This is my second email interview with my friend Amy Collins. You can read the first interview here.
How did so many Republican voters and the GOP come to be in the thrall of Donald Trump?
There are multiple components to this feeding from each other. One is the boiling frog phenomenon and the other is the cult-like tactics Trump is using. There is also some cognitive dissonance in that some will say "There is no way he just said what I think he said." Another is tradition. Hard as it is for some to fathom, there is generational loyalty. Their parents and grandparents, who were GOP, were good people, and in many cases they were. This is their logic. But the party is not the same as that of the Reagan/Bush era and in another world entirely from the Eisenhower years when the biggest partisan battles were trivial such as a percent here and there in tax brackets. The GOP was once branded as conservative, but MAGA is not really conservative at all especially as it pertains to protecting our Constitution and democratic principles. I'd ask any Trump supporter, "What would your grandfather or father say about what happened on January 6th? Or making backdoor deals with Russia? Or keeping classified documents?"
In what ways is this a mental health crisis underpinned by bona fide mental illness?
Those with untreated mental illness are more susceptible to cults, which can exacerbate and amplify the existing symptoms into the wider culture like a bot network in the cyber world. The education about both cults and mental illness is very poor in the US, leaving many unprotected mentally and unable to recognize what is happening.
What would be the best remedies for America's subpar cyber security situation?
There needs to be a well-funded unified agency working for and with all agencies that currently have a cyber security department. We are currently operating with an incomplete jigsaw tapestry of defense and playing whack-a-mole games.
Should nuclear rockets ever be ignited in the atmosphere to get payloads into space?
Open-cycle nuclear rockets discharge radioactivity into the atmosphere. This makes them a no-go for use to get into orbit, such as for a shuttle-like craft like StarRaker. They (nuclear rockets) could be productive and efficient for interplanetary or even interstellar journeys.
What's the most radical interpretation of UFOs that you currently entertain?
To define "radical", we need to define the mundane UFO interpretations, which start with prosaic possibilities, then to a middle ground such as the Extraterrestrial hypothesis (ETH). Going beyond this there are Fortean interpretations and my personal favorite, the interdimensional hypothesis. We have not successfully explained where the unknowns originate when they seem to "phase in" or out visually or on radar, but it does not seem to be space as the ETH proponents claim. Theoretical physics hypothesizes about the possibility of other dimensions. Stacking a hypothesis on top of a hypothesis is probably not scientifically sound, but it is actually more reasonable than the ETH given the current and very spurious data points about the true unknowns. Where might conservation of mass and laws of aerodynamics not apply? If such an object were to be the product of another dimension with different laws and variables, perhaps with inverted properties and the same object were to be insulated from laws of this dimension in a pocket while momentarily phased into this dimension.
What should the United States' response be to Russia in the current Ukraine war and China in the current tensions surrounding Taiwain?
Ukraine needs robust funding and equipment and intelligence support. We need to eliminate restrictions about what can be used on Russian territory. If anyone complains it costs too much to help Ukraine, they must realize that Russia will not stop with Ukraine if they have their way with their invasion. Eventually the Russians could start World War III in Europe if they attack a NATO partner and this could make a situation that is dozens of times more expensive and deadly. In the altruistic sense this is helping a sovereign nation defend its borders; in a pragmatic sense, it's a preventative measure, a stitch in time to help Ukraine now.
Russia, namely Putin, has made on the order of 38 nuclear threats. He knows the fallout will destroy anything he would ever hope to gain and contaminate Russia as well. Not to mention the condition of his stockpile is poor at best. What the average person was not told during the Cold War is that nuclear weapons are extremely high maintenance and expensive to keep reliable. If they have not been keeping their conventional arms in readiness, which is relatively less expensive, what does this say about nuclear readiness? Have they spent trillions of rubles on this? That is pretty doubtful as they've barely spent this on the whole of their military forces, which is a small fraction of the US military budget.
Comments