Writing is my artistic expression. My keyboard is my brush. Words are my medium. My blog is my canvas. And committing to writing daily makes me feel like an artist.
Creating a subversive anti-ad campaign against Tesla is an absolutely brilliant way to protest.
Vandalizing cars and dealerships is an embarrassment to the civil society we should be living in.
Holding a protest at a rally, and speaking out against someone you disagree with is the foundation of an open and free society. Shouting and throwing things at a speaker is immature and inappropriate behavior. Even if the person is spewing hate… in which case they should be dealt with legally, not with vigilante violence.
We need a society that allows disagreement. We need to be civil about how we protest. Because there is no civil society where violence and damaging property works one-way… only the way upset people think it should. Societies that tolerate inappropriate protest are inviting responses that are less and less civil. And nobody wins.
I have regularly created AI images to go with my blog posts since June, 2022. I try not to spend too much time creating them because I’d rather be writing blog posts than image prompts. But sometimes I try to create images and they just don’t convey what I want them to, or they come across as a bit too much in the uncanny valley, feeling unnatural. That happened with my post image 4 days ago, and I used the image anyway, because I was pressed for time.
(Look carefully at this image and you’ll see a lot wrong with it.)
I made 5 or 6 attempts to adjust my prompt, but still kept getting bad results, so I made do with the only one that resembled what I wanted.
And then for the past couple days I had a different challenge. I don’t know if it’s because of using the version of Bing’s Copilot that is associated with my school account, but my attempts to create images were blocked.
And:
However, Grok 3, a much less restricted AI, had no problem creating these images for me:
And:
I’m a little bothered by the idea that I am being limited by an AI in using these image prompts. The first one is social commentary, the second one, while a ‘hot topic’, certainly isn’t worthy of being restricted.
It begs the question, who are the morality police deciding what we can and cannot use AI to draw? the reality is that there are tools out there that have no filters and can create any image you want, no matter how tasteless or inappropriate they are, and I’m not sure that’s ideal… but neither is being prevented from making images like the ones I requested. What is it about these images requests that make them inappropriate?
I get that this is a small issue in comparison to what’s happening in the US right now. The morality police are in full force there with one group, the Christian far right, using the influence they have in the White House to impose their morality on others. This is a far greater concern than restrictions to image prompts in AI… but these are both concerns on the same continuum.
Who decides? Why do they get to decide? What are the justifications for their decisions?
It seems to me that the moral decisions being made recently have not been made by the right people asking the right questions… and it concerns me greatly that people are imposing their morals on others in ways that limit our choices and our freedoms.
I used to think that Dr. Seuss’ Sneetches was about discrimination. Either you have a star on your belly or you don’t… and the book was about learning a lesson that superficial traits really don’t matter.
I’ve come to realize that I was wrong.
The book is about being grifted. It’s not about the Sneetches, it’s about Sylvester McMonkey McBean putting Sneetches through a propaganda cycle, which in turn leads them through the machine, again and again and again until they are broke and disillusioned.
I also realize that we are all Sneetches right now.
I am a Canadian, and yet I am an immigrant to this great nation. I grew up in a multicultural family, and moved to Canada, to Toronto, one of the most multicultural cities in the world. My first friends in Canada were Greek, our neighbours were Armenian, my friends in high school were a Scottish heritage Canadian, a German, a Jew with roots in India, a Shiite Muslim from Africa, and a Sunni Muslim born in Canada. If America is known as the melting pot, Canada is the stew.
Canadian pride is a pride in being able to celebrate your own and each other’s heritage. It is about being sorry for the things we got wrong in history, and actually thinking about and working on reconciliation.
Being Canadian means paying over 40% of my paycheque to taxes and benefits, complaining about it, while simultaneously wanting to see more taxes go to healthcare and education. It means we care about our neighbour’s wellbeing, and quite frankly care for our southern neighbor’s wellbeing too.
Our ‘Neighbors’ to the South
I learned the American anthem and the Canadian anthem at the same time, at hockey games.
I watched what the nation to our south watched on TV. As a result of watching American early morning cartoons, I learned from Schoolhouse Rock ‘How a Bill Becomes a Law’ in the US long before I knew anything about Canada’s legal system. I knew the rules to American football before I knew anything about the Canadian version. I was as likely to watch American news as Canadian news because the show I watched before the news was on an American channel.
