Original Piece written by me – 35 minutes of thought, writing and tweaks.
Here is what happened, I played with Perplexity and realized the rules had really changed. What I used to ponder about and then apply, the thoughts and actions that made this a life – ” a life” … no longer had to be practiced or fully grasped in a macro, thoughtful method. You could just ask, read and do. Crazy. The Howard Theory of “purposeful distraction” was quickly becoming just a an opinion piece. It was now easy to find a best practices list, based on your search parameters .. The other easy questions … whether early to rise was really a proven lifestyle or that goal setting works efficiently when practiced regularly and documented. Data Points Matter.
You did not look in the mirror and ask yourself a question … you listened to the great OZ of AI … I have fought as valiantly as one could – “with otherwise smart people” – That they should get their own information, corroborate that information a few times and then come up with their thought, their plan, their mission. Then tell the man or woman in the mirror that they do not drink kool aide and can reason. Then Donnie J started in … and I realized how many people drink the kool aide of misinformation, disinformation, and think lies are ok. That they like to be pandered to … they like it when bullies do stupid things and degrade others as if that is a victory.
First – there was the military sent to the borders … effective. Not sure why that had never been done before ?
Second was Doge – that was a great headline grabber, annoyed a lot of people and was mostly illegal. Those who voted for him, thought it was great, good red meat headlines, however even Elon knows that it was mostly ineffective.
Third was Tariffs – Americans paid the biggest price as we are the biggest spenders … It was declared illegal by the supreme court. Most of the world really began to hate us all over again … Donnies nick name became TACO Trump. He almost always had to claw back whatever tariff he put in place and had to offer carve outs to industry. Terribly ineffective method of fiscal management.
Fourth was Ice and homeland security, another red meat issue. It took people dying, people being extra-ordinarily harassed and then not having any plans on managing the situation. What I did learn is that Tom Homan had worked for 4 presidents running that program, he was stealthy, quiet and effective, DJT gets involved and mayhem ensues. Homan gets back involved, the story goes quiet and the mission continues. Remove the masks, write a plan for sending people back and get funded. Easy
Lastly he went into Iran – He was duped and convinced by Israel and Mossad that he would treated as a hero if he could resolve the Iranian issue. Yet it was him, DJT, that pulled the US from prior agreements.
Now none of those things made america great again, he burned bridges with almost every country in the world. Had no extended plan, he just liked breaking the apple cart, without concern that it was wrong … and then broke laws doing it.
Regarding Iran, some even say war crimes. Even the Pope is irritated. The Trump family are Grifters, gaining over $4 billion dollars directly. Then you have the Epstein files, where the worst guilt of all is likely based. That problem will still cause issues for him.
First redo version 30 seconds NEXT from perlexity … Here’s a more organized and grounded rewrite of your piece, with clearer structure and references where appropriate. I’ve kept your voice but tightened the logic and separated opinion from verifiable context.
Reflections on Information, AI, and Changing Decision-Making
In experimenting with modern AI tools like Perplexity, I realized something fundamental has shifted. What once required reflection, trial, and personal synthesis—thinking deeply, testing ideas, forming a worldview—can now often be replaced by simply asking a question and acting on the response.
The process of building a “life” through deliberate reasoning feels less necessary when answers are instantly accessible. Concepts like the “Howard Theory of purposeful distraction” (a personal or philosophical framework emphasizing intentional thought and focus) begin to feel less relevant in a world driven by immediate outputs rather than internal reflection.
Today, best practices are easily generated on demand. Questions that once required study—such as whether early rising improves productivity or whether structured goal setting is effective—are now answered through aggregated data and summarized research. In this environment, data points dominate, often replacing introspection.
Traditionally, the idea was to:
- Seek information independently
- Corroborate it across multiple sources
- Form a personal conclusion
- Act with intention and accountability
That process is increasingly being replaced by reliance on algorithmically generated answers.
Misinformation, Influence, and Political Behavior
At the same time, I’ve observed how easily misinformation and disinformation can shape public opinion. This became especially visible in the political sphere, where some individuals appear to accept claims without verification, often favoring emotionally appealing narratives over factual accuracy.
Research supports this concern:
- Studies show repeated exposure to false claims increases perceived truthfulness (the “illusory truth effect”) (Fazio et al., 2015).
- Social media algorithms can amplify emotionally charged or polarizing content (Vosoughi et al., Science, 2018).
This environment can reward rhetoric that is provocative or divisive, rather than accurate or constructive.
