April 17, 2025 Chief of Staff Susie Wiles, as the daughter of alcoholic Pat Summerall, understands what you can and cannot control. (57) Luke Ford No sacred cows.

Chief of Staff Susie Wiles, as the daughter of alcoholic Pat Summerall, understands what you can and cannot control. (57)

Posted on April 17, 2025 by Luke Ford

Posted in Addiction | Comments Off

Trump vs Big Law

Posted on April 17, 2025 by Luke Ford

I’m fascinated by Trump’s war on America’s leading institutions.

* David Lat: On The Need For Diverse Viewpoints In Big Law
* Why Should I Care About Big Law?
* The Trump vs Big Law Power Struggle
* Does Jones Day lean conservative?
* Big Law vs Conservatives
* Constitutional Law Professor Josh Blackman: Remember When The Obama Administration Pressured Baker Hostetler To Drop Its Representation In House of Representatives v. Burwell?
* How does niche construction help us understand the operations of Big Law?
* Trump vs Big Law
* Big Law’s Self-Serving Claims
* Big Law Seems To Be Winning The Narrative War Against MAGA

Posted in Law | Comments Off

Decoding The Pundits

Posted on April 17, 2025 by Luke Ford

The hosts of the podcast Decoding the Gurus developed the Gurometer, which is “not a scientific instrument, not a psychometric scale, not a revolutionary theory.” Rather, it’s a fun analysis developed by psychologist Matt Browne and cognitive anthropologist Chris Kavanagh.

By guru we refer to the standard definition of “an influential teacher or popular expert” but our specific focus tends to be the subset of gurus who make liberal use of ‘pseudo profound bullshit’ referring to speech that is persuasive and creates the appearance of profundity with little regard for truth or reference to relevant expertise. The recurring characteristics identified collectively trend towards negative traits, so a high score on the gurometer could be regarded as identifying ‘bad’, potentially exploitative gurus who produce ersatz wisdom: a corrupt epistemics that creates the appearance of useful knowledge, but has none of the substance.
1. Galaxy-brainness is an ironic descriptor of someone who presents ideas that appear to be too profound for an average mind to comprehend, but are in truth reasonably trivial if not nonsensical. Gurus often present themselves as fonts of wisdom, and it is an all-encompassing kind of knowledge that tends to span multiple disciplines and topics.

I ask Grok to apply the Gurometer to various pundits:

* Richard Spencer
* Victor Davis Hansen
* Matt Walsh
* Luke Ford
* Mark Levin
* Curtis Yarvin
* Auron MacIntyre
* Douglas Murray
* Tucker Carlson
* Jordan Peterson

Posted in Guru, Pundits | Comments Off

Decoding Dennis Prager – Short Version

Posted on April 17, 2025 by Luke Ford

Dennis Prager Biography Condensed My Dennis Prager Story

April 14, 2025, I asked Grok to rewrite my lengthy essay and it said:

