ain't done yet

I can't shake a couple of things that caught my eye this week.

I. There's this card floating around social media. 

It reminds me of the sort of message that used to show up on the office fax machine this one place I worked — sent from person to person across a not-too-shadowy network (because most folks didn't bother to scrub their own fax numbers before sending the message along).

Same thing happened in the early days of email ... fwd, fwd, fwd, fwd....

And then, social media.

This new one (new to me, anyway) starts with the words: "People don't realize what happens when the illegal population is gone."

The body of the card is a listicle about what happens "when the illegal population is gone" so *people* will stop not realizing "what happens when the illegal population is gone." I guess.

To be honest, I didn't think it passed the smell test. 

So I, you know, did my own research. 

Here's how that went, beginning with the claim (12 of them), followed by the fact check, and ending with a list of sources that explain *why* it turns out I was mostly right ... that it *doesn't* pass the smell test. 

1. Suddenly, Americans start getting raises. 

Fact check: False. Unauthorized workers aren't why many citizens aren't paid livable wages. [Remember: Sources at the end]

2. ER overcrowding ends.

Fact check: False. Unauthorized residents aren't the cause of crowded hospitals emergency departments.

3. Schools return to normal class sizes. 

Fact check: Here's one that's partly right, even though it's mostly wrong. 

In some school districts, in some schools, in some classes, the challenge of too few classrooms and too few teachers is further aggravated by the presence of children who live in households with more than the average number of children those schools have budgeted to teach; and some of those households are headed by unauthorized residents. If you live in one of those school districts, you may feel temporary discomfort. But, in general, the children of unauthorized residents are not the cause of overcrowded classrooms. The record of *that* problem is well-documented, and if you're a boomer, you were there at the dawn of that history — you were just too young to know it. 

4. Insurance bills drop annually.

Fact check: No, it does not. Whatever kind of insurance the card is talking about, this is nonsense.

5. Grocery prices level out because the welfare load isn't crushing the system anymore. 

Fact check: This is counterfactual.

6. DMV lines move; traffic lightens; neighborhoods calm down. 

Fact check: No, no, and no.

7. Crime stats shift in the right direction for the first time in decades.

Fact check: Nothing in the fact-based world supports this.

8. Organ transplant lists move faster.

Fact check: What . are . you . talking . about?

9. Teenagers get the jobs they used to get before cheap illegal labor replaced them.

Fact check: No. If you think teenagers (*regular* ones? I'm assuming?) are being underbid for summer and after-school jobs by unauthorized workers, I think you're paying attention to the wrong things (and, probably, the wrong people). 

10. Trade programs fill with American kids who can actually earn a living again.

Fact check: Untethered from the real world.

11. People start having families (again: *real* people?) because the cost of living isn't strangling them.

Fact check: Having come this far, I guess I see why you might feel that this is true; but to the extent that *people* are being strangled by the cost of living, unauthorized residents are not the cause. Nor are they the cause of low fertility among U.S.-born citizens.

12. You remove the illegal burden, and the country snaps back into shape almost overnight.

Fact check: No. That's magical thinking.

II. The other thing that caught my attention caught my attention because of the first thing.

It occurred to me that I'd read Abraham Lincoln's 1863 proclamation naming a General Day of Thanksgiving for the nation; but I'd never read Lincoln's 1864 proclamation. He didn't get to make another.

In the preamble to his 1864 proclamation, Lincoln declared: 

It has pleased Almighty God to prolong our national life another year, defending us with His guardian care against unfriendly designs from abroad and vouchsafing to us in His mercy many and signal victories over the enemy, who is of our own household. It has also pleased our Heavenly Father to favor as well our citizens in their homes as our soldiers in their camps and our sailors on the rivers and seas with unusual health. He has largely augmented our free population by emancipation and by immigration, while He has opened to us new sources of wealth and has crowned the labor of our workingmen in every department of industry with abundant rewards. Moreover, He has been pleased to animate and inspire our minds and hearts with fortitude, courage, and resolution sufficient for the great trial of civil war into which we have been brought by our adherence as a nation to the cause of freedom and humanity, and to afford to us reasonable hopes of an ultimate and happy deliverance from all our dangers and afflictions [emphasis mine]

Lincoln acknowledged that there were enemies abroad and enemies who are of our own house.

Same. With tears.

Lincoln celebrated the expansion of free people in the United States — by emancipation from enslavement and by immigration; and he connects the presence of those people with increasing prosperity for all.

Same. Aspirationally.

