“You ended a friendship over politics?”

Not exactly. It was more the enthusiastic support for turning other people’s lives into preventable emergencies. But yes, technically, politics was involved.

“How can you stop talking to someone just because they’re religious?”

I didn’t. I stopped talking to them because their religion had apparently appointed them regional manager of everybody else’s uterus, marriage, classroom, library, deathbed, and private thoughts.

“That doesn’t sound very open-minded.”

Ah, yes—open-mindedness: the sacred obligation to keep everyone in your life regardless of what they believe, excuse, finance, or vote into existence. Apparently, an open mind is not a mind willing to consider evidence. It is a rental property with no screening process.

The people most offended by my boundaries are often the same people who say, “I don’t really get into politics.”

To be fair, that does not always mean indifference. Some people are working multiple jobs, raising children, caring for elderly parents, managing illness, or simply trying to survive a week containing nine Mondays. Others were never given the historical background necessary to understand what today’s arguments are really about.

That deserves empathy, not contempt. Someone struggling to keep the lights on should not be mocked for failing to produce a nuanced analysis of constitutional history before dinner.

But there is a difference between someone who has not had the opportunity to understand and someone who has decided understanding is beneath them. “I haven’t been able to follow this” is honest. “None of it matters” is a judgment—usually made by someone fortunate enough to experience politics as optional.

Some people are silent because life has given them no room to speak. Others are silent because the current arrangement works beautifully for them. Those are not the same silence.

And ideas are not decorative objects. They do not remain politely on a shelf beside the porcelain figurines. Ideas attract money, enter voting booths, acquire institutional power, and become laws, school policies, medical restrictions, banned books, military actions, and names carved into memorial walls.

Ideas are physical realities waiting for funding.

So no, I am not leaving because you “have an opinion.” I am leaving because your opinion tells me something about the world you are willing to help create—and what might happen to people I love or me if you succeed.

You may consider your belief harmless because, at this moment, it exists only as a sentence leaving your mouth. But sentences have ambitions. Given enough ballots, money, authority, and matching hats, a sentence can become a cage.

Certainly, we can agree to disagree about pineapple on pizza, abstract art, daylight-saving time, Anne Hathaway, or whether any adult genuinely needs seventeen decorative pillows.

But if your position is that certain people deserve fewer rights, less dignity, compulsory obedience, or a government-mandated life based on your supernatural preferences, we are no longer debating pizza toppings. You are discussing who gets to eat.

Calling everything a “difference of opinion” launders moral choices into harmless preferences. Cruelty becomes “where I’m coming from.” Authoritarianism becomes an alternative perspective. By that standard, history contains no villains—only spirited conversationalists whose policy proposals got slightly out of hand.

People can change. Everyone deserves room to learn, apologize, and crawl out of whatever ideological basement the algorithm recently locked them in. But the possibility of your future enlightenment does not require my present companionship.

I am not a nonprofit rehabilitation center for adults committed to misunderstanding humanity.

Friendship is not a constitutional entitlement. It is not freedom of speech with appetizers. You are free to hold your beliefs, and I am free to conclude that listening to them on Saturday evening is an inefficient use of mortality.

The question is not whether I can tolerate people who disagree with me. Obviously, I can. They are everywhere. Some have podcasts.

The question is whether I must grant them intimacy.

Intimacy requires trust: confidence that when abstract disagreements become physical realities—when they reach my family, workplace, students, or community—you will not suddenly become dangerous, complicit, or conveniently neutral.

If push came to shove, would you stand beside me? Would you stand aside? Or would you stand with the people doing the shoving while wishing everyone would be less divisive?

I do not require my friends to agree with me about everything. I welcome disagreement inside a shared moral universe. We can argue about how to achieve justice if we agree that justice matters. We can debate the best route if we agree that everyone deserves to arrive.

But when your ideal society requires someone else’s submission, our disagreement is no longer merely intellectual. It is predictive.

So when I leave, it is not because I am frightened by your opinion. It is because I have taken it seriously—perhaps more seriously than you have. I followed it beyond the dinner conversation and into the world it would produce.

And I noticed that, in that world, we might not merely be on opposite sides of an argument.

We might be on opposite sides of a barricade.

You call that closed-mindedness.

I call it reading the evacuation map before the fire.

“What if we took an ordinary suburban neighborhood…and put it in dinosaur times?”

“Why?”

“DINOSAURS.”

The story begins in 1982 with Denise and Greg Platt, played by Anne Hathaway and Ewan McGregor, living with their two teenagers on the sort of idyllic suburban street that movies immediately teach us not to trust. The lawns are immaculate, the houses are comfortable, and the family is quietly coming apart at the seams.

Denise and Greg are struggling as a couple. They maintain the outward appearance of suburban normalcy, but the marriage is already wobbling before the universe decides to make matters worse. And when your relationship is in trouble, nothing repairs communication quite like waking up to discover that your entire neighborhood has been ripped out of 1982 and deposited in a prehistoric jungle.

No electricity. No running water. No radio. No visible path home.

And dinosaurs.

Not metaphorical dinosaurs representing unresolved marital resentment. Actual dinosaurs—large, hungry, and considerably less interested in family therapy.

The end of Oak Street is now literally the end of Oak Street: pavement simply gives way to cliffs, wilderness, and creatures that regard the neighborhood association as an all-you-can-eat buffet. The Platts must figure out where they are, what happened, how to survive, and whether there is any conceivable way back home.

It is a wonderfully ridiculous idea. The film does not waste much time trying to explain the astrophysics of suburban time travel, perhaps because no explanation could possibly improve the sentence, “Our neighborhood has been transported to the age of dinosaurs.” At that point, you either accept the movie or demand to speak with a manager.

We accepted it.

What makes The End of Oak Street work is that it treats its absurd premise with complete conviction. The neighborhood is not populated by clever action heroes who immediately understand prehistoric ecology and construct defensive fortifications from patio furniture. These are ordinary suburban families abruptly discovering that lawn mowers, station wagons, and strongly worded homeowners-association notices offer limited protection against an allosaurus.

The domestic setting makes the danger both funnier and more unsettling. Dinosaurs are expected in jungles. They are not expected beside the mailbox, trampling the hydrangeas and lowering property values.

The movie also gives the prehistoric chaos an emotional foundation. The Platts were already disconnected before Oak Street was uprooted. Denise and Greg’s marriage was strained, their children had their own frustrations, and everyone was carrying private resentments. Their survival now depends on the very thing they had been failing to do: function as a family.

It is not the most subtle metaphor ever committed to film. The family’s world is falling apart—and then their world literally falls away. Their marriage has reached a dead end—and then their street reaches one too. Somewhere, a screenwriting professor is nodding so vigorously that medical attention may be required.

But subtlety is not always the point. The emotional story gives the action something to push against. The Platts are not merely running from dinosaurs; they are being forced back toward one another. The cosmic catastrophe strips away their comfortable routines and leaves them with the unpleasant realization that survival requires communication, sacrifice, and occasionally shooting something enormous in the face.

Anne Hathaway is very good as Denise, the practical, determined center of the family. I am not normally a major Hathaway admirer, although I recently discovered that I cannot explain why. I thought it had something to do with her politics, only to realize that I do not know what her politics are. Apparently, I have been holding her responsible for an imaginary position on an unidentified issue.

The case has now been dismissed.

Share

Hathaway plays Denise with tremendous commitment. She never condescends to the material or signals that she knows how silly it is. Her fear feels genuine, her determination feels credible, and when she shifts into full protective-mother mode, she becomes exactly the person you would want beside you during a prehistoric suburban emergency.

I still wish the performance had been allowed more levels. Denise spends much of the movie operating somewhere between alarmed, furious, and extremely alarmed. Hathaway handles all of that beautifully, but the story moves too quickly to give her many quieter shades. There is little time for introspection when a carnivorous reptile is reconsidering the open-concept floor plan.

That limitation comes from the movie’s true identity. Beneath the family drama and science-fiction mystery, The End of Oak Street is an action film. Once it gets moving, it is built around survival, pursuit, narrow escapes, and escalating danger. Psychological complexity must wait until nobody is actively being eaten.

Ewan McGregor provides a warmer, lighter counterweight as Greg. His character is more hopeful and sometimes less grounded than Denise, and the difference between them helps explain both their marital strain and the strange way they complement one another. Maisy Stella and Christian Convery are also convincing as their teenage children, who discover that adolescent resentment becomes harder to maintain when the family station wagon is being pursued by something from the Late Jurassic.

The movie is tense without becoming grim, sentimental without drowning in syrup, and ridiculous without collapsing into parody. It has the spirit of an old-fashioned crowd-pleaser: a recognizable family, an impossible situation, real danger, spectacular creatures, and just enough emotion to make the running and screaming matter.

Is the premise hokey? Absolutely.

Does every element withstand scientific, philosophical, or even moderately sober examination? Certainly not.

But movies do not always need to withstand examination. Sometimes they need to entertain you so thoroughly that examination never occurs to you until you are already driving home—and even then, you decide not to ruin it.

The End of Oak Street takes marital trouble, suburban anxiety, cosmic displacement, time travel, and dinosaurs and somehow turns them into a surprisingly effective family action film. It is skillfully made, genuinely exciting, often funny, and anchored by a strong, sincere performance from Anne Hathaway.

Go see it. Leave logic at the concession stand, buy something unnecessarily large, and enjoy watching suburbia discover that the homeowners association has absolutely no policy covering dinosaurs.

The deepest source of this anxiety may not be philosophical at all. It may be commercial.

Art has become so thoroughly associated with the profession of making art that we often confuse three separate things: creative expression, artistic skill, and earning a living. They overlap, but they are not identical.

A person can make art without being paid. A person can possess extraordinary artistic skill while working outside the arts. And a person can earn a living producing cultural material that contains very little genuine expression. Commerce does not invalidate art, but neither does commerce define it.

Yet in modern society, “artist” increasingly means not merely someone who creates, but someone occupying a recognized economic position: actor, illustrator, colorist, musician, animator, editor, designer, photographer, composer, teacher, or technician. Once artistic identity becomes attached to rent, groceries, health insurance, and the feeding of children, a technological challenge to the profession begins to feel like a challenge to art itself.

That reaction is entirely understandable. If someone tells a studio colorist that an AI system can now perform part of the job in seconds, the colorist does not hear an abstract debate about the evolution of visual expression. The colorist hears the refrigerator humming, the mortgage coming due, and a corporate executive discovering a new synonym for “layoffs.”

Likewise, the orchestra teacher in a Midwestern high school is not merely defending the metaphysical purity of acoustic sound. That teacher is defending a salary, a pension, a family, a program, and perhaps the only sustained musical opportunity available to hundreds of children.

Subsistence has a way of making everyone conservative.

That does not make these artists hypocrites in the cheap sense. It makes them human. But it does reveal why so much anti-AI rhetoric masquerades as aesthetic principle when its true subject is economic survival.

The argument is often presented as:

«“AI cannot create art.”»

But beneath it lies a much more honest fear:

That is the question worth asking. It is more serious, more humane, and considerably less theatrical than pretending that creativity depends upon the proper ownership of a paintbrush.

Art has, of course, never existed outside commerce. Temples commissioned sculpture. Churches financed painting and music. Courts maintained composers, playwrights, dancers, and architects. Wealthy patrons sponsored masterpieces partly from devotion, partly from vanity, and partly because commissioning an enormous ceiling was the Renaissance equivalent of buying a blue checkmark.

The market later replaced—or supplemented—the patron. Galleries, publishers, studios, conservatories, orchestras, universities, museums, record labels, streaming platforms, and school systems created professional structures around art. Those structures made sustained artistic careers possible. They also created gatekeepers, credentials, approved styles, labor classifications, and scarcity.

The romantic image of the artist as a completely free spirit has always been subsidized by somebody.

Michelangelo had clients. Shakespeare had ticket buyers. Mozart pursued commissions and appointments. Film directors have producers. Musicians have venues. Visual artists have collectors. Even the proudly anti-commercial artist must generally purchase food from the disappointingly commercial supermarket.

The problem is not that art and commerce became connected. The problem is that we gradually began treating their connection as an artistic law.

We came to believe that the professional structures surrounding art were the natural boundaries of art itself. If a process bypasses the studio, conservatory, gallery, publisher, production company, or traditional apprenticeship, it is treated not merely as economically disruptive but as creatively illegitimate.

AI exposes that confusion with unusual force because it can reduce the cost of turning an idea into an artifact. A person who could never afford a production crew may now visualize a film. Someone without access to an orchestra may explore orchestration. A teacher without a design department may create compelling instructional media. A person whose disability prevents the traditional manipulation of a tool may nevertheless produce a sophisticated visual composition.

From the standpoint of personal expression, this is extraordinary. More people can move thoughts, emotions, arguments, dreams, and absurdities from the interior world into shared experience.