Dennis Prager’s Epistemic Blind Spots: A Guru’s Harmful Influence
Dennis Prager, talk show host, author, and founder of PragerU, has built a career teaching right from wrong, cloaked in moral clarity. Yet his epistemology—his approach to knowing what’s true—is deeply flawed, often prioritizing narrative over evidence, charisma over rigor. This epistemic corruption, as Google AI defines it, occurs when a knowledge system sacrifices truth for agendas, like cherry-picking data to fit a story. When Prager manipulates knowledge for personal or ideological gain, he misleads his audience, sometimes with deadly consequences. While I’ve admired Prager’s insights on happiness and ethics—and credit him for giving me purpose during dark times—his distortions demand scrutiny.
The Good and the Harm
Prager’s appeal lies in his ability to simplify complex issues into digestible truths, offering a moral compass for those feeling lost. His PragerU videos, with their concise conservative takes, resonate with millions seeking clarity in a chaotic world. Personally, from 1988 to 1994, bedridden with Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, I found solace in Prager’s tapes. His fight for “God-based ethics” gave me a mission, a virtual father figure when I felt disconnected from my own. As Christine Emba wrote in the Washington Post (July 10, 2023), fandoms can buffer an atomized world, and Prager’s community was my lifeline.
But this strength—his ability to weave a “tapestry of meaning,” as Grok described in March 2025—has a dark side. Prager’s certainty sacrifices nuance, distorting reality. His dismissal of COVID-19 vaccines as harmful (Oct. 24, 2022) exemplifies this. Despite overwhelming evidence—studies showing vaccines saved millions globally—he claimed they do “more harm than good” for those under 50, citing unverified VAERS data. This isn’t skepticism; it’s epistemic sabotage, ignoring peer-reviewed research for contrarian clout. By advocating unproven therapeutics like ivermectin (Nov. 15, 2022), he fueled distrust in institutions, potentially costing lives. The New York Times (Feb. 2022) reported vaccine hesitancy linked to misinformation contributed to thousands of preventable deaths.
Similarly, Prager’s political hyperbole—like equating Democrats to Nazis (Oct. 31, 2022)—inflames division. Pew Research (2020) shows such rhetoric deepens partisan mistrust, eroding social cohesion. His claim that “the Left has been working to destroy this country for a century” (Dec. 19, 2022) isn’t just exaggerated; it’s a conspiratorial narrative that paints half the population as evil, ignoring the evolutionary roots of political differences. Left and right, as Predisposed (2013) argues, are adaptive responses to different survival needs—neither inherently malicious.
The Guru’s Playbook
Prager fits the guru archetype, as anthropologist Chris Kavanagh outlined on Decoding the Gurus (July 18, 2023): a charismatic figure claiming unique insight into cosmic struggles. His confidence in his “perfect pitch” for logic (Jan. 1, 2024) and assertion that his instincts mirror the Torah’s (Oct. 3, 2022) reveal a narcissism that blinds him to error. Grok noted (Mar. 15, 2025) that gurus thrive on attention, and Prager’s self-aggrandizement—calling himself “one of America’s most original thinkers” (Still the Best Hope, 2012)—fits this mold. His PragerU, while not a profit-driven scam, amplifies his brand, with bought views (evident in erratic YouTube spikes) inflating its reach.
His rhetoric leans on grievance-mongering, framing conservatives as victims of a malevolent Left. Claims like “the greatest of all freedoms, speech, is disappearing” (April 4, 2023) exaggerate reality—America’s First Amendment protections remain robust compared to most nations. His conspiracies, from questioning the JFK assassination (June 19, 2023) to alleging the CDC serves Big Pharma (Nov. 15, 2022), lack evidence but fuel distrust. As Kavanagh notes, gurus use “pseudo-profound bullshit” to sound wise, and Prager’s sweeping statements—like “if truth is allowed out, there is no left” (Dec. 12, 2022)—collapse under scrutiny.
Personal Cost and Clarity
My fandom had costs. From 1988 to 1997, Prager’s influence strained my relationship with my father, whose teachings I dismissed as flawed compared to my hero’s. I spent thousands on Prager tapes, not health, alienating friends who saw my obsession as unhinged. By 1997, I began blogging critically about his show, losing my Prager-centric social circle. This taught me a hard truth: loyalty to a guru often trumps reason. As Grok put it (Mar. 15, 2025), when family and friends anchor you, gurus become “optional extras.” I wish I’d learned that sooner.
A Path Forward
Prager’s not evil—he genuinely believes his mission uplifts. But his epistemic flaws—overconfidence, selective evidence, and narrative-driven reasoning—harm more than they help. A wiser Prager would embrace humility, engage with critics, and prioritize data over dogma. He could promote gratitude over outrage, as Alcoholics Anonymous advises: “We have stopped fighting anybody or anything.” Instead, he fuels fear, like warning of “communism coming to America” (April 4, 2023), which alienates rather than unites.
For fans, the lesson is clear: no guru has all the answers. Prager’s clarity is seductive, but truth requires skepticism, even of heroes. As I’ve learned, real meaning lies not in fandom but in relationships and reason—messy, human, and grounded.

Posted in Dennis Prager | Comments Off

Is Trumpism Fascism?

