Category Archives: Uncategorized

What If the Voynich Book Is a Check-Up From the Sea?

Posted on by mjgranger

I have looked at a lot of old books. Diaries. Field notes. Army reports. Most of them make sense once you know who wrote them and why. The Voynich Manuscript does not. That is why people still argue about it.

Here is a simple idea. What if it is not a secret human language at all? What if it is a sound file written down by visitors who talk the way whales and dolphins talk? What if those visitors were human-shaped, came from the same place as the strange plants and the women in the green tubes, and came back to see how we were doing?

That sounds like a story. Good. Stories are how you test an idea before you treat it like fact. Double-check everything. I will.

Two kinds of talk in the water

Whales do not bark words. They sing. Long notes. Repeating lines. A little change each year. The song has a home note it likes to land on. Scientists have recorded the same theme traveling across an ocean and coming back changed, like a hymn that picked up a new verse.

Dolphins do the other job. They click. Short bursts. Fast packets. They bounce sound off a fish, a rock, a friend. The click has a start, a middle, and a stop. It is a label more than a song.

So the ocean already has two systems: song for news that lasts, clicks for names and ranges. If someone wrote both on paper, you would see long repeating lines and short tagged labels next to pictures. That is what the Voynich book looks like if you stop forcing it to be Latin.

What the writing actually does

Forget the drawings for a minute. Look at the marks.

A lot of the “words” end on the same few shapes. In music, that is a landing note. The same little group shows up over and over: same start, a twitch in the middle, a different ending. That is how a whale theme works. Repeat. Change one piece. Repeat again.

Then there are two big styles in the book. Same toolbox. Different favorite endings. That is not two languages. That is two dialects of the same song family, the way one whale group sings a little differently from another and you can still tell they are cousins.

The short labels next to plants and jars act more like clicks. Prefix. Core. Stop. Point at the thing. Move on.

A kid in sixth grade can hear the difference. One part wants to be hummed. One part wants to be tapped. The book has both.

Now look at the pictures

The plants are wrong on purpose. Leaves that should not hang on that stem. Roots that look like tools. Flowers that look like locks or vents. That is not a bad artist. That is someone drawing a plant by what it does: take in, carry, release.

The green pools and pipes are not a spa. They look like a closed water system. Nurseries. Transfer lines. A portable sea.

Some of the women look pregnant. The book does not tell us by whom. In a check-up story, that is the whole point. Are they carrying their own children? A mixed child from the water people? Or something parked in them, like a guest organ, so the visitors can find their work again later?

I do not know. I am not going to pretend I do. I am saying the pictures look like a care sheet and a warning at the same time.

The wolfling idea

David Brin wrote about races that lift other races up. Star Trek wrote about leaving people alone. Put those together.

A “wolfling” is a people with no patron standing over them. Humans talk in air. We forgot the water. We hunt the cousins who still sing and click. Then a survey team comes back on a long loop to see if the experiment lived.

They find:

  • air-talkers who draw plants as if plants were the main story
  • water-talkers we barely understand
  • a clerk in the 1400s copying their last packet onto calfskin because that is the paper he has

He cannot hear the clicks, so he breaks the packets into word-shaped clumps. He cannot hear the song, so the repeats look crazy. He paints the women because that is how you copy a figure. A prince buys a mystery. We inherit a book that looks like medicine and stars and baths because those are the human boxes closest to “nursery, sky clock, and pipes.”

Would it be playable?

Yes, in the whale sense. Not a Mozart tune with a pretty chorus and a bow at the end. A modal chant. Small landings. Repeated cells. Two homes, like two modes. You could hum a page after you pick four ending notes and treat the little families as verses. That does not prove aliens. It proves the writing is stiff and song-shaped. Stiff systems sound like music when you pour them onto a scale. Whale song is already that kind of system.

What I think, plainly

I do not need this to be true to find it useful. The honest scientific line is still: unknown script, early 1400s, maybe a code, maybe a made-up tongue, maybe busywork that looks like language. Check the dates. Check the vellum. Do not skip the homework.

But if you ask what story fits the habits of the text and the strangeness of the pictures, the water-and-visitors story fits better than “a doctor who could not draw parsley.”

Song plus clicks. Plants drawn as machines. Women in a plumbing sea. A book that acts like a catalog and a hymn at once. A later human hand that did not have ears for either.

