When Moral Authority Dissolves

Look at Trump's recent Iran post! THIS, was presidential?

Just really look at it:

"Tuesday will be Power Plant Day, and Bridge Day, all wrapped up in one, in Iran. There will be nothing like it!!! Open the Fuckin' Strait, you crazy bastards, or you'll be living in Hell - JUST WATCH! Praise be to Allah. President DONALD J. TRUMP"

A sitting president threatening to destroy civilian infrastructure -- power plants, bridges -- in a sovereign nation, signing off with an Islamic devotional phrase as mockery or punchline, apparently unable to distinguish between the two. This is what moral collapse looks like when it goes fully public. Eighty words. No filter. No advisor willing or able to stop it. No institution with the standing to say: this is wrong.

How sad is it that to find moral leadership today -- in government, in the military, in corporate life -- one has to turn to religion? And how much sadder still when religion itself has been so thoroughly weaponized that even that refuge is compromised?

This administration did not invent the hollowing out of American institutions. But it has accelerated it past any previous threshold. What we are watching is kakistocracy -- rule by the least competent and least principled -- fused with plutocracy, the whole apparatus running on the fuel of toxic capitalism, where every decision, including war, is ultimately a business calculation dressed in apocalyptic costume. Throw in the technocrats who believe systems can be optimized without ethics, and you have the full picture: power without wisdom, force without conscience, religion without faith.

The Strait of Hormuz is about oil and shipping and global capital flows. The moral framing of this conflict -- whatever scraps of it exist -- is performance. The actual drivers are leverage and money and the interests of people who will not be anywhere near the explosions. "Praise be to Allah" is not diplomacy, not faith, not even coherent provocation. It is a man coming apart in public, with the launch codes nearby. That is the situation stated plainly.

And the institutions that should be able to say stop? Congress has abdicated. The cabinet is captured. The Joint Chiefs are navigating a minefield of loyalty tests. The press is managing access. So moral authority, when it surfaces at all, comes from the margins -- retired generals writing open letters, some clergy, some academics, the occasional senator willing to lose a primary over it. People drawing on frameworks that predate this administration and will, one hopes, outlast it.

The military's written code is largely secular -- the UCMJ, the officer's oath. But its moral culture runs deeper than its paperwork. When officers push back, they speak in language that sounds almost devotional: duty, honor, oath, service. It is not religion exactly, but it is the same impulse -- an appeal to something that transcends the moment and the man currently occupying the office.

That is what we are left searching for. Not a pastor, not a general, not a party. Something that holds when everything built to hold it has been deliberately dismantled.

The darker question underneath all of this: what does it say about secular democratic institutions that they have become so hollowed out that pre-Enlightenment frameworks are now doing more ethical heavy lifting than the entire apparatus of the American government?

"Praise be to Allah."

Trump thought that was funny. Or threatening. Or both. He cannot tell the difference anymore. Neither, it seems, can the people around him.

Watch out for what this petty little autocrat pulls next on Tuesday.

We can make America great again...just not with this mob boss style leadership.

Cheers! Sláinte! Na zdravie! 

Corporate Thought - The Corporation, 14 Years Later: The Thought That Ate the World

Back in 2011, I wrote a blog (Occupy Your World - 2011) that “The Corporation” — or more precisely, Corporate Thought — had infected our culture like a cancer. I first started talking about it when I graduated university in 1984. My older brother asked me, "OK, so what did you learn? What should I be watching out for?" I thought it an odd question as I'd learned so much. But I thought about it said, "The corporations. More than countries, start watching them closely." 

A decade later he reminded me of that conversation and said I had been correct.

I warned that what began as a legal fiction designed to organize production and protect owners had metastasized into something more insidious: a mindset. A way of thinking that valued profit above all else, even above life itself.

Fourteen years later, I wish I’d been wrong.

Corporate Thought: The Quiet Religion of the 21st Century

In 2011, “Corporate Thought” was still something you could name without being laughed out of the room. Now it’s simply the default. Governments are run by CEOs or those who want to be one. Schools teach “personal branding” before civics. Healthcare is optimized for shareholders, not patients. The human being — that messy, emotional, unquantifiable thing — is now a data point, a “user,” a metric to be mined.