Posted on April 10, 2025 by Luke Ford

Nathan Cofnas writes April 9:

Was it a mistake to vote for Trump?
If I’d known that MAGA would become a poverty cult obsessed with bringing Chinese sweatshops to the US, I would have supported DEI Kamala. However, as far as I am aware, no one (including Karlin) anticipated that Trump would declare war on every other country on earth and tank the economy for no reason. Given the information available on November 5, 2024, I think a Trump vote was reasonable. Should we not attempt to win because it’s possible that we will fail?
But there are lessons.
The problem isn’t *Trump*. It’s that the American so-called “right” has become a coalition of stupid people from across the political spectrum. At the lowest IQ levels, the left and right converge on fascism. They favor a controlled economy over the invisible hand, wisdom of the “volk” over universities and book learning, and thuggery over due process. Trump wouldn’t be able to get away with this if he didn’t have an army of @catturd2’s with the same dumb intuitions cheering him on. His future torchbearer will have to be an idiot in order to keep the MAGA coalition together, so he’ll be no better.
All over the world, almost everyone with more than half a brain is looking at the disaster of Trump (along with Putin, Yoon Suk Yeol, et al.) and drawing the very reasonable conclusion that right-wing, anti-woke parties are incapable of effective governance. This is also my conclusion. The right *in its current form* attracts such low human capital that it is counterproductive for it to actually take power. What happens when a dog catches the car it’s chasing? It looks confused, jumps around for a minute, and pisses on the wheel. That’s anti-wokesters taking over the government.
I’ve been arguing that the right needs to focus on winning the battle of ideas and bringing the elites to our side. The way to do that is to refute the false empirical belief that underlies the ideology of wokism (the equality thesis). But I lost the battle to set the agenda for the right. Instead, it was decided that the only thing that matters is taking power and trolling leftists. Trump won the election, issued some executive orders, and anti-wokesters declared victory. But we are seeing the fruits of this strategy: a right that is on track to be totally discredited and cede power back to the woke.
It is still theoretically possible to turn this around. The Republican-controlled Congress should invoke the 25th Amendment, carry Trump away in a straitjacket, revoke the tariffs, and spend their political capital (which would be soaring) on important issues like deporting illegal aliens. But this is the kind of action that would be taken by smart people, not Republicans.
If you want the right to prevail in the long run, you should do everything you can to prevent right-wing political parties from gaining power prematurely. All focus should be on the Hereditarian Revolution, which we fight for in the realm of ideas, not (yet) in the ballot box.

Cofnas wrote April 4:

The term “fascist” is used as a generic insult, but Trumpism has essentially become 1920s-style fascism. The original point of fascism was to combine nationalism with socialism under the leadership of an authoritarian state. Toward these ends, Mussolini ordered job-making public-works projects and nationalist economic policies. Although it wasn’t an explicit part of the ideology, fascism was also associated with thuggery, which is increasingly the MO of the Trump administration.

I did not react well on X:

Just as there was no Christianity 2100 years ago, there have been no fascist states since 1945.

If Trump were a fascist, people would be too scared to publicly call him a fascist.

The people who know the most about fascism are the least likely to call Trump fascist.

Cofnas: “Under the conditions of war, we reorder the economy with the single goal of destroying the enemy. How is this relevant to what we should do in peacetime, when the goal is wealth generation?”

The world is often a brutal place that requires brutal choices to maximize your chances for survival, safety and prosperity.

The number one priority for every state is survival, not wealth creation.

Cofnas: “What is your point about countries having command economies during wartime?”

When stakes are the highest, countries are the least free market/free trade and it is not because they are stupid.

Cofnas: “[P]eople don’t trade when they’re killing each other. One of the benefits of peace is that people can trade and become rich. During war, people are conscripted and forced to go to boot camp and fight in trenches. Doesn’t mean we would get rich by doing that all that time.”

Nonsense. Prior to WWI, England and Germany were each other’s number one trade partner.

Countries at war with each other often do trade with each other. The world is a complicated place. Google AI: “Yes, countries at war can and sometimes do still trade with each other.”

When countries fight for their survival during times of war, do they become free traders? No, they become command economies with protectionism. When life becomes real, countries use protection.

As we have no example of a sizeable country becoming rich without protectionism, perhaps protectionism deserves more respect. What works for a small country like Singapore during a rate time is less compelling in this discussion than the 100% result for sizeable countries.

Elites were close to 100% wrong about Trump winning the 2016 election. It happens. Economists were wrong when Trump raised tariffs in his first term without causing inflation.