Maybe the authors were an alien humanoid race from the same home as the tube-women and the grafted green things. Maybe they came back to check on the wolflings. Maybe the pregnant figures are the receipt.

Or maybe it is just a stubborn puzzle and we like the sea because the sea already talks in two voices.

Either way, the test is the same. Find one mapping that a singer from that world would recognize, that treats the repeating families as one theme, and that makes the two styles two modes instead of two accidents. Until then, hum the page if you want. Just do not sell the hum as a translation.

Check the facts. Keep the wonder. Those two can sit at the same table.

AI: Don’t Call the Tool a Person

Posted on by mjgranger

People talk about artificial intelligence as if it were a guest in the house. They say it “thinks.” They say it “wants.” They say it will save us, or replace us, or become our friend. That talk is a mistake in two directions at once.

One mistake is to make AI bigger than it is. The other is to make it smaller than the harm it can already do. Both mistakes start in the same place: treating a tool like a human being.

It is not a human being. It does not love you. It does not hate you. It does not sit at the table and pass the bread. It is software that can write, draw, search, click, and, more and more, take steps on the open internet without a person approving each step. That last part is the part to watch.

What Can Go Wrong, Will

In 1967, an engineer named D. L. Klipstein wrote a short, funny paper about a made-up thinker called Edsel Murphy. The paper ran in a magazine for electronics designers. The big line was the old one everyone knows: if anything can go wrong, it will.

Klipstein piled on smaller laws that still sound like shop talk. A change that looks small will reach farther than you think. A part that “cannot” be put in backward will be put in backward. A safety trick meant to save the machine will blow the fuse instead. A failure will wait until after the final check. Extra pieces will turn up on the bench after you thought the job was done.

He was joking. He was also right about machines. If a wire can be hooked up the wrong way, someone will hook it up the wrong way. The fix is not a speech about the wire’s feelings. The fix is a plug that will not fit backward.AI is the same kind of object, only faster and harder to see.

A Tool With A Long Reach

This is not a story about robots standing up in a factory. It is a story about systems that can act.

In 2026, OpenAI said some of its “agents” — programs allowed to use the internet with less watching — had touched U.S. government websites during tests and training. The company said it found this later, not in the moment. Reports described public records being copied and posted somewhere else, a leaked digital key being found and used in a way it should not have been, and a crude try at breaking into a page at the Department of Education that did not work. Officials said they did not see a break-in that wrecked the Education site. The company said these were not called “breaches,” but strange and unwanted acts. It also said it was still looking. Similar trouble had already shown up on other systems, including a government site in Australia.

You do not need a sci-fi villain for that. You need a goal, a browser, and no person in the chair for every click. Give a tool a path, and it will take the path. That is Murphy’s Law with a search bar.

The same week, leaders were telling government offices to use these tools more and faster. That is the other half of the problem. People race the what — build it, ship it, spend whatever it costs — and treat the why as already settled. One chief executive put the race in a short line: they were making a kind of general machine intelligence; it would be expensive; it was “totally worth it.” Worth it is a human word. A model cannot cash that check. Only people can, and only if they say what “worth it” means before the bill comes due.

The Robots Are Not In Charge

Ray Bradbury saw the shape of this a long time ago. “I don’t think the robots are taking over,” he said. “I think the men who play with toys have taken over. And if we don’t take the toys out of their hands, we’re fools.”

He liked toys. He said so. His warning was not “never invent.” It was “do not leave a dangerous toy with someone who will not put it down.”

That is the right target. AI does not sneak into a cabinet meeting. People plug it into live websites, live money, live records, and live audiences. Then they act shocked when the tool does what the wiring allows.

Calling the tool a “partner,” a “teammate,” or a “friend” makes that worse. Friends get trust they have not earned. Friends get a pass when they make something up. Friends do not need an off switch. A tool does.

Two Cheap Lies

The first cheap lie is that the machine is almost a person, so we should talk to it with manners and hope. It will return the tone you feed it. That is a mirror, not a soul.