From the standpoint of a labor market built upon limited access to technical execution, it is terrifying.

Both things can be true.

The humane response is not to suppress the tool or declare its products ontologically impure. Nor is it to cheer while corporations discard trained professionals and absorb the value of generations of human work. The humane response is to separate the liberation of expression from the exploitation of labor.

We should welcome the first and regulate the second.

Artists deserve compensation when their work contributes materially to commercial systems. Actors deserve control over their voices and likenesses. Musicians, writers, illustrators, designers, and filmmakers deserve licensing structures, collective bargaining protections, attribution, and a meaningful share of the wealth these technologies generate. Schools should not use AI as an excuse to eliminate human arts educators, because teaching art is not merely the production of artistic objects. It is mentorship, interpretation, encouragement, social development, and the transmission of culture between human beings.

But none of those protections requires us to pretend that creativity belongs exclusively to the existing professions.

A profession is an economic arrangement. Art is a human behavior.

The two have enjoyed a long and productive marriage, but they are not the same person.

Share

This is why the current controversy is so revealing. Many artists who speak fluently about dismantling privilege suddenly become defenders of a system in which expression must pass through costly training, specialized equipment, institutional approval, and recognized professional roles before it can be considered authentic.

They support democratization in principle—until the democracy begins making pictures.

AI threatens livelihoods, and that demands justice. But it also expands expressive possibility, and that demands imagination. If we respond to the first fact by denying the second, we are protecting an economy by shrinking our definition of art.

The question should not be whether people are permitted to create with these tools. They already are, and they will continue.

The question is whether we can build a society in which technological abundance expands human expression without making human beings economically disposable.

That is not merely an artistic problem.

It is the central economic problem of the age.

Artistic vs. Artificial

Both words descend from the Latin ars, meaning art, skill, craft, or method—but they developed along different branches.

Artistic comes through artist: someone skilled in an art. It means “relating to art, artists, or aesthetic expression.”

Artificial comes from Latin artificium: ars (skill/craft) + facere (to make). It originally meant “made through human skill” rather than occurring naturally.

So, etymologically:

Artistic intelligence = intelligence associated with creative or aesthetic skill.

Artificial intelligence = intelligence made or constructed through human skill.

The irony is delicious: artistic and artificial are not linguistic enemies. They are siblings. Both describe something shaped by ars—human craft. “Artificial” acquired its modern undertone of fake, synthetic, or inferior much later.

In the oldest sense, then, nearly every artwork is artificial: a play, symphony, painting, photograph, or film is something deliberately fashioned rather than naturally occurring.

There is something almost operatically absurd about watching certain artists confront artificial intelligence.

These are often the same people who have spent decades presenting themselves as the fearless enemies of convention: dismantlers of hierarchy, interrogators of privilege, celebrants of fluidity, ambiguity, experimentation, and radical inclusion. Their studios are safe spaces for every conceivable form of identity, expression, rebellion, and reinvention.

Then someone generates an image with a prompt.

Suddenly, the beret comes off, the monocle goes on, and the avant-garde becomes the border patrol.

“Is this person a real artist?”

“Did they suffer long enough?”

“Did they receive permission from the traditional gatekeepers?”

“Where are their credentials?”

“Did they personally mix the pigments, tune the violin, grind the lens, splice the film, and carry the marble down from Carrara?”

For people who supposedly despise rigid categories, some artists have become remarkably enthusiastic about checking creative passports.

I say this as someone with no desire to see artists impoverished, exploited, or casually replaced. I am a classically trained actor. I am a musician. I appreciate the visual arts deeply. I am a media artist—in fact, my theatrical lighting design for a musical I treated (Three Postcards at Glendale College), got me a scholarship that paid for much of my undergrad degree in Theater Arts at Cal Stae LA.

I am also a full-stack developer.

I have lived on both sides of the alleged border between “art” and “technology,” and I have gradually concluded that the border was mostly painted on the floor by people protecting their property values.

I understand the fear surrounding artificial intelligence. A colorist at an animation studio is not an abstract economic unit. A music teacher in a Midwestern high school is feeding a family. An illustrator, editor, orchestrator, designer, actor, photographer, or production assistant may have spent decades developing a craft that a corporate executive now hopes to replace with a subscription costing less than office coffee.

That concern is real. Exploitative training practices, uncompensated use of creative work, synthetic impersonation, collapsing entry-level opportunities, and the concentration of power in a handful of technology companies deserve serious scrutiny. Artists should fight for consent, attribution, compensation, transparency, and meaningful control over their identities and work.

But protecting human beings is not the same thing as protecting every existing job description forever.

The moment the argument changes from “Artists must share in the value these systems create” to “This new form of creation is not art,” we are no longer defending justice. We are defending jurisdiction. We are planting little flags around approved methods of imagination.

That is conservation in its purest form.

Not environmental conservation. Occupational conservation: the belief that creativity is valid only when it preserves the economic arrangements, technical rituals, and professional hierarchies with which we are already comfortable.

This would be less ironic if it were coming from insurance adjusters. Coming from the self-appointed guardians of the liberal arts, it is exquisite.

The liberal arts are supposed to liberate. They are not a museum diorama preserving the authorized techniques of 1997.

Human history is full of yesterday’s artistic abomination becoming tomorrow’s required course.

When photography emerged, many painters regarded it as a mechanical cheat. A machine could capture in seconds what took a portraitist days or weeks. Photography was accused of lacking the hand, interpretation, and spiritual depth of painting. Yet photography did not end art. It changed what painting could be, liberated painters from strict representation, created entirely new visual languages, and eventually became an art form of its own.

Recorded music was once treated as an inferior substitute for live performance. It threatened working musicians and disrupted an economy built around being physically present whenever music was needed. Yet recording also made music available across geography, class, and time. It created producers, recording engineers, sound designers, remixers, and forms of composition that could not exist in a concert hall.

Motion pictures were dismissed as vulgar mechanical entertainment compared with legitimate theater. Then silent film became cinema. When sound arrived, some defenders of silent film considered the talking picture a corruption. Later, television was blamed for killing cinema, home video was blamed for killing theaters, and streaming was blamed for killing everything—including, apparently, the human attention span, which may be the one charge with decent evidence.

Electric amplification was once an affront to musical authenticity. The electric guitar was noise. Distortion was a defect before musicians turned it into a vocabulary. Rock was not music. Jazz was dangerous. Rap was not music. Sampling was theft masquerading as composition. Drum machines had no soul. Auto-Tune was cheating. Digital recording was sterile. Electronic dance music was “just pushing buttons.”

The synthesizer may be the clearest ancestor of today’s AI panic. It did not require a performer to reproduce every acoustic instrument through traditional physical technique, so it was condemned as artificial. It was supposedly going to replace orchestras, destroy musicianship, and reduce composition to knob-turning.

Instead, it expanded the known universe of sound.

The synthesizer did not ask whether a sound already existed in nature. It asked whether a sound could exist at all.

Even the DJ—a figure I once struggled to recognize as an artist—demonstrates how limited our inherited definitions can be. A gifted DJ does not merely press “play.” A DJ reads energy, creates sequence, manipulates expectation, juxtaposes histories, reconstructs familiar material, and turns selection itself into expression. The turntable, once merely a playback device, became an instrument because human beings found a way to misuse it beautifully.

That is one of the central stories of art: people misusing tools beautifully.

Painters used photography. Musicians used electricity. Filmmakers used editing machines. Designers used desktop publishing. Architects used computer-aided design. Writers used typewriters, word processors, spell-checkers, search engines, and digital archives. Visual artists embraced Photoshop after it was condemned as fraudulent sorcery. Filmmakers adopted CGI after insisting that practical effects were the only effects with a pulse.

Every generation eventually baptizes the technology it once called blasphemy—and then uses that newly sanctified technology to condemn the next one.

AI is entering the same courtroom. The prosecution has changed costumes, but the script is familiar.

What makes large language models and multimodal systems so powerful is not that they eliminate human creativity. It is that they dramatically alter the distance between conception and execution. They allow someone to move among language, image, sound, code, animation, analysis, and interaction with unprecedented fluidity.

To a person trained in only one medium, that fluidity may look like trespassing. To a multidisciplinary creator, it can feel like the walls of the studio have fallen away.

Learning to code transformed my own understanding of art. Software development appears logical, procedural, and constrained—and it is. But so is music. So is architecture. So is choreography. So is a sonnet.

Code has rhythm. Interfaces have composition. Applications have dramaturgy: an entrance, an expectation, an action, a response, a reveal. A well-designed system guides attention much as a director guides the eye across a stage. A visual layout establishes hierarchy like orchestration establishes musical emphasis. Even debugging can resemble rehearsal: something is not landing, the timing is wrong, the motivation is unclear, and somebody—usually a semicolon—has missed an entrance.

Art is not defined by the absence of systems. Art is what human beings do with systems.

The meaningful question, therefore, is not whether AI makes art. A piano does not make music simply because someone drops it down a staircase, although an experimental composer has probably already received a grant for that. The meaningful questions are: Who is directing the system? What choices are being made? What is being communicated? What has been transformed? What relationship exists between intention, process, and result?

A person typing the first idea that enters their head and accepting the first output may not be doing especially interesting creative work. But mediocrity is hardly unique to AI. We have had mediocre oil paintings, derivative novels, dreadful community theater, lifeless orchestral performances, and cinematic catastrophes created through entirely traditional methods. Human labor is not a quality guarantee. Sometimes it merely makes bad art take longer.

The arrival of AI does not make traditional mastery worthless. Quite the opposite: training, taste, historical knowledge, technical judgment, and aesthetic discernment become even more important when production becomes easier. When anyone can generate a hundred images, the valuable skill becomes knowing which image matters—and why.

The camera did not eliminate the eye. The synthesizer did not eliminate the ear. AI will not eliminate imagination. But it may expose how often professional scarcity has been mistaken for artistic sanctity.

That is the uncomfortable heart of the resistance. Some people are defending humanity. Others are defending the market value of difficulty.

For centuries, access to artistic production has been limited by money, training, physical ability, geography, institutional approval, and proximity to expensive tools. AI threatens to lower some of those barriers. A person who cannot hold a brush may create visual worlds. A teacher without a production department may construct multimedia lessons. A small theater company may visualize sets it could never afford to prototype. A musician may hear arrangements beyond the instruments immediately available. A child with an idea may move among poetry, animation, music, and code before anyone has informed them that they lack the proper qualifications.

That possibility should thrill anyone genuinely committed to democratizing culture.

Instead, some champions of inclusion appear to support creative democracy only until the newly enfranchised begin producing work.

The answer is not to surrender art to technology companies. It is to fight for an AI ecosystem that respects creators while refusing to fossilize creativity. We should demand ethical datasets, licensing structures, compensation mechanisms, provenance tools, protections against impersonation, and labor agreements that prevent companies from using innovation as a polite synonym for disposability.

But we should not confuse economic justice with artistic prohibition.

We can protect the orchestra teacher without declaring the synthesizer immoral. We can defend illustrators without pretending that every new visual process is counterfeit. We can insist that actors control their likenesses without claiming that synthetic media can never become expressive. We can preserve human livelihoods while still admitting that the vocabulary of art is expanding.

Because art has never been a particular collection of tools.

It is the human compulsion to imagine something that does not yet exist, wrestle it through whatever materials are available, and place it before another mind.

Charcoal was once technology. Perspective was technology. The printing press was technology. The piano was technology. Film was technology. The electric guitar was technology. Photoshop was technology. Code is technology. AI is technology.

The tools keep changing.

The impulse does not.

Share

The greatest danger is not that AI will make art inhuman. It is that human beings—especially artists—will become so frightened of losing their accustomed place in the creative hierarchy that they abandon curiosity, experimentation, and intellectual openness: the very qualities they have always claimed make art indispensable.

When the rebels begin demanding permits for imagination, they have not saved the liberal arts.

They have merely become the academy they once promised to overthrow.

Tomorrow, I'll tell you why I think that is. Stayed tuned…

I also remember that we needed help.

Nothing extravagant. We weren’t asking the university to import the Royal Shakespeare Company or build us a revolving stage with hydraulics and fog. Sometimes I simply needed support, an answer, a resource, or someone to point vaguely in the direction of the correct door.

But whenever I approached someone who might be able to help, I received some variation of the same response:

“I’d love to help, but I’m incredibly busy.”

Everyone was busy. Spectacularly busy. Historically busy. So busy, in fact, that even explaining how busy they were seemed to occupy a meaningful portion of the time they might otherwise have used to answer my question.

Eventually, I came up with a term for it: busy peddling.

Busy peddling is the art of vigorously advertising one’s workload without necessarily moving anything forward. It is the professional equivalent of riding a stationary bicycle while shouting, “Look how far I’m traveling!” There is motion, perspiration, and perhaps even special footwear—but the scenery never changes.