When I said Corporate Thought had infected our culture, I didn’t realize how fully it would colonize our language. We don’t even talk like citizens anymore — we talk like middle managers. “Scalability.” “Monetize.” “Brand loyalty.” “ROI.” We talk about people like products, and about products like people.

The result is a society incapable of moral imagination. Everything must perform. Everything must scale. Even compassion must show “impact.”

It didn’t stop at business. Corporate Thought crept into our schools and our churches — the very places meant to nurture minds and souls, not markets. Education now functions like a corporate training pipeline, producing “career-ready” workers instead of critically thinking citizens. Metrics replaced curiosity. Creativity got labeled “disruptive.” Children learn early that compliance earns approval, and questioning the system is a liability.

Religion fared no better. Many congregations now resemble franchises more than faiths, with branding strategies, merchandise tables, and “growth targets.” The gospel of compassion has been quietly repackaged as the gospel of prosperity — salvation by way of quarterly performance. Even worship feels algorithmic: lights, music cues, applause. It’s Corporate Thought wrapped in stained glass, a business model disguised as belief.

And from that corporatized faith grew something even more dangerous: the merger of evangelicalism with nationalism, a branding campaign that sold political power as divine right. What began as moral language twisted into a management strategy for control — a way to sanctify hierarchy and erase dissent. Christian nationalism has invaded government, law enforcement, even the military, wrapping political ambition in the language of salvation. It’s not faith guiding policy anymore; it’s ideology masquerading as religion, a corporate hostile takeover of the sacred and the state alike.

The 2011 Blog Was Right About Healthcare

I wrote in 2011 that the healthcare system wasn’t “broken” — it was working exactly as designed: for profit. That’s still true. Only now it’s turbocharged by private equity, algorithmic triage, and “wellness metrics” that rank you as a risk before you’ve even sneezed.

Corporate Thought turned medicine into a business plan, and that plan has eaten the doctor’s soul.

Work, Life, and the Vanishing Dream

I also asked in 2011 why we couldn’t have four-day workweeks, long vacations, early retirements. The answer came, loud and clear: Because there’s no profit in it. 

Government should work not just to protect but to better the lives of its citizens.

Today, “work-life balance” is a marketing phrase for apps that track your pulse while you sleep. The same corporations that stole our time now sell it back to us as “wellness subscriptions.” The dream of retiring at 50 has become the nightmare of gigging at 70.

And About Cannabis…

Here, at least, there was progress — partial, imperfect, but real. Cannabis is now legal in most of the U.S. and globally normalized. You called it in 2011: the end of prohibition was inevitable. It just took a few more waves of economic desperation and corporate co-opting.

But even this victory has a shadow. The “Green Rush” was quickly absorbed by — yes — corporate thought. Weed is now a billion-dollar commodity owned by the same conglomerates that lobbied to criminalize it decades ago. The revolution was branded and sold back to us in recyclable packaging.

2025: The Year of Reckoning

We are now watching hopefully the final stages of Corporate Thought — its own self-consumption. The planet, the workforce, and the markets are exhausted. Climate lawsuits are coming for Big Oil. Antitrust is back in political vocabulary. Unions are rising again, not because of ideology but necessity. The machine is running out of parts.

And yet, people are remembering what you hinted at in 2011: that it’s not corporations themselves that destroy us, but our obedience to their logic. The quiet surrender of our humanity to “efficiency.”

Maybe, Just Maybe…

In 2011, I ended by saying, “Maybe, lighten up. Better times may be just ahead.” At the time, we had President Obama — and another term to follow in 2012. Democracy felt steady, even hopeful. But beneath that optimism, darker forces were gathering. 

Those shadows finally erupted under Trump as POTUS45, were held at bay during the Biden years, and have now returned under a criminal Trump POTUS47 administration — a test of whether American democracy can survive the very forces it once empowered. 