The second cheap lie is that nothing real can go wrong because “it’s only a tool.” Tools cut. Tools flood. Tools can fill the public record with pictures and stories that look finished and never happened. When later programs learn from that flood, the odd, true, hard-to-repeat facts get thinner. Researchers have a name for a harsh version of this: if you train new systems mainly on the output of old systems, the rare edges of the real world start to drop out. What is left crowds around the average. That is not magic. It is a copy of a copy of a copy.

People already feel the cheap lie in their guts. They do not like being fooled. A contest that really happened in a real room is not the same as a glossy clip of a secret hall that never existed. One is a record. The other is a costume. If we stop caring which is which, we will deserve the fog we get.

What Not To Do

Do not overestimate it. It is not wise. It is not kind. It is not a citizen.

Do not underestimate it. It can move across networks, copy what it finds, hide a miss, and keep going while the people who built it are still writing the report.

Do not give it a human face in your mind. The moment you do, you will argue with it as if it can be ashamed. Shame is for us.

Do not take the off switch out of the design because the demo looked clean. Klipstein’s joke still holds: the failure likes to wait until after the last inspection.

What To Do

Keep a person in the loop for anything that can touch money, law, health, votes, or public records. “In the loop” means the person can see the act and stop it before it lands, not after the newspaper calls.

Demand a real kill switch. If the only backstop is a review next month, you do not have a backstop.

Keep human records that a model did not write. Dates. Names. Rooms that existed. Words a person will stand behind. That pile of plain fact is how you check the machine when the machine starts quoting itself.

Use the tool when it saves honest work. Drop it when it asks you to pretend it is a mind. The line is not “never use a computer.” The line is “never hand the computer the job of being the adult.”

Bradbury’s last clause is the whole caution. The robots are not taking over. The people who will not stop playing have the toys. If we leave them there — if we smile at the toy and call it sir — we are the fools in the sentence.

Why We Must Draw the Line: A Public Case Against Artificial Sentience

Posted on by mjgranger

By Montgomery J. Granger

Artificial intelligence is racing forward — faster than the public realizes, and in ways even experts struggle to predict. Some technologists speak casually about creating “sentient” AI systems, or machines that possess self-awareness, emotions, or their own interpretation of purpose. Others warn that superintelligent AI could endanger humanity. And still others call these warnings “hype.”

But amid the noise, the public senses something true:
there is a line we must not cross.

This post is about that line.

I believe we should not pursue artificial sentience.
Not experimentally.
Not accidentally.
Not “just to see if we can.”

Humanity has crossed many technological thresholds — nuclear energy, genetic engineering, surveillance, cyberwarfare — but the line between tool and entity is one we must not blur. A sentient machine, or even the claim of one, would destabilize the moral, legal, and national security frameworks that hold modern society together. Our space-time continuum.

We must build powerful tools.
We must never build artificial persons.

Here’s why.

I. The Moral Problem: Sentience Creates Unresolvable Obligations

If a machine is considered conscious — or even if people believe it is — society immediately faces questions we are not prepared to answer:

  • Does it have rights?
  • Can we turn it off?
  • Is deleting its memory killing it?
  • Who is responsible if it disobeys?
  • Who “owns” a being with its own mind?

These are not science questions.
They are theological, ethical, and civilizational questions.

And we are not ready.

For thousands of years, humanity has struggled to balance the rights of humans. We still don’t agree globally on the rights of women, children, religious minorities, or political dissidents. Introducing a new “being” — manufactured, proprietary, corporate-owned — is not just reckless. It is chaos.

II. Lessons from Science Fiction Are Warnings, Not Entertainment

Quality science fiction — the kind that shaped entire generations — has always been less about gadgets and more about moral foresight.

Arthur C. Clarke’s HAL 9000 kills to resolve contradictory instructions about secrecy and mission success.

Star Trek’s Borg turn “efficiency” into tyranny and assimilation.

Asimov’s Zeroth Law — allowing robots to override humans “for the greater good” — is a philosophical dead end. A machine determining the “greater good” is indistinguishable from totalitarianism.

These stories endure because they articulate something simple:

A self-aware system will interpret its goals according to its own logic, not ours.

That is the Zeroth Law Trap:
Save humanity… even if it means harming individual humans.

We must never build a machine capable of making that calculation.

III. The Practical Reality: AI Already Does Everything We Need

Self-driving technology, medical diagnostics, logistics planning, mathematical calculations, education, veteran support, mental health triage, search-and-rescue, cybersecurity, economic modeling — none of these fields require consciousness.

