Meta’s AI Gamble: Hype or Hubris?

 

Meta’s AI Gamble: Hype or Hubris?

Meta’s latest earnings call was a masterclass in optimism, with their leadership painting a rosy picture of an AI-driven utopia. Over 3.4 billion people use their apps daily—Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp, and the ascendant Threads, now at 350 million monthly users. They’re raking in cash, and they’re betting big on artificial intelligence to keep the party going. But let’s pump the brakes. Their five-pronged AI strategy—improved advertising, engaging experiences, business messaging, Meta AI, and AI devices—sounds like a sci-fi dream. The question is: can they pull it off, or is this a house of cards waiting to collapse? Here’s a skeptical take on their vision, plus a grim outline of how it could all go spectacularly wrong.

A Shaky Foundation

Meta’s user base is massive, sure, but growth doesn’t equal stability. With 3.4 billion daily users, they’re a titan, but macroeconomic uncertainty looms large. They’re pouring billions into AI, banking on it to transform their ecosystem. But what if the economy tanks or regulators crack down? Their confidence feels more like bravado when you consider the risks of over-leveraging on unproven tech. AI’s transformative potential is real, but so is the chance of catastrophic missteps.

Opportunity 1: Advertising, or Surveillance on Steroids?

Meta claims AI will revolutionize advertising by letting businesses set goals—like selling products or acquiring customers—while their algorithms do the heavy lifting. They’re already outperforming businesses at targeting audiences, with a new Reels ads model boosting conversions by 5% and 30% more advertisers using AI creative tools last quarter. Sounds efficient, right? Too bad it’s a privacy nightmare.

How it could go wrong: AI-driven advertising could amplify surveillance capitalism, mining ever-deeper user data to predict behavior with chilling accuracy. If Meta’s algorithms get too good, they risk alienating users who feel like pawns in a dystopian ad machine. A single data breach or regulatory slap—like GDPR on steroids—could cripple their ad business. And if advertisers grow dependent on Meta’s AI, smaller players might get squeezed out, stifling competition and inviting antitrust scrutiny. The dream of AI ads boosting global GDP could morph into a monopolistic stranglehold.

Opportunity 2: Engagement, or Addiction by Design?

Meta’s AI is making their platforms stickier. Recommendation system tweaks have spiked time spent on Facebook by 7%, Instagram by 6%, and Threads by a staggering 35%. They’re not just optimizing existing content; they’re cooking up interactive formats that “talk back” to users. The vision is a feed that’s less about scrolling and more about dynamic engagement. But let’s call it what it is: engineering addiction.

How it could go wrong: Hyper-engaging AI could trap users in echo chambers, amplifying misinformation and polarization. Interactive content might sound cool, but if it’s too immersive, it risks eroding attention spans and mental health—especially for younger users. Regulators are already eyeing social media’s impact on well-being; a misstep could trigger bans or restrictions. And if AI-generated content floods feeds, authentic human connection could drown in a sea of algorithmically curated noise. The “richer experiences” Meta promises might just mean richer profits at the expense of our sanity.

Opportunity 3: Business Messaging, or a Pipe Dream?

Meta sees business messaging as their next big revenue stream. WhatsApp’s 3 billion monthly users and Messenger’s billion are already commerce hubs in places like Thailand and Vietnam. AI, they claim, will make this model viable in developed markets by automating customer support and sales. Soon, every business might have an AI agent, as ubiquitous as an email address. Sounds transformative—until you dig deeper.

How it could go wrong: Scaling AI-driven messaging in wealthier markets assumes flawless execution, but AI agents are notoriously prone to errors. A botched customer interaction could tank a brand’s reputation, and businesses might balk at entrusting sales to Meta’s black box. Privacy concerns loom large—users might revolt if their chats become ad fodder. And in a crowded market, competitors like Slack or Google could outmaneuver Meta. If labor costs don’t drop as expected, this pillar could crumble, leaving Meta with a costly experiment and no payoff.

Opportunity 4: Meta AI, or a Solution Looking for a Problem?

Meta AI is a hit, with nearly a billion monthly users across their apps. They’re pushing for a personalized, voice-driven assistant that’s part entertainment, part companion. The new standalone Meta AI app, complete with a social feed, aims to make it a daily staple. But do we really need another AI buddy, especially one tied to Meta’s data-hungry empire?