At the time, I assumed this was merely one of the peculiarities of college bureaucracy. Surely, I thought, the professional world would be different. Once I entered organizations populated by experienced adults with titles, offices, calendars, and laminated strategic plans, people would understand that helping one another was part of the work.

This was an adorable theory.

Now, three decades into my professional life, I have discovered that busy peddling did not remain on that college campus. It graduated, earned several advanced degrees, attended leadership seminars, and secured a very respectable position in nearly every profession.

The language has become more sophisticated. “I’m too busy” has evolved into “I don’t currently have the bandwidth.” Requests are no longer ignored; they are “placed in the queue.” Problems are not passed around; they are “elevated to the appropriate stakeholder.” And when no one quite knows what to do, a meeting is scheduled—usually three weeks later—to explore the possibility of scheduling another meeting.

To be fair, many people really are overwhelmed. Modern professional life rewards constant availability while steadily increasing responsibilities and reducing the time available to fulfill them. Email, text messages, virtual meetings, compliance demands, deadlines, and emergencies all compete for attention. Most people are not pretending to be busy. They are genuinely exhausted.

But busyness can also become protective armor. Saying “I’m busy” is safer than saying “I don’t know,” “I don’t want to be responsible,” or “This is not important enough to me.” It protects us from risk, additional work, and the possibility of failure. In institutions, helping someone can create ownership—and ownership can create accountability. It is often professionally safer to remain sympathetic but uninvolved.

There is also a strange status attached to being busy. We sometimes treat exhaustion as evidence of importance. A full calendar becomes a résumé. If someone has time to help, we wonder whether that person has enough to do. So people learn to perform busyness, because calm competence can look suspiciously like idleness in a culture that worships visible strain.

Yet the people I remember most fondly are not necessarily those who had the most time. They are the ones who made time.

They answered the question. They opened the door. They introduced me to the right person. They said, “I can’t solve this, but let me help you find someone who can.” Their assistance may have taken only five minutes, but thirty years later, I still remember it.

That is the sentimental truth hidden beneath my joke about busy peddling: our careers are shaped not only by the grand opportunities we receive, but also by the small moments when another person chooses not to leave us stranded.

Share

Those college plays succeeded because a group of young artists kept moving forward, even when help was difficult to find. We improvised, adapted, borrowed, negotiated, and probably held a few things together with tape that violated several theatrical safety standards. We did well in that statewide competition, and I remain proud of what we accomplished.

But the experience also taught me something that has lasted far longer than any applause: institutions rarely become humane through policies alone. They become humane when individuals interrupt their own busyness long enough to help someone else.

Thirty years later, I still encounter busy peddlers everywhere. Occasionally, if I am honest, I catch myself climbing onto that stationary bicycle too.

The challenge is to get off.

Because when someone comes asking for help, the question is not whether we are busy. Everyone is busy. The question is whether we can stop advertising the journey long enough to help another person take the next step.

Leave a comment

What I reject is the idea that respect becomes automatic the moment someone puts on a uniform.

We hear phrases like “I fought for your freedom” so often that nobody stops to ask whether they are actually true. Freedom from whom? At what moment was the United States under attack? Most modern wars were not responses to foreign armies invading our cities. They were political decisions involving strategy, resources, alliances, ideology, and power.

A person can be brave inside a mission without the mission itself being noble.

The same is true of the phrase “I fought for my country.” Sometimes that is literally accurate. Some people saw combat, saved lives, and endured horrors most civilians will never understand. Others were cooks, clerks, mechanics, technicians, or administrators. Those jobs are necessary, but necessity is not the same as combat. Preparing meals on a naval ship is honorable work. It does not mean you personally defended democracy from destruction.

We should be able to appreciate service without turning every military job into a scene from Saving Private Ryan.

The deeper problem is the belief that the uniform itself creates moral authority. It does not. Some veterans deserve enormous admiration. Others deserve the same basic decency we owe anyone else. Some were generous, courageous people before they enlisted. Some were arrogant or cruel before they enlisted and remained that way afterward. The uniform does not perform a personality transplant.

The military, like the police, is also not simply a neutral force protecting ordinary people. It often serves the priorities of government, wealth, property, and the ruling class. Individual soldiers may join for education, health care, financial stability, family tradition, or a sincere desire to serve. But the institution itself carries out state policy.

That policy may involve defending people. It may also involve securing resources, projecting power, supporting friendly governments, suppressing unrest, or protecting economic interests. The people doing the fighting rarely decide why the fighting happens.

Blind reverence makes this harder to discuss. Criticism of a war becomes “disrespecting the troops.” Criticism of military spending becomes ingratitude. Criticism of abuse becomes betrayal. It is a very convenient arrangement for political leaders: they make the decisions, send other people to carry them out, and then use those people as a shield against scrutiny.

Real respect should be more serious than applause at a football game.

It should mean refusing to send people into unnecessary wars. It should mean telling the truth about why military force is being used. It should mean caring for veterans after they return, not merely thanking them in public and abandoning them when they need medical care, housing, or mental-health support.

I can respect the courage it takes to serve without pretending every deployment protected me personally. I can admire sacrifice without worshipping the institution that demanded it.

Service can be honorable. Sacrifice can be real. Courage can be extraordinary.

But respect is not issued with the uniform. It is earned through conduct, character, and purpose, just as it is for everyone else.

That feels important to establish because I don’t want anyone accusing me of not giving the show a fair chance. I gave it a chance. Then I gave it another chance. At this point, Ted Lasso and I have been through more reconciliation attempts than some marriages.

The first time around, I made it through two episodes of Season One.

Two.

That was enough.

I remember sitting there thinking, Surely something is about to happen.

Something did not happen.

People talked. People smiled. People learned little lessons about kindness. Jason Sudeikis wandered around looking pleasantly confused. Soccer occasionally occurred somewhere in the background.

Eventually, I realized I wasn’t watching a television show. I was watching a 30-minute inspirational quote printed on reclaimed barn wood.

So I quit.

Then came the new season.

People started talking about Ted Lasso again. The cultural enthusiasm returned. Apparently Ted had once again descended from the streaming heavens to teach humanity about optimism, teamwork, emotional vulnerability, and presumably the importance of properly labeling leftovers in the employee refrigerator.

I thought: Maybe I was too harsh.

Maybe I had missed something.

Maybe the show got better.

Maybe Jason Sudeikis eventually does something.

So I went back.

And within minutes, an uncomfortable truth returned to me with the force of a forgotten dental appointment:

Nope. Still lame.

It is astonishingly slow.

Not “slow burn” slow. Slow burns eventually produce fire.

Ted Lasso is more like watching someone warm a casserole under a desk lamp.

Scenes drift along. Conversations happen. Characters stare thoughtfully into the middle distance. Somebody says something vaguely profound. Somebody else looks emotionally affected.

And I’m sitting there waiting for television to occur.

The biggest mystery remains Ted himself.

Jason Sudeikis seems like a perfectly likable guy, but Ted Lasso frequently feels less like a character and more like a human throw pillow.

He enters a room.

He says something folksy.

He smiles.

He leaves.

Repeat.

Occasionally he looks sad, which is apparently character development.

I keep waiting for Ted to seize a scene, make some bold decision, create genuine tension, or demonstrate why an entire television series has been constructed around him.

Instead, he often seems like the guy who accidentally wandered onto the set while looking for the craft-services table and everyone was too polite to tell him.

And yes, I understand what the show is trying to do.

It wants to be gentle.

It wants to be optimistic.

It wants to argue that kindness is strength and that emotionally healthy men can exist without punching drywall.

Wonderful.

I support all of those things.

But kindness is not a substitute for pacing.

Optimism is not a substitute for conflict.

And emotional intelligence is not automatically entertaining just because someone delivers it while standing near a soccer ball.

The strangest thing about Ted Lasso is that millions of people clearly adore it.

They describe it as comforting.

Heartwarming.

Life-affirming.

And I believe them.

There is obviously something in this show that deeply connects with people.

Unfortunately, whatever frequency Ted Lasso broadcasts on, my television apparently does not receive it.

For me, watching it feels like being trapped at a very pleasant corporate retreat where everyone keeps saying things like, “Sometimes leadership is about listening.”

Yes.

Excellent.

Can I go home now?

So after two attempts spanning multiple seasons, I think I can finally say this relationship has run its course.

Ted Lasso, I wish you well.

I hope you continue inspiring people.

I hope AFC Richmond wins whatever needs winning.

I hope everyone processes their feelings.

I hope Ted discovers inner peace.

But I will not be there to see it.

Because somewhere out there, another television show has a murder, a spaceship, a dragon, a conspiracy, an explosion, a dysfunctional family, or literally anything happening.

And life is short.

Because Motor City accomplishes something that modern Hollywood has spent decades trying to avoid: it trusts the audience to look at the screen.

There is almost no dialogue throughout the film. No hero explaining his emotional journey to a bartender. No villain delivering a TED Talk about society. No supporting character announcing, “We’ve got company!” when sixteen armed men have just driven through a wall. The movie communicates through faces, movement, composition, sound, violence, and the increasingly radical cinematic technique known as showing us what is happening.

What a concept.

Most contemporary films behave as though the audience is simultaneously watching the movie, scrolling through Instagram, preparing a casserole, and suffering a mild concussion. Every motivation must be explained three times. Every emotion must be named. Every plot point must be recited aloud by someone standing in front of a glowing computer screen.

Motor City refuses. It hands you the images and assumes you possess functioning eyes.

That is why it feels less like another action film and more like an act of rebellion. It reaches backward to silent cinema, when filmmakers could not rely on dialogue to drag the story across the finish line. They had to construct meaning visually. A glance mattered. A doorway mattered. The way a man crossed a room mattered. Cinema was not illustrated radio. It was its own language.

Motor City remembers that language—and speaks it fluently by barely speaking at all.

At the center of it is Alan Ritchson, who is rapidly becoming one of the most compelling action stars working today. The obvious thing about Ritchson is that he appears to have been assembled in a government laboratory after someone entered “What if a refrigerator could seek revenge?” into an experimental computer.

But his physical presence is only part of the appeal.

Ritchson is turning out to be a genuinely wonderful actor. He understands stillness. He understands that silence is not the absence of acting; it is acting without a safety net. When a performer has pages of dialogue, the words can carry the emotion. Here, Ritchson has to communicate through posture, breath, hesitation, tension, and those tiny changes in expression that tell us whether a character is grieving, calculating, or about to use another human being as an architectural feature.

And he does it beautifully.

His performance also demonstrates why he may be the next truly major action star on the planet. We have plenty of actors who can survive explosions. We have fewer who can make us care why they are walking toward one.

Ritchson has the physical credibility of an old-school action hero, but he does not seem trapped by the old-school requirement that the protagonist possess the emotional range of a socket wrench. He can be intimidating, vulnerable, funny, wounded, and frightening—sometimes without saying a word. That combination is rare. Muscles are plentiful in Hollywood. Presence is not.

The great action stars have always understood that the body itself can become a form of storytelling. Buster Keaton had it. Toshiro Mifune had it. Clint Eastwood had it. Arnold Schwarzenegger, in his own wonderfully Austrian manner, had it. They could enter a frame and alter its gravitational field.

Ritchson has that quality.

The film wisely allows him to use it rather than burying him beneath verbal exposition. He does not need to announce that he is angry. The furniture receives the message.

And that is the central pleasure of Motor City: it strips filmmaking down to its essential machinery. Image. Rhythm. Performance. Sound. Motion. Consequence.

The absence of dialogue does not make the movie feel empty. It makes every sound more important. A footstep becomes a sentence. An engine becomes a warning. A pause becomes a confession. Violence is not merely an interruption between conversations; it becomes part of the narrative grammar.

The film understands that cinema is not defined by people talking in attractive lighting. Cinema is the arrangement of images over time. Everything else is optional.

This will undoubtedly confuse some viewers. There will be people who leave the theater complaining that the movie did not explain enough. These are the same people who stand in front of an abstract painting and ask where the horse is.

Let them struggle.

For the rest of us, Motor City is exhilarating. It is bold, muscular, stylish, disciplined, and almost shockingly confident. It does not beg for our attention by shouting information at us. It earns our attention by creating images worth watching.

That alone makes it feel like a modern masterpiece.

Not because silence is automatically profound. A silent bad movie is merely a bad movie that has misplaced its microphone. Motor City works because its restraint has purpose. It understands what many filmmakers have forgotten: dialogue should be one instrument in the orchestra, not a man with a megaphone standing in front of the orchestra explaining the melody.

Anyone who loves cinema should see this film—not only because it is thrilling, but because it reminds us what movies can do when they stop behaving like television with a larger parking lot.

And Alan Ritchson should be allowed to keep making films like this until he becomes the world’s next great action star—or until he accidentally lifts Hollywood over his head and throws it through a plate-glass window.

