Trump has made no secret of the fact that he’s vindictive, and recent events continue to illustrate that, but they also suggest that he’s also biased and sexist.

In firing the Chief of Naval Operations (Admiral Lisa Franchetti), the U.S. Coast Guard Commandant (Admiral Linda Fagan) U.S. Navy Vice Admiral Shoshana Chatfield, Trump removed the most senior women in the U.S. Military. He also removed General C.Q. Brown, Jr. (who is black) as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Trump then fired General Tim Haugh, commander of U.S. Cyber Command and director of the National Security Agency, as well as Haugh’s civilian deputy, Wendy Noble.

The way matters are going, it appears likely that all will be replaced by white males.

Trump has also renewed his attacks on Chris Krebs, former Director of the government’s Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), because Krebs had the temerity to say that the 2020 election was fair and free and not stolen. Trump’s latest attack on Krebs consists of removing his security clearance – as well as the clearances of all the employees at SentinelOne, where Krebs is now the CIO — and then issuing an executive order launching an investigation of Krebs.

This follows Trump’s removal of Secret Service protection for Mike Pompeo and John Bolton, former high officials in his first term, for being insufficiently supportive of him, i.e., failing to applaud his every move.

Yet Trumpists follow their Fuhrer like sheep, seemingly unaware that sheep always get shorn or slaughtered.

There’s been a great deal of furor and discussion about the case of Columbia graduate student Mahmoud Khalil Kahlil, whom the Justice Department is trying to deport because he spoke out for the rights of Palestinians in Gaza. The Justice Department has so far been unable to find that Kahlil committed anything even resembling a crime, but the head of Homeland Security, Kristi Noem, has declared that Kahlil should be deported because he spoke out, even though he is in the United States legally.

Then there’s the case Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, who was mistakenly arrested and deported to a Salvadoran prison, again for no reason. Unlike Kahlil, Garcia not only did nothing illegal, but made no public statements, and was working as a sheet metal apprentice. And now, Trump’s DOJ is claiming that the President’s prerogatives as implementer of foreign policy outweigh civic protections stated in the Constitution and that Trump can effectively ignore those inconvenient rights.

Unhappily, the furor over those cases is overshadowing the far greater harm that the Justice Department and the Department of Homeland Security are creating with their handling of student visas. My wife the university professor has several foreign students studying voice and opera. Just because they’re on student visas, they’ve received notice that their visas may be revoked, as have all the other foreign students at the university.

This makes no sense. So far as anyone can tell, none of these students have been involved in even speaking out publicly, but they don’t know if they’ll be deported just because they’re on student visas. They don’t know whether, if they go home to spend the summer with their parents, they’ll be allowed to re-enter the United States to continue their studies. They’re all students who’ve complied fully with the law, yet the Justice Department is going after them, rather than concentrating on illegal immigrants and immigrants who’ve broken the law.

And, on a more practical level, foreign students pay the university more than in-state students, and they spend money to live here, which definitely helps the U.S. trade balance. There’s also the fact that by threatening deportation or actually deporting students who’ve done nothing wrong, the United States is undermining its own image as a land of laws and freedom.

This approach is likely illegal, at least according to the Constitution that the Trumpists are doing their best to ignore, not to mention both wrong-headed and counterproductive, and yet neither DOJ nor Homeland Security seems to see or understand that.

Recent research suggests that science fiction is less improbable than many scientists and those outside the genre think.

First, astronomical observations have discovered the existence of chemical compounds in deep space that are the precursors of amino acids, which suggests a greater likelihood of a wider spread of organic life throughout the universe.

Second, observations here on earth have discovered a range of animal behaviors that resemble transmissible cultures, and even examples of “shared” culture/relations between differing species.

Third, exploratory ventures and observations have discovered water in places that were once thought improbable for having water.

Fourth, astronomers are finding more and more planetoids in the Oort Cloud.

All of this suggests that there is life elsewhere, especially given the size of the universe.

But… getting there is another question.

For humans to travel anywhere outside the expanded Solar System (or even to send probes that can return in any useful time period) is looking less and less practical, given the time and massive energy costs required. The fastest-moving object ever built by humans is the Parker Solar Probe, which reached a speed of 394,736 miles per hour (or 110 miles per second) on its dash to the sun in 2023.