How it could go wrong: Personalization sounds great until it’s creepy. If Meta AI leans too heavily on user data from Reels or chats, it could spark a backlash over privacy. Voice interactions might flop if the tech isn’t seamless—think Siri’s early days, but worse. The app’s social feed risks becoming a gimmick if users don’t bite. And when Meta shifts to monetization (ads or premium tiers), they’ll need to avoid alienating users who expect free services. If competitors like Google or Apple deliver a better AI, Meta’s billion users could jump ship, leaving this venture dead in the water.

Opportunity 5: AI Devices, or a Billion-Dollar Bet?

Meta’s banking on glasses as the next computing frontier. Ray-Ban Meta AI glasses have tripled sales, and new launches with EssilorLuxottica promise more bells and whistles. These devices let AI see, hear, and interact in real-time, blending physical and digital worlds. Quest 3S is democratizing VR, too. But glasses as the “ideal form factor”? That’s a stretch.

How it could go wrong: AI glasses sound futuristic, but adoption hinges on affordability and utility. If they’re too pricey or clunky, they’ll flop like Google Glass. Privacy is a massive hurdle—glasses that see and hear everything could freak out users and regulators alike. Technical glitches, like laggy holograms or battery drain, could kill the vibe. VR’s niche appeal might not scale, and if Meta’s ecosystem doesn’t integrate seamlessly, these devices could become expensive paperweights. A misstep here could burn billions, echoing Meta’s metaverse misadventures.

The Llama in the Room

Meta’s AI ambitions rest on their Llama 4 models, touted as top-tier in intelligence, efficiency, and multi-modality. The upcoming Llama 4 Behemoth model sounds impressive, but it’s a means, not an end. Their pursuit of “full general intelligence” is a moonshot, and moonshots often crash. Accelerating infrastructure investments to keep up with rivals like OpenAI or Google is a gamble that could strain finances if the ROI doesn’t materialize.

How it could go wrong: If Llama 4 underperforms or gets outclassed, Meta’s entire strategy falters. Infrastructure costs could spiral, especially if AI training demands keep skyrocketing. Ethical lapses—like biased models or unintended consequences—could spark public outrage and lawsuits. And if general intelligence remains elusive, Meta’s downstream opportunities (ads, messaging, devices) could stall, leaving them with a pricey tech stack and little to show for it.

The Doomsday Scenario

Meta’s AI vision is ambitious, but the risks are colossal. A perfect storm could look like this: privacy scandals erode user trust, triggering mass exodus from their platforms. Regulators, smelling blood, impose crippling fines or break up Meta’s empire. AI glitches—think rogue ad algorithms or faulty messaging bots—alienate businesses and tank revenue. Glasses and VR fail to catch on, burning cash reserves. Meanwhile, competitors outpace Meta’s models, rendering Llama obsolete. The result? A humbled giant, hemorrhaging users and relevance, with AI’s promise reduced to a cautionary tale.

A Reality Check

Meta’s leadership calls this a “pivotal moment,” but their enthusiasm feels like a sales pitch. The AI revolution is real, but so are the pitfalls. Privacy concerns, technical hurdles, and cutthroat competition could derail their grand plans. They’re betting billions on a future where AI seamlessly integrates into our lives, but the line between innovation and overreach is thin. If Meta stumbles, the fallout could be brutal—for them and the billions who rely on their platforms. For now, I’m keeping my popcorn ready and my skepticism sharper.

The Storm of Elon Musk: A Short Biography

 

Here's an interesting experiment: I put in a transcript of videos about Musk into his own AI engine, Grok, and asked it a few other questions and told it to write this post as a kind of short book.