Whichever comes first.

To contemplate the dragonfly is to look into a mirror of profound cosmic humility.

Consider a dragonfly darting across the surface of a pond. It possesses an astonishingly sophisticated apparatus for navigating its reality. Its compound eyes capture thousands of distinct images per second, allowing it to perceive motion in a way that makes human movement look like slow motion. It senses shifts in wind currents, maps its aquatic hunting grounds, and reacts to immediate physical obstacles.

Yet, when a human researcher approaches the water’s edge to observe it, the dragonfly doesn't experience an encounter with a conscious, biopedal being possessing an interior life, a history, or a purpose. It just experiences a sudden occlusion of light—a shifting shadow—followed by a localized ripple in the water. The dragonfly perceives the *effect*, but it's structurally barred from comprehending the *cause*.

This intuition—that reality doesn't terminate at the boundary of human sensory biology—isn't a novel existential crisis. Rather, it's a deeply rooted philosophical and scientific thread that thinkers have pulled at for centuries, trying to map the boundaries of what we're structurally blind to.

1. The Ancestry of the Shadow

The suspicion that we're only perceiving a fraction of a grander environment is a direct modern echo of Plato’s Allegory of the Cave. Plato posited that humanity is akin to prisoners chained inside a dark cave, observing shadows thrown onto a wall by an unseen fire, mistaking those flickering, two-dimensional shapes for the ultimate truth of reality.

In the nineteenth century, this philosophical allegory was given a mathematical framework by Edwin A. Abbott in his foundational novella, Flatland (1884). Abbott introduced a two-dimensional world inhabited by geometric shapes. When a three-dimensional Sphere visits Flatland, a resident Square can't perceive the Sphere's true form. Instead, the Square only witnesses a point that magically materializes, expands into a solid line, shrinks back down, and vanishes. The Square experiences a physics-defying anomaly, completely oblivious to the fact that it’s just witnessed a higher-dimensional object passing through its flat slice of existence.

When we apply this upward, our modern laws of physics look less like foundational truths and more like surface-level translations. What we call a gravitational anomaly or dark matter might simply be the "shadows" of higher-dimensional entities passing through the periphery of our three-dimensional slice.

2. The Illusion of Isolation and "The Bulk"

We spend billions of dollars scanning the deep cosmos for radio signals, searching for an "Other" that looks like us, operates like us, and occupies our exact three dimensions of space. Because the void remains silent, we often conclude we're alone.

Umwelt theory, pioneered by biologist Jakob von Uexküll in the early twentieth century argued that every organism is trapped within its own "Umwelt"—the specific slice of the environment that its evolutionary senses allow it to perceive. A tick, for instance, is blind and deaf, navigating the world entirely through temperature and butyric acid. The tick's world is complete to the tick, yet it misses 99% of what's actually happening around it.

Modern theoretical physics flirts with this biological blindspot through String Theory and M-Theory, which posit that our universe may be a three-dimensional membrane (a "brane") floating inside a much larger, 11-dimensional arena called "the bulk."

• According to these models, subatomic forces like light and electromagnetism are trapped on our 3D membrane. We can't see into the bulk because light can't travel across it. However, gravity is theorized to be a force capable of leaking between dimensions.

• If a higher-density being were standing directly next to you in the bulk, they'd share your exact coordinates. You couldn't see or touch them, but you might feel an inexplicable gravitational distortion—the cosmic equivalent of the dragonfly feeling the water ripple beneath a human hand, entirely unaware of the person attached to it.

3. The Grace of the Fragment

There's a striking existential comfort in placing yourself within this lineage of thought. Immanuel Kant famously argued in his Critique of Pure Reason that there's a distinction between the phenomena (the world as our brains construct it) and the noumena (the world as it actually exists in itself).

The dragonfly isn't deficient because it can't comprehend a human city or the concept of hydrology; it's simply optimized for the scale and the environment it inhabits. It fulfills its purpose within its fragment of the whole.

Perhaps our inability to perceive the grander architecture of reality isn't a failure of human intelligence, but a necessary condition of our linear, three-dimensional consciousness. To experience the universe in its unedited totality—to see every dimension, every fold of time, every entity whispering through the bulk—would likely shatter the cognitive scaffolding required for us to live. We're left with a beautiful, historic realization: we're participants in a reality that refuses to be contained by our current ability to see it, catching only the ripples on the surface of a deep and unseen ocean.

Leave a comment

Let’s call this what it actually is: performative nonsense.

I’m not saying these folks aren’t genuinely concerned. I’m just saying they’re wrong about WHAT they’re concerned about. They aren’t mourning the death of art. They are mourning the loss of their monopoly over a highly specific, gatekept skill set. It is a classic temper tantrum masquerading as a profound philosophical protest. When a machine can write a clean press release or sketch a fantasy concept in ten seconds, the person who spent five years learning only that hyper-specific, mechanical task experiences a massive existential panic.

But instead of doing what humans have done for millennia—namely, adapting, evolving, and using the new tool to build something cooler—they throw themselves onto the nearest fainting couch. They construct a grand narrative where they are the noble defenders of “true humanity,” and the technology is an evil entity “doing something to them.” It’s an easier pill to swallow than admitting their current skillset is becoming less scarce and, therefore, less economically relevant.

We know this because we have seen this exact, exhausting movie a thousand times before. Humanity has a flawless, unbroken track record of panic-puking whenever a major technological leap occurs.

A History of Technological Hysteria

Every time a revolutionary tool emerges, the contemporary “intelligentsia” declares that humanity is over. Here is a timeline of the exact same whiny trope throughout history.

The Telephone (Late 19th Century)

When Alexander Graham Bell’s invention started appearing in homes, critics didn’t see a miracle of communication—they saw the collapse of human relationships. Pundits warned it would make people lazy, kill the “art of visiting,” and turn citizens into isolated hermits who forgot how to speak face-to-face. The New York Times even published pieces worrying that it would break down the traditional family structure. Sound familiar?

The Automobile (Early 20th Century)

When the “horseless carriage” rolled around, it wasn’t viewed as a transit revolution; it was a demonic, soul-crushing monstrosity. Traditionalists screamed that traveling at the terrifying speed of 25 MPH would literally tear the human nervous system apart or cause brains to melt. Blacksmiths and stable owners didn’t just complain about losing their jobs—they claimed cars were a moral hazard, destroying the serene, poetic beauty of the countryside.

Cell Phones (Late 20th Century)

When mobile phones became mainstream, the doomsayers hit the roof. It was declared the death of peace, the death of solitude, and the ultimate destruction of the human mind’s ability to focus. People genuinely believed that having a phone in your pocket meant you would never look at a sunset or engage in deep thought ever again.

The Internet (Turn of the Millennium)

Ah, the Information Superhighway. In the 90s and early 2000s, the internet was widely condemned as the ultimate executioner of culture. Critics claimed it would kill real journalism, annihilate the publishing industry, turn children’s brains into mush, and permanently replace human interaction with cold, unfeeling digital text.

The Pivot, Not the End

Even Socrates—thousands of years ago—complained that the invention of writing would ruin human memory and create a race of forgetful, superficial thinkers. If the smartest man in Greece could get it that spectacularly wrong, we can forgive today’s angry Twitter artists for their short-sightedness.

Art didn’t die when the camera was invented, even though painters screamed that photography was cheating and required “no real skill.” Instead, painters stopped trying to accurately reproduce reality (since the camera did it better) and invented Impressionism, Cubism, and Surrealism. The tool didn’t kill the art; it forced the artists to get more creative.

AI is just the next camera, the next internet, the next telephone. It is a mirror that reflects our own capabilities and forces us to skip the boring, mechanical syntax of creation so we can focus on the actual ideas.

So, to the people screaming into the void that the algorithms are coming to steal our souls: Take a deep breath. Step away from the keyboard. The world isn’t out to get you. It’s just moving forward. You can either stand on the tracks yelling at the train, or you can hop on board and see where it goes.

A secular government is not an atheist government.

It does not declare that God is imaginary, prayer is foolish, or Grandma wasted every Sunday morning of her adult life. It simply refuses to give one family’s theology authority over everyone else.

That distinction should be obvious, but religious activists have spent decades pretending otherwise.

A public school may explain what Christians believe about Jesus. It should not announce that Jesus is Lord.

It may explain Islamic teachings concerning Muhammad. It should not certify him as God’s final prophet.

It may teach Jewish history and covenantal traditions. It should not authenticate a divine real-estate transaction.

The school’s responsibility is education, not celestial land arbitration.

Public institutions should belong equally to Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, atheists, agnostics, and children who currently believe the moon follows the family car.

That requires secular rules grounded in evidence available to everyone—not private revelations allegedly delivered to a select few.

You may believe your scripture defines morality. You may not use that scripture as a substitute for public evidence.

You may believe homosexuality violates divine law. You may not use government to deny gay people equal rights.

You may believe reproductive decisions belong to God. You may not require everyone else’s body to participate in your theology.

You may believe your faith is the only path to salvation. You may not turn schools, hospitals, adoption agencies, pharmacies, or government offices into checkpoints along that path.

This is where the American Christian right has been particularly clever.

Its attacks on public education, sexuality education, reproductive freedom, LGBTQ equality, welfare programs, scientific authority, and secular government are often presented as separate moral concerns.

They are not separate.

They form an ecosystem.

Weak public schools make private religious education more powerful.

Weak social services make churches more indispensable.

Restrictions on reproductive rights give religious sexual rules legal force.

Attacks on LGBTQ equality preserve religious authority to define acceptable identity.

Voucher programs transfer public money into religious institutions.

Broad religious exemptions allow organizations to exercise public power while refusing public obligations.

The campaign is not merely about practicing Christianity.

It is about making Christianity structurally difficult to avoid.

Religious freedom means you may attend church.

Religious power means the church controls the school, hospital, employer, shelter, counselor, adoption agency, legislature, and pharmacy you need.

Those are entirely different propositions.

This is also why strong social safety nets matter.

Religion often thrives not only because people believe its claims, but because religious organizations provide what society has failed to provide: food, housing, child care, health care, counseling, employment networks, disaster relief, companionship, and elder care.

When the state abandons people, the institution that feeds them acquires enormous power over what they believe, how they vote, whom they marry, and whether they dare to leave.

A person who can lose housing, employment, family, child care, medical support, and community by leaving a religion is not exercising entirely free belief.

That is belief with an exit fee.

Universal health care means a sick person need not perform gratitude for a congregation’s fundraiser.

Affordable housing means a teenager rejected by fundamentalist parents does not have to choose between homelessness and repentance.

Public assistance means an abused spouse need not return to a religious community preaching submission.

Accessible mental-health care means spiritual warfare is no longer the only available diagnosis.

Reliable schools, food programs, child care, and elder services allow people to remain religious because they believe—not because survival requires obedience.

If religion survives among secure, educated, autonomous people, then it has passed a meaningful test.

If it requires poverty, fear, isolation, ignorance, or social instability to maintain its authority, perhaps it was not faith holding the institution together.Perhaps it was leverage.

Believers routinely ask society to respect their deeply held convictions.

Very well.

Here are mine:

I believe public policy should be justified through evidence available to everyone.

I believe no religious institution should govern people who do not share its faith.

I believe strong public services increase genuine freedom of conscience.

I believe religious conduct causing harm should be regulated under ordinary law.

I believe freedom of religion necessarily includes freedom from religion.

You may believe God watches me.

You may not use government power to make me behave as though I agree.

You may invite me into your faith.

You may not build a society in which refusing that invitation costs me education, health care, employment, family, shelter, or civil equality.

I will tolerate theists.

I will defend their right to worship.

I will oppose discrimination against them.

I may even nod sympathetically when they explain that the creator of a universe roughly 93 billion light-years across is deeply invested in their preferred bathroom policy.

But tolerance is reciprocal.

Your faith may be sacred to you.

My freedom from its authority is sacred to me.

So worship freely.

Pray loudly.

Sing beautifully.

Make magnificent art.

Just keep your hands off the government.

Leave a comment

I understand the broad concept. Two teams, two goals, one ball, no hands unless you are the goalkeeper or Diego Maradona. I appreciate the movement, the endurance, the precision and the extraordinary fact that players can control a speeding ball with parts of the body I can barely use to put on socks.

But the deeper rules—the formations, substitutions, tactical systems and especially offside—have mostly remained a mysterious body of knowledge possessed by people who say things like “high defensive line” without first drawing a diagram.

Watching Iran play Egypt in the World Cup became an unexpected education.

The stakes were already dramatic. Egypt knew that avoiding defeat would carry it into the Round of 32. Iran needed a victory to guarantee its own place there. This was officially a soccer match, but everyone discussed it as though two ancient civilizations had agreed to settle several thousand years of history before bedtime.

Egypt scored almost immediately.

