Over the years, even over the past century, there’s been an ongoing discussion/argument about technology, and whether it’s beneficial for society as a whole. It’s certainly beneficial for those who can reap its benefits, but the degree to which individuals can reap those benefits is largely determined by their education and physical resources.

What’s so often overlooked about technology is that its greatest function is as a multiplier. For me as a writer, computers were a godsend because I wrote barely legibly and got writer’s cramp after a few hundred words. Typewriters were better, but I was a lousy typist and went through bottles of Wite-Out. Computers definitely multiplied my writing accuracy and output, but I had the advantage of a good education and the resources to afford a computer.

The fact is that technology multiplies the skills and productivity more for those already enabled to a great degree.

Another factor is that technology is amoral. It can more greatly enable those who do work to improve society, and it can improve the ability of individuals who wish to destroy, either people or societies.

The third factor is that technology enables its users to create change more quickly, often more quickly than many, if not most, people can effectively adapt to. That becomes a destabilizing factor in any society because only a minority of people in most cultures can deal effectively with rapid change. Yet each improvement in technology increases the rate of change in a culture.

One area where technology has already changed the social structure of the United States is the replacement of brute physical strength in a range of jobs across the United States with computerized/mechanized systems, where precision and detail are increasingly important, and where women tend to handle such detail more effectively. That technological change has begun to reduce jobs demanding physical strength as well as to reduce the pay of such positions, which causes social and income erosion for men who used to fill those positions at higher pay.

Wider and more intensive communications convey more effectively and intensively the lifestyles of the rich and famous, if you will, and this increases social unrest among those less economically advantaged, which further increases already growing social unrest.

So far, the United States, as I see it, is failing to fully comprehend the magnitude and speed of changes created by ever-advancing technology and their possibly devastating effects (in a science-fiction sense, that just might be why we don’t see signs of highly intelligent life out in the universe).

As anyone following politics should know, Todd Blanche, the acting attorney general, and Donald Trump’s former personal attorney, brought charges in the Eastern District of North Carolina against James Comey, the former head of the FBI, claiming that Comey threatened the life of President Trump by posting a video consisting of seashells spelling out “86 47.”

Blanche claims to have other evidence, but given the fact that “86” is actually a restaurant term used to strike an item from the menu because the kitchen’s run out of that item, Blanche is stretching more than a little bit.

This is the second attempt by Trump to prosecute James Comey, and Blanche apparently is doing so because the Donald ordered him to do so, and after what happened to Pam Bondi once she failed to successfully bring charges against Trump’s so-called enemies, Blanche isn’t wasting any time.

Even some Republicans, including Senator Thom Tillis, are skeptical.

As for Comey’s being charged with threatening the President for merely expressing an opinion that Trump ought to be removed from office,whatever happened to First Amendment rights?

Unhappily, what else can you expect from a President who demands that comedians who make fun of him and his wife be fired? Or who discharges without a legally valid cause a highly commended career federal attorney merely because Trump hates her father?

What’s even more disturbing is that Trump can threaten anyone and everyone he doesn’t like, including to destroy an entire culture if those leading it won’t immediately capitulate, but takes umbrage in the slightest satire or mockery. He’s also delayed or withheld disaster aid to states that didn’t vote for him in the last election.

If any Democrat President had done half of what Trump has, they’d have long since run afoul of Congress, but superannuated adolescent Republican Representatives and Senators who once gloried in Trump’s braggadocio are now clueless chumps or sniveling cowards, unwilling to hold their bullying leader to the requirements of the Constitution.

I have mixed feelings about protests. While I definitely support non-violent protests and the right to speak out under the provisions of the first amendment, I have to confess I’m skeptical about the effectiveness of non-violent protests. At the same time, it’s fairly clear that non-violent protests that result in violent suppression efforts by authorities have sometimes been effective in moving society, not always for the better, and sometimes seem to have had little or no impact.