Including more people in what my friend, Rabbi Daniel Bogard, calls The Project of Us *is* the American way ... and we ain't done yet.

Sources

• https://cmsny.org/importance-of-immigrant-labor-to-us-economy/

• https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0927537119300831

• https://budgetmodel.wharton.upenn.edu/issues/2025/7/28/mass-deportation-of-unauthorized-immigrants-fiscal-and-economic-effects

• https://econofact.org/how-tighter-curbs-on-immigration-impact-the-u-s-economy

• https://itep.org/undocumented-immigrants-taxes-2024/

• https://www.congress.gov/118/meeting/house/116727/documents/HHRG-118-JU01-20240111-SD013.pdf 

• https://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/article/why-we-should-care-undocumented/200804

• https://forumtogether.org/article/fact-sheet-undocumented-immigrants-and-federal-health-care-benefits/

• https://www.kff.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/7761.pdf

• https://www.edweek.org/policy-politics/a-more-complete-picture-of-immigrations-impact-on-u-s-public-schools/2024/06

• https://www.brookings.edu/articles/are-immigrant-students-disproportionately-consuming-educational-resources/

• https://forumtogether.org/article/undocumented-immigrants-are-integral-to-our-nation/

• https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/about-immigration/undocumented-immigrants/

• https://www.ilr.cornell.edu/mobilizing-against-inequality/post/five-ways-undocumented-immigrants-are-powering-american-economy

• https://www.congress.gov/118/meeting/house/116727/documents/HHRG-118-JU01-20240111-SD011.pdf

• https://www.epi.org/publication/unauthorized-immigrants/

• https://www.kff.org/racial-equity-and-health-policy/key-facts-on-health-care-use-and-costs-among-immigrants/

• https://emed.smhs.gwu.edu/news/legislating-fear-how-immigration-status-mandates-threaten-public-health

• https://news.mit.edu/2023/keeping-people-out-emergency-room-primary-care-0919

• https://brandynchurchill.com/wp-content/uploads/Churchill_et_al-2021-CEP.pdf

• https://www.cato.org/policy-analysis/immigrants-cut-victimization-rates-boost-crime-reporting

• https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/proclamation-118-thanksgiving-day-1864

calendar alert

It strikes me as … odd, I suppose … that Black Friday showed up as an automated calendar alert on my desktop today….

I don’t recall signing up for any of this.

Lincoln's Last Thanksgiving

Abraham Lincoln’s final proclamation of a national Day of Thanksgiving

October 20, 1864

By the President of the United States of America

A Proclamation

It has pleased Almighty God to prolong our national life another year, defending us with His guardian care against unfriendly designs from abroad and vouchsafing to us in His mercy many and signal victories over the enemy, who is of our own household. It has also pleased our Heavenly Father to favor as well our citizens in their homes as our soldiers in their camps and our sailors on the rivers and seas with unusual health. He has largely augmented our free population by emancipation and by immigration, while He has opened to us new sources of wealth and has crowned the labor of our workingmen in every department of industry with abundant rewards. Moreover, He has been pleased to animate and inspire our minds and hearts with fortitude, courage, and resolution sufficient for the great trial of civil war into which we have been brought by our adherence as a nation to the cause of freedom and humanity, and to afford to us reasonable hopes of an ultimate and happy deliverance from all our dangers and afflictions:

Now, therefore, I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, do hereby appoint and set apart the last Thursday in November next as a day which I desire to be observed by all my fellow-citizens, wherever they may then be, as a day of thanksgiving and praise to Almighty God, the beneficent Creator and Ruler of the Universe. And I do further recommend to my fellow-citizens aforesaid that on that occasion they do reverently humble themselves in the dust and from thence offer up penitent and fervent prayers and supplications to the Great Disposer of Events for a return of the inestimable blessings of peace, union, and harmony throughout the land which it has pleased Him to assign as a dwelling place for ourselves and for our posterity throughout all generations.

In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the United States to be affixed.

Done at the city of Washington, this 20th day of October, A.D. 1864, and of the Independence of the United States the eighty-ninth.

ABRAHAM LINCOLN.

By the President:

WILLIAM H. SEWARD,

Secretary of State.

Source

https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/proclamation-118-thanksgiving-day-1864

the twenty-eight steps

This Ukraine/Russia *peace plan* is not just absurd….

1. Ukraine's sovereignty will be confirmed.

[Russia and the U.S. confirmed this is in 1994; why would anyone believe them in 2025?]