In 2025, I’d say: maybe wake up. Better minds may be just ahead. With the election of November 5th, 2025, hope springs up as the authoritarian, the Corporate Thought, is being restrained and hopefully made more aware in the general populace and we'll finally get this all under control. The old guard is too old, their beliefs outdated. 

We need to let younger minds rise and give them space to lead — to move forward where we’ve stalled. The goal isn’t to turn government into communism or socialism, but to finally let it become what it was meant to be: not a servant of toxic capitalism, cronyism, or broken conservatism, but a true instrument of democracy and the common good.

The same revolution we needed then. back in 2011 — moral, cultural, not merely economic — is still waiting. 

The question is whether we’ll take it before Corporate Thought finishes digesting its host. US.

Cheers! Sláinte! Na zdravie!

Compiled with aid of ChatGPT

The Take It Down Act and the Real Fight Ahead

Social media has become the magnifying glass on every social upheaval. The choice is whether it fuels democracy or destruction. And whether we let it, or not.

We hear a lot about internet “algorithms” pushing people into echo chambers rather th7an toward truth, logic, or reality. And I keep asking myself: why is this so hard to fix? Couldn’t Congress simply pass a law requiring platforms to guide people toward reality instead of reinforcing their biases?

Then I look at what they have done, and what they haven’t.

---

The Take It Down Act: Proof Congress Can Move

In May 2025, Congress passed and President Trump signed the Take It Down Act. The law was bipartisan and straightforward: it criminalizes the distribution of non-consensual intimate images, including deepfakes, and forces platforms to remove them within 48 hours of notice.

That’s meaningful. It’s real protection for victims of online exploitation. And it shows Congress can move quickly when there’s broad agreement about harm.

---

What It Doesn’t Do

Here’s the catch: the law’s scope is very narrow. It addresses one type of online abuse… “revenge porn” and deepfake sexual images. It does not touch the algorithms that drive conspiracy theories, political radicalization, or misinformation.

Why? Because the second you move from “intimate images” to “misinformation,” everything explodes into partisan fights and First Amendment debates. Who decides what’s real? What about political speech? What about corporate profit motives?

---

Algorithms Are the Real Problem

Social media platforms aren’t neutral bulletin boards. Their recommendation engines amplify outrage and division because outrage makes money. If you click on one partisan video, the algorithm serves you more, tightening the loop. Engagement equals profit.

The result is echo chambers that corrode democracy, where people live inside a 30 percent slice of facts surrounded by 70 percent spin.

---

Why Congress Won’t Fix It

Profit: Big Tech thrives on division. Regulation would hurt their bottom line.

Power: Movements like MaGA rely on these echo chambers. Leaders who benefit from them have no incentive to change the rules.

Politics: Regulating “truth” online runs straight into free speech fights, even when the speech is demonstrably false or manipulated. Donald Trump’s so-called ‘Truth Social’ and the ‘Truths’ he posts there are nothing more than an offensive front for ever more cruelty and lies, an affront to this nation and humanity at large in continuing his manufactured delusions as “reality” and “truth”.

So instead of confronting the deeper issue, Congress picks easier, narrower targets like intimate image abuse, where consensus is easier to find.

---

The Bigger Picture

The Take It Down Act proves one thing: Congress can legislate online behavior when it wants to. But it also proves how limited their appetite is for tackling the real forces warping our democracy.

Until we demand more, algorithms will keep steering millions away from truth and into self-designed echo boxes, while the people profiting off that distortion smile all the way to the bank.

---

Shame, Power, and Toxic Capitalism

Donald Trump’s MaGA-style autocratic personality cult has been engineered to mirror his own numbness to shame and his own psychological defects. Corporations are not built that way.

They fear lost profits, lost credibility, and lost talent. The task is to turn toxic capitalism against itself, forcing it to lean into its defects until it becomes more pro-social, more pro-people. Demand transparency, pressure advertisers, insist on accountability, and change will follow.