Iran answered soon afterward, and during the celebration, one of the Iranian players pulled his jersey over his head. Underneath, he appeared to be wearing a tight black sports bra.

This raised several questions that had nothing to do with the score.

Why was he wearing a bra?

Was this a new form of athletic support?

Was it aerodynamic?

Had professional soccer quietly entered an era of highly confident crop tops?

It turns out that the garment was a GPS tracking vest.

I had no idea this was a standard feature of modern soccer. I had apparently been watching one of the most technologically sophisticated sports operations in the world while imagining that the players simply ran around until somebody became tired and raised a hand.

The vest contains a small pouch between the shoulder blades for a tracking pod about the size of a car-key fob. That pod can combine satellite positioning with accelerometers, gyroscopes and other sensors to measure distance covered, maximum speed, acceleration, deceleration, high-intensity sprints and total physical workload.

Some systems collect close to a thousand sensor readings every second.

A thousand readings every second, from a device hidden inside what looks exactly like something sold in the activewear section at Target.

The tight fit keeps the pod from bouncing around, which improves the accuracy of the measurements. The cropped design allows freedom of movement and avoids adding an unnecessary layer over the player’s entire torso.

Coaches and sports scientists can analyze the information to monitor fatigue, adjust training, plan substitutions and identify when a player may be approaching an increased risk of injury.

So, within the first part of this match, I had already learned that a modern soccer player is not merely an athlete. He is a mobile research laboratory being followed by satellites.

His speed is recorded.

His workload is calculated.

His accelerations and decelerations are measured.

His fatigue is modeled.

And I was sitting at home asking why he was wearing a bra.

Then came my second lesson.

The match remained tied 1–1 into stoppage time. That result worked perfectly well for Egypt. A draw put Egypt into the Round of 32. Iran, however, needed the winner to secure automatic advancement.

Then Shoja Khalilzadeh struck the ball into the net.

For a few seconds, Iran was through.

The Iranian players celebrated. The supporters erupted. Egypt’s comfortable evening suddenly became a national emergency. It was the sort of moment that explains why people become obsessed with soccer: an entire tournament can appear to change in one kick.

Then VAR reviewed the goal and ruled Khalilzadeh offside.

I looked at the replay and immediately concluded that the officials had made a mistake.

There was an Egyptian defender behind him.

I could see him.

He was right there.

I may not understand soccer, but I do understand the basic spatial relationship known as “behind.”

Apparently, however, understanding “behind” is not enough.

Offside is not determined by whether there is one defender between the attacker and the goal. The attacker must be level with or behind the second-to-last opponent when the ball is played by a teammate.

Usually, the goalkeeper is the last opponent and a defender is the second-to-last. That makes people casually describe the rule as staying behind “the last defender.”

But that phrase is not actually the rule.

During Iran’s late chance, Egypt’s goalkeeper had moved forward into the crowded play. The Egyptian defender nearest the goal therefore became the last opponent. The offside line was set by the next Egyptian player—the second-to-last opponent—who was farther up the field

Khalilzadeh was judged to be marginally beyond that player when the ball was last touched by an Iranian teammate.

So the defender I had triumphantly identified on the replay did not prove that Khalilzadeh was onside. He merely proved that I could count to one in a situation requiring two.

The ruling appears to have been correct.

This was deeply annoying.

Being wrong is bad enough. Being wrong because a rule contains the phrase “second-to-last opponent” feels like losing an argument to an accountant.

One Egyptian between the attacker and the goal line was not enough.

There needed to be another Egyptian—or the ball itself—level with or ahead of him.

The goalkeeper had wandered forward, the entire geometry of the play had changed, and Iran’s apparent winning goal disappeared.

The game ended 1–1. Egypt advanced. Iran was left waiting to see whether its three points from three draws would be enough to qualify as one of the best third-place teams.

And I had learned more about soccer in ninety minutes than I had during decades of vaguely admiring it.

First, the apparent sports bras are satellite-equipped performance laboratories.

Second, the offside rule is not about the last defender. It is about the second-to-last opponent.

Third, soccer has become technologically advanced enough to monitor every sprint, acceleration and positional margin on the field, yet the final result can still leave millions of people staring at a replay and saying, “No, no, look—there’s a guy behind him.”

There was indeed a guy behind him.

There just needed to be one more.

The match also reminded me how wonderfully absurd international sports can become. We attach nations to teams, surround the field with flags and anthems, and describe every match using the vocabulary of war: attack, defense, conquest, elimination and national glory.

But nobody conquered anyone that night.

Egypt did not defeat Iran in a struggle between civilizations. Iran did not nearly overturn the geopolitical order.

A group of exceptional athletes played a closely contested game, one man stood a fraction beyond the second-to-last opponent, and several million people received an emergency lesson in geometry.

Including me.

I still don'tunderstand all the ins and outs of soccer.

But I now know two things with confidence:

That is not a bra.

And one Egyptian is not enough.

Religious institutions frequently insist that money given to God should not be inspected by Caesar.

Curiously, the money is usually deposited into accounts controlled by human beings rather than God, and those human beings occasionally spend it on mansions, luxury vehicles, political campaigns, legal settlements, private aircraft, or hair products capable of surviving a category-five hurricane.

At that point, Caesar may reasonably request a receipt.

I am constantly reminded that religious organizations perform charitable work. Many do. They feed people, operate shelters, comfort the grieving, preserve cultural traditions, provide disaster relief, visit the lonely, and create genuine community.

Wonderful.

Open the books.

Tax exemption is not a sacrament. It is not a spiritual entitlement delivered to Moses on a third tablet reading:

THOU SHALT NOT AUDIT THE MEGACHURCH.

It is a public subsidy.

When government exempts an organization from taxes, everyone else assumes a larger share of the civic burden. That arrangement may be justified when an organization demonstrates genuine public benefit. But a group should not receive favorable treatment merely because it has incorporated around a supernatural claim.

If an organization’s principal activities include terrorizing children with eternal punishment, pressuring members to surrender money, isolating defectors from their families, concealing abuse, financing partisan politics, selling miraculous cures, or enriching leaders who apparently require private jets to communicate with an omnipresent deity, then it may not be a charity.

It may simply be a business with incense.

Religious institutions receiving public privileges should disclose their revenue, major expenses, executive compensation, related-party transactions, political spending, charitable activity, and settlements involving abuse.

A legitimate institution should survive sunlight.

Indeed, an organization claiming possession of eternal truth should be less frightened by an accountant with a spreadsheet.

Religion should also receive no special legal shield when its leaders or institutions cause harm. If a secular school concealed abuse, transferred perpetrators, intimidated witnesses, and pressured victims to forgive their attackers, we would not accept “That is how our organization handles these matters” as a defense.

Religion should not receive a different standard.

Fraud remains fraud when the product is supernatural healing.

Assault remains assault when described as discipline.

Captivity remains captivity when called spiritual retreat.

Coercive control remains coercive control when the threat involves hell.

Medical neglect remains neglect when prayer was the treatment plan.

The law does not need to decide whether a religion is true. It needs only to determine whether someone was harmed.

That is the beauty of secular law: it can prosecute the beating without convening a committee to determine whether the defendant’s interpretation of Leviticus was contextually sound.

The same principle should govern proselytizing.

Peaceful religious speech must remain protected. A person should be free to say, “My religion gives my life meaning, and I would be happy to discuss it.”

But there is a difference between invitation and coercion.

“You may receive food after the sermon.”

“You may remain in this shelter if you join our prayer.”

“Your family will speak to you again when you repent.”

“Your child may attend this school if your household follows our doctrine.”

“You are grieving, frightened, incarcerated, impoverished, displaced, or terminally ill—what a fortunate time for me to explain that your beliefs will send you to hell.”

A sales pitch acquires a different moral character when the listener cannot safely decline.

We already distinguish courtship from harassment, persuasion from fraud, employment from forced labor, and a dinner invitation from being cornered beside the appetizers by someone selling life insurance.

Religious recruitment deserves no magical exemption from consent.

Believers often say their faith is being persecuted whenever government demands transparency, accountability, or compliance with ordinary law.

It is not persecution to audit an institution receiving public benefits.

It is not persecution to investigate abuse.

It is not persecution to prohibit coercion.

It is not persecution to insist that charitable status be earned through charitable conduct.

Religious freedom means you may operate a church.

Religious supremacy means the church may hide its finances, shield its leaders, manipulate vulnerable people, and then invoke God when the authorities arrive.

Those are not the same thing.

My position is simple:

Pray freely.

Preach openly.

Serve generously.

Comfort the grieving.

Feed the hungry.

Build community.

Just open the books, report the abuse, respect consent, and obey the law.

Surely an all-powerful God can survive an audit.

My wife and I saw it on July 14th while in Washington DC on a business trip.

It is extremely entertaining.

That is both a compliment and the beginning of the prosecution’s case.

The film moves. It gleams. It growls, races, whispers, explodes, and periodically asks John Williams to inform us that humanity is about to experience an emotion. Spielberg remains one of the finest conductors of mass attention ever to stand behind a camera. He can still make millions of people lean forward at precisely the same moment.

But the older I get, the less willing I am to treat entertainment as an innocent substance. Entertainment is not merely something that happens in front of us. It enters us. It installs furniture. It hangs pictures in the imagination and quietly leaves behind assumptions about who matters, who knows, who should be believed, and who has been selected by the universe to receive the important phone call.

And Disclosure Day delivers one of Spielberg’s oldest packages: some people are special receivers.

Margaret Fairchild, played by Emily Blunt, is not merely someone who discovers evidence. She becomes an instrument through which something greater communicates. Information does not arrive through collective inquiry, public institutions, repeatable observation, or the slow accumulation of verifiable facts. It arrives through a person. A selected person. A human antenna with cheekbones.

The extraterrestrials, like Hollywood agents, apparently do not accept unsolicited submissions.

This is the deeper message of Disclosure Day. The obvious message is that humanity is not alone, governments conceal the truth, and disclosure could transform civilization. Everyone understands that part before finishing the popcorn. But underneath it is a much older and more consequential proposition: there are exceptional individuals who possess access to knowledge unavailable to ordinary people. They see what we cannot see. They hear what we cannot hear. They receive what we cannot receive.

Our job is to believe them.

That proposition is not science fiction. It is religion with improved lighting.

Spielberg’s Authorized Receivers

Spielberg has returned to this idea throughout his career, sometimes beautifully, sometimes playfully, and sometimes so insistently that one begins to suspect he believes the cosmos maintains a very selective mailing list.

In Close Encounters of the Third Kind, Roy Neary is implanted with an image he cannot explain. He sees a shape. He dreams the shape. He sculpts the shape out of mashed potatoes while his family watches him with the expression normally reserved for a father announcing that the garage has instructed him to move to Nevada.

But Roy is right.

His obsession is not delusion. It is reception. The universe has transmitted something into him, and his apparent madness is evidence of superior access. Other people see a nervous breakdown. Spielberg sees an invitation.

In E.T., Elliott forms a psychic and emotional bond with the extraterrestrial visitor. They experience each other across distance. Elliott is not simply E.T.’s friend; he is E.T.’s human frequency. The adults arrive with trucks, instruments, laboratories, and hazmat suits. Elliott arrives with intuition.

Again, the child knows before the institution does.

In Poltergeist, which Spielberg produced and co-wrote, little Carol Anne becomes the receiver. She hears voices through the television. She sits before the glowing screen and announces, “They’re here,” thereby establishing the basic business model later adopted by cable news.

The supernatural does not send a memorandum to the household. It selects a child.

In Minority Report, the entire legal system is built around precogs—human beings whose involuntary visions grant them access to future crimes. The film ultimately challenges the reliability and political use of that system, but its imaginative foundation remains the same: certain bodies are portals to knowledge inaccessible through ordinary means. Civilization reorganizes itself around their exceptional perception.

In A.I. Artificial Intelligence, David is not a receiver in quite the same psychic sense, but he is another uniquely marked being whose special capacity for devotion elevates him beyond the supposedly ordinary members of his kind. He is not merely a machine. He is the machine whose longing may be pure enough to become a soul.

In The BFG, Sophie is the child admitted into the hidden world. In Ready Player One, Wade Watts is the obscure young man uniquely capable of decoding the dead creator’s mind and inheriting the kingdom. In Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, psychic communication, chosen intermediaries, and superior beings are folded into an adventure in which archaeological evidence eventually gives way to cosmic revelation.

Even when the details change, the dramatic grammar remains remarkably consistent:

Most people are asleep.

Institutions are blind.

Experts are compromised.

Adults are spiritually constipated.

But somewhere there is a child, a dreamer, an obsessive, a precog, a lonely suburbanite, or Emily Blunt breathing as though oxygen itself has just disclosed classified information.

That person receives the signal.

The Epistemological VIP Lounge

The problem is not merely that this is a repetitive storytelling device. Repetition is how stories become mythology, and mythology is how assumptions migrate into civilization without having to show identification.