second version 30 seconds …..OPINION EDGY Outsourcing Thought: AI, Misinformation, and the Decline of Independent JudgmentSomething fundamental has changed—and not for the better.For most of my life, thinking was the work. You wrestled with ideas, tested them, cross-checked them, and slowly built a framework for how to live. It wasn’t efficient, but that was the point. The friction forced clarity. You earned your conclusions.Now, that process is optional.With the rise of AI tools, the path from question to action has collapsed into a single step: ask, read, do. No struggle, no synthesis, no ownership. What once required reflection can now be outsourced entirely. And while that may feel like progress, it carries a cost that few are willing to acknowledge.The idea that you should gather your own information, corroborate it, and arrive at an independent conclusion is starting to sound outdated—almost naive. Why bother, when an algorithm can assemble a clean, confident answer in seconds? Why sit with uncertainty when you can eliminate it instantly?But that convenience comes at the expense of something essential: judgment.We are not just changing how we access information—we are changing whether we think at all.This erosion of independent thought becomes especially dangerous when combined with a culture already vulnerable to misinformation. Research has shown that repeated exposure to false claims makes them feel true, regardless of their accuracy (Fazio et al., 2015). Social media platforms amplify the most emotionally charged content, not the most accurate (Vosoughi et al., Science, 2018). In that environment, truth becomes secondary to repetition and emotional appeal.And people respond accordingly.It is no longer surprising to see individuals accept claims without verification, defend obvious falsehoods, or align themselves with narratives that collapse under minimal scrutiny. What is surprising is how comfortable this has become. There is a growing preference for being told what to think, especially when the message is simple, affirming, or aggressive.That dynamic has played out clearly in modern politics.Policy decisions are no longer evaluated primarily on effectiveness or legality, but on how they feel. Sending military resources to the border becomes a symbol of strength, regardless of long-term strategy. Tariffs are framed as economic patriotism, even as economists consistently show that they raise consumer costs and invite retaliation (Federal Reserve; IMF analyses). Immigration enforcement becomes political theater, fluctuating in tone and visibility depending on leadership rather than grounded in coherent, sustained planning (Migration Policy Institute).Even foreign policy—arguably the most complex arena of governance—is reduced to gestures and headlines. The withdrawal from the Iran nuclear agreement (JCPOA) in 2018, for example, was not just a policy shift; it was a signal that long-term agreements could be discarded without a clear replacement strategy (U.S. State Department). The consequences of such decisions are not immediate, but they are real—and often destabilizing.What ties all of this together is not ideology, but behavior.There is an increasing tolerance—even enthusiasm—for disruption without direction, for rhetoric without substance, for confidence without competence. Leaders are rewarded for breaking things, not for building them. Supporters defend actions not because they work, but because they provoke.And beneath it all is a quieter, more troubling shift: people are becoming less interested in verifying reality for themselves.Instead of looking in the mirror and asking hard questions—What do I actually believe? How do I know it’s true?—many are turning outward, deferring to systems, personalities, or narratives that do the thinking for them. Whether it is an AI tool generating answers or a political figure delivering them, the pattern is the same: trust first, question later—or not at all.This is not just a political problem. It is a cultural one.A society that stops thinking critically does not become more efficient; it becomes more manipulable. The ability to reason independently—to challenge information, to tolerate complexity, to resist easy answers—is not a luxury. It is a requirement for functioning democracy and personal autonomy.AI is not the enemy here. It is a tool. But it is a tool that, if used passively, accelerates a dangerous trend: the outsourcing of thought itself.The real question is not whether the answers are available. They always have been, in one form or another.The question is whether we are still willing to do the work of deciding what is true.
:::Want me to push it even harder (more blunt/edgy), or keep this level of intensity but tailor it for a specific audience (e.g., LinkedIn, op-ed submission, speech)?
SEMI FORMAL Version 30 seconds Policy Observations (Generalized and Contextualized)
Several policy areas you mentioned reflect widely debated topics. Here is a more neutral framing with context:
1. Military presence at borders
Deploying military resources to support border control has occurred under multiple administrations in varying forms (e.g., National Guard deployments under Presidents Bush, Obama, and Trump). Effectiveness and legality depend on scope and role (Congressional Research Service reports).
2. Government efficiency initiatives (e.g., “Doge”)
Efforts to reduce government spending or restructure agencies are common in U.S. politics. However, such initiatives often face legal, bureaucratic, and practical limits. Their success varies widely depending on implementation and oversight (GAO reports on federal efficiency programs).
3. Tariffs and trade policy
Tariffs are a long-standing economic tool. Economists generally agree that:
- Tariffs can protect domestic industries in the short term
- Consumers often bear higher costs (Federal Reserve and IMF analyses)
- Retaliatory tariffs can strain international relations
Legal challenges to tariffs typically hinge on executive authority and trade law (U.S. Court of International Trade cases).
4. Immigration enforcement (ICE, DHS)
Immigration enforcement has evolved across administrations. Leadership style and political visibility can significantly affect public perception, even when underlying policies remain similar.
References: Department of Homeland Security reports; Migration Policy Institute analyses.
5. Iran and foreign policy
The U.S. withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in 2018 is well documented (U.S. State Department). Subsequent tensions have been widely debated, with differing views on strategy and outcomes.
Broader Concerns
Your central concern seems less about specific policies and more about patterns:
- Decisions made without long-term planning
- Preference for disruption over stability
- Erosion of trust in institutions
- Public susceptibility to simplified or misleading narratives
These concerns are echoed in political science research on populism and institutional trust (Pew Research Center, 2020–2024 trends).
Final Thought
At its core, this is about agency. Whether in personal life or politics, the question is the same:
Do people think critically and form independent conclusions, or do they rely on external voices—whether media, leaders, or AI—to do that thinking for them?
AI makes access to information easier than ever. But it also raises the stakes for discernment, not lowers them. Classic race to bottom. Ignorance to reality.
I just cannot grasp that so many people drink the Donnie J Kool Aide. He lies, cheats, and makes very little sense… You may have had sleepy joe, professor Obama, the good ol’ boy bush …. But with Donnie J you get chaos, a narcissistic toddler who has psychopathic leanings. That leaves me disappointed in all who voted for him.
My first version was pointed and named names …. but when I used Perplexity on the next 3, it was completely sanitized … a little boring, average, not all that good.
I could not read, nor feel the Howard Theory that says … AI is a “white colonial in a suburb of tacky houses” … “where they drink a lot of kool aide” How is that for a visual.