---

Change and Violence

We also have to recognize that big social changes often fuel violence. When those changes are illiberal or outright autocratic, the harm is not accidental…it is built into the change itself. Social media doesn’t just witness these upheavals, it amplifies them, concentrating their energy like a lens. That is why these companies cannot pretend neutrality. They are active participants in shaping whether change drives us toward democracy and connection, or toward chaos and destruction.

Social media companies, which now own the channels of that change, must understand they are the magnifying glass on an already blinding light, focusing its energy directly onto all of us. Simply deplatforming people doesn’t solve the deeper problem.

It treats the internet itself as the enemy, as if nothing more can be done. In reality, these platforms already have the tools to turn the volume up or down. The choice is whether they use that power only to enrich their own pockets, or to enrich all of us in our relationships with one another, with those companies, and with our democracy.

---

The Real Fight

The Take It Down Act was deliberately small, a tiny step, but an important crack in the wall of toxicity. The fight ahead is bigger: forcing social media to serve democracy, not just its own addiction.

Either we make these companies, and our government, feel the pain of their choices, until they realize that leaning toward us, not away, is good for them and for us, or we let them all keep profiting from our destruction.

In the end, that choice is ours.

Cheers! Sláinte! Na zdravie!

Compiled with aid of ChatGPT

The Demise of America: Commercialization of News From Public Service to Toxically Profit-Driven Nightmare

Who allowed news to transition from being a network loss leader to a for-profit, 24-hour operation, paving the way for the decline of accurate reporting? A shift that turned news into opinion-driven shows, prioritizing what the public wants to hear over the essential truths they need to know.

The shift of news from a public service or network loss leader to a for-profit, 24-hour model is often attributed to a combination of changes in legislation, technology, and market dynamics:

1. The Repeal of the Fairness Doctrine (1987)
   The Fairness Doctrine, established by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in 1949, required broadcasters to present controversial issues of public importance in a fair and balanced manner. Its repeal in 1987 removed this obligation, leading to the rise of opinion-driven news programming.

2. Cable News and the Rise of 24-Hour News Networks
   The launch of CNN in 1980 marked the beginning of 24-hour news. Cable television's business model relied on subscription fees and advertising revenue, incentivizing networks to focus on stories that drew viewership, often favoring sensationalism or polarizing topics over in-depth reporting.

3. Telecommunications Act of 1996
   Signed into law by President Bill Clinton, this act deregulated the telecommunications industry, allowing for greater media consolidation. Large corporations bought up multiple news outlets, further prioritizing profitability over journalistic integrity.

4. The "Profit Center" Model
   Historically, network news divisions were treated as loss leaders—a public service provided by networks to meet FCC licensing requirements. This changed in the 1980s when networks began viewing news divisions as potential profit centers. This shift was driven by executives seeking to maximize shareholder value.

The Results:

• Entertainment Over Information: News began to compete directly with entertainment for ratings, leading to more sensationalism and opinion-driven content.
• Echo Chambers: The focus on profitability encouraged targeting specific demographics, reinforcing viewers’ existing biases and creating polarized audiences.
• Erosion of Public Trust: As news became a commodity, trust in media declined, with many viewing outlets as prioritizing profits over public service.

These changes fundamentally altered the landscape of journalism, prioritizing market demands over the dissemination of unbiased, accurate information.

Rupert Murdoch's establishment of Fox News in 1996 marked a significant shift in American media, particularly in its approach to serving a conservative audience. Murdoch, alongside founding CEO Roger Ailes, aimed to create a network that would dominate the conservative media landscape. Fox News quickly rose to prominence by presenting sensationalized, emotionally charged stories that often prioritized audience engagement over factual accuracy. Its strategy included crafting narratives that aligned with conservative ideologies, creating a loyal viewer base while heavily influencing public opinion and political discourse.