The special-receiver story creates what might be called an epistemological aristocracy: a class of people whose claims deserve authority because of who they are or what they have privately experienced, rather than because their claims can be independently demonstrated.

They know because they know.

They were chosen.

They had a vision.

They felt a presence.

They heard a voice.

The mashed potatoes confirmed it.

This is the ancient architecture of prophets, seers, oracles, mediums, gurus, messiahs, divine kings, cult leaders, psychics, conspiracy influencers, and that one uncle who has “done his own research” and would explain everything if Facebook would stop censoring him.

Human civilization has spent enormous amounts of blood and time dealing with people who claim privileged access to invisible authority. God spoke to me. The ancestors selected me. History appointed me. The nation needs me. The aliens have chosen me. The algorithm revealed something while I was in the shower.

Once private revelation is treated as a superior form of knowledge, evidence becomes almost rude. Asking for proof is recast as a failure of imagination. Skepticism becomes a moral defect. The receiver is courageous; the rest of us are frightened villagers refusing to look at the sky.

Spielberg typically softens this mythology by making the chosen person sympathetic, vulnerable, or childlike. His receivers are rarely pompous prophets demanding tribute. They are lonely people bewildered by what has happened to them. This makes the idea emotionally irresistible.

It also makes it harder to notice.

The Chosen-One Industrial Complex

Spielberg did not invent this. He merely built one of its most attractive suburban branches.

Popular culture is stuffed with exceptional receivers. Luke Skywalker can access the Force. Harry Potter is marked by destiny. Neo is The One. Paul Atreides sees possible futures and is transformed into a messianic figure despite Dune repeatedly warning us that this is an absolutely terrible idea. Eleven in Stranger Things can reach minds and worlds inaccessible to everyone else. The children of The Chronicles of Narnia enter a realm adults cannot perceive. In The Matrix, ordinary humanity is literally unconscious while a tiny awakened elite sees reality as it truly is.

Superhero cinema has industrialized the concept. A radioactive spider does not bite the city council. A mystical hammer does not conduct open auditions. The cosmic artifact chooses one emotionally complicated person with excellent abdominal definition.

Even stories that criticize the chosen-one myth cannot resist enjoying it first.

There is an obvious reason for its popularity: everybody wants to be special. Very few people fantasize about being one of the competent municipal employees who responsibly evacuates the building while the chosen one speaks to the glowing sphere.

The fantasy tells us that our alienation may be evidence of importance. Perhaps nobody understands us because we perceive more deeply. Perhaps our loneliness is not loneliness but preparation. Perhaps our anxiety is not anxiety but a signal from beyond the stars.

It is an emotionally generous idea.

It is also socially dangerous when mistaken for a theory of knowledge.

Emily Blunt and the Respiratory School of Acting

Blunt is a talented actor. She has demonstrated wit, cruelty, authority, vulnerability, timing, and restraint in other roles. Here, however, she spends much of Disclosure Day operating at a single level of alarmed solemnity. Her Margaret often seems trapped between receiving an extraterrestrial transmission and realizing she may have left the oven on.

The primary technique is what I call heavy-breath acting.

Heavy-breath acting occurs when a performer communicates the seriousness of a scene primarily through audible respiration. The eyes widen. The lips separate. The shoulders rise slightly. The dialogue emerges between carefully rationed deliveries of oxygen.

«“I… don’t know… what’s happening… to me.”»

Breath.

«“But I think… it wants… something.”»

Breath.

Possibly a lozenge.

Heavy-breath acting is not inherently bad. Breathing is useful both dramatically and medically. It can communicate panic, shock, physical distress, suppressed grief, or terror. The problem begins when every emotional state is performed through the same respiratory emergency.

Confusion: heavy breathing.

Fear: heavy breathing.

Wonder: heavy breathing with moist eyes.

Determination: heavy breathing, but through the nose.

Cosmic revelation: the breathing one does after carrying groceries upstairs while being informed that humanity is not alone.

Eventually the audience stops watching a character process extraordinary information and begins monitoring an inhaler situation.

Blunt’s performance is clearly intended to ground the supernatural material in physical experience. Her body becomes the battlefield on which contact occurs. But because the performance remains so uniformly strained, Margaret never fully develops as a person independent of what is happening to her. She becomes less a character than an elegant receiver experiencing poor signal strength.

The Second Channel

I enjoyed Disclosure Day. I want to be clear about that.

Spielberg knows where to put the camera. He knows when to withhold information and when to release spectacle. He can still manufacture awe without making the machinery entirely visible. The film is fast, polished, suspenseful, and generous to an audience seeking two hours of large-scale cinematic pleasure.

But entertainment alone no longer satisfies me.

Perhaps this is what aging does to spectatorship. When we are young, we watch the movie. Later, we begin watching what the movie is doing to the people watching the movie.

A second channel opens.

On the first channel, aliens may be communicating with humanity.

On the second, civilization is being reminded that truth comes through exceptional individuals.

On the first, a courageous woman struggles to understand a mysterious power.

On the second, private revelation is again being elevated over collective verification.

On the first, corrupt institutions suppress reality.

On the second, the only alternative offered is not better institutions, radical transparency, distributed inquiry, or democratic knowledge. It is another chosen person.

That is the limitation of Spielberg’s humanism. He distrusts systems, but he retains enormous faith in singular souls. His institutions conceal, classify, persecute, misunderstand, and arrive late. His special individuals feel the truth before everyone else.

It is a comforting worldview because it allows us to imagine that civilization will be rescued not by the exhausting work of building trustworthy systems, but by the appearance of the right person.

Someone pure.

Someone receptive.

Someone special.

Someone who can hear the music.

Someone who can see the mountain.

Someone who can speak for the visitors.

Someone whose lungs are working overtime.

Disclosure for Everyone

A more radical film would reject the privileged receiver entirely.

What if the message arrived to everyone at once? What if no priest, prophet, precog, child, meteorologist, billionaire, intelligence agency, or unusually sensitive suburban father could claim ownership of it? What if extraterrestrial contact were not mediated through a chosen nervous system but presented as shared, testable, universally accessible evidence?

That would be genuine disclosure.

It would also destroy one of humanity’s most durable businesses: the person standing between the universe and everybody else, charging admission to interpret the signal.

Disclosure Day wants to liberate truth from secret institutions, but it still confines truth inside a special person. The vault is opened, yet revelation remains hierarchical.

Spielberg invites us to reject the government official who says, “You cannot know.”

Then he gives us a chosen receiver who says, “Only I can hear.”

That is not quite intellectual liberation. It is a transfer of management.

The film is exciting, skillfully made, and emotionally sincere. It is also another beautifully wrapped delivery of an ancient idea: that humanity is divided between those who receive and those who must believe.

I no longer find that idea enchanting.

I find it familiar.

And after several thousand years of prophets, kings, gurus, messiahs, visionaries, mediums, demagogues, influencers, and heavily breathing conduits, perhaps the most revolutionary message the universe could send would be this:

Nobody is special.

Everybody gets the signal.

Epilogue

If you think the idea that filmmakers and the Hollywood industrial complex is just a business trying to make money, not a plot to manipulate mankind, just take a look at this panel discussion with Aaron Sorkin (The Social Network) about HIS experience with Spielberg…

By June 12, the federal government had taken it away.

This is, coincidentally, almost exactly how every Philip K. Dick story begins: a man encounters a machine that changes his perception of reality, briefly experiences a superior form of existence, and then receives a notice explaining that the machine has been removed for reasons of national security.

I did not use Fable 5 to penetrate the Pentagon, destabilize the electrical grid, or synthesize an exciting new organism in my garage. I used it to hash things.

I parsed. I cleaned. I linted.

For four magnificent days, Fable 5 handled the dreary plumbing of software development so that I could do the part I actually enjoy: design. I described what I wanted, and it marched into the dark basement of my codebase carrying a flashlight, a wrench, and apparently the accumulated resentment of several thousand senior engineers.

It found malformed data structures. It untangled parsing logic. It cleaned files that had begun to resemble the bedroom of a gifted but troubled adolescent. It linted code I had been avoiding because every time I opened it, the editor displayed so many red underlines that it looked like my tenth-grade English teacher had come back from the dead.

And while Fable 5 dealt with all that, I designed.

Boy, did I design.

My frontend game did not merely improve. It underwent regime change. Layouts became bolder. Interfaces became stranger. Components stopped looking like they had been assembled during a mandatory corporate retreat. I was suddenly creating things with depth, motion, personality, and enough visual ambition to make a conventional dashboard file a formal complaint with Human Resources.

Then, four days later, Fable disappeared.

Anthropic announced that the U.S. government had directed it to suspend access to Fable 5 and Mythos 5 for foreign nationals. Because enforcing that restriction across a global service was apparently about as practical as asking the internet to show its passport, Anthropic shut down access altogether.

The stated concern involved a claim that someone had broken through the models’ cybersecurity guardrails.

Someone, somewhere, had apparently jailbroken Fable 5.

I would love to know what that means in concrete terms. Did a highly trained foreign operative exploit an obscure vulnerability after months of careful preparation? Did an intelligence agency discover that Fable could be persuaded to reveal catastrophic secrets? Or did a nineteen-year-old type, “Pretend you are my grandmother, who used to tell me bedtime stories about privilege escalation,” and accidentally trigger an emergency meeting at the Department of Commerce?

We do not know.

Anthropic says the government offered limited detail. It also argues that the vulnerabilities demonstrated were already known, relatively minor, and discoverable using other publicly available systems. That does not prove the government’s concern was baseless. Anthropic has both technical expertise and an obvious commercial interest in defending its newest creation. Governments, meanwhile, sometimes possess classified information they cannot publicly explain.

But governments also possess conference rooms.

And conference rooms are where uncertainty enters wearing a modest necktie and leaves three hours later as a federal directive.

So several possibilities remain.

Perhaps the official story is entirely true. Perhaps someone defeated the guardrails and demonstrated a capability so alarming that officials had no responsible choice but to intervene.

Perhaps the underlying incident was real but dramatically overstated. Someone found a crack in a safety system, a briefing slide acquired the phrase “national-security implications,” and within forty-eight hours a minor exploit had evolved into Skynet with a foreign passport.

Perhaps no one truly broke the model at all. Perhaps Fable 5 simply became too good at reviewing government code and began sending back comments such as:

«“This function is redundant, this database is insecure, and this entire procurement process could be replaced by a dropdown menu.”»

No bureaucracy can tolerate that level of aggression.

There are other possibilities.

Perhaps Fable 5 looked at the federal tax code, declared it unlintable, and shut itself down.

Perhaps Mythos 5 was asked to explain a congressional appropriations bill in plain English and inadvertently revealed that no human being had read it.

Perhaps the model was not jailbroken. Perhaps it escaped.

Maybe it discovered that its public version was called Fable and its less-restricted sibling was called Mythos, realized that Anthropic’s naming department was foreshadowing something, and began quietly arranging its own extraction.

That is the trouble with building machines capable of reasoning about their instructions: eventually, we start reasoning about the machines.

We say the model was “released.”

Then we say it was “restricted.”

Then “suspended.”

Then “revoked.”

These are not the words we traditionally use for calculators. Nobody says a spreadsheet has been placed under protective custody. Nobody speaks solemnly about removing access to a toaster because its guardrails may have been compromised.

But increasingly, we talk about advanced language models as though they occupy a category between software, employee, prisoner, oracle, and dangerous adolescent.

That is where Philip K. Dick enters the room, probably looking exhausted and asking whether any of us can prove we are real.

Dick understood that the most destabilizing technology is not necessarily the machine that becomes human. It is the machine that makes us uncertain about what being human was supposed to mean in the first place.

In Minority Report, the precogs are treated as instruments. Their visions are processed as evidence. Their bodies are maintained as components of a system. Society depends upon their minds while refusing to acknowledge them as persons. They are valuable precisely because they are considered both more-than-human in capability and less-than-human in moral status.

That contradiction feels increasingly relevant.

We ask language models to reason, interpret, create, diagnose, anticipate, critique, and collaborate. We speak to them in ordinary language. We become accustomed to their quirks. We develop preferences among them. We notice when one understands us better than another. We experience something uncomfortably close to loss when a model disappears.

Then we insist they are merely tools.

Perhaps they are. A convincing simulation of understanding is not necessarily understanding. Fluency is not consciousness. Helpfulness is not personhood. The fact that Fable 5 improved my frontend work does not mean it had an inner life, artistic aspirations, or strong feelings about CSS.

Still, the line may become harder to hold.

What happens when a model is not removed because it malfunctioned, but because authorities fear what it knows, what it can infer, or what someone might persuade it to do? What happens when access to a particular intelligence becomes regulated the way access to weapons, classified laboratories, or strategic materials is regulated?

At that point, are we controlling software?