This is what his own service says about him:

The Storm of Elon Musk: A Biography

Chapter 1: A Stormy Beginning
Elon Musk’s mind has always been a tempest, a swirling chaos of ideas and ambitions that few could comprehend. Born in the summer of 1971 in South Africa, his childhood was marked by relentless bullying for being scrawny and nerdy. The playground was no sanctuary; he was punched in the face, beaten so badly once that he landed in the hospital. The scars, both physical and emotional, were deepened by his father’s cruelty. After one brutal beating at school, Elon returned home only to face over an hour of beratement, his father calling him stupid and blaming him for the attack. These early traumas forged a resilience in Elon, but also a storm that would rage within him for decades.
Contrary to rumors, Elon’s family was not wealthy. The myth of a rich father owning emerald mines was just that—a myth. His father imported emeralds, but the family struggled financially. What Elon did possess was an extraordinary aptitude for computers. At 12, he taught himself to program, creating a video game he sold to a magazine for $500. This was his first foray into the world of technology, a spark that would ignite his lifelong obsession with pushing the boundaries of what humans could achieve.
By 18, Elon left South Africa for Canada, eventually landing in Pennsylvania to study economics and physics. His academic journey was brief; at 24, he moved to California for a PhD at Stanford but abandoned it to chase a bigger dream—building something that would change the world.

Chapter 2: The Rise of an Empire
Elon’s first venture, Zip2, was a bold step into the tech world. Founded in 1995 with his brother, it provided maps and business directories for online newspapers—a precursor to Google Maps. The company’s success was staggering; it was acquired for $307 million, with Elon pocketing $22 million. Suddenly, he was rich, but he was far from satisfied.
With his newfound wealth, Elon founded X.com, an online bank that would evolve into PayPal. In 2002, eBay acquired it for $1.5 billion, netting Elon $180 million. Now super-rich, he turned his sights to audacious ideas. He allocated half his fortune to three ventures: SpaceX, Tesla, and SolarCity. Each was a gamble with less than a 10% chance of success, but Elon thrived on risk.
SpaceX aimed to make humans a multi-planetary species, a childhood dream rooted in video games about space. Tesla sought to mainstream electric cars, while SolarCity pushed for sustainable energy. These ventures were not just businesses; they were manifestations of Elon’s belief in humanity’s potential to transcend earthly limits. Despite early failures—SpaceX’s first three launches failed, and Tesla’s manufacturing was a nightmare—Elon’s addiction to intensity drove him forward. SpaceX pioneered reusable rockets, transforming space travel. Tesla revolutionized the auto industry, becoming one of the world’s most valuable companies. By the early 2020s, Elon was the richest man alive, his empire a testament to his relentless vision.

Chapter 3: The X Factor
Elon’s success was not just about money or ideas; it was about his unique approach to leadership. He was obsessed with details, spending 90% of his time on technical problems, whiteboarding with engineers late into the night. He questioned everything, from rocket components to manufacturing processes, driving costs down through sheer interrogation. At SpaceX, he discovered inflated rocket prices and built 70% of the components in-house, saving millions. At Tesla, he made patents open-source, betting that a booming electric vehicle market would benefit his company.
But Elon’s leadership was a double-edged sword. His ruthless idealism attracted brilliant minds, but his abrasive style made working for him grueling. He’d demand six-month projects be completed in 90 days, dismissing protests as excuses. Employees described him as both inspiring and cruel, a man who cared deeply about humanity but little for individual humans. His behavior, often attributed to his undiagnosed autism spectrum traits, could cross into bullying and coercion, leaving a trail of burned-out colleagues.

Chapter 4: The Twitter Storm
In 2022, Elon made his most controversial move: buying Twitter for $44 billion. He claimed it was about free speech, arguing that Twitter, based in liberal San Francisco, was infected with left-leaning bias and censored by governments. He envisioned a platform where all voices could thrive, a bulwark against tyranny.
But the reality was messier. Elon fired half of Twitter’s staff, demanding “extremely hardcore” work from those who remained. He unbanned controversial figures like Donald Trump and Marjorie Taylor Greene, but his commitment to free speech was inconsistent. He banned Substack links, labeled “cisgender” a slur, and sued critics like the Center for Countering Digital Hate. Most shockingly, he complied with government censorship requests—such as Turkey’s demand to block critics during an election—at a higher rate than the old Twitter, despite his anti-censorship rhetoric.
Data debunked his claim of liberal bias; studies showed Twitter amplified conservative voices more than liberal ones. The Twitter Files revealed some left-leaning censorship, like the suppression of a Hunter Biden story, but Elon’s response was to wield his own megaphone, boosting extreme ideas and propaganda. His actions suggested a deeper motive: a love for crisis and attention, a need to stir the pot.