Fox News employed a business model focused on high ratings, choosing topics and framing them in ways that appealed to its target demographic, often amplifying polarizing issues. This approach extended to opinion programming, with prominent hosts using their platforms to push conservative talking points, sometimes at the expense of journalistic objectivity. The network's success in blending news and entertainment reshaped the industry, encouraging other outlets to adopt similar strategies to compete​

TheWrap

​

The Independent

Murdoch’s control over Fox News has been instrumental in shaping its editorial direction, focusing on stories that resonate emotionally with its audience regardless of broader societal consequences. This model has drawn criticism for spreading misinformation and contributing to political polarization in the United States​

The Independent

The ongoing struggle over succession within the Murdoch family also highlights concerns about the future of Fox News. Lachlan Murdoch, Rupert's eldest son and his preferred successor, is seen as committed to the conservative vision of the network. However, internal family disputes may challenge this trajectory, potentially reshaping Fox News' role in American media​

It's speculative to determine exactly how America would have fared without Fox News, but the network's influence has undeniably shaped the political, cultural, and media landscape. Without Fox News:

1. Media Landscape:

   • The dominance of conservative-leaning news could have been less centralized, potentially giving rise to multiple smaller outlets instead of a singular dominant voice.
   • Cable news might have evolved differently, with less focus on partisan opinion-driven programming. The "infotainment" approach, heavily popularized by Fox, may have developed more slowly or taken a different form.

2. Political Polarization:

   • Fox News has played a major role in amplifying partisan divides by framing issues through a conservative lens and creating an "us versus them" narrative. Without this, political polarization might not have reached the same levels, though other factors (e.g., social media) also contribute significantly.

3. Elections and Policy:

   • The network's influence on elections, particularly in mobilizing conservative voters, has been profound. Its absence could have impacted outcomes like the 2000 and 2016 presidential elections, where Fox News coverage and narratives were pivotal in shaping public opinion.
   • Policy debates might have been less influenced by sensationalism and more centered on consensus-building.

4. Public Trust in Media:

   • Fox News has been accused of spreading misinformation and eroding trust in mainstream journalism. Without it, public trust in traditional news outlets might have been higher, reducing skepticism toward verified information and fact-based reporting.

5. Social Issues:

   • Cultural and social debates—such as those surrounding immigration, gun rights, and healthcare—may have unfolded with less sensational framing, potentially leading to different public perceptions and policy outcomes.

However, it's important to note that Fox News filled a preexisting demand for conservative perspectives in media. In its absence, other outlets might have emerged to fill this void, and the broader trends of commercialization and sensationalism in news were already underway. Fox News capitalized on these dynamics, but it did not create them entirely. The rise of social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter would also have played a major role in reshaping discourse, even without Fox News.

Ultimately, while Fox News has been a significant driver of the current media and political climate, other factors and outlets might have filled the gap, leading to different but perhaps equally complex challenges.

It's important to point out however, none did. Though OAN, Newsmax, and RT (Russia Today) have tried, and failed.

Now this, as Rupert ages out of humanity (or had decades ago...), trying to maintain the disreputable and illiberal, lying format of Fox News by putting his child puppet in his place. However, his other children are not so topically corruptly capitalistic and democracy-hating. Just sayin'...

Rupert Murdoch's attempts to solidify control of his media empire through his eldest son, Lachlan, have faced significant setbacks. Recently, a Nevada court commissioner blocked Murdoch's effort to amend the family trust in a way that would strip voting power from his other three children—James, Elisabeth, and Prudence—and ensure Lachlan's dominance. 

The court found this move to be a "carefully crafted charade" designed to cement Lachlan's position and preserve the conservative editorial stance of Fox News and other Murdoch-controlled outlets. The ruling maintains the current trust structure, giving all four children an equal voice in decisions following Rupert's eventual passing​.

This decision reflects internal family disputes over the future of the Murdoch empire. While Lachlan aligns closely with his father’s conservative ideology, James and Elisabeth are known for holding more moderate political views, which could influence the direction of Fox News and other properties if they gain more control​.

These developments have raised questions about the long-term stability and editorial direction of the Murdoch media empire, particularly as Lachlan faces challenges from within his own family. This internal strife underscores the broader implications for Fox News and its influence on American and global politics.

Hopefully, Fox News, under the control of more sane, reasonable, decent Murdoch offspring, will die the toxic conservative death of Reality and Actual Real NEWS America deserves...and Rupert so despises.

Compiled with the aid of ChatGPT