2. A comprehensive non-aggression agreement will be concluded between Russia, Ukraine and Europe. All ambiguities of the last 30 years will be considered settled.

[Russia promised no aggression in 1994 … dragging Europe into the charade is indefensible … calling what Russia has done to Ukraine ambiguous is wishful thinking.]

3. It is expected that Russia will not invade neighboring countries and NATO will not expand further.

[Russia is a member nation in the United Nations — not invading neighbors is a given . Russia has no say in NATO.]

4. A dialogue will be held between Russia and NATO, mediated by the United States, to resolve all security issues and create conditions for de-escalation in order to ensure global security and increase opportunities for cooperation and future economic development.

[Blah, blah, blah… The conditions for de-escalation couldn’t be simpler: De-escalate.]

5. Ukraine will receive reliable security guarantees.

["Reliable" is doing a lot of heavy lifting here.]

6. The size of the Ukrainian Armed Forces will be limited to 600,000 personnel.

[Neither Russia nor the U.S. has standing to make this demand … nor would either accept it regard their own security.]

7.  Ukraine agrees to enshrine in its constitution that it will not join NATO, and NATO agrees to include in its statutes a provision that Ukraine will not be admitted in the future.

[Russia has no say in the voluntary association of nations or alliances.]

8. NATO agrees not to station troops in Ukraine.

[Russia has no say in the affairs of any alliance it is not part of.]

9. European fighter jets will be stationed in Poland.

[European fighter jets are already stationed in Poland.]

10. The U.S. guarantee:

-- The U.S. will receive compensation for the guarantee;

[What? A finder’s fee? A matchmaker’s emolument? The following make a the U.S. a co-signer on the deal, but only for Russia … Russia should already be on the hook for violently breaking the last agreement … This is senseless.]

-- If Ukraine invades Russia, it will lose the guarantee;

-- If Russia invades Ukraine, in addition to a decisive coordinated military response, all global sanctions will be reinstated, recognition of the new territory and all other benefits of this deal will be revoked;

-- If Ukraine launches a missile at Moscow or St. Petersburg without cause, the security guarantee will be deemed invalid.

11. Ukraine is eligible for EU membership and will receive short-term preferential access to the European market while this issue is being considered.

[Neither Ukraine nor the EU are obligated to the other; nor are they beholden to the U.S. or Russia to declare Ukraine *eligible.* They think we’re stupid?]

12. A powerful global package of measures to rebuild Ukraine, including but not limited to:

[This section is a 500-year mortage … only the lenders win]

-- The creation of a Ukraine Development Fund to invest in fast-growing industries, including technology, data centers, and artificial intelligence.

-- The United States will cooperate with Ukraine to jointly rebuild, develop, modernize, and operate Ukraine's gas infrastructure, including pipelines and storage facilities.

-- Joint efforts to rehabilitate war-affected areas for the restoration, reconstruction and modernization of cities and residential areas.

-- Infrastructure development.

-- Extraction of minerals and natural resources.

-- The World Bank will develop a special financing package to accelerate these efforts.

13. Russia will be reintegrated into the global economy:

[Why? The global economy is doing fine — maybe better —  without Russia. Tying the U.S. to a pact for economic cooperation with Russia finances, if not outright forgives, Russia’s debt at the expense of the U.S. economy and puts U.S. intellectual properties at risk needlessly.]

-- The lifting of sanctions will be discussed and agreed upon in stages and on a case-by-case basis.

-- The United States will enter into a long-term economic cooperation agreement for mutual development in the areas of energy, natural resources, infrastructure, artificial intelligence, data centers, rare earth metal extraction projects in the Arctic, and other mutually beneficial corporate opportunities.

-- Russia will be invited to rejoin the G8.

14. Frozen funds will be used as follows:

-- $100 billion in frozen Russian assets will be invested in US-led efforts to rebuild and invest in Ukraine;

[Frozen Russian assets are A) already accessible for that purpose, and B) assets frozen by nations other than the U.S.  are no business of the U.S. or Russia.]

-- The US will receive 50% of the profits from this venture. Europe will add $100 billion to increase the amount of investment available for Ukraine's reconstruction. Frozen European funds will be unfrozen. The remainder of the frozen Russian funds will be invested in a separate US-Russian investment vehicle that will implement joint projects in specific areas. This fund will be aimed at strengthening relations and increasing common interests to create a strong incentive not to return to conflict.