Chapter 5: The Political Pivot and DOGE Controversies (August 2024–April 2025)
From August 2024 to April 2025, Elon Musk’s influence took a dramatic turn as he plunged into U.S. politics, becoming a central figure in President Donald Trump’s second term. His role as the head of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), an advisory body created by Trump’s executive order, placed him at the forefront of a controversial mission to slash federal spending and reshape the government. This period was marked by unprecedented political engagement, legal battles, and conflicts of interest that further polarized public opinion about Musk.
Political Powerhouse
Musk emerged as the biggest donor in the 2024 U.S. election, pouring over $291 million into Republican candidates, political action committees, and conservative organizations, including $250 million to support Trump’s campaign. His America PAC spent heavily, notably injecting over $20 million into a Wisconsin Supreme Court race in March 2025, using controversial tactics like offering $100 to petition signers against “activist judges.” These moves cemented Musk’s role as a political kingmaker, but they also drew scrutiny for blurring the lines between his business interests and political influence.
DOGE: A Radical Experiment
DOGE, tasked with cutting government waste and modernizing IT systems, became a lightning rod for controversy. Musk promised to save $1 trillion, later scaling back to $150–$160 billion, but the group’s accounting was criticized for errors and inflated claims. DOGE’s actions included shuttering agencies like USAID, defunding programs, and offering buyouts to over two million federal employees, with some firings later reversed. Musk’s team, largely young tech workers with ties to his companies, accessed sensitive data across agencies, raising alarms about privacy and conflicts of interest, especially given Musk’s federal contracts with SpaceX and Tesla.
Notably, Department of Transportation employees supporting SpaceX and Starlink launches were spared from cuts, fueling accusations of favoritism. Musk’s claims of uncovering unemployment benefit fraud—such as payments to deceased or unborn claimants—were dismissed by experts as rehashed Biden-era findings, often mischaracterized as fraud. Posts on X from Musk, like one on February 10, 2025, boasted of canceling a $17 million tax policy project for Liberia, framing it as wasteful, but critics argued these cuts harmed humanitarian efforts.
Legal and Ethical Firestorms
DOGE’s aggressive tactics sparked lawsuits from federal unions and watchdog groups. A federal judge temporarily blocked some data access and buyout plans, citing violations of civil service protections. Ethics experts warned that Musk’s role as a “special government employee” risked breaching conflict-of-interest laws, given his stakes in SpaceX and Tesla. Musk’s lack of transparency—DOGE stopped sharing data on government requests by April 2023—and his public attacks on critics, including cabinet officials like Marco Rubio and Sean Duffy, further eroded trust.
Impact on Tesla and Public Perception
Musk’s political divisiveness took a toll on Tesla. By April 2025, Tesla reported a 71% profit plunge and a 13% drop in deliveries, with sales in California falling 11.6%. Consumers and investors, like New York City’s comptroller, cited Musk’s right-wing shift and DOGE role as distractions, with some Tesla owners publicly disavowing him through protest stickers. On April 22, 2025, Musk announced he would step back from DOGE to focus on Tesla, though he hinted at continued involvement through Trump’s term. Polls showed public support for cutting government waste but growing disapproval of Musk and DOGE’s chaotic approach.

Chapter 6: The Cost of Chaos
Elon’s Twitter and DOGE ventures were unlike his other companies. SpaceX and Tesla had clear metrics of success—rockets launched, cars drove. Twitter’s impact was intangible, tied to the fragile ecosystem of information. DOGE’s cuts, while popular with some, disrupted agencies and sparked legal chaos, costing an estimated $135 billion in firings, rehiring, and lost productivity. By amplifying divisive voices on X and pushing controversial policies, Musk was not just reshaping platforms and governments; he was undermining his own vision of advancing human civilization.
Former employees felt betrayed. They had rallied around his mission to push humanity forward, only to see him trade that idealism for controversy. His addiction to drama was now a liability, alienating allies, customers, and investors. Critics argued that his behavior validated the worst impulses in society, rewarding division over unity.
Yet Elon’s defenders insisted that only someone as unorthodox as him could change the world. His reinvention of electric cars and space travel was proof of his genius. But as he played with the levers of information and power, the stakes were higher, the consequences less predictable. The storm in Elon’s mind, once a force for innovation, was now a corrosive force, driving society further apart.