In my life, I’ve been involved in exactly one protest at a single time. In 1965, when there were more than a few antiwar protests on college campuses, and I was a senior in college, four or five of us decided that the motivations of quite a few of our contemporaries who were protesting were, shall we say, less than pristine. In our youthful ‘wisdom,’ we organized a counter-protest just to prove that one could get attention with only a few people and a catchy slogan.

So, we — all five of us, as I recall — invented the “Student Committee for Restricted Escalated Warfare in Vietnam” or SCREW in Vietnam, as an attempt to point out that even a few students with a ridiculously oxymoronic name could get publicity. We had just five people, two posters, and a few hangers-on while we protested the protestors, just once.

That one single counter-protest received mentions in the local college paper and TIME magazine, and I didn’t realize it until much later.

I’ve often thought of that over the years, especially when seeing how large and even well-funded non-violent protests often seem to have little or no effect, even when there’s significant public outrage.

The other morning at breakfast, I happened to read, actually read, the “guarantee” on the side of the waxed cardboard container containing cream, which promised that my satisfaction would be guaranteed or I’d either get my money back or a new container of cream, whichever I desired. All I had to do was to send the empty container back to the company.

Except the cream cost $4.95, and the empty container weighed about four ounces. So to mail a five ounce package back to the company, according to the U.S. Postal Service calculator, would cost $2.72. Since I don’t have a postage meter, and the only stamps I have are first class forever stamps, I’d either have to go to the nearest post office, roughly two miles away, or use four stamps (totalling $3.12 in value). So… if the cream had been spoiled, I’d end up paying $4.95 for the cream originally, then spending either $3.12 or $2.72 (with additional driving costs and time), to recover the $4.95. I’m not desperate enough to spend all that time to recover a little more than two dollars, and I suspect someone who’s really poor, assuming they’d even consider purchasing a large container of cream, wouldn’t have the time or possibly the resources, either.

So, for practical purposes, the “guarantee” is almost meaningless, at least to me.

But how many products have a similar guarantee — your satisfaction guaranteed or your money or a replacement back?

The Federal Trade Commission has a whole set of regulations dealing with guarantees, and they’re fairly detailed, and I suspect they’re moderately effective for larger items from reputable sellers, but even if the seller abides by the regulations, in the case of small items, the buyer may not want to go thorough the hassles of trying to obtain the guarantee.

In the case of the cream, there’s almost no downside to the producer making the guarantee, because the guarantee boosts the company with a minimal downside.

As a member of the so-called Silent Generation – not that friends or family would ever call me silent – I’ve occasionally been called “set in my ways” (i.e., old and stubborn), but there’s a reason for that. After you’ve been around a while, you tend to get irascible when you watch the younger generations make the same mistakes their parents and grandparents did. Especially when those mistakes cost billions of dollars and get thousands or tens of thousands of people get killed.

We had a Civil War, once upon a time, and over 600,000 young men were killed, because it was not only a civil war, but a culture war. One culture thought people were not born equal and that those born white were superior; the other culture believed that people were created equal. The “equal creation” culture won the shooting war, but they’re still fighting the guerilla tactics of the white nationalists over a hundred-fifty years later. And this is in a theoretically democratic culture.

Then there were the two world wars, in the first of which a bloc of countries that believed in authoritarian rule took on a group of nations that, in general, did not. The second world war followed the same general pattern, as did the Korean War.

All that, while real to me, is ancient history to virtually all Americans.

More recent history, if still ancient to the younger generations, includes the Vietnam War, in which we sided, in fact, with an abusive colonial-derived authoritarian regime against a popular and also abusive but local communist uprising.

Then came the Middle East mélange, a series of conflicts where the United States attempted so-called nation building as an alternative to abusive sectarian/authoritarian regimes in Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, and now, once more, Iran.

And somehow, everyone is surprised, again, that the truly abused peoples in these lands really don’t want to “fight to the death” against their home-grown abusers. They’ll accept them, if reluctantly, in a way that they won’t accept foreign (to them) western democratic systems. And, in a way, they’re right to reject our style of governing for their cultures.

After all, we’re still fighting guerilla actions here at home resulting from a conflict that theoretically ended over a hundred and fifty years ago.