[This is a public announcement of the intent to rob European nations. We already have a strong incentive for Russia — the nation responsible for this whole mess — not to return to conflict: This invasion has cost Russia hundreds of billions in direct costs and trillions in lost GDP and sanctions … oh, and the death of about ¼-million Russians, with nearly ¾-of-a-million more wounded … oh, and once again extending Russia’s culpability for committing crimes against humanity beyond their own borders.]

15. A joint American-Russian working group on security issues will be established to promote and ensure compliance with all provisions of this agreement.

[No standing whatsoever … neither current government can regarded as an honest broker of anything until they convincingly reverse their backsliding.]

16. Russia will enshrine in law its policy of non-aggression towards Europe and Ukraine.

[Yeh, no loopholes in this item.]

17. The United States and Russia will agree to extend the validity of treaties on the non-proliferation and control of nuclear weapons, including the START I Treaty.

[Ditto.]

18. Ukraine agrees to be a non-nuclear state in accordance with the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.

[Ukraine did this in 1994 and kept their word.]

19. The Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant will be launched under the supervision of the IAEA, and the electricity produced will be distributed equally between Russia and Ukraine -- 50:50.

[Russia has no claim on this power. Russian stole this plant from Ukraine in 2022.]

20. Both countries undertake to implement educational programs in schools and society aimed at promoting understanding and tolerance of different cultures and eliminating racism and prejudice:

[Oof … False-equivalence alert.]

-- Ukraine will adopt EU rules on religious tolerance and the protection of linguistic minorities.

-- Both countries will agree to abolish all discriminatory measures and guarantee the rights of Ukrainian and Russian media and education.

-- All Nazi ideology and activities must be rejected and prohibited.

21. Territories:

[So the offer is … "We’re keeping the living room, the kitchen, and the workshop … You’ll say the kitchen was always ours and you won’t go in there; and we won’t go in there either ... unless we’re hungry, or thirsty, or sleepwalking.]

-- Crimea, Luhansk and Donetsk will be recognized as de facto Russian, including by the United States.

-- Kherson and Zaporizhzhia will be frozen along the line of contact, which will mean de facto recognition along the line of contact.

-- Russia will relinquish other agreed territories it controls outside the five regions.

-- Ukrainian forces will withdraw from the part of Donetsk Oblast that they currently control, and this withdrawal zone will be considered a neutral demilitarized buffer zone, internationally recognized as territory belonging to the Russian Federation. Russian forces will not enter this demilitarized zone.

22. After agreeing on future territorial arrangements, both the Russian Federation and Ukraine undertake not to change these arrangements by force. Any security guarantees will not apply in the event of a breach of this commitment.

[This is hypocrisy. Only Russia has changed its security arrangements by force.]

23. Russia will not prevent Ukraine from using the Dnieper River for commercial activities, and agreements will be reached on the free transport of grain across the Black Sea.

[Russia has no right to prevent Ukraine from free commercial activities compliant with internatonal law.]

24. A humanitarian committee will be established to resolve outstanding issues:

[This I can get behind … it shouldn’t need to be said, but in this instance it does, so….]

-- All remaining prisoners and bodies will be exchanged on an 'all for all' basis.

-- All civilian detainees and hostages will be returned, including children.

-- A family reunification program will be implemented.

-- Measures will be taken to alleviate the suffering of the victims of the conflict.

25. Ukraine will hold elections in 100 days.

[Who the hell do these people think they are?]

26. All parties involved in this conflict will receive full amnesty for their actions during the war and agree not to make any claims or consider any complaints in the future.

[Here and in item 2. Russian would skip over truth and reconciliation (let alone reparations), and apparently, the U.S. would support that. Not even Germany after the breakup of their affair with the fascists — maybe especially citizens of Germany who it could be argued did not freely consent — thought it would be better never spoken of again.]

27. This agreement will be legally binding. Its implementation will be monitored and guaranteed by the Peace Council, headed by President Donald J. Trump. Sanctions will be imposed for violations.

[Sorry: Not an honest broker by any measure.]

28. Once all parties agree to this memorandum, the ceasefire will take effect immediately after both sides retreat to agreed points to begin implementation of the agreement.

[If they want to show good faith, let the Russians stop killing Ukrainians and breaking their stuff. Russia is the aggressor here.] 

Source

https://abcnews.go.com/international/trump-administrations-28-point-ukraine-russia-peace-plan/story?id=127735249

when America was great . kill

 

when America was great . piggy

 

when America was great . grab

 

not the same

I was thinking about
how much I would
hate finding out my
next flight was
canceled, until I
thought about how
much I would hate
finding out I could
no longer afford 
health care coverage
… and that you could 
have kept that from
happening.