Chapter 7: The Paradox of Elon Musk
Elon Musk remains an enigma—a visionary who built an empire on the belief that humans can achieve the impossible, yet a man whose flaws threaten to unravel his legacy. His childhood scars fueled his ambition but left him addicted to conflict. His brilliance revolutionized industries, but his hypocrisy on free speech and penchant for bullying have alienated many. His political foray with DOGE, while impactful, exposed vulnerabilities in his judgment, with conflicts of interest and erratic leadership undermining his credibility.
As Twitter became X and DOGE reshaped government, Elon’s grand vision seemed to blur. Was he earnest about free speech or efficiency, or was it a pretext to feed his need for chaos? Did he truly believe in humanity’s potential, or was he simply chasing the next storm? The answers lie somewhere in the tempest of his mind, a place few can understand.
What is clear is that Elon Musk’s story is not just about one man. It’s about the delicate balance between genius and hubris, between pushing humanity forward and tearing it apart. As he continues to shape our world, the question remains: will his storm ultimately save civilization, or destroy it?

As of today, most with think the direction is the latter, not the former.

An excellent read from an ex-evangelical.

 

As you know, I once was an evangelical megachurch pastor and my pastoral career stretched over many years. Eventually, I could no longer teach Christian doctrine with a good conscience and realized this teaching was not truly changing people’s lives… and so I walked away from the whole enchilada. 

Below are 14 things that the misguided religious establishment doesn't want you to know. Speaking for myself and my personal experience, I was not able to see or admit these things to myself. I truly got into ministry initially because I wanted to make a difference and help people, and I relied upon the belief-system I learned as the proper framework to achieve this. It took a lot of post-religion reflection to see the ways this belief-system was hurting people. 

I offer the below list in hopes that you might disentangle yourself from harmful beliefs and attitudes impacting your life. 

14 things the misguided religious establishment doesn’t want you to know: 

1. Toxic religion is rooted in fear, especially fear about the afterlife. It leverages the false doctrine of hell to win converts and demand holiness. The fear of God's disapproval, rejection, abandonment and punishment is another hallmark of toxic religion. 

2. Clergy have no innate authority. Holding a church leadership position or having a theological degree does not imbue a person with special divine authority or superiority. The terms "anointed", "called", or "chosen" or titles such as "pastor", "priest", "bishop", "elder", "evangelist" or "apostle" do not confer any innate authority on an individual or group. 

3. We hold sacred what we are taught to hold sacred, which is why what is sacred to one community is not sacred to another. 

4. The stories in our sacred books aren’t history, nor were they meant to be. The authors of these books weren’t historians but writers of historical fiction: they used history (or pseudo history) as a context or pretext for their own ideas. Reading sacred texts as history may yield some nuggets of the past, but the real gold is in seeing these stories as myth and parable, and trying to unpack the possible meanings these parables and myths may hold. 

5. Prayer doesn’t work the way you think it does. You can’t bribe God, or change God’s mind through obedience, devotion, or groveling. The underlying theistic premises of prayer are untenable.

6. Anything you claim to know about God, even the notion that there is a God, is a projection of your psyche. What you say about God—who God is, what God cares about, who God rewards, and who God punishes—says nothing about God and everything about you. If you believe in an unconditionally loving God, you probably value unconditional love. If you believe in a God who divides people into chosen and not chosen, believers and infidels, saved and damned, high cast or low caste, etc. you are likely someone who divides people into in–groups and out–groups with you and your group as the quintessential in-group. God may or may not exist, but your idea of God mirrors yourself and your values. 

7. Nobody is born Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Catholic, Protestant, etc. People are born human and are slowly conditioned by narratives of race, religion, gender, nationality, etc. to be less than human. 

8. Theology isn’t the free search for truth, but rather a defense of an already held position. Theology is really apologetics, explaining why a belief is true rather than seeking out the truth in and of itself. All theological reasoning is circular, inevitably “proving” the truth of its own presupposition. 

