into the facts that there are fewer manufacturing jobs, which on average pay in real terms about the same as they did twenty years ago. So those working in manufacturing, on average, haven’t seen significant improvement in real wages, and there are fewer jobs, largely because of greater technology and more automation. In addition, an increasing percentage of those jobs are requiring greater and greater skills.

This also suggests that increasing manufacturing in the United States won’t significantly increase the number of jobs being created, no matter what Trump and the Republicans claim.

In the world of golf, today begins the U.S. Open, one of the four major tournaments in professional golf. This year, it’s being held at the historic and extremely difficult Oakmont Country Club, in Oakmont, outside Pittsburg. A hundred and twenty-five golfers qualified to play in the Open, and after two rounds, the field will be cut to sixty (plus any others who tied for the last spot) for the last two rounds. The winner will take home $4.3 million, while even the 60th place finisher will pocket something like $43,000.

Apparently, some of the professionals who qualified to play in the tournament have been complaining about the length of the rough (the grass outside the comparatively manicured fairways).

My sympathy for those complaints is ambivalent. First, the rough is there to penalize golfers with less control of their game. Second, the rough is there for all players. Third, by design golf is a game/profession designed to test those who play it because there are so many variables that can affect a player, and they’re often capricious. The wind can pick up or die down at times. Rain between rounds can change how fast the green is or how heavy the sand in a bunker might be.

Every golfer faces those varying factors, and professional golfers work extremely hard to sharpen their game to minimize their impact. But when a single stroke can make a difference of anywhere from thousands of dollars to over a million dollars, it can be difficult to be philosophical.

One young and moderately successful (and single) young pro golfer actually posted what it cost him to play the pro tour, and his rough estimate was $6,000 a week, and that was with comparatively basic costs. Given that the PGA tour consists of something like 32 tournaments and seven other events, there is certainly a fair amount of mental strain as well.

All of which might also explain why I gave up golf young, especially since, despite all my efforts, I was a high handicap amateur.

Why do most human societies end up building houses, roads, and other structures?

The usual answer to that question is that people wish to provide shelter and protect themselves from the elements and other unpredictable threats, or some variation thereof.

I’ll submit that the physical growth of societies is an outgrowth of the human desire to reduce uncertainty. Human belief systems in lower-tech societies often reflect that desire as well, with prayers to the gods viewed as most capricious, which is why the native Hawaiians worshipped Pele as their most important deity.

Laws prescribe certain codes of behavior, with the goal of reducing the uncertainty caused by violence.

And that desire for certainty affects the political system as well. Older voters want to be able to count on Social Security. Most investors want comparatively predictable rates of return. Businesses worry about government policies that affect the cost of production unpredictably because they can’t plan for the future effectively.

People worry about large numbers of immigrants because they’re unknown quantities and therefore unpredictable and possibly dangerous.

Zoning laws have become increasingly stringent over the years because people fear, that without zoning, their property values could suddenly decline in an uncertain fashion.

One of the “downsides” of the “woke movement” is that its apparent goal or result to many people was to upset long-held beliefs about gender and ethnicities, creating social uncertainty. At the same time, modern technology is definitely increasing uncertainty in all areas in the United States and elsewhere in the world.

Whether they like it or will admit it, most people prefer certainty over uncertainty, and on all fronts, prior to the last election, and even now, the Democrats are perceived as creating uncertainty socially, economically, and politically.

Trump’s appeal to the majority of voters lay in the certainty he projected in a time of uncertainty. Out with immigrants! Build manufacturing jobs here in the U.S.! Decrease taxes!

For the Democrats to merely oppose Trump won’t create certainty, and right now the Democrats can’t unite on a positive program which radiates certainty, and while they might take back the House in mid-term elections, they won’t hold that without dealing with the certainty problem.