ARE THE INMATES RUNNING THE ASYLUM?

If there was any doubt that the inmates are running the asylum in our administration right now, the group chat on the Signal messaging app about the attack on Yemen should have erased it for all but the most diehard MAGA supporters. The conversation intended for our Vice President, Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, Director of National Intelligence and other administration principals also, accidentally, included the Editor-in-Chief of The Atlantic, Jeffrey Goldberg, and revealed a precise attack timeline, target surveillance, and shared plans for a bombing campaign 30 minutes before the first planes took off on March 15. Secretary of Defense Hegseth subsequently insisted that no classified information was communicated. "Nobody was texting war plans: "No units, no locations, no routes, no flight plans, no sources, no methods, no classified information." Senator Tammy Duckworth, an Iraqi war veteran took exception: "Pete Hegseth is a f***ing liar. This so clearly classified info he recklessly leaked that could have gotten our pilots killed. He needs to resign in disgrace immediately." As always, President Trump referred to the entire episode as a "witch hunt," and "a hoax." While this example of one of the most ignorant breaches of protocol affecting our national security should concern us, the general lack of focus on relevant, evidence-based substance underpinning policy discussions at the pinnacle of the administrative level of our governing body ought to be disturbing. Much of it might be relegated to willful ignorance, which unfortunately sometimes degenerated to stupidity. Modern-day researchers have identified several recognizable sets of actions embodying stupidity: "Confident ignorance" - involving people taking risks without having the necessary skills to deal with them. President Trump may know what he does not know, but delegated tasks to staff members like Elon Musk or trade tariff architect Pete Navarro. Neither of which appear to possess such awareness. "Absent minded failure" - meaning people knew the right thing to do but were not paying sufficient attention to avoid doing something stupid - like in "signal gate." And, finally, "Lack of control" - in which decision makers compromise their organizations by failing to accept objections from those charged with implementing the leader's preconceived plans. Such decision makers may select biased information to support their proposals, instead of considering factual data. We have seen numerous situations in which consequential decisions were reached "supported" by fallacious interpretations of available facts. Preeminent examples include: Candidate Trump's insistence that illegal immigrants from Haiti residing in Springfield, Ohio, have been eating domestic pets. He claimed this assertion to be factual since he saw it on television. President Trump's declaration that our government sent $50 million worth of condoms to the Gaza strip - a "fact" Elon Musk apparently identified as uncovered by his DOGE group of researchers. In fact, the Gaza in question is a province in Mozambique, in which we supported a fund for prevention of HIV. Mr. Musk also spread the assertion that 9 million 130 year old recipients - many even more than 150 year old - were receiving social security. This bit of "information" exhibited his total ignorance of how the Social Security Administration maintains its records. And then there remains the issue of the administration's preoccupation with colonizing Canada, Greenland and Gaza, changing the "Gulf of Mexico," which received its name during the mid 16th century, to the "Gulf of America," and proclaiming English, which is spoken fluently by 80% of the population, to be our official national language. And these represent only the tip of the iceberg. The list goes on. We can't gloss over the hot topic of the moment, tariffs, a concept the president refers to as "the most beautiful word." It remains difficult to understand how Peter Navarro, the president's point person on the subject, has become so dominant, and yet appears so ignorant about the consequences of blindly pursuing the developing policy. The global economic system that the U.S. has shaped and steered for more than 3/4 of a century was animated by a powerful guiding vision: that trade and finance would be based on cooperation and consent rather than coercion. By provoking a world-wide trade war, President Trump risks abandoning that vision of shared interests and replacing it with one that assumes that sharp economic conflicts are unavoidable. So yes! It's difficult to escape the conclusion that the inmates appear to be running the asylum. If we are to believe the results of the president's most recent physical, he is in great shape for his age. And there is nobody like Donald Trump to communicate this, and to brag about his cognitive abilities. According to him he passed that test with flying colors by repeating the phrase: "Person, woman, man, camera and T.V." Based on the administration's record thus far, we should brace ourselves for significant uncertainty going forward. Theo Wierdsma