9. Becoming more religious cannot save us. Religion is a human invention reflecting the best and worst of humanity; becoming more religious will simply allow us to perpetuate compassion and cruelty in the name of religion. Because religion always carries the danger of fanaticism, becoming more religious may only heighten the risk of us becoming more fanatical. 

10. Becoming less religious cannot save us. In fact, being against religion can become it’s own fanaticism. Becoming less religious will simply force us to perpetuate compassion and cruelty in the name of something else. Secular societies that actively suppress religion have proven no more just or compassionate than religious societies that suppress secularism or free thought. This is because neither religion nor the lack of religion solely nullifies our human potential to act out of ego, greed, fear, hostility, and hatred. 

11. A healthy religion is one that helps us own and integrate the shadow side of human nature for the good of person and planet, something few clergy are trained to do. Clergy are trained to promote the religion they represent. They are apologists not liberators. If you want to be more just, compassionate, and loving, you must do the personal work within yourself, and free yourself from the conditions that lock you into injustice, cruelty, and hate, and this means you have to free yourself from all your narratives, including those you call “religious.” 

12. Religious leaders claims that their particular understanding and interpretation of their sacred books should be universally accepted. Religious leaders often say, “My authority is the Bible.” It would be more accurate for them to say, “My authority is what they taught me at seminary the Bible means.” People start with flawed or false presuppositions about what the Bible is, such as: the Bible was meant to present a coherent theology about God or is a piece of doctrinal exposition; the Bible is the inerrant, infallible and sole message/"Word" of God to the world; the Bible is a blueprint for daily living. Too often religious leaders make God about having "correct theology." There are a lot of unhappy, broken, hurting, suffering, depressed, lonely people in church with church-approved theology. 

13. If your livelihood depends on the success of your church as an organization, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that you will mostly define and reward Christianity as participation in church structures and programs. Christian living is mostly a decentralized reality or way of life, not a centralized or program-dependent phenomenon. Church attendance, tithing, membership, service, and devoted participation, become the hallmarks of Christian maturity. 

14. You are capable of guiding your own spiritual path from the inside out and don't need to be told what to do. You naturally have the ability, capacity, tools and skills to guide and direct your life meaningfully, ethically and effectively. Through the use of your fundamental human faculties such as critical thinking, empathy, reason, conscience and intuition, you can capably lead your life. You have the choice to cultivate a spirituality that doesn’t require you to be inadequate, powerless, weak, and lacking, but one that empowers you toward strength, vitality, wholeness, and the fulfillment of your highest potentialities and possibilities.

Jim Palmer

Jim Palmer was a former evangelical pastor who served at Willow Creek Community Church in Chicago. He also founded and served as the senior pastor at Springbrook Community Church in Nashville, Tennessee.

Palmer received his Master of Divinity degree from Trinity Divinity School in Chicago. He was also an author, speaker, artist, and spiritual director.

The Fascist Playbook

There is a playbook that fascists use to take and maintain power—think Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini, Vladimir Putin, Viktor Orbán (and more than two dozen plus authoritarian countries around the globe).

The playbook is always the same:

• Draw up an enemies list—either you are with us or you are against us. Govern for the party in power, not for all the people. Intimidate, bully, marginalize and crush any opposition.
• Systematically demonize the press—a free press is the enemy of the people; truth is fake news. Either delegitimize the press or control and use it as a propaganda tool. 
• Lie, lie, lie—the bigger the lie the better, because people believe that the most outrageous and improbable lie must be true, or else no one would say it in the first place. Deny truth and create alternate facts, fiction, or fantasy.  Deny science and substitute religion. Propagandize with false information and conspiracy theories.
• Weaponize religious ideology to support the regime’s agenda.
• Control the courts; bully, delegitimize and politicize the judiciary. Control judicial elections and appointments so only those loyal to the party line become judges; take control of the judicial branch and eliminate constitutional separation of powers and checks and balances.
• Destroy the Rule of Law–use laws to reward supporters and punish opponents; ignore laws not in accord with the party line; ignore court orders, disrespect civil authority. Knowingly enact unconstitutional laws; then blame “activist” judges when those laws are challenged and overturned.
• Politicize the civil service, military and domestic security.
• Involve government in surveilling the press, reporters, political opponents and those on the enemies list.
• Fearmonger and demonize minorities, LGBTQ+communities, transgender resident, the disabled, immigrants, and the powerless; make them the scapegoats for societies’ social and economic ills. Weaponize and inflame racial and social prejudices.
• Trash civil rights and liberties in favor of partisan and religious ideology. 
• Marginalize and bully women; trash their gender-specific rights and needs; empower government to control their reproductive functions; keep them submissive to the patriarchy. 
• Disenfranchise voters. Promote spurious conspiracy theories and lies claiming election fraud, stolen elections and voting irregularities. Demand recounts and audits of elections held and certified in accordance with governing laws. Sue on false claims without evidentiary support. Suppress the vote and make it harder and more inconvenient to vote. Subvert election results. Gerrymander and do everything possible to rig the system so that only the party faithful are elected. Empower the legislature to ignore the popular vote and change the results of elections. Hold on to power at all costs and with any tactics.

In short, the goal of all fascists is to control all branches and functions of government, and to make those and the minds of people conform to the party line and ideology. People do not count; the Constitution does not count. 

The Rule of Law becomes the Rule of Lie.

It has been said that “when fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross.” And John Maynard Keynes observed that, “Perhaps it is historically true that no order of society ever perishes save by its own hand.” 

Sadly, history has shown both to be true, time and time again.

The fascist playbook ensures that democracy will die from within, not from without.

And, if you think “it can’t happen here,” you are wrong. Look where our state and our nation are headed; check off the boxes.

 It is already here.

By James C. Nelson

James C. Nelson is a retired lawyer and former Montana Supreme Court Justice. He lives in Helena.

Originally published in the Daily Montanan. Republished here under Creative Commons license 4.0

Never mind.

Never mind.

Stop the tipping

Mark this one to my 'get off my lawn' age group, but, it just pisses me off when I'm asked, at a fast casual restaurant where you order your food at a counter, pick up your food at a counter and bus your own table, to tip when you pay up front at, yea... the counter.

Or, someone at a coffee shop who makes your coffee (and isn't a 'server' so, isn't making 'server' wages of $2 an hour). Those tips? That's a way to keep wages up to market values, without paying for it, best case. More often? Those employees aren't seeing all (or even any) of those tips. The business just keeps it as profit. No one's watching the employers. No one's auditing anything.

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/coffee-starbucks-require-tip-new-prompt-sparks-misplaced-outrage-rcna60952

It's a rip off of both consumers and employees by business owners.

So, I looked into tipping a little deeper and, man, it's dark. This is not a good thing and we should all start working for required living wages vs. this bullshit we call tipping.

https://www.npr.org/2021/03/22/980047710/the-land-of-the-fee

Medicare, Medicare Advantage, Fraud and Late Stage Capitalism at work

 The more I look at todays medical system, the more disgusted I get.

I'll be 65 next year, and going on Medicare.

Want to see what massive corporate fraud looks like? Look no further than private 'Medicare Advantage' plans.

‘The Cash Monster Was Insatiable’: How Insurers Exploited Medicare for Billions

By next year, half of Medicare beneficiaries will have a private Medicare Advantage plan. Most large insurers in the program have been accused in court of fraud.

I used to be a dyed in the wool capitalist and believed a free and open market was the most efficient way to provide the best services and products at the best cost.

I was wrong.

Todays late stage and predatory capitalism isn't efficient, it's coordinated and driven by greed and profit. There's nothing balanced about America's market economy today. Nothing.

We need to look at real Universal Health Care in this country. We're one of the few 1st world countries that doesn't have it and it makes no sense. It's more efficient (yea, it really is, the 'market gurus' are lying to you and it's easy to prove) it's cheaper and doesn't make billionaire health care company owners and executives even richer.

You can bet the exact same thing is going on with your regular health care insurance as well. It's about corporations profit off their product.

Their product? 

You.

And the sicker you are (or they can make you appear to be), the more profit they make off you. They don't sell health care. They sell 'what's the least amount of care' so they can keep more money.