Don’t Kid Yourself, Senator

 

Me + My AI 04 . No one is coming to save us

[So, for some reason, I woke up in tune bondage to an old song in my head the other day ... and for some reason I thought it might be useful to get a read on what my AI platform-of-choice, Perplexity knows about what's been written about that song: 1967's "I Dig Rock 'n' Roll Music" by Peter Paul & Mary. The phrase of the song that was on repeat in my mind was "And if you really say it / the radio won't play it / unless it's written between the lines."

Here's the sequence of nine queries and responses. The sequence begins with the song and winds up on what Perplexity says about how much trust we should place in Perplexity.

It's longish but, A) of course, you don't need permission to skim, and B) there's a twist at the end.]

01 of 09

Me: Tell me about "I Dig Rock 'n' Roll Music" by Peter Paula & Mary.

Perplexity: "I Dig Rock 'n' Roll Music" is a 1967 song by the American folk group Peter, Paul and Mary, written by Paul Stookey, Jim Mason, and Dave Dixon. The song stands out as a satirical homage to the emerging rock scene of the 1960s, with each verse parodying the style of popular contemporary acts: the first verse mimics The Mamas & the Papas, the second references Donovan, and the third evokes The Beatles.

Song Structure and Themes

The lyrics and musical style playfully reference and gently poke fun at the distinctive sounds and lyrical quirks of these rock icons. 

For example, the phrasing in the line "When the words don't get in the way, yeah" is a nod to The Mamas & the Papasʼ song "Monday, Monday," while the "crystal images" mention refers to Donovanʼs "Epistle to Dippy".

The Beatles are parodied through the use of effects and harmonies reminiscent of "Yellow Submarine".

The recording features psychedelic feedback effects and mimics the instrumental textures popular in 1960s rock, with The Paupers, a rock band from Toronto, serving as the backing musicians.

Cultural Reception and Chart Success

The song reached No. 9 on the U.S. Billboard Hot 100, No. 4 in Australia, and had chart success in several other countries.

Critical commentary at the time and since has noted that, although the piece is satirical, it also shows genuine enjoyment and appreciation for the pop music of the era. AllMusicʼs Matthew Greenwald describes it as a celebration of the joy of pop music in the 1960s. At its release, some interpreted the song as partly mocking the then-new folk rock genre— ironically, since Peter, Paul and Mary themselves had expressed reservations about the quality of much rock writing compared to earlier folk music. 

Legacy

"I Dig Rock 'n' Roll Music" is often remembered as Peter, Paul and Maryʼs lighthearted dive into rock-influenced satire, combining their folk roots with clever commentary on their musical contemporaries.

It remains a frequently cited example of cross-genre playfulness and musical parody from the late 1960s.

+++

02 of 09

Me: Parody and not homage? 

[Because I was young but alive and paying attention at the time]

Perplexity: "I Dig Rock 'n' Roll Music" by Peter, Paul and Mary is best described as a parody rather than a pure homage. The song adopts the vocal and stylistic traits of The Mamas & the Papas, Donovan, and The Beatles to satirize them, with lyrics and arrangements that exaggerate and poke fun at the conventions of the late-1960s rock scene. 

Contemporary listeners and critics have noted that, while the song has an upbeat and playful feel, its lyrics are laced with sly critiques and jabs—particularly at the perceived superficiality or lack of substance in rock lyrics and attitudes of the era. Mary Travers herself expressed skepticism toward the emerging folk-rock movement, calling some of the new music "badly written," which contextualizes the song's satirical edge.

While some interpret it as an affectionate nod and others as sharper satire, most sources agree that the song is fundamentally a parody, using humor and pastiche to both enjoy and poke at the styles it mimics.

+++

03 of 09

Me: How does "But if you really say it / the radio won't play it / unless you lay it between the lines" play in this analysis? 

[Because this is the phrase that woke me up that morning] 

Perplexity: The lyric "But if you really say it / the radio won't play it / unless you lay it between the lines" underscores the song's critical perspective on the music industry and the way messages were conveyed in popular rock music of the 1960s. This line suggests that direct or honest expression, especially of controversial or socially conscious ideas, was often censored or avoided by commercial media outlets like radio stations. 

In the context of the song's parody and satire, this lyric serves as a commentary on the limitations placed on rock musicians who wanted to speak out openly. It implies that for a song to get airplay and commercial success, its message had to be veiled or subtle—"laid between the lines"—rather than blunt or forthright. This aligns with Peter, Paul and Mary's own background as folk musicians who valued direct, meaningful lyrics and may have felt constrained by the rise of rock music, which sometimes prioritized style or coded messages over clear statements. 