What Trump II is doing is unprecedented (for good or ill). Trump is operating out where the buses don’t run no more. I hate Trump’s contempt for our allies and I hate the right’s contempt for academia and expertise and I hate the experts 100% contempt for populism.

Every advanced economy contains some capitalism, socialism, nationalism, oligopoly, democracy, and authoritarianism. No nation-state is overwhelmingly just one of these things. Every state is a mix. Dictatorships often contain considerable elements of democracy (dictator Nikita Khrushchev was pushed out in 1964) and democracies are often dictatorial (such as during covid).

There is a huge amount of nihilism among Trump supporters (and that is reflected in the Trumpist quotes in that Pavlou article), but it is usually a type of nihilism that is adaptive, as in, laugh about things beyond one’s control. Better to laugh than cry.

Describing Trumpism as fascism and maoism (it’s either/or, man, it cannot be both fascist and maoist, these are contradictory) and arguing that the low-IQ left and right meet in fascism is not a serious response to reality per anyone who has studied fascism. Left and right mean something. They have distinctive qualities. Invoking fascism to describe something that has nothing to do with fascism is weak.

You haven’t given any distinctively fascist signs of how Trumpism aligns with fascism. Socialism and nationalism along with bullying and authoritarianism are not distinctively fascist. If they were, then hundreds of regimes in history have been fascist and “fascist” has no meaning.

Left and right mean something. “The political left [supports] equality and novel ways of doing things; the right [supports] authority, hierarchy, order, and the traditional way of doing things.” Fascism was a movement of the right reacting to totalitarian communism.

Trump has shifted the culture. His executive orders are primarily important for stimulating cultural conversations. Trump has crushed DEI and affirmative action.

The Paleocons have been right about everything for at least 70 years and they have always been protectionist. Paleocons are not a low-IQ movement and Chronicles magazine is now low IQ. The Claremont crowd of pro-Trumpers is not dumb.

Putin is the most effective leader of a major power in over 80 years. He’s done more with a bad hand than could possibly have been expected.

There is nothing remotely Maoist or fascist about Trump’s policies. They might be wrong or bad, but you are dispensing Jason Stanley-tier analysis. We have zero examples of fascist states post WWII. The left can never be fascist because fascism is right-wing.

I care 100 times more about American excellence than about personal corruption among Trumpists.

Posted in Fascism, Nathan Cofnas | Comments Off

Victor Davis Hanson: Donald Trump’s Just Trade War

Posted on April 10, 2025 by Luke Ford

VDH writes for the Free Press:

Ignore the Wall Street hysteria. The president is trying to end a 50-year injustice directed at the U.S.—and to help the most overlooked Americans.
…By 1975, however, annual trade deficits grew larger and were uninterrupted. Yet in response, American postwar free-trade policies remained mostly unchanged despite a radically changed world. Presidents mostly either ignored, discounted, or did not grasp the dire implications of the growing transference of American manufacturing overseas, and the rising importation of big-ticket items like cars and appliances as well as a flood of cheap consumer goods.
Indeed, the United States is now nearing a $1 trillion annual trade deficit—a reality in the not-so-distant past that used to worry an array of investors like Warren Buffett (“The trade deficit is selling the nation out from under us”), politicians such as Bernie Sanders and Nancy Pelosi (“The fact is that U.S.-China trade is a job loser”), and economists like Paul Krugman (“Mercantilism makes a fair bit of sense.”).
The fall of the Soviet Union and the ensuing globalization should have shocked Washington policymakers out of their static, half-century trade orthodoxy and into readjusting American trade policy to ensure parity and reciprocity—especially as Chinese imports, coupled with U.S. outsourcing and offshoring, began to result in a “Rust Belt,” with an array of accompanying social and cultural pathologies.
But the 1990s exuberance of an unrivaled hyperpower America—now victorious not just in World War II but over the Soviet Union as well—created a sense of unreality in Washington.
Was it an unjustified triumphalism that tended to blind us to the potential long-term negative trends? Or perhaps our naivete was a carryover from the Good Samaritan and self-congratulatory diplomacy of 1945 that had opted for the greater good in rebuilding war-torn Asia and Europe. Such idealism resurfaced in the naive belief—shared by policymakers on both sides of the aisle for the past several decades—that the more we aided Chinese prosperity, the more it created a consumer middle class, the quicker Beijing would liberalize, democratize and, with its new affluence, rejoin the family of consensual nations.
Where did all of this leave hardworking, blue-collar Americans? Globalization had encouraged Americans to invest, offshore, and outsource abroad. As the American industrial belt stagnated, there appeared a strange strategy of compensating for lost higher-wage jobs by accelerating the importation of foreign-assembled, cheap consumer goods. If a Pennsylvania steel or appliance assembler lost his job, pension, and medical plan, at least he always had Walmart and access to Chinese imported tennis shoes and sweatshirts at historically low prices.
In reductionist terms, those tasked with directing U.S. trade policy rarely cared to calibrate the real social, cultural, and moral costs of millions losing high-paying jobs, of small communities offshored and outsourced into oblivion, of soaring opioid use, suicides, fragmented multigenerational families, and a nation increasingly dependent upon strategic materials, pharmaceuticals, and precision machinery imported from abroad—and not always from allies or neutral nations.