I know so much more about the US than most Americans will ever knew about Canada. Not because of my interest but because of my exposure: American cartoons, sports, television, movies, and newscasts all told me about the great nation that took care of us and the entire free world.
Changing Tides
We didn’t always agree, but we have always been friends.
Today tariffs will be implemented by a misguided American leader who thinks national isolationist policies will work in a global economy. He will punish his citizens and ours as we retaliate appropriately as an independent nation. The burden of this economic fight will be a wave of high prices and lost jobs sweeping across both nations. People living on or near the poverty line will be drowning in debt. Small business will sink. We are in for some rough seas, and the consequential ripples will be felt for years to come.
A Proud Nation
Insults, like calling Canada the 51st state, do not hurt Canadians, they strengthen us. Bullying us with tariffs does not make us cower but stand up taller. Attacking us does not divide us but emboldens us. We don’t usually focus on nationalism because our identity is about celebrating our differences, but when attacked our resolve is unified. We will find other global neighbours who we will work with. We might not start a fight but we aren’t afraid to finish it.
We are proudly Canadian, we will fight, we will not yield. We will support each other, while simultaneously supporting others in need. And we will prevail, stronger than ever before.
I asked Grok3, an AI LLM, what the similarities are between the fall of Rome and what we are seeing happen in the US. This was the response:
Here are six bullet points that draw direct comparisons between the fall of the Roman Empire and the potential fall of the U.S.
1. Leadership Betrayal and Enemy Deals
Rome: A general shaking hands with eastern thugs (like Parthia or Scythians) betrayed allies for personal gain, weakening Rome’s unity and trust.
U.S.: Trump siding with Russia—berating Zelenskyy on February 28, 2025, and pushing for a peace deal—sells out Ukraine, a key ally, mirroring Rome’s disloyalty and boosting a rival power.
2. Allies Breaking Away
Rome: The west (like Gaul) broke free from Rome’s control, rejecting its rule as it weakened.
U.S.: The EU steps up to support Ukraine and isolate the U.S. politically and economically after Trump’s actions, acting like provinces ditching a faltering empire.
3. Economic Collapse from Trade Mistakes
Rome: Markets crashed and trade stopped as Rome’s taxes and neglect dried up its wealth, leaving farms barren.
U.S.: Trump’s tariffs choke trade—hurting markets and raising costs—mirroring Rome’s economic self-sabotage, pushing the U.S. toward isolation and decline.
4. Internal Division and Chaos
Rome: Leaders fought each other, splitting the city into thieves versus thieves, paralyzing Rome’s ability to act.
U.S.: Political infighting—Congress and Trump’s administration clashing over Russia, Ukraine, and tariffs—echoes Rome’s bickering, stalling any unified response to the crisis.
5. Rivals Gaining Ground
Rome: The east (Parthia) grinned as Rome faltered, ready to exploit its shrinking power and borders.
U.S.: Russia laughs at America’s diplomatic mess and weakened stance, gaining leverage as the U.S. loses global clout, just like Rome’s enemies circled its decay.
6. Loss of Belief and Influence
Rome: Temples rotted and people stopped believing in Rome’s greatness, letting its moral core crumble.
U.S.: America’s reputation tanks after the Zelenskyy fiasco, with allies doubting its leadership and soft power fading, akin to Rome’s lost glory.
___
I find the choice of words fascinating: (emphasis mine)
“mirroring Rome’s economic self-sabotage, pushing the U.S. toward isolation and decline”
“America’s reputation tanks after the Zelenskyy fiasco”
I know there are some things that are not comparable. I know that the US still holds economic, political, and military power that the Roman Empire probably lacked when it fell. And I actually want to see the US survive and even thrive, because I think that democracy and world peace are likely both casualties of a fallen US ‘empire’… But the US needs leadership that understands the geopolitical threats it is facing. And that is severely lacking right now.
But the biggest threat to the US lies within. With a growing number of people who are financially worse off than they were even a few months ago; the undermining of government positions that ensure the government runs smoothly; and the dismantling of healthcare and education… with cuts that will have lasting and costly implications… the potential for social unrest is alarming.