Thus, this lyric encapsulates the tension between authentic expression and commercial pressures, reinforcing the song's satirical critique of the rock music industry's compromises while simultaneously acknowledging its cultural power. 

+++

04 of 09

Me: How is this not understood as subversive rather than parodic? 

[Because it was getting interesting]

Perplexity: The distinction between parody and subversion in "I Dig Rock 'n' Roll Music" is nuanced, but the lyric "But if you really say it / the radio won't play it / unless you lay it between the lines" carries clear subversive undertones. This line exposes the commercial censorship and self-censorship that artists faced: direct or controversial messages were filtered out by radio and the industry, forcing musicians to disguise social commentary within ambiguous or metaphorical lyrics.

While the song is labeled parody because of its musical mimicry and tongue-in-cheek references — mocking vocal styles and clichés of popular acts—this particular lyric delivers a sharp critique of the industryʼs gatekeeping and the limits of free artistic expression. Analyses compare the sly cleverness of this line to the approach of artists such as Frank Zappa, who used humor and genre pastiche as a vehicle for harder truths.

Thus, performing as parody on the surface, the song's deeper message—especially in this lyric —is indeed subversive. It challenges the power structures of radio and commercial music while cleverly disguising its protest with accessible, popular styles. This ambiguity is core to its ongoing discussion: it parodies but also subverts, using the guise of humor to critique cultural conformity and censorship in popular music.

+++

05 of 09

Me: Would you have been satisfied to leave the results at the level of goofing if I had been satisfied with the initial response and hadn't continued to query? 

[Because I thought I detected a shift in tone from Perplexity's first response to the fourth]

Perplexity: If the follow-up questions had not been posed, the initial response would have remained focused on the surface-level analysis: describing "I Dig Rock 'n' Roll Music" as primarily a parody, using humor and stylistic mimicry to poke fun at popular rock acts of the era. This would capture the broadly accepted interpretation, emphasizing the song's satirical playfulness and musical references without delving into the deeper subversive critique revealed through the specific lyric discussion.

The more layered understanding—including the songʼs social commentary on censorship and industry practices—emerges naturally from further inquiry. Without those queries, the answer would have presented the "goofing," parody-focused reading, which is faithful to most mainstream descriptions and historical reviews of the song.

+++

06 of 09

Me: In this vein, how did pop radio move from this to embracing, Gil Scott Heron's "The Revolution Will Not Be Televised," Edwin Starr's "War," Barry McGuire's "Eve of Destruction," Buffalo Springfield's "There's Something Happening' Here," and, more or less, Marvin Gaye's entire "What's Goin' On?" album? Or is that question too linear, and/or too post hoc? 

[Because the Fifth Response took a pretty hard turn ... Trust me: This is going somewhere.]

Perplexity: The evolution of pop radioʼs relationship with protest and socially conscious music from the 1960s to the early 1970s was not linear or automatic but shaped by broader cultural, political, and industry forces. While early songs like Peter, Paul and Maryʼs “I Dig Rock ‘nʼ Roll Music” voiced skepticism about radioʼs willingness to air direct statements, the mainstream soon began promoting tracks with strong social and political messages. 

Cultural and Industry Factors

The rise of the Civil Rights Movement, antiwar activism, and counterculture challenged radio programmers and record labels, compelling them to engage with new, outspoken musical voices. 

Shifting public tastes and mass movements made social commentary both more desired and more marketable, as seen with Barry McGuireʼs “Eve of Destruction,” Buffalo Springfieldʼs “For What Itʼs Worth,” and Edwin Starrʼs “War,” which achieved major chart success despite —or because of—their outspoken content. 

Industry Adaptation and “The Lines”

While explicit references were often censored, artists increasingly mastered “laying it between the lines,” using metaphor, allegory, or indirect language to signal deeper messages, which both navigated broadcast restrictions and engaged an audience eager for meaning. 

As protest songs charted, record labels and radio grew bolder about broadcasting overt social commentary, especially when public demand was strong. Marvin Gayeʼs “Whatʼs Going On?” album is a prime example: Motown initially hesitated, but Gayeʼs artistic persistence and audience support led to its release and massive radio success.

Not Quite Linear Change

The shift wasnʼt purely a chronological progression. Some tracks were embraced immediately, others faced resistance, and many found success only after social climate changes or political events pushed their themes into the mainstream.