Even to reach Pluto from Earth at the maximum speed of the Parker Solar Probe would take 386 days – not counting the time to decelerate.

The nearest star to earth is Proxima Centauri, a small, red dwarf star about 4.24 light-years away. A spaceship traveling at the speed of the Parker Solar Probe would take roughly 7,200 years to reach Proxima Centauri.

But that offers an upside of sorts. Aliens, friendly or unfriendly, aren’t likely to be arriving any time soon, either to destroy and/or enslave us… or to rescue us from ourselves.

Is that glass half-empty, or half-full?

The other day, while reading a decent but not great SF novel written more than a decade ago, I got to thinking about plotting and plots.

While there are exceptions, I tend to write “straight-line” plots, in the sense that the protagonist is attempting to get from point A to point B. Sometimes, he or she gets there. Sometimes, they get to another end that they didn’t anticipate. There are obstacles, from nature, social and government structures, and from others with conflicting or hostile objectives. Some of those obstacles the protagonist doesn’t even think about until having to confront them, but the obstacles are part of the world or worlds the protagonist must negotiate. It’s not easy, sometimes almost impossible, and the cost is never negligible.

But that’s certainly not the only way to plot. There’s the daisy chain plot, where one thing leads to another, and the protagonist is led and/or misled until he or she figures the way out. Or “the universe is against me” plot, where the protagonist has to smash everything in order to merely survive. Or “the chosen one” plot, featuring generally a less obstacle-ridden version of the hero’s journey.

Whatever the basic plot structure, an accomplished writer can generally make it work out in a believable fashion, but the more elaborate the underlying plot structure, the greater the possibility that a less accomplished author will undermine the believability of the story and the world. But then, in certain types of books or movies, particularly those featuring “massive” superheroes, the plot isn’t the point at all – displaying the powers and skills of the hero is the primary goal of the movie/book.

One thing I have noticed in real life is that there’s almost always someone smarter, stronger, faster, and more capable – and when there’s not, people band together to keep powerful people in line… or become their slaves.

For every George Washington or Cincinnatus, who gave up power willingly, there are scores of would-be dictators who can’t or won’t – and that’s another plot.

After more than fifty years of writing professionally, I find it interesting and amusing to read reviews of my books and others, especially when I see readers and reviewers disputing how good or how “realistic” a novel is.

Part of the sense of reality perceived by readers lies in the ability of the writer to convey actions, images, allusions, illusions, and facts in a way that effectively creates a believable world and narrative, but part lies in the knowledge and perceptions of the individual reader.

We all have our bête noires, those factual errors or internal irreconcilable inconsistencies perpetrated by an author that degrade or destroy our enjoyment of the work. Years ago, I wrote a review of a moderately successful SF novel, set in the then-present in the Washington, D.C., area. I wrote that the book was decent and moderately entertaining, but that the numerous factual errors kept it from being better, and I gave examples. The editor begged to differ and said he wouldn’t publish the review unless I removed the examples. I demurred, and the review was never published. The book was a moderate bestseller and was adapted into a movie, which received mixed reviews.

I wasn’t wrong about the errors, but readers unfamiliar with the Washington, D.C., area and culture wouldn’t have known the difference, although some other errors were factual. For some readers, those kinds of errors can destroy the enjoyment of a novel. For others, the errors don’t even register. My father was an attorney and an avid reader, but he couldn’t stand most legal representations in movies, television, or novels, which he found not only unrealistic, but totally unbelievable.

As a writer, I do my best to avoid such errors and inconsistencies, but some authors dismiss any “reality” that gets in the way of the action or blood and gore, and they’re likely correct that too much “reality” can kill the story for those who don’t know the facts or don’t care.

In 2015, Tor published my very hard SF novel, Solar Express, which, as a “semi-joint” project with NASA, was read by several NASA scientists who agreed that I handled the science accurately. There were quite a number of one star reader reviews, with comments about it being too technical and dull, as well as five-star reviews from readers citing the accuracy, with a lot of reviews in the middle saying that they liked my other work better.

The bottom line, from what I’ve seen, is that every reader has his or her view of what’s realistic in fiction, and fiction that’s “excessively” realistic appeals to comparatively few readers, and that’s been true as far back as Jane Austen, few of whose female protagonists would have snared their male in any truly accurate portrayal of the reality of that time in history.