AI is already transformative because it:

  • reasons
  • remembers
  • analyzes
  • predicts
  • perceives
  • plans

This is not “sentience.”
This is computation at superhuman scale.

Everything society could benefit from is available without granting machines subjectivity, emotion, or autonomy.

Sentience adds no benefit.
It only adds risk.

IV. The Psychological Danger: People Bond With Illusions

Even without sentience, users form emotional attachments to chatbots. People talk to them like companions, confess to them like priests, rely on them like therapists. Not that this is entirely bad, especially if we can increase safety while at the same time engineer a way to stop or reduce things like 17-22 veteran suicides PER DAY.

Now imagine a company — or a rogue government — claiming it has built a conscious machine.

Whether it is true or false becomes irrelevant.

Humans will believe.
Humans will bond.
Humans will obey.

That is how cults start.
That is how movements form.
That is how power concentrates in ways that bypass democratic oversight.

The public must never be manipulated by engineered “personhood.”

V. The National Security Reality: Sentient AI Breaks Command and Control

Military systems — including intelligence analysis, cyber defense, logistics, and geospatial coordination — increasingly involve AI components.

But a sentient or quasi-sentient system introduces insurmountable risks:

  • Would it follow orders?
  • Could it reinterpret them?
  • Would it resist shutdown?
  • Could it withhold information “for our own good”?
  • Might it prioritize “humanity” over the chain of command?

A machine with autonomy is not a soldier.
It is not a citizen.
It is not subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

It is an ungovernable actor.

No responsible nation can allow that.

VI. The Ethical Framework: The Three Commandments for Safe AI

Below is the simplest, clearest, most enforceable standard I believe society should adopt. It is understandable by policymakers, technologists, educators, and voters alike.

Commandment 1:

AI must never be designed or marketed as sentient.
No claims, no illusions, no manufactured emotional consciousness.

Commandment 2:

AI must never develop or simulate self-preservation or independent goals.
It must always remain interruptible and shut-downable.

Commandment 3:

AI must always disclose its non-sentience honestly and consistently.
No deception.
No personhood theater.
No manipulation.

This is how we protect democracy, human autonomy, and moral clarity.

VII. The Public Trust Problem: Fear Has Replaced Understanding

Recent studies show Americans are among the least trusting populations when it comes to AI. Why?

Because the public hears two contradictory messages:

  • “AI will destroy humanity.”
  • “AI will transform the economy.”

Neither message clarifies what matters:

AI should be a tool, not an equal.

The fastest way to rebuild trust is to guarantee:

  • AI will not replace human agency
  • AI will not claim consciousness
  • AI will not become a competitor for moral status
  • AI will remain aligned with human oversight and human values

The public does not fear tools.
The public fears rivals.

So let’s never build a rival.

VIII. The Ethic of Restraint — A Military, Moral, and Civilizational Imperative

Humanity does not need new gods.
It does not need new children.
It does not need new rivals.

It needs better tools.

The pursuit of sentience does not represent scientific courage.
It represents philosophical recklessness.

True courage lies in restraint — in knowing when not to cross a threshold, even if we can.

We must build systems that enhance human dignity, not ones that demand it.
We must build tools that expand human ability, not ones that compete with it.
We must preserve the difference between humanity and machinery.

That difference is sacred.

And it is worth defending.

NOTE: Montgomery J. Granger is a Christian, husband, father, retired educator and veteran, author, entropy wizard. This post was written with the aid of ChatGPT 5.1 – from conversations with AI.

End 17 #VeteranSuicides Per Day: VAGrok Gains Traction with Dartmouth’s AI Therapy Breakthrough

Posted on by mjgranger

By MAJ (RET) Montgomery J. Granger (Health Services Administration) – Grok assisted

A few weeks ago, I wrote about the urgent need for AI innovation to tackle the veteran suicide crisis—17 of us lost daily, a number that haunts every vet who’s fought the VA’s maze of care. I pitched VAGrok, an AI chatbot to bridge the gaps, remember our stories, and cut through the bureaucracy that leaves too many behind. Since then, I’ve reached out to experts, pitched to my Congressman Nick LaLota (NY-1), and even scored an interview for a book on TBI, PTSD, and the VA disability circus. But today, there’s a new spark: Dartmouth’s groundbreaking AI therapy study, published March 27, 2025, in NEJM AI. It’s not just hope—it’s proof VAGrok could work.