The protests will start. The unrest will be violent. The response will escalate the violence.
The worse part of this will be the lack of civility. Peaceful protest is part of democracy. Violent unrest and insurrection are weapons of tyranny. We aren’t going to see democracy and western principles prevail through force and violence. Instead we will just see a once vibrant nation that promised its people a dream and left it in the shadows of ruin.
Grok 3 (beta) is now free. It’s supposed to be the smartest LLM out there so I asked it:
What’s the best way forward for peace in the Ukraine?
Here is Grok’s response:
The best way forward for peace in Ukraine is a complex and debated question, with no single solution universally agreed upon. However, based on current dynamics and informed perspectives, a sustainable peace likely hinges on a combination of military strength, diplomatic negotiation, and long-term security guarantees for Ukraine, while addressing Russia’s actions and the broader geopolitical context as of February 21, 2025.
One widely supported approach is empowering Ukraine to negotiate from a position of strength. This means continued and enhanced military support from Western allies—more weapons, resources, and training—to shift the battlefield balance and deter further Russian escalation. The idea is that Russia, under Vladimir Putin, responds primarily to force rather than goodwill. If Ukraine can impose significant costs on Russia, it might compel Moscow to consider a ceasefire or settlement that doesn’t equate to Ukraine’s capitulation. For instance, Ukraine’s recent Kursk offensive and drone strikes on Russian infrastructure demonstrate how a stronger Ukrainian position can alter the conflict’s trajectory, potentially bringing Russia to the table.
Diplomacy remains critical, but it must be realistic. Ukraine’s leadership, including President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, has emphasized that any peace deal requires credible security guarantees to prevent future Russian aggression—ideally NATO membership, though this faces resistance from key members like the U.S. and Germany. Alternatives like bilateral security pacts with firm commitments (e.g., from the U.S.) or a multinational peacekeeping force could serve as stopgaps, though their effectiveness is questioned without long-term enforcement mechanisms. Negotiations should start with achievable steps—local ceasefires, prisoner exchanges, or securing food exports—building momentum toward broader territorial and sovereignty discussions, rather than aiming for an immediate grand bargain that risks collapsing under maximalist demands from either side.
Russia’s stance complicates this. Putin’s terms—Ukraine ceding occupied territories, abandoning NATO aspirations, and demilitarizing—amount to surrender, not peace, and are designed to leave Ukraine vulnerable to future attacks. Historical precedents like the Minsk agreements show that ceasefires without enforcement often fail. Thus, peace must avoid rewarding aggression or compromising Ukraine’s sovereignty, a principle echoed by many Western leaders and analysts who argue that a weak deal would embolden authoritarian powers globally.
The human cost—thousands dead, millions displaced, and ongoing rights violations—underscores urgency, but rushing to a flawed agreement could prolong instability. A just peace likely requires Russia’s withdrawal to pre-2022 lines (or at least pre-2014 borders, including Crimea, though this is less feasible short-term), coupled with Ukraine’s integration into Western security structures over time. This balances immediate de-escalation with deterrence against future threats.
In short, the best path forward combines arming Ukraine to hold its ground, pursuing phased diplomacy with clear red lines, and securing enforceable guarantees—acknowledging that peace without strength risks being temporary, while strength without talks prolongs suffering. The war’s end remains uncertain, but Ukraine’s resilience and Western resolve will shape its terms.
Then I asked:
Is this Trump’s approach?
Grok responded:
You’re asking whether the approach I outlined for peace in Ukraine aligns with Donald Trump’s strategy, given the context of the ongoing war and his recent actions as of February 21, 2025. Based on available information and Trump’s public statements, I can assess how my previous response compares to what’s known about his approach, without reproducing or altering my prior answer.
Trump’s stated intentions for Ukraine, since his inauguration on January 20, 2025, emphasize a rapid end to the conflict through negotiations, often framed as a signature achievement of his presidency. He’s claimed he could resolve the war “in 24 hours” during his campaign and has since initiated direct talks with Vladimir Putin, starting with a notable call on February 12, 2025, followed by outreach to Volodymyr Zelenskyy. His team, including figures like Secretary of State Marco Rubio and National Security Adviser Michael Waltz, has been tasked with launching peace talks, with reports of planned meetings in Saudi Arabia as early as mid-February 2025. This aligns with a push for immediate diplomacy, consistent with my suggestion of phased negotiations starting with achievable steps like ceasefires.