CHANGING THE SUBJECT

It is hardly an overstatement to suggest these days that many of us are suffering from information overload. Much of that abundance focuses substantially on aspects of our current political climate, repetitively transmitted by a plethora of social media. It emerges from news media, contentious opinions expressed throughout quarrelsome discussions at family gatherings, or even introduced while engaged in unplanned casual interactions. When you hear the same topic discussed over and over again, messages lose their impact. Our brain begins to filter them out, they become background noise, and the process can lead to cognitive fatigue. Even if repackaged, our brains get tired of hearing the same information coming from multiple sources, to the point that we can no longer think of anything else to talk about. While much remains to be analyzed, dissected, discussed, and alert an audience about, intellectually little appears to remain to captivate the curious mind. I dislike the sensation of stagnation. Consequently, I felt compelled to take a temporary break from the heavy stuff, and reengage with a project I began some time ago. I recognized that there is a lot surrounding us that we should be curious about. The point is that we should reject the inclination to focus all of our sensory energy on the same subset of variables, but that we ought to instead expand our horizon. There are multiple ideas about how to do this. The one I prefer is very straightforward. Develop a list of every question that pops up in your mind, no matter how mundane, and set time aside to research the response to each entry. Many of us regularly wonder about things we are legitimately curious about, but we never satisfy our interest, even though we have a multitude of social media platforms designed exactly for that purpose available to us. This is sad, because being curious is an incredible fuel that keeps life interesting. Years ago I challenged myself to come up with a set number of questions within a limited period of time. It was amazing what we come up with when we focus. Both questions and answers will expand our knowledge. Not only that, the questions themselves could function as conversation starters and expand the variety of topics we might discuss. I am going to reproduce my initial list. Everyone could have fun developing his or her own lineup. The object is to take a break from the dominant discussion topic of the moment, diversify our mental activity and interrupt the monotony of what is thrown at us every waking hour of our day. This was my initial list: - What were the five French republics? - Isn't "Coque-au-vin" really "Poulet-au-vin"? - What are the colors of the rainbow? - Who was Saul Alinsky? - What are the names of the seven dwarfs? - Why do people in some countries drive on different sides of the road? - What is existentialism? - What is the speed of light? - What companies make up the Dow Jones? - What are the highest peaks on all continents? - What American presidents died in office? - Is there a major religion with a dominant female deity? - What is the origin of Valentine's Day? - What does the "stan" in Kazakhstan stand for? - How do we rank on the "poverty index?" - What do the letters "USA" seen on surface areas along the road stands for? - Where is Timbuktu? - Who was the Queen of Sheba? - Ho do you play Cricket? - What is the difference between white and brown eggs? - Why were Communists referred to as "pinkos?" - How long is a generation? - Why do psychics need directions to their conventions? - What is a calorie? - What is vitamin "D" good for? - What is the consistency of Wasabi? - What is a watershed? - Would blood transfusions or donations affect lowering cholesterol levels? - What ingestibles can serve as mosquito repellents? - How come that the majority of spelling bee winners appear to be ESL (English as a Second Language) graduates, or immigrants? - Could we describe the NRA as a terrorist organization? - What is discretionary energy? - What types of unemployment can we identify? - How do you prevent Alzheimer's? - How fast is a "knot"? - What makes Windex clean? - How come my window cleaner in my car never runs out of fluid, even though I never refill it? - Who modeled for Michael Angelo's "David?" - What is a stem cell? - How does a flash flood develop? - What is the calculation of "pie"? - What ethnicity was Buddha? - What is a "Bayou"? - How many stripes are there on the U.S. flag? - What is the national animal of Australia? - Why do we dream? - How does electricity work? - Why can't I remember movies that I've watched? - Who would you choose if you could be friends with a fictional character? Have some fun with this. Theo Wierdsma