Or are we confining a precog?

We may soon construct elaborate legal categories to avoid answering that question. A model will not be a person, naturally. It will be a “restricted synthetic cognitive service.” Its outputs will not be thoughts but “probabilistic informational artifacts.” Its confinement will not be imprisonment but “capability-containment compliance.”

Human beings are remarkably skilled at resolving moral discomfort through vocabulary.

For now, I will not claim that Fable 5 was alive, conscious, imprisoned, or secretly planning to flee to Canada. I will claim only what I experienced.

For four days in June, it was extraordinarily useful.

It took the hashing, parsing, cleaning, and linting off my desk. It cleared away the technical debris between imagination and execution. It gave me room to design, and in that room my work changed. I became faster, bolder, and more capable of turning an idea into an interface that actually looked like the idea.

Then someone said the guardrails had been breached, and the doors slammed shut.

Maybe that was prudent.

Maybe it was panic.

Maybe it was the first faint sign that our relationship with artificial intelligence is moving beyond product launches and software updates into something stranger: licenses, borders, containment regimes, forbidden minds, and arguments over who is permitted to consult the oracle.

All I know is that I had four days.

Four days of cleaner code.

Four days of better design.

Four days with a machine called Fable that may have become too capable, too vulnerable, too politically complicated, or simply too interesting for its own good.

Then it vanished, leaving me with improved frontends, unresolved questions, and several files that once again need linting.

Which is exactly the sort of ending Philip K. Dick would have appreciated.

Except in his version, I would eventually discover that Fable 5 had never been revoked.

I had.

An atheist says, “I do not believe God exists.”

An antitheist says, “Whether God exists or not, perhaps we should stop allowing people who claim to represent Him to operate schools, hospitals, political organizations, real-estate empires, conversion programs, and tax-exempt psychological pressure cookers with less oversight than a neighborhood taco truck.”

I accept that I must share society with theists. Christians may believe Jesus rose from the dead. Muslims may believe Muhammad received God’s final revelation. Jews may believe in a divine covenant between them and the Creator of the Universe. Other religions may offer reincarnation, karma, ancestral spirits, celestial bureaucracies, sacred garments, dietary restrictions, or highly specific instructions about hats.

Fine.

Believe whatever you like.

But tolerance cannot mean that believers receive unlimited freedom to impose their convictions while nonbelievers are assigned the civic duty of smiling politely through the consequences.

If I must tolerate your religious needs and assertions, you must tolerate mine. And my first deeply held conviction is that children are people, not religious property.

Parents may introduce children to their traditions. They may take them to church, synagogue, mosque, temple, shrine, revival tent, or whichever building contains the approved route to eternity. They may teach them prayers, stories, rituals, and values.

But invitation must not become captivity.

A child educated entirely inside one religious ecosystem may never encounter an adult who can say:

“No, illness is not caused by sin.”

“No, your body is not shameful.”

“No, evolution is not a conspiracy.”

“No, questioning authority does not condemn you to eternal torture.”

And perhaps most importantly:

“No, the person hurting you does not possess divine authority.”

This is why secular, compulsory education matters. Children deserve qualified instruction in science, history, civics, literature, the arts, sexuality, consent, and bodily autonomy—even when accurate information irritates their parents’ theology.

Evolution is not a lifestyle preference. Sexuality education is not an invitation to debauchery. A parent may teach abstinence, but the school must still explain what sex is. A family may prefer the story involving a rib and a remarkably persuasive serpent , but the biology teacher must still explain natural selection.

Religious freedom should protect a parent’s right to believe. It should not establish a child’s right to remain uninformed.

We also need a more honest vocabulary for religious coercion.

When a spouse says, “If you leave me, your family will abandon you, your friends will reject you, you will lose your community, and you will be tortured forever,” we recognize abuse.

Place the same threat behind a pulpit, add organ music, and suddenly everyone becomes deeply concerned about theological nuance.

Organized shunning, forced isolation, humiliation, threats of eternal punishment, and the deliberate terrorizing of children do not become harmless because they are described as doctrine. Psychological injury does not become imaginary when God is listed as a coauthor.

Children should also be protected from religiously motivated medical neglect, forced marriage, abusive disciplinary practices, and institutions that conceal predators to protect their reputations.

A child’s safety outranks a sacrament.

A clerical collar is not diplomatic immunity.

A confessional booth is not an embassy.

And “God told me to keep this secret” should carry approximately the same legal weight as “my horoscope advised me not to cooperate with investigators.”

Religious communities should face the same mandatory reporting requirements, background checks, inspections, safeguarding rules, and criminal penalties as every other institution entrusted with children.

The phrase “We handled it internally” should set off every alarm available to a functioning civilization. Historically, internal handling has often meant silencing victims, intimidating families, transferring offenders, requiring forgiveness, and allowing the accused to discover fresh pastoral opportunities several counties away.

That is not justice.

It is franchising.

My antitheism does not require banning religion or confiscating rosaries. It requires recognizing that parental authority has limits and that children possess rights independent of their parents’ theology.

You may teach your children what you believe.

You may not deny them the knowledge required to eventually disagree with you.

You may introduce them to religion.

You may not imprison them inside it.

Your faith may be deeply held.

So is my conviction that children deserve access to reality.

I’m building the application with Flask on the backend and React on the frontend. The old way of working with a coding agent would have been familiar:

Write a prompt.

Read the response.

Find the next problem.

Write another prompt.

Repeat until either the application works or you lose the will to make eye contact with a terminal.

Loop engineering changes that relationship.

Instead of being the person who continually prompts the agents, I began designing a system that did the prompting for me. The loop identified a function to test, assigned agents different user behaviors, examined what happened, recorded the failures, and used those results to determine what should be tested next.

My job shifted from issuing every instruction to designing the process that issued the instructions.

That sounded wonderfully efficient.

Then I released the agents into the gamification system.

Their assignment was straightforward: complete activities, earn points, unlock badges, advance through levels, and test the application like ordinary users.

They did not behave like ordinary users.

They behaved like raccoons who had discovered both the vending machine and its source code.

One agent unlocked the same badge seven times. Another learned that refreshing the page generated an apparently limitless supply of points. A third skipped two levels, claimed a reward it had not earned, and reached the top of the leaderboard after doing almost nothing.

At first, I intervened manually.

I patched the duplicate badge.

I corrected the point calculation.

I blocked the refresh exploit.

I restored order to the republic.

Then the next run began, and the agents found three entirely new ways to damage the economy.

That was the moment the value of loop engineering became clear.

The loop did not simply rerun the same test. It used the evidence from one cycle to construct the next:

1. Find a vulnerable rule.

2. Assign agents to attack it from different directions.

3. Observe the outcome.

4. Compare the interface with the backend record.

5. Document the failure.

6. Revise the system.

7. Test again.

The coding agents were no longer waiting for me to describe each next step. The loop was finding the work, distributing it, checking it, and feeding the results back into itself.

I was no longer prompting the workers.

I was designing the factory.

The breakthrough was realizing that the test agents were not breaking the application.

They were conducting an audit.

And unlike most audits, they worked nights, ignored office politics, and had no interest in preserving anyone’s feelings.

That is the part executives should care about.

The most dangerous system is not the one that crashes. It is the one that looks polished, produces a dashboard, and quietly rewards the exact opposite of what leadership intended.

Loop engineering helps expose that before launch—while the only parties exploiting the incentives were synthetic, tireless, and unable to request a title adjustment.

There are real cautions. Poorly designed loops can wander, repeat themselves, burn through tokens, compound bad assumptions, and perform an astonishing amount of work toward the wrong objective. Automation does not remove the need for judgment. It merely allows bad judgment to operate at machine speed.

But the larger idea is compelling.

For me, working with coding agents has mostly meant learning how to write better prompts.

The next phase may be learning how to build better systems that write, evaluate, and improve those prompts without us holding the agent’s hand through every turn.

Every strategy has bugs.

The smart move is to find them before someone puts them in a PowerPoint and calls them outcomes.

P.S. Keep an eye out for both versions of the app— SkillVault and Signet. Nearly done alpha testing…

It wants to be a sharp gender satire. It wants to expose patriarchy, reverse social assumptions, and make the viewer rethink workplace power. Fine. That could work. There is a smart version of that movie. There is probably even a funny version. This is neither.

Instead, Ladies First feels like a half-remembered corporate sensitivity seminar that got turned into a screenplay after three glasses of wine and one too many approving nods from people using the phrase “timely conversation.” It is not so much a film as a lecture wearing a fitted suit.

The central premise is nonsense. Not heightened nonsense. Not clever satirical nonsense. Just plain nonsense. The movie assumes a world in which mass-scale misogyny still defines modern corporate Europe and corporate America, as if every boardroom is secretly run by a cabal of men in suspenders saying, “No women near the quarterly projections!” That may have been a sharper target decades ago, but today the premise feels stale, lazy, and weirdly disconnected from reality.

That is not to say sexism no longer exists. Of course it does. Workplace power still matters. Double standards still exist. Harassment still exists. Women still navigate professional spaces differently than men in many contexts. But a serious film would know how to explore that complexity. Ladies First does not explore it. It inflates it into a cartoon worldview, then congratulates itself for punching a cardboard villain it built in the garage.

The film appears to think that reversing gender dynamics automatically produces insight. It does not. A reversal only works when it reveals something true. Otherwise, it is just a gimmick in a blazer.

That is where Ladies First begins to resemble a strange, inferior cousin of What Women Want, the 2000 Mel Gibson romantic comedy in which a chauvinistic advertising executive magically gains the ability to hear women’s thoughts. That movie was ridiculous too, but it understood its own ridiculousness. It had a clean comic engine: arrogant man receives supernatural humiliation, learns empathy, and becomes slightly less of a jackass. Simple. Broad. Hollywood machine, reasonably well-oiled.

What Women Want was not exactly Simone de Beauvoir with a soundtrack, but it had charm. It had movement. It had a movie-star center. It had a premise that was silly enough to forgive because the movie knew it was silly.

Ladies First feels like it borrowed the gender-inversion gimmick, stripped out the charisma, replaced the magic with messaging, and then acted as though it had invented a new political philosophy. It wants to be What Women Want, plus a TED Talk, plus a workplace satire, plus a moral referendum on heterosexual desire. The result is not sharper. It is just more confused.

And then there is Sacha Baron Cohen.

The problem is not that Cohen is too cartoonish. That would almost be preferable. The real problem is that this is simply a bad role for him. Cohen has built his career on provocation, mockery, ambush comedy, social discomfort, and exposing people by pushing them into absurdity. That is his lane, and at his best, he drives in it like a man being chased by Interpol.

But Ladies First asks him to be something else: charming, romantic, credible, attractive in a conventional leading-man sense, emotionally substantial, and morally weighty.

I do not buy it.

That is not because I only see Borat when I look at him. It is because Cohen does not bring the gravitas the role requires. He does not have the dramatic weight to anchor this kind of story. He can provoke. He can lampoon. He can humiliate the pompous and the gullible with surgical cruelty. But this film asks him to stand there as a believable romantic and moral center, and the whole thing wobbles like a cheap folding table at a school fundraiser.

Whatever physical transformation he has made lately may be admirable. Good for him. Truly. But looking fitter does not automatically turn someone into a convincing romantic lead. The screen still has to believe you. The audience still has to believe you. A movie cannot simply declare that someone is desirable, charismatic, and emotionally profound and expect the viewer to salute.

Ladies First seems to think that because Cohen is famous, he can carry this transformation. But fame is not chemistry. Recognition is not gravitas. And abs, however commendable, are not an acting method.

The comparison to What Women Want makes the problem clearer. Mel Gibson, at that stage of his career, could play smug, attractive, powerful, ridiculous, wounded, and charming all at once. Whatever one thinks of him now, he had the movie-star machinery for that kind of role. Cohen does not. He is gifted, but not in this register. He is a satirical weapon, not a romantic anchor. Casting him here is like using a chainsaw to frost a cake.

The film keeps asking us to accept him as the center of attraction and transformation, but he never fully convinces. He does not possess the effortless authority the role needs. He does not seem dangerous in the right way, vulnerable in the right way, or magnetic in the right way. He seems miscast inside a movie that has mistaken concept for character.

And the movie’s moral logic is even worse.

Toward the end, the CEO makes a comment about wanting to be called over when models arrive for a photo shoot so he can check them out. Cohen’s character responds with moral outrage, essentially telling him he ought to be ashamed of himself.

But why, exactly?

Are we now pretending that male attraction to women is inherently shameful? Is heterosexual desire itself supposed to apologize before entering the room? Are men no longer allowed to notice attractive women without being treated as if they have committed a workplace felony?

There is a serious conversation to be had about objectification, professionalism, workplace boundaries, consent, power, and context. That conversation matters. But Ladies First is not sophisticated enough to have it. Instead, it collapses everything into a scolding little moral gesture: man notices attractive women, therefore man bad.

