EVERY War is "Our War"

I say that EVERY War is "Our War," and that we have both a moral and a self-serving imperative to care about every conflict everywhere in the world. That certainly does NOT mean that we should send Americans or military supplies to every conflict, and in most cases that is exactly what we should NOT do. The response to each conflict needs to be completely customized, but ignoring the conflicts and pretending they don't exist is never the right thing to do.

The best we can hope for in a conflict is to use our influence to bring about a quick and just peace. The worst we can do is to provide military support to the "wrong" side, the self-serving aggressor, as in the case of Israel assaulting Gazans. Let's look at some examples:

The civil war in Sudan, as one example, pits two cruel and self-serving adversary groups against each other (which is typical of most civil wars in Africa and around the world at the moment). Certainly neither group deserves US support. Both groups oppose humanitarian aid being sent to Sudan. But that doesn't mean that there's nothing we could do. Outside players including UAE, Libya Russia, Egypt & Iran, are sending military equipment to one side or the other in Sudan, purely for their own self-serving interest, and not out of principal or humanitarian interest. The US could and should use its geopolitical influence to interrupt the flow of military equipment to both sides. Also, we should be ready at a moment's notice to send massive humanitarian aid as soon as the situation on the ground allows it.

MY Thoughts on the Near-Future World in which AI & Robots Do Most of the Work

 In MY opinion, it is inevitable that AI & Robots will perform most of the world's work relatively soon - not in my lifetime, but in my grandchildren's. 

1) Available technology has never been suppressed for long, and never will be. Progress is inevitable.

2) The core breakthroughs to enable an AI/Robot-driven world have already been made. What remains is (lots of) refinement, and implementation.

*I* see two very different ways in which our AI/Robot future could play out in society as human labor is no longer needed to perform the world's mind-numbing and repetitive but essential tasks:

1) The widespread availability of AI & Robots COULD be the catalyst for a social revolution that ushers in a society in which the fruits of AI/Robot production are shared by ALL people, with EVERYONE receiving at least enough for a comfortable life. Think #UBI (Universal Basic Income) as the first step in this direction.

2) In the absence of a social revolution that embraces human equality and sharing, *I* see catastrophe awaiting in widespread AI/Robot adoption. AI/Robots *WILL* mostly eliminate the need for human labor to perform mind-numbing and repetitive but essential tasks, so most people *WILL* become "unemployed." Without a sharing of that new-found wealth:

 a) Most people would become destitute.
 b) The oligarchs would become even more obscenely wealthy in the short term
        as they no longer needed to pay wages, BUT...
 c) Oligarchs need CUSTOMERS as well as producers. AI/Robots can build a car, for example,
        but they don't BUY cars - so the whole system falls apart.
 d) ALSO, Destitute people become desperate and take ACTION, SO IMO, the social revolution will happen later if not sooner, and if delayed too long might not be a peaceful revolution.

What would people DO with themselves if they didn't have to labor at mind-numbing and repetitive tasks? Write poetry (as John Quincy Adams suggested), hike the Appalachian Trail, study (science, history, literature, a thousand other things), spend time with their grandchildren and their grandparents. It is tragic that humanity has been all-consumed with "work" for so long that we even need to ask what we could do without "work."

A list of independent user-supported news/analysis/opinion websites I read:

A list of independent user-supported news/analysis/opinion websites I read:

https://www.commondreams.org/

https://newrepublic.com/ 

https://theintercept.com/

https://zeteo.com/

https://www.dropsitenews.com/

https://www.propublica.org/ 

https://inthesetimes.com/

https://progressive.org/ 

https://responsiblestatecraft.org/

https://www.texasobserver.org/topics/politics/

https://kyivindependent.com/

https://theconversation.com/global

https://tnholler.com/ 

I also read these commercial news sites:

https://www.theguardian.com/international

https://www.apnews.com/

and I am also a very active user of Blue Sky

https://bsky.app/profile/amerliberal.bsky.social

Let's Look at Gendered Sports and Gendered Restrooms

Let's look at the BIGGER PICTURE of gendered sports and gendered restrooms, and look at the nature of segregation in general - and the similarities between racial segregation and gender segregation...