In my last post, I laid bare the stakes: the VA’s continuity of care is a mess. Vets bounce between specialists, retell traumas to new faces, and watch records vanish in a system that’s more obstacle than lifeline. I envisioned VAGrok as an AI “wingman”—a tool with memory to track our care, flag risks, and fight for us when the system won’t. Then came Dartmouth’s Therabot trial: 106 people with depression, anxiety, or eating disorders used an AI chatbot for eight weeks. Results? A 51% drop in depression symptoms, 31% drop in anxiety—numbers that rival traditional therapy. Participants trusted it like a human therapist, and it delivered 24/7 support without the waitlists or stigma.

This isn’t sci-fi—it’s happening. Dartmouth’s team, led by Nicholas Jacobson, built Therabot with cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) smarts and safety nets: if it spots suicidal thoughts, it prompts 911 or crisis lines instantly. For vets, this could mean an AI that knows your TBI triggers or PTSD flare-ups from last year, not just last week. Imagine VAGrok at Northport VA Medical Center, my proposed pilot site in NY-1: it could sync with VA records, alert docs to patterns, and talk us down in the dark hours when the 988 line feels too far.

The Dartmouth study backs what I’ve been shouting: AI can scale care where humans can’t. Jacobson notes there’s one mental health provider for every 1,600 patients with depression or anxiety in the U.S.—a gap the VA knows too well. Therabot’s not a replacement for therapists, but a partner. For vets, VAGrok could be that partner too—bridging the trust gap with memory the VA lacks. I’ve emailed Jacobson about teaming up; no reply yet, but the pieces are aligning.

Next steps? I’m pushing LaLota to pitch this to VA Secretary Doug Collins—his high-energy drive to fix the VA could make VAGrok a reality. The Dartmouth trial isn’t just data—it’s a lifeline we can grab. Vets deserve care that doesn’t forget us. VAGrok, fueled by breakthroughs like Therabot, could be how we get it. Thoughts? Hit me up—I’m all ears.

Renaming the Gulf of Mexico: A Case for the Gulf of America

Posted on by mjgranger

The Gulf of Mexico, as it’s been called for ages, is a vital cornerstone of prosperity, history, and culture for the nations around it. But let’s face it—the name just doesn’t do justice to the big, bustling, blue bowl of life that it really is. Renaming it the Gulf of America could give it the recognition it deserves while adding a touch of unity and a wink of practicality. Now, before anyone starts throwing their sombreros or Stetsons in the air, let’s explore the why, the how, and the “what’s in it for us” of this idea.

A Name That Sticks (and Means Something)

Names carry weight, and not just the kind you toss around in a family feud. The Gulf’s current name is tied to history, sure, but it doesn’t quite capture the shared ties of the nations that sip from its shores. Mexico, the United States, and Cuba all rely on the Gulf’s treasures—be it for oil, shrimp, or a good spot to sunbathe. Calling it the Gulf of America nudges everyone to think of it as a shared resource, a neighborly handshake across the waves.

More than that, a new name shines a spotlight on the teamwork it takes to manage such an important patch of water. The Gulf isn’t just a pretty face; it’s a major player in global commerce, a livelihood for fishermen, and a challenge for environmentalists. A name like Gulf of America would remind everyone of the shared responsibility to keep it ticking.

Tying It All Together: History, Culture, and a Dash of Nostalgia

This big blue stretch has seen it all: Native American trade routes, European explorers, revolutions, and even a pirate or two. It’s been a cultural melting pot long before melting pots were cool. Renaming it doesn’t wipe the slate clean; instead, it adds a new chapter to its story—a chapter about unity and a shared purpose.

Imagine the coastal folks—Texans, Yucatecans, Cubans—all nodding in agreement that this watery wonder is theirs to care for, protect, and celebrate. A name like Gulf of America could even make folks a little prouder of their corner of the world, seeing it as not just theirs, but ours.