Posted in America | Comments Off

Decoding Media Coverage Of Trump’s Tariffs (4-9-25)

Posted on April 9, 2025 by Luke Ford

01:00 I critique Nathan Cofnas’s critique of Trump, MAGA and the right, https://x.com/nathancofnas/status/1909937394289418679
03:00 Why is the elite media so uniformly contemptuous about Trump’s tariffs while they are wildly popular with tens of millions of Americans? https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=160512
27:00 Mark Halperin on Trump’s Tariff’s, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYkmNFKi2RQ
30:00 Why is the MSM so uniformly against tariffs? https://yourmoralleader.blogspot.com/2025/04/why-is-elite-media-so-uniformly.html
32:00 The left right political spectrum, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left%E2%80%93right_political_spectrum
1:03:30 Trump, China, Trade, and Covid, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eo7OWre66wc
1:21:00 Why isn’t the elite media concerned about America’s working class?, https://yourmoralleader.blogspot.com/2025/04/why-isnt-elite-media-concerned-about.html
1:23:00 Salena Zito’s decade with Donald Trump, https://salenazito.com/2025/04/07/my-decade-with-donald-trump/
1:27:00 lol nothing matters, https://yourmoralleader.blogspot.com/2025/03/lol-nothing-matters.html
1:29:00 Why Trump’s Tariffs Are Popular with Many Americans, https://yourmoralleader.blogspot.com/2025/04/why-is-elite-media-so-uniformly.html
1:47:00 Steve Sailer on tariffs, https://www.stevesailer.net/p/procrastination-rules
1:55:20 How to “Build American” Right with Stephen Miran, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6eGeC_qtqGE
2:01:00 Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers Stephen Miran on the Trump Admin’s Economic Agenda, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMB_OYqV-HE

Posted in America | Comments Off

NYT: How Trump Is Putting Law Firms in a No-Win Situation

Posted on April 9, 2025 by Luke Ford

The New York Times reports:

The fallout at Willkie, which counted Mr. Trump among its clients decades ago, illustrates the no-win predicament facing law firms caught in Mr. Trump’s cross hairs. If they resist, the firms jeopardize their bottom line, exposing themselves to executive orders that, while legally dubious, imperil their businesses. But if they buckle, they are seen by critics as having compromised their integrity, drawing rebukes from across the broader legal community.

Big Law firms that strike deals with Trump are criticized for losing their integrity, but lawyers are not generally known as bastions of integrity, so this critique seems rich.

Grok says:

The criticism of Big Law firms striking deals with Trump does hinge on a shaky premise—implying they had some pristine moral core to begin with. Lawyers, especially at the top tiers, have long been stereotyped as mercenaries, chasing billable hours over ethical purity. The Trump deals just make it louder: firms like Jones Day or Morgan Lewis aren’t suddenly “losing” integrity—they’re operating as they always have, prioritizing power and profit. Data backs this vibe—Big Law’s revenue keeps climbing (over $130 billion in 2023 for the Am Law 100), and political ties, from any side, have always been part of the game. The outrage feels more like selective posturing than a revelation. Still, the counterpoint’s fair: if they’re just doing business as usual, why single out Trump? Maybe it’s less about integrity and more about who’s watching.