However, Trump’s approach diverges in key ways from the broader strategy I described. My response emphasized empowering Ukraine militarily to negotiate from strength, with sustained Western support and security guarantees like NATO membership or robust bilateral pacts—aiming for a peace that deters future Russian aggression. Trump, conversely, has signaled concessions that lean toward Russia’s demands. His Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has publicly dismissed Ukraine reclaiming all pre-2014 territories (including Crimea) as “unrealistic” and ruled out NATO membership as part of any deal, suggesting a freeze along current lines instead. Reports of a leaked “100-day plan” from Ukrainian outlet strana.today indicate Trump might push Ukraine to cede occupied territories, withdraw from Russia’s Kursk region, and accept neutrality—terms that echo Putin’s preconditions rather than a bolstered Ukrainian position.
Trump’s rhetoric also hints at economic leverage over military buildup. He’s threatened Russia with tariffs and sanctions to force a deal, while suggesting Ukraine compensate the U.S. with natural resources for past aid—ideas absent from my outline, which focused on deterrence through strength. His February 19, 2025, BBC interview, where he said Russia “has the cards” due to territorial gains, suggests a willingness to accept a settlement favoring Moscow’s current position, contrasting with my call for Russia’s withdrawal to pre-2022 or pre-2014 lines.
On diplomacy, Trump’s unilateral outreach to Putin—often sidelining European allies and initially excluding Ukraine—clashes with my emphasis on inclusive, phased talks with firm red lines. European leaders and Zelenskyy have protested this, insisting on Ukraine’s central role, though Trump later clarified Kyiv would be involved. Still, his approach seems more deal-driven than principle-driven, prioritizing speed over the long-term stability I highlighted.
So, is this Trump’s approach? Not entirely. While we share a focus on negotiation as a path forward, his emerging strategy tilts toward quicker, Russia-friendly concessions—freezing lines, dropping NATO aspirations, and limiting U.S. military commitment—whereas I advocated for a stronger Ukraine backed by sustained Western resolve to ensure a durable peace. Trump’s moves reflect his dealmaking persona, but they risk a temporary truce over the lasting resolution I described. The details of his plan are still fluid, with talks ongoing, but current signals suggest a narrower, more pragmatic scope than the comprehensive framework I proposed.
Then finally I requested:
Outline 3 key points of advice you would give Trump to improve his strategy, briefly outlining pitfalls in his approach and why your advice is worth following.
Grok responded:
Here’s tailored advice for Donald Trump to refine his Ukraine peace strategy, based on the gaps between his emerging approach and a framework for sustainable peace as of February 21, 2025. Each point addresses a pitfall in his current trajectory and explains why the tweak could yield a stronger outcome.
Bolster Ukraine’s Leverage Before Talks, Don’t Rush a Weak Deal Pitfall: Trump’s push for a quick resolution—freezing lines and conceding territory—risks locking in Russian gains, signaling that aggression pays off. His February 19, 2025, BBC comment that Russia “has the cards” underestimates Ukraine’s resilience and hands Putin a propaganda win without forcing real compromise. Advice: Ramp up military aid—drones, long-range missiles, air defenses—for three to six months before finalizing talks. This strengthens Ukraine’s hand (e.g., replicating the Kursk surprise) and pressures Russia into a fairer bargain, avoiding a Minsk-style flop that unravels fast. Why It’s Worth It: A deal from strength deters future invasions and burnishes Trump’s image as a tough negotiator, not a capitulator—key for his legacy and global credibility.
Secure Enforceable Guarantees, Not Just a Handshake Pitfall: Trump’s plan, as leaked via strana.today, leans on neutrality and troop pullbacks without ironclad security for Ukraine. Excluding NATO or firm U.S. commitments leaves Kyiv exposed—Putin’s violated every post-1991 agreement (Budapest Memorandum, Minsk) when it suited him. Advice: Push for a binding multilateral pact—think U.S.-UK-France troop rotations in Ukraine or automatic sanctions triggers if Russia reattacks. Pair it with economic carrots for Moscow (e.g., phased tariff relief) tied to compliance. Why It’s Worth It: This balances Trump’s dealmaking flair with durability, preventing a repeat war that could tank his “peace in 24 hours” brag and drag the U.S. back in later.