Songs like Gil Scott-Heronʼs “The Revolution Will Not Be Televised” and Marvin Gayeʼs entire album were only possible in an ecosystem transformed by earlier risk-takers—each release influenced by what came before and by changing public appetites.

Context and Complexity

Describing this as a strictly linear path is too simple and somewhat post hoc; rather, it reflects an interplay of cultural activism, media economics, evolving audience sensibilities, and experimentation with creative subversion.

Each moment of breakthrough was both the product of past struggles and a catalyst for future change, demonstrating how the boundaries of “what radio will play” were contested

song by song.

So, rather than one clear tipping point, the embrace of revolutionary, antiwar, and protest music on pop radio was shaped by incremental confrontations, shifting cultural norms, and the innovative work of artists willing to push “between the lines”—and sometimes, to cross them

outright. 

[Note: No argument with any of this.]

+++

07 of 09

Me: Is it fair to infer that your training has not included instruction on epistemics, hermeneutics, deconstruction and critical theory tools? 

[Because it seems like the rubber is about to meet the road.]

Perplexity: It is fair to infer that the training behind most large language models—including this one—does not explicitly include specialized instruction in epistemics, hermeneutics, deconstruction, or critical theory as distinct, systematic disciplines. These models are primarily trained to mimic patterns of natural language and produce informative, coherent answers by referencing large bodies of text data, which can include summaries and discussions from those fields, but not structured, formal education or methodological expertise in their application.

While the model's output can incorporate language and conceptual frameworks drawn from academic texts, essays, and discussions on epistemology or critical theory (especially when prompted or when those subjects are apparent in the input), it does not possess intentional, reflective skill in applying those tools the way an expert or formally trained human scholar would. Its responses rely on detecting context, drawing on referenced information, and matching user questions with relevant data, rather than actively engaging in deeper interpretive methodologies or original critical analysis.

Consequently, when interpretive theories, deconstruction, or epistemic critique are required, the model can retrieve and summarize relevant information, but its capacity for truly rigorous, self-aware critical inquiry or explicit methodological reasoning is limited to what is present in its training corpus and subsequent tool-based information retrieval.

+++

08 of 09

Me: So (final query in the thread, I think), would it be fair to conclude that the training model focuses on reporting a synthesis of the current, generally nominal published thinking present in the LLM [Large Language Model]; not including emergent published thinking until it crosses a - to the end user, invisible - threshold of ... what? mentions? authorities? citations? Perhaps the underlying question is, "When and how does the model come to know something, or know about something, such that something is assigned a level of significance that makes it worth including, or important to include?" 

[Because Perplexity has declared what it can and cannot do ... which, of course ... but I know people who haven't resisted the urge to believe and behave as if the models are more than they are. Here's the key text from the final paragraph just above: 

[T]he model can retrieve and summarize relevant information, but its capacity for truly rigorous, self-aware critical inquiry or explicit methodological reasoning is limited to what is present in its training corpus and subsequent tool-based information retrieval.

Almost home, but this will take a turn before we get there.... ]

Perplexity: Yes, itʼs fair to conclude that large language models are primarily trained to report a synthesis of widely available, generally accepted, and nominally “mainstream” published thinking present in their training corpus. Emergent ideas, novel perspectives, or fringe theories typically do not appear in model outputs until they reach a certain prominence in the corpus—that is, until they are referenced enough times, by sources considered reliable or authoritative, for the model to “recognize” them as significant.

Emergence and Inclusion Criteria

Volume of Mentions: Novel concepts or emergent arguments become more likely to be surfaced once they are widely discussed—appearing across many texts, platforms, or citation networks, often repeatedly and in varied contexts. 

Source Authority: The prominence or reputational weight of sources referencing an idea matters; academic publishers, major media outlets, and well-cited experts help raise the perceived significance of a concept in the training data pool. 

Citations and Context: The inclusion of scholarly citations, references in position papers, news reporting, and growing context given to a topic allows the model to associate emerging ideas with more established knowledge

How and When Does a Model “Know” Something?

The model “knows” about a topic or gives it priority when the patterns in its training data suggest that concept is broadly relevant—or frequently queried by users—and has gained enough critical mass to be recognized as informative or mainstream. 

This threshold is not visible to the end user; it reflects frequency, variety, and authority of mentions within the vast, but time-limited, training sources.

“Significance” is thus emergent from aggregate data, not from intentional reasoning: topics are weighted according to their volume and context in the training corpus, not by deliberate editorial oversight or philosophical assessment.