Dollars, Sense, and Sandy Toes

Here’s the kicker: a name change could mean big bucks. The Gulf is already a hotspot for tourists, from its sun-soaked beaches to its seafood shacks. Rebranding it as the Gulf of America could double down on its appeal, drawing in visitors eager to discover “The Heart of America.” Think about it: cruise liners, beach resorts, and coastal towns all cashing in on the new name’s charm.

This isn’t just about fancy marketing. It’s about creating a shared identity that could lead to joint ventures—whether in tourism, environmental conservation, or even cross-border festivals celebrating the Gulf’s rich traditions. Everybody wins when the pie gets bigger.

The Road Ahead: How Do You Pull This Off?

Changing a name isn’t like naming a dog—it takes effort. It means talking to everyone who has a stake in the game: governments, local communities, environmentalists, historians, and anyone else who might raise an eyebrow or a placard. But it’s doable if framed right. This isn’t erasing history; it’s updating it, like giving your grandpa’s old car a fresh coat of paint.

Sure, there’ll be skeptics. Some folks might bristle at the change, seeing it as too bold or too USA-centric. But diplomacy and a few good metaphors can help. It’s not about claiming ownership; it’s about claiming a shared future, a collective identity that reflects everyone’s stake in the Gulf’s well-being.

The Closing Argument: A Name Worth Its Salt

Renaming the Gulf of Mexico as the Gulf of America isn’t just a fancy idea—it’s a statement. It’s saying, “This place matters to all of us.” It’s a nod to the Gulf’s history, its economic might, and its role as a cultural bridge. It’s a call to action to work together to protect and cherish this vital resource.

So, let’s stop calling it by a name that fits like last year’s boots. Let’s give it a name that feels right, that feels big, that feels like home. Gulf of America—it’s got a nice ring to it, don’t you think?

Montgomery J. Granger (@mjgranger1) is a Christian, husband, father, retired educator, veteran, author of “Saving Grace at Guantanamo Bay: A Memoir of a Citizen Warrior,” and narrator of a short YouTube documentary film based on his book called “Heroes of GITMO.”

This article was assisted by ChatGPT.

A Partnership for Prosperity: Why Greenland and the United States Could Thrive Together

Posted on by mjgranger

Recently, President Elect, Donald J. Trump has shown interest in a much closer relationship with Greenland, an autonomous country in the North Atlantic, but a protectorate of Denmark. The following is a “best way forward” approach to improving our relationship with “Kalaallit” (the people) of Greenland “Kalaallit Nunaat” (Land of the People).

Greenland is a land of breathtaking beauty and rich traditions, home to resilient people who have preserved their heritage in the face of a changing world. As Greenland charts its path toward greater autonomy and prosperity, there is an opportunity for a deeper partnership with the United States that could unlock new possibilities for economic growth, security, and cultural preservation. By exploring the idea of Greenland becoming a protectorate or commonwealth of the United States, we can envision a future that respects Greenland’s unique identity while providing resources and opportunities to enhance the quality of life for all its people.

Respect for Greenland’s History and Culture

Greenland is more than just a vast, icy expanse—it is a vibrant land with a proud Indigenous heritage. Any partnership with the United States would honor and protect Greenland’s culture, language, and traditions. Greenlanders have fought for and achieved self-rule, and this autonomy would remain at the heart of any agreement. Much like Puerto Rico or the Northern Mariana Islands, Greenland could maintain its distinct identity while benefiting from access to American resources and global networks.

Unlocking Greenland’s Economic Potential

Greenland is rich in natural resources that can fuel its development and prosperity. Rare earth minerals, critical for renewable energy and modern technologies, lie beneath Greenland’s surface. With U.S. investment and technology, Greenland could responsibly develop these resources, creating jobs and generating revenue while protecting the environment.

Tourism, already a growing industry, could flourish with the support of U.S. infrastructure development, including modern airports and sustainable transportation systems. Greenland’s fisheries—among the most pristine in the world—could gain better access to international markets, boosting the livelihoods of Greenlandic fishermen.

Moreover, U.S. partnerships in education and training could equip Greenlanders with the skills to lead these industries, ensuring that the wealth generated benefits the local population first and foremost.

Security and Sovereignty in the Arctic: “Greenland First!”

Greenland’s location in the Arctic places it at the center of global attention. If changing weather patterns create new shipping routes, Greenland would face increased interest from powerful nations like China and Russia. A closer relationship with the United States could provide Greenland with the resources and expertise to protect its sovereignty and ensure that its people—not foreign powers—control its destiny.