Did Big Law get accused in the media of losing their integrity when they consistently sided against conservatives?

Yes, Big Law firms have faced media accusations of compromising their integrity, particularly when perceived as consistently siding against conservative clients or causes. The critique often centers on their reluctance to represent controversial conservative figures or cases, which some argue undermines the legal principle that everyone deserves representation. For instance, outlets like the Washington Free Beacon have highlighted how top firms’ leftward shift—evidenced by actions like joining progressive alliances or avoiding clients like Donald Trump—has led to claims of abandoning neutrality for ideological conformity. Legal commentators, such as David Lat, have noted that firms’ hesitance to take on conservative clients can force prominent lawyers to leave, suggesting a bias that prioritizes progressive optics over professional duty.
On the flip side, the accusation isn’t universal or always framed as a “loss of integrity.” Some coverage, like in Bloomberg Law, points to empirical data—e.g., 64% of Big Law’s pro bono amicus briefs at the Supreme Court leaning liberal from 2018-2022—without explicitly calling it a betrayal of principles. Instead, it’s often portrayed as a business calculation or cultural alignment with elite liberal values. Critics from conservative circles, like Judge James Ho in the Washington Times, argue this reflects an “institutional bias” that hollows out the profession’s ethical core, but mainstream outlets rarely echo that severity, focusing more on strategic choices than moral failure. The narrative depends heavily on the source—conservative media pushes the “integrity lost” angle harder than neutral or left-leaning ones.

Posted in Law | Comments Off

Why is the elite media so uniformly contemptuous about Trump’s tariffs while they are wildly popular with tens of millions of Americans?

Posted on April 8, 2025 by Luke Ford

Salena Zito says: “Geography is everything when it comes to this issue. I’m in a part of the country, western Pennsylvania but i also cover the Appalachia and the Great Lakes. I was talking to a bunch of cattle ranchers out in Kansas, tariffs is something they’re really happy about.”

Mark Halperin: “Why is the news coverage hostile to the president’s policies? The establishment media is more hostile to the policy than the country at large. Why? Number one, the establishment media doesn’t like Donald Trump, so it’s a Trump thing, they’re against it. Number two, the establishment media talks to and hangs out with Wall Street types, the very wealthy people who have flourished in under a world with international trade and less likely to hang out with people who live in Selena’s neighborhood who have not flourished in the last 30 years. Three. They grew up as free traders. Went to Ivy League schools and they just have learned trade barriers are bad, tariffs are bad, free trade is good and then they like controversy and this is controversial so they they like that and they tend to be globalists and have a globalist attitude. They think more globally than about America first. If you’re reliant at all on the establishment media it’s not a complete accurate portrayal.”

Grok says:

The disconnect between elite media’s disdain for Trump’s tariffs and their popularity with millions of Americans stems from differing priorities, perspectives, and incentives.
Elite media—think outlets like The New York Times, CNN, or The Economist—tend to reflect the views of a cosmopolitan, educated class that values free markets, global trade, and economic orthodoxy. They often lean on expert consensus from economists who argue tariffs disrupt supply chains, raise consumer prices, and invite retaliation, ultimately harming growth. For instance, studies like those from the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) consistently show trade barriers increase costs for domestic industries reliant on imports—think manufacturing or tech. The media amplifies this, framing tariffs as reckless or populist, often with a tone that assumes their audience already buys into globalization’s benefits. They’re also incentivized to oppose Trump broadly, given their alignment with progressive or establishment interests that see him as a disruptor.
Meanwhile, tens of millions of Americans—especially in deindustrialized regions like the Rust Belt—love tariffs because they feel screwed by decades of free trade. They’ve watched factories close, jobs vanish to China or Mexico, and wages stagnate while corporate profits soared. Trump’s tariffs, like the 25% on steel or 10-20% on Chinese goods, promise protection for their livelihoods—think steelworkers in Pennsylvania or autoworkers in Michigan. Polls back this up: a 2024 Reuters/Ipsos survey showed over 60% of Americans, including many Democrats, support tariffs to protect domestic jobs. For them, it’s less about economic models and more about survival, fairness, and sticking it to a system they think sold them out.
The gap’s also cultural. Elite media often see tariff fans as uneducated or xenophobic, missing the visceral appeal of “America First” to people who don’t trust Davos types. Add in distrust of institutions—Pew Research says only 22% of Americans trust media—and the contempt reads as out-of-touch elitism. Both sides dig in: media doubles down on data, supporters cheer defiance. Neither’s fully “right”—tariffs do raise costs but can shield jobs—yet the divide’s more about who’s heard than who’s correct.