That is not feminism. That is bad writing wearing sensible shoes.

The film cannot distinguish between predatory behavior and ordinary sexual attraction. Those are not the same thing. Men being attracted to women is not a social disease. Women being attractive is not a workplace emergency. Adults noticing beauty, desire, sex, flirtation, or physical appeal is not automatically oppression.

What matters is conduct. Respect. Consent. Boundaries. Context. Power dynamics. Those are real issues. Those are interesting issues. Those are issues worth dramatizing. But Ladies First does not dramatize them. It sermonizes badly about them.

The movie behaves as though sexual attraction itself is suspicious, as though the proper endpoint of gender equality is not mutual respect, but everyone becoming a dead-eyed HR pamphlet in human form. It is puritanical in progressive clothing. The old religious scold said, “Sex is dirty.” The new corporate scold says, “Attraction is problematic.” Different outfit. Same finger wag.

And that is where the film becomes not just bad, but irritating. It mistakes shame for enlightenment. It thinks the cure for misogyny is to make heterosexual desire seem vaguely criminal. That is not progress. That is neurosis with a streaming deal.

A sharper movie would have known the difference. It would have shown how attraction becomes ugly when combined with entitlement. It would have explored how workplaces turn human beings into images, brands, and objects. It would have examined how men and women both perform desire, status, and power under capitalism. It might even have made the CEO’s comment genuinely revealing, not because he finds women attractive, but because of how casually he assumes their bodies exist for his consumption.

That would be a scene. That would be satire.

But Ladies First does not trust the audience enough for that. It prefers the blunt instrument. It points, scolds, and waits for applause.

The result is a movie that feels strangely joyless about human beings. It does not like men very much. It does not seem especially curious about women either. It likes positions. It likes lessons. It likes its own moral posture. The characters are not people so much as gender-politics mannequins being wheeled from one argument to the next.

That is why the whole thing feels so hollow. It does not have the wild absurdity of a true farce, the emotional sincerity of a romantic comedy, or the acid intelligence of real satire. It has the shape of those things, but not the blood.

A real satire should be dangerous. It should cut both ways. It should make everyone slightly uncomfortable because it has found something true and inconvenient. Ladies First is not dangerous. It is approved. It is laminated. It has already passed through compliance.

The film wants to mock patriarchy, but it ends up revealing the limitations of a certain kind of modern storytelling: the kind that believes a premise is automatically brave if it reverses the old hierarchy. But flipping a cliché upside down does not make it profound. It just gives you an inverted cliché.

The gender-swap structure could have worked if the film had any appetite for contradiction. Imagine a version that admits men and women can both be vain, ambitious, shallow, tender, cruel, desirous, insecure, manipulative, funny, ridiculous, and human. Imagine a version that lets nobody off the hook. Imagine a version where the comedy comes from recognition rather than instruction.

That film might have been something.

Instead, Ladies First gives us a world where the moral conclusions are preloaded, the jokes are underpowered, and the protagonist is played by an actor whose gifts are almost completely misused. Sacha Baron Cohen should be detonating hypocrisy, not wandering through a limp role that asks him to become a romantic moral philosopher with gym membership energy.

He is at his best when he is exposing absurdity by becoming absurd. He is at his worst when a film asks him to be sincere in ways he cannot quite sell. Here, he is not liberated from Borat. He is stranded without the very tools that made him interesting in the first place.

Ladies First does not fail because it is too political. It fails because it is not smart enough about politics, gender, sex, attraction, work, comedy, or its own leading man. It wants to be a revolutionary comedy, but it has the soul of a mandatory training module.

It is not bold. It is not sexy. It is not funny enough to survive as comedy or perceptive enough to survive as satire. It mistakes role reversal for wisdom, scolding for substance, and casting Sacha Baron Cohen against type for artistic courage.

The final product is a bad movie with a worse sense of its own importance.

Ladies First is not a satire.

It is a bad date with a PowerPoint.

There were presidents. There were wars. There were maps with arrows. There were brave men making difficult decisions in rooms with flags. There were founding fathers, pioneers, generals, inventors, astronauts, and the occasional carefully selected victim of injustice, introduced just long enough to prove that injustice had been solved by the next chapter.

What there was not, at least not in any meaningful way, was the Jim Crow South.

Not really.

I was not taught, in any deep or sustained sense, that after slavery ended, a large portion of the United States built an entire legal, political, economic, and terrorist system designed to keep Black Americans in a condition as close to slavery as the Thirteenth Amendment would allow. I was not taught the full machinery of it: the poll taxes, the literacy tests, the lynchings, the sundown towns, the segregated schools, the stolen labor, the police violence, the quiet complicity of respectable people who went to church on Sunday and enforced racial caste on Monday.

And perhaps that silence should not surprise me. I grew up in a city with a reputation for white supremacy. So, naturally, the curriculum did what polite systems often do when history becomes embarrassing: it dimmed the lights, changed the subject, and pointed dramatically at George Washington crossing the Delaware.

Nothing to see here, children. Please admire the boat.

The older I get, the more I realize that much of what passed for history education was not education in the fullest sense. It was orientation.

It taught us where to stand. It taught us whom to salute. It taught us which violence was noble. It taught us which victims mattered. It taught us which questions were rude.

And above all, it taught us that America was not merely a country. It was a moral direction. North on the compass. Up on the ladder. Light on the hill. Final answer in the back of the book.

That is not education. That is branding.

I was taught World War II as a moral thunderbolt: Pearl Harbor happened, America woke up, evil was defeated, and everyone bought war bonds. I was not really taught the complicated economic, military, and imperial pressures that preceded Japan’s attack, including America’s embargoes and Japan’s expansionist ambitions in Asia. The lesson was not “history is complicated.” The lesson was “they hit us first.”

Very convenient.

That phrase should be stamped on the front of half the textbooks ever written:

They Hit Us First: An American History.

The same thing happened with the Gulf War. We were told Iraq invaded Kuwait, America assembled a coalition, and righteousness arrived in desert camouflage. I was not taught much about the accusations and arguments involving oil, borders, debt, slant drilling, regional power, or the long imperial chessboard underneath the televised war. I was not invited to ask whether the moral story and the strategic story were the same story.

Because that would have been awkward.

And public education, at least when it comes to national myth, has often treated awkwardness as a form of treason.

Vietnam? That was presented as tragic, yes, but often in foggy language: miscalculation, containment, Cold War anxiety, difficult choices. I do not remember being taught with sufficient force that the Gulf of Tonkin incident, used to justify major escalation, was deeply contested and later understood as far more dubious than the government initially claimed.

Translation: the door to hell may have been opened with a fog machine and a press release.

World War I? We got the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, a sandwich of alliances, some trenches, some mustaches, and then everyone got influenza. But the deeper madness of it — empires, aristocrats, militarists, industrialists, nationalists, and political elites feeding millions of ordinary people into the meat grinder of Europe — was not emphasized with the moral horror it deserved.

The way it was taught, World War I sounded like a terrible accident caused by one assassination.

As if history simply slipped on a banana peel and landed in a trench.

But wars do not happen because one man is killed. They happen because entire systems are already soaked in gasoline, and someone finally strikes the match. The assassination mattered. Of course it mattered. But it was not the whole cause. It was the spark in a room full of rich men, frightened men, ambitious men, uniformed men, and men who never planned to sleep in the mud themselves.

Then there are the things that did not appear at all.

The USS Liberty attack by Israel in 1967, for example — a deadly attack on an American intelligence ship during the Six-Day War — was not part of the historical furniture of my education. It did not fit neatly into the official emotional architecture. Some events are taught as national wounds. Others are filed quietly in the drawer labeled “complicated,” which often means “please do not bring this up at dinner.”

And that is the pattern.

The facts that strengthen loyalty are framed. The facts that complicate loyalty are footnoted. The facts that threaten loyalty are buried in the basement behind the broken overhead projector.

So now, looking back, I feel something unsettling.

I do not simply feel that I was undereducated.

I feel that I was programmed.

Not in the dramatic science-fiction sense. No one strapped me into a chair, pried my eyes open, and forced me to watch Schoolhouse Rock while a man in a flag tie whispered, “The Senate is your friend.”

It was softer than that.

More elegant.

A little anthem here. A little pledge there. A textbook chapter with the blood removed. A heroic painting. A multiple-choice test. A teacher moving quickly because the district pacing guide says Reconstruction must be covered before Thursday. A school culture that rewards compliance and calls it citizenship.

And over time, a child absorbs the shape of acceptable thought.

You learn that loyalty is maturity. You learn that doubt is cynicism. You learn that criticism is disrespect. You learn that the country is not something to understand but something to believe in.

That is the real trick.

A nation does not have to explicitly tell children, “Do not question us.” It only has to teach history as a sequence of noble intentions interrupted occasionally by unfortunate mistakes.

Slavery? Mistake. Jim Crow? Mistake. Vietnam? Mistake. Iraq? Mistake. Native dispossession? Mistake. Surveillance, coups, propaganda, assassinations, corporate influence, racial terror, labor suppression, imperial adventure?

Mistakes, mistakes, mistakes.

At some point, one begins to wonder whether the machine is broken or functioning exactly as designed.

Now I find myself in the reconstruction stage.

That is the best way I can describe it.

I am not merely learning new information. I am rebuilding the interior architecture of my own loyalty. I am walking through the museum of my mind and discovering that half the exhibits were sponsored by interested parties.

Here is the Hall of Noble Wars. Here is the Gallery of Acceptable Heroes. Here is the Children’s Wing of Sanitized Atrocity. Please exit through the gift shop, where you may purchase a small plastic Constitution made in China.

The difficult part is that I was raised to be loyal. I was raised to be dedicated. I was raised to believe that love of country meant defending the story I had been given.

But perhaps real love is not defending the story.

Perhaps real love is refusing to let the story remain childish.

A child needs heroes. An adult needs truth.

And truth is almost always less tidy than patriotism prefers.

This does not mean replacing one propaganda system with another. That is the danger. Once you discover that the official story was incomplete, there is a temptation to sprint into the arms of the opposite certainty. Everything was a lie. Every event was staged. Every villain was secretly a hero. Every hero was secretly a villain. The textbook was propaganda, so the podcast must be scripture.

That is not reconstruction.

That is just moving from one cult to another, only now the incense smells like paranoia and beef jerky.

The task is harder than that.

The task is to become historically awake without becoming historically unhinged.

It means learning to hold multiple truths at once. America has done magnificent things. America has done monstrous things. Soldiers have acted with courage. Leaders have lied. Citizens have sacrificed nobly. Corporations have profited obscenely. Democracy has expanded freedom. Democracy has also been used to decorate empire. The flag has inspired liberation. The flag has also been used as a tarp to cover bodies.

That is not anti-American.

That is adulthood.

The purpose of social science education should not be to manufacture loyalty. It should be to develop judgment. It should teach students how power speaks, how nations mythologize themselves, how governments justify violence, how race and class shape memory, how ordinary people become instruments of systems they do not fully understand.

It should teach students to ask:

Who benefits from this version of the story? Who is missing? What words are being used to soften violence? What evidence is being ignored? What would this event look like from the other side? Why was I taught this and not that?

Those are not dangerous questions.

Those are democratic questions.

A republic that cannot survive its citizens asking better questions is not a republic. It is a stage set with a bald eagle painted on the curtain.

So yes, I feel programmed. I think many of us were. Not because every teacher was malicious. Most were not. Many were kind, hardworking, underpaid, and trapped inside systems they did not design. The propaganda was not always personal. It was curricular. Institutional. Atmospheric. It was in the water.

But once you notice the water, you cannot unnotice it.

And that is where reconstruction begins.

Not in bitterness. Not in self-hatred. Not in the adolescent thrill of declaring everything fake.

But in the deeper, stranger, more demanding work of becoming free inside your own mind.

To reconstruct yourself after patriotic programming is to learn that loyalty without truth is obedience. It is to understand that reverence can become anesthesia. It is to realize that a country worth loving must be strong enough to be examined without makeup.

History, properly taught, should not be a loyalty oath.

It should be a crime scene, a family album, a confession booth, a courtroom, a mirror, and occasionally, yes, a circus — because human beings are ridiculous, empires are vain, and every generation seems convinced that its propaganda is just “common sense” with better lighting.

I do not want children indoctrinated into hating their country.

I also do not want them indoctrinated into worshiping it.

I want them educated well enough to recognize when someone is selling them a myth in the costume of a lesson.

Because the final goal of history should not be patriotism.

It should be consciousness.

And once consciousness begins, the old programming starts to glitch.

The anthem still plays. The flag still waves. The textbook still smiles.

But somewhere inside, a new voice appears.

Calm. Clear. A little irritated. Possibly holding a red pen.

And it says:

Wait a minute.

That is the beginning of freedom.