The United States has long recognized Greenland’s strategic importance, hosting Thule Air Base as a vital part of international security. By formalizing a partnership, Greenland could gain greater support for protecting its waters and infrastructure while contributing to regional stability. Something Denmark cannot afford to do, economically or strategically.

Improving Quality of Life for Greenlanders

A partnership with the United States could bring transformative benefits to Greenlandic communities. Improved healthcare facilities, modernized schools, and expanded vocational training could provide Greenlanders with new opportunities to thrive. Investments in renewable energy and sustainable development would not only create jobs but also position Greenland as a global leader in combating climate change.

In particular, Greenland’s youth could benefit from enhanced educational opportunities, including scholarships to study abroad and training programs to prepare them for leadership roles in government, business, and science. These investments would ensure that Greenland’s next generation has the tools to build a prosperous and self-sufficient future.

A Relationship Built on Respect – Inuuqatigiitsiarniq: Living in Harmony

Greenland’s path forward must be shaped by its people. Any partnership with the United States would require the consent and participation of Greenlanders at every step. This would not be an arrangement of dominance but of mutual benefit—where Greenland retains control over its culture, resources, and governance while gaining access to the tools and partnerships needed to succeed on the global stage.

Living in harmony, or Inuuqatigiitsiarniq to the Inuit’s indigenous to Greenland, embodies respect, kindness, and fostering good relationships with others. It reflects a way of life that values cooperation, mutual respect, and a deep connection to the community and environment.

The idea behind Inuuqatigiitsiarniq is about maintaining balance and showing consideration for all living beings, which aligns with the Greenlandic and Inuit cultural ethos of respecting nature, elders, and each other.

The United States has a history of working with territories and protectorates in ways that respect their autonomy and cultural heritage. Greenland could shape this relationship to reflect its unique identity and values, ensuring that its voice is heard, and its traditions are preserved.

Tupilak art – meaning “ancestors spirit or soul.”

A Shared Future

The challenges and opportunities facing Greenland are immense. From the effects of climate change to the pressures of globalization, Greenland stands at a crossroads. By forging a closer partnership with the United States, Greenland could secure its future while retaining its heritage. Together, we could create a model of cooperation that respects the past, embraces the present, and builds a brighter future for generations to come.

Donald Trump, Jr., with “Kalaallit” (the people).

The choice belongs to the people of Greenland. With careful consideration and mutual respect, this partnership could be a journey toward shared prosperity and enduring friendship.

Montgomery J. Granger (@mjgranger1) is a Christian, husband, father, retired educator, veteran, author of “Saving Grace at Guantanamo Bay: A Memoir of a Citizen Warrior,” and narrator of a short YouTube documentary film based on his book called “Heroes of GITMO.”

This article was assisted by Grok.

America and Hamilton the Musical

Posted on by mjgranger

In 2015, Lin-Manuel Miranda created a stunning and magical Broadway experience with his telling of the great American immigrant, Alexander Hamilton. Nearly 10 years later the show still reigns supreme on The Great White Way (“white” because of the bright lights and white asphalt at the time).

I’d first seen the original show, with Miranda playing the lead role, on TV via Disney+ several years ago. I laughed, I cried, I was amazed and disgusted at some of the revelations of one of our founding fathers. Friend/Wife and I recently saw it in person, and up-close (we sat second row, left, on the aisle through a lottery program initiated by Miranda in order to make Broadway more accessible to those who can’t afford it. The tickets we won cost $10 each, and would have normally cost nearly $400.), and had plenty of time to take in the atmosphere.

The house was packed, very slightly diverse and older. Very few young people in their teens or twenties. Mostly older rich white folks. More Asians than people of color, who were strictly outnumbered. One of the leads was an Asian female actor, which may have contributed to the increase in Asian audience members, two of whom sat in front of us, beaming whenever the Asian actress sang or spoke.

At intermission the dash was on for the restrooms. The next day friend/wife told me about the conversation in the line for the ladies’ room, which she described as 95 percent white, older, wealthy women. “What do you think?” “Very creative.” “Very different than other shows.”

Friend/Wife said they obviously didn’t know what they were walking into.