Loop in Allies Fully, Don’t Go Lone Wolf Pitfall: Sidelining Europe and initially Ukraine (e.g., his solo Putin call on February 12) alienates partners who’ve bankrolled much of the war effort—$100 billion-plus from the EU versus U.S. aid. It risks fracturing NATO unity and leaving Trump isolated if talks falter. Advice: Host a broader summit—Saudi Arabia works—where Zelenskyy, NATO leaders, and Putin’s team hash it out together. Let allies co-own the process, sharing costs and credit. Why It’s Worth It: Unity amplifies pressure on Russia and spreads responsibility. Trump still gets the spotlight as the deal’s architect, but with less blowback if Putin balks—smart politics and strategy.
These tweaks elevate Trump’s approach from a rushed fix to a robust win, aligning his instincts with the war’s brutal realities. They’d give him a shot at a historic triumph that lasts, not just a photo-op that fades.
Grok seems quite intelligent.
I wonder how long it will be before AI models become the most valuable political and economic advisors we can use?
I was especially impressed with the eloquent wisdom shared in the last paragraph in Grok’s first response to me, “In short, the best path forward combines arming Ukraine to hold its ground, pursuing phased diplomacy with clear red lines, and securing enforceable guarantees—acknowledging that peace without strength risks being temporary, while strength without talks prolongs suffering. The war’s end remains uncertain, but Ukraine’s resilience and Western resolve will shape its terms.”
If you asked me, we (and more specifically those with power and influence) should already be paying attention to what these intelligent machines have to say.
__
*The two images shared with this post were created by Grok to go with the questions I asked above.
There have been hundreds of movies made that include schoolyard bullies. Basically they rule the roost and get away with everything until either one brave kid or a band of misfits decide they aren’t going to take it anymore. Then the bully gets what’s due to him and is put in his place. The movie bully always gets served a good dose of justice and everybody feels good about it.
In the grown up world, away from the playground, away from the movie, big screen happy endings, it doesn’t always end up that way.
No, here a corporation can get away with polluting the land, and causing people to get sick for decades. Here, in the real world, hundreds of people can knowingly cause a housing mortgage crisis that bankrupts millions of people and one, just one scapegoat gets some jail time, while the rest got years of bonuses.
And now we have the Prime Minister of Canada being disrespectfully called the 51st Governor, and the renaming of the Gulf of Mexico. We have a man in the most powerful position in the world conducting peace talks with another bully, while simultaneously leaving the victim out of the talks and wrongfully identifying the victim as starting the fight.
I don’t see a movie ending to this. I see a bully getting away with what he wants for about 4 years. Sure there will be pushback, but all bullies do when they are pushed back is double down. No apologies, no remorse, no change in behavior. The world has digressed to schoolyard rules, and is severely lacking in adult supervision.
We aren’t living in a feel good revenge of the nerds style movie, we are living in a Shakespearean tragic comedy. There will be laughs along the way, but when the show comes to an end the outcome for those involved will be very disappointing.
If we want to see the feel good movie ending, it won’t be one hero protagonist saving the day. No it will be the band of brothers all standing up to the schoolyard bully. It will be all the kids in the schoolyard saying, ‘That’s enough!” It will be his own little gang deciding that he’s not worth supporting. It didn’t happen the first time around, maybe it will happen this time… but I’m not betting on it. I’m looking around the school yard and I just don’t see enough kids banding together, and I definitely don’t see enough adult supervision.
One of the ironies of scienceis that when you hold a theory to be true, you can base your factual understanding around that theory.
The Theory of Relativity is just a theory, but we can prove at least part of it because time moves slower for faster moving objects, and if we didn’t scientifically account for this, GPS wouldn’t work because we need to make adjustments for this on satellites. Not all aspects of all theories are that easy to prove, and scientists spend entire careers trying to produce evidence for theories.