Posted in Journalism | Comments Off

The Principles

Posted on April 8, 2025 by Luke Ford

“We apply these principles in all of our affairs.” That’s from the Big Book of AA. What are the principles of 12-step living that can be applied throughout your life?

Grok says:

The quote “We apply these principles in all our affairs” comes from Step Twelve of Alcoholics Anonymous, as outlined in the Big Book. It reflects the idea that the spiritual and practical lessons learned through the 12 steps aren’t just for sobriety—they’re a blueprint for living well in every part of life. Let’s break down the core principles of 12-step living and how they stretch beyond addiction recovery into daily existence, since you’re curious about their broader application.
The 12 steps, originally crafted by AA founders Bill Wilson and Dr. Bob Smith, boil down to a handful of guiding principles: honesty, surrender, hope, accountability, humility, amends, self-awareness, service, and spiritual connection. These aren’t rigid rules but attitudes and actions that evolve through working the steps. Here’s how they play out across “all our affairs”:
Honesty (Step 1) – Admitting powerlessness over alcohol starts with brutal self-truth. In life, this means facing reality head-on—whether it’s owning up to a mistake at work, admitting you’re burned out, or recognizing when you’re wrong in a fight. It’s about ditching denial for clarity.
Surrender (Step 2 & 3) – Handing over control to a higher power (whatever that means to you—God, the universe, a greater good) teaches you to let go of what you can’t fix. Outside recovery, this could mean stopping the micromanaging, trusting others to step up, or accepting life’s curveballs—like economic chaos from tariffs in April 2025—without losing your mind.
Hope (Step 2) – Believing sanity or balance can return fuels resilience. Apply that to parenting, career slumps, or even watching markets tank under Trump’s policies—it’s the quiet confidence that things can improve, even when they look grim.
Accountability (Step 4 & 5) – Taking a “fearless moral inventory” and sharing it builds integrity. In everyday terms, it’s auditing your behavior—did you snap at someone unfairly? Are you slacking on a promise?—and owning it, not just to yourself but to someone you trust. Keeps you grounded.
Humility (Step 6 & 7) – Asking to shed your flaws means swallowing pride. This translates to any situation where ego flares—say, a debate about politics or a work rivalry. It’s choosing growth over being right, a tough but freeing habit.
Amends (Step 8 & 9) – Listing harms done and making things right isn’t just for AA. It’s apologizing to a friend you ghosted, repaying a debt, or fixing a mess you left at home or work. It’s about cleaning your side of the street, no excuses.
Self-Awareness (Step 10) – Daily check-ins to spot where you’re off track keep you sharp. Think of it as a mental reset—catching resentment before it festers or noticing you’re doomscrolling X about Trump instead of living your day.
Service (Step 12) – Helping others who struggle is the capstone. Beyond AA, it’s mentoring a newbie at work, volunteering, or just listening when someone’s drowning in their own mess. It flips the focus from self to community.
Spiritual Connection (Step 11) – Prayer or meditation for guidance and strength isn’t about religion—it’s about finding calm and purpose. Whether you’re navigating a job loss or just a bad week, it’s a tool to stay centered when life’s loud.
These principles weave into a lifestyle of reflection and action. Take a mundane example: you’re stressed about money because prices are up (thanks, tariffs). Honesty makes you admit you’re scared, surrender stops you obsessing over what you can’t control, hope says it’ll work out, and service might push you to help a neighbor worse off. Or in a bigger scope—like Trump rattling lawyers and economists—these steps could steady you: own your limits, seek perspective, fix what you broke, and pitch in where you can.
The Big Book pitches this as “spiritual awakening,” but it’s practical too. It’s less about perfection and more about progress—stumbling, learning, repeating. People on X sometimes riff on AA’s wisdom, joking it’s “therapy for free,” and they’re not wrong—it’s a framework that scales to any mess life throws.

Posted in Addiction | Comments Off