In the Jim Crow era, a LOT of time and effort was spent arguing over who could use "Whites Only" restrooms and play on "Whites Only" sports teams. What about those who looked White but had a trace of African ancestry? What about Arabs and others who didn't fit neatly into the binary racial segregation system in the United States?

The answer - obvious in retrospect - is that RACIAL SEGREGATION was the problem! Once there were no longer "Whites Only" facilities or "Whites Only" sports teams, there was automatically no longer a question of which restroom an Arab (for example) was required to use, or which sports teams they were allowed to play on.

Today, a LOT of time and effort is spent arguing over who can use "Women's Only" or "Men's Only restrooms and play on "Women's Only" or "Men's Only" sports teams. The parallel between GENDER SEGREGATION and RACIAL SEGREGATION is obvious. In MY Opinion, the solution is also obvious. Instead of arguing over where an individual fits into the binary gender segregation system, LET'S ELIMINATE the GENDER SEGREGATION SYSTEM. If "Whites" and "Coloreds" can learn to use the same restrooms, so can "men" and "women." Same with sports teams. Same with the military. Same with the legal system. Same with all of life. Like Racial Segregation, Gender Segregation is an evil that we need to relegate to history.

[and for those who argue that race is clearly not binary, while gender is, look at the reality of the Jim Crow era: the racists of that time absolutely did believe that an individual WAS definitively either "White" or "Not White."]

----- Background - AI Generated (Gemini)

During the era of Jim Crow segregation in the United States, the concept of race was rigidly defined and enforced, but it wasn't always straightforward. Here's how some groups outside the strict White/Black binary were dealt with:

• People of Arab Descent:

  • Varied Treatment: Individuals of Arab descent experienced a range of treatment. Some were considered "white" due to their lighter skin tones and European ancestry, while others were subjected to discrimination and prejudice, often being lumped in with other non-white groups.
  • "Honorary Whites": Some Arab Americans, particularly those with lighter skin and higher socioeconomic status, were able to "pass" as white and avoid some of the harshest forms of discrimination.

• People of Indian Descent:

  • Often Classified as "Other": People of Indian descent were often not easily categorized within the existing racial framework. They were frequently classified as "Asian" or "Other," which could lead to varying degrees of discrimination and exclusion.
  • Exclusion from "White" Spaces: Despite sometimes being considered "honorary whites" in certain social circles, they were often excluded from "white" spaces and faced discrimination in areas like housing and employment.

• People with Darker Skin Tones:

  • Subjected to Increased Scrutiny: Individuals with darker skin tones, regardless of their ancestry, faced increased scrutiny and were often subjected to harsher treatment. This applied to people of Southern European descent (such as Italians and Greeks), as well as individuals from other regions with darker skin.
  • "Honorary Whites" vs. "Non-White": The classification of individuals with darker skin tones often depended on their socioeconomic status, perceived ancestry, and the specific social and political context.

• Multiracial People:

  • "One-Drop Rule" Applied: The "one-drop rule" was often applied to individuals of mixed race, meaning that even a small amount of African ancestry could lead to their classification as Black.
  • "Passing" as White: Some individuals of mixed race attempted to "pass" as white to avoid the consequences of being classified as Black.

Important Considerations:

• Subjectivity and Inconsistency: The application of these rules was highly subjective and inconsistent, varying significantly by region and over time.
• Social and Psychological Impact: These experiences had a profound impact on the lives of individuals who did not fit neatly into the existing racial categories. They often experienced social isolation, internalized racism, and struggled with their racial identity.

Disclaimer: This is a simplified overview, and the experiences of individuals within these groups varied greatly.

It's crucial to remember that the Jim Crow era was a period of systemic racism and oppression. The experiences of individuals who did not fit neatly into the dominant racial categories highlight the complex and often arbitrary nature of race classifications and the devastating impact of racial prejudice.

----- end-of-AI-generated