Some are true scientists and if they come up with evidence that does not support their theory and understanding of the world, they seek another theory. They abandon the theory that is no longer supported be evidence.
Other pseudoscientists will have every possible reason and justification why the new evidence is wrong. They will defend a broken/falsified theory. They will ignore the concrete evidence and double down on the theory they support.
I can rewrite this entire message starting with,
“One of the ironies of politics is that when you hold a political party’s stance to be true, you can base your factual understanding around that stance.”
…And no matter which party is supported, the bias will lead to pseudo-beliefs. Supporters will ignore the concrete evidence and double down on the stance they support. Except it’s worse, because the theories/stances they support are based on inherent biases rather than facts.
The problem here is that we are in an era where political stance is more influential than scientific theories and facts. Identity matters more than evidence, more than decades of theoretical research, more than facts. And so we have debates that make comparisons of unequal dichotomies.
We have debates between scientists and morons: scientists and flat earthers; scientists and climate change deniers; scientists and religious zealots. And the fact that we have these debates, the fact that we allow these debates to influence our policies, actions, and ultimately our thinking, all make us a little dumber, and a lot more open to influences that we should not waste our time on.
We’d all be better off letting go of identity politics and thinking about the validity of individual arguments. You can be left wing and agree that a country should have safe borders where thoughtful decisions are made about who comes into the country. You can be right wing and agree that women should have rights over their own bodies. You can be moderate and not be ‘othered’ by people on both political wings because of specific stances you hold that are not necessarily moderate.
Identify politics has no place influencing theories and facts. We need to think of politics the way good scientists think about theories: Seek out factual information and be prepared to change our minds if the evidence warrants us to change.
As we watch a trade war unfold with the USA imposing tariffs on goods from Canada, Mexico, and China, the people that will struggle the most are those that can least afford it. But make no mistake, the cost of living is going up for everyone. This will anger people, and it’s already showing up.
One of my favourite sports stories comes from a Toronto Maple Leaf versus the Nashville Predators hockey game back in November 2014. During the American National Anthem the sound system faltered and the Canadian fans finished singing the US anthem. Slightly over a decade later, I just saw a video clip from tonight’s game, where the Vancouver Canucks fans boo’d during the US anthem (they did cheer for the singer when the anthem was done).
I’m not an economist, and while I know we are going to see a hike in prices, I really don’t know what these US tariffs are going to mean long term? I don’t know how countries will retaliate? I don’t know what can get us back to trade normalcy?
But I want to live in a country where we have mutual respect for our (cooperative) neighbours. I want to be in a country where we finish an anthem of our neighbours rather than boo it. And I want to believe that we can find a way back there. I’m just not convinced the politicians in power will get us there any time soon.
For now the metaphorical gloves have come off, and petty fights have begun. Sure it’s just the booing of a national anthem right now, but that’s likely just the start of the anger, hate, and even vitriol to come. I just hope that the leaders taking us down this route will remember what it means to be good neighbours, and some time soon we’ll get back to being fans of each other… Neighbours in geography, geopolitics, friendly sports competition, and yes, even trade.
I’ve restarted writing this three times now. I’m not going to try again. I’ll let the ideas flow and just see where I end up.
I wish that I was surprised. I’m not. I’m disappointed. I’m saddened. But I’m really not surprised.
There are some amazing countries where freedom and equality are almost synonymous. There are countries where political differences do not polarize people into opposing factions. The United States of America is not one of them.
Why does it matter to me, a Canadian? Because ideas are memes that travel beyond borders. Because our biggest and only neighbour seems to be on the precipice of four years of strife, unease, and constant political banter. Because representation matters and I’m not a fan of what’s being represented.
We are entering an era of division. A polarized world where I have more questions than answers. Questions about global battles in Europe, the Middle East, and potentially Asia. About the battle for rights based on gender. A constant battle of words between ‘the left’ and ‘the right’.
I don’t foresee unity, I see a great divide. I foresee a constant and painful to watch news cycle that is filled with vitriol and malice. I hope not to see a loss of freedom, a ‘loss of Inalienable Rights’, which should be an oxymoron, but might not be. I hope for the best… I’m just not expecting it.