[Except, we know that Elon Musk's AI, Grok, has on some occasions been coached by deliberate editorial oversight to return responses favored by the owner. 

See, for example: https://www.eweek.com/news/musk-grok-ai-neutrality/ . 

https://www.businessinsider.com/xai-grok-training-facial-expressions-skippy-employees-react-2025-7]

Synthesis vs. Critical Appraisal

The modelʼs responses are designed for synthesis and breadth, not depth of critique; it mirrors consensus or widely reported ideas, with interpretive nuance only as found in the material it ingested.

Truly groundbreaking or paradigm-shifting work will not feature prominently until it becomes collectively part of the mainstream documented in sources the model uses. 

In short, what the model “knows” and includes mirrors the evolving landscape of published information: inclusion is a function of cumulative appearance, perceived authority, and context, rather than active epistemic judgement or interpretive evaluation.

+++

09 of 09 

[Here's the twist]

Me: OK, so this triggers one more question: How is this model trained to detect and resist spoofing by, say, a government flooding the zone with disinformation; reinforced by a partisan publishing network (where publishing includes formal traditional journalistic media, commercial propaganda networks, and self-published social media at scale); and not robustly and rigorously fact-checked and challenged at scale by noncompliant and non complicit information and analysis sources? 

[Because, if the model is designed to return mainstream responses, how resistant is it to nonsense ... and what can we/must we do on our side of the transaction?]

Perplexity: Large language models are not robustly or dynamically “trained to detect and resist spoofing”— such as zone-flooding by governments or coordinated partisan publishing—during inference (when generating responses). Instead, the main points of resistance come at two stages: training data curation and post-training guardrails. Both have limitations, especially in cases where disinformation is widespread and not broadly fact-checked in the public domain. 

Training Data Curation

Model developers try to filter or balance training data sources, aiming to exclude obvious propaganda, overtly fake news, and toxic content before training begins.

Some datasets incorporate fact-checked sources or scholarly publications, but they cannot perfectly exclude subtle disinformation or capture fast-changing propaganda tactics— especially if those tactics successfully mimic legitimate formats, flood multiple platforms, or utilize compliant networks that appear credible in aggregate.

[This is big, and a lot of it spelled out. Compliant networks is not spelled out but, off the top of my head, must include everything from captive networks, spoofed by robots or direct human intervention to distribute false information at scale, to media organizations that repeat what they're told in press releases, leaks, and back channels without due diligence.]

Post-Training Safeguards

Techniques such as “alignment,” reinforcement learning from human feedback RLHF, and post-training intervention (adding fact-checking datasets or moderation rules) can help steer responses away from known, documented disinformation or controversial topics.

[Human feedback can "steer responses away from known, documented disinformation." Human feedback can also steer responses away from "controversial topics." The former — steering responses away from documented disinformation — is factchecking. The latter — steering responses away from controversial topics — is elective censorship. The question, as always, is "Censorship by whom?"]

These methods are reactive, relying on outside reviews, annotation, or explicit moderation instructions; they are not automatic detection or correction systems capable of independent debunking within new, unseen material.

Limits of Disinformation Resistance

If a coordinated campaign saturates mainstream sources with falsehoods that are widely reprinted or referenced, and alternative or corrective information does not appear at scale in the corpus, models will synthesize and report what is “most present” in the data—regardless of its factuality.

[No better than social media, or your gossipy uncle.]

Self-published social media and online content add complexity, because volume and “engagement” can outpace fact-checking or professional journalism, creating echo

chambers or distorted consensus.

There is no built-in mechanism for independent critical reasoning, epistemic audits, or hermeneutic challenge; models may reproduce the shape and bias of their input data unless flagged or corrected by human intervention afterward. 

Fact-Checking and Analysis

[This is Perplexity telling us what it needs us to do.]

External fact-checking networks, disinformation watchdogs, and adversarial information sources are crucial for challenging propaganda and correcting the public record.

AI models benefit when such corrective sources become present in their training data, but lack real-time self-correction or immunity if a campaign is widespread and unopposed within the data they ingest.

In summary: Language modelsʼ resistance to spoofing and bad faith information is limited by the scope, quality, and diversity of their training sources, not by intrinsic epistemic or detection capabilities. When disinformation is widespread and alternative perspectives are suppressed or marginalized, the model can echo skewed, partisan, or propagandistic narratives until the corpus itself is rebalanced or curated with more rigorous, plural, and fact-checked content.

[If we don't do this, no one will.]