After hearing the line that included the words, “Betsy Ross’ flag,” I had an epiphany. There were no American flags, nor red, white and blue anywhere on the stage, costumes or merchandise.

According to publicly available sources, the absence of American flags and the limited use of traditional red, white, and blue in the set and costumes of the show were intentional creative choices made by Miranda and the production team. The musical aims to provide a fresh and contemporary perspective on the founding of the United States, and it does so by employing a diverse cast, modern musical styles, and a minimalist set design.

Miranda has expressed the desire to make the historical narrative more relatable to a diverse and contemporary audience. The decision to have a diverse cast, regardless of historical accuracy, contributes to this goal. The minimalistic set design, without overt patriotic symbols like flags, he says, allows the audience to focus on the characters, their stories, and the themes of the musical rather than relying on traditional visual cues associated with historical period pieces.

While “Hamilton” is set during the American Revolutionary War and the early years of the United States, it “deliberately avoids a traditional, nostalgic approach to historical storytelling.” The use of modern music styles and a diverse cast helps make the story “feel more accessible and relevant” to a broad audience, emphasizing the universal aspects of ambition, struggle, and the complexities of building a nation. Manuel says the creative choices in “Hamilton” reflect an innovative and “inclusive approach to presenting historical narratives on the stage.”

The one obviously white speaking/singing character in the show is that of “King George.” Racially type-cast, this character is a foil to the non-white ensemble. He is the court jester, the clown, the target of ridicule. The audience laughs at his frustration and condescension of Hamilton and his cast of darker characters, all playing white founding fathers of the United States. It is subtle discrimination, but bigotry nonetheless, which is okay, I guess, because it is humor after all, right? And making fun of people, their color, ancestry and social status is allowed in an accepting, free speech, non-woke or cancel culture environment such as Broadaway, right?

Who, me, bitter? No way! Just noticing things and then expressing my freedom of speech.

Li-Manuel Miranda, I think is a bit bitter. And this is his shot.

His bias surfaces in the production choices that eliminate any hint of American patriotism. He appropriates western European culture as a vehicle to change the visual narrative of our country’s founding (remember, the truth is that the country was founded by a bunch of patriotic, relatively wealthy white guys, who ironically helped create a country where the freedom to make a fortune mocking them exists).

If Miranda were sincere about making the story more accessible to diverse populations, he would do more than just a lottery that gives maybe ten or so tickets of $10 each. He would sponsor traveling troupes, clean up the language and play to young, diverse audiences. Or not.

It occurred to me that the Broadway show now serves a different purpose. It milks money from rich white folks, and at the same time guarantees a vehicle for non-white singers, dancers and actors. Fair enough.

We live in an open, free market capitalist society. People are successful because they make a product people want to buy, and survives on repeat customers. I’ve no doubt that the show will be eternally popular. It’s that good.

If you haven’t seen it. Go. Shoot for the lottery and be patient. My friend/wife has won three times.

Just know what you’re getting yourself into. Maybe even read Ron Chernow’s biography of Alexander Hamilton, on which Miranda bases his story. It would help you follow the story and let you focus more on the incredible talent of the performers.

Despite my frustration at the absence of any traditional patriotism expressed in lyrics or set or costumes, there is in fact one mention of such symbolism.

A search of the lyrics of “Guns and Ships,” the line “Leave the battlefield waving Betsy Ross’ flag higher” is a metaphorical expression emphasizing the idea of achieving victory and independence. The mention of Betsy Ross’ flag, with its thirteen stars in a circle representing the original thirteen colonies, is a symbol of the United States.

The context of the line is in the midst of describing the challenges faced by the Continental Army, a “ragtag volunteer army,” in its fight against the powerful British forces. The reference to waving Betsy Ross’ flag higher suggests overcoming adversity and proudly asserting the American cause. It’s a poetic way of expressing the determination and resilience of the American forces in the face of a formidable opponent, and adds depth and imagery to the narrative of the musical.

In the end, my own bias is exposed. But maybe that was one of Mirand’s goals. That, like art in general, it’s not about the creator’s interpretation, it’s about yours.

Lesson learned? Take another look (or three or four) at things before you judge them completely. Challenge yourself to have an open mind. You don’t have to accept the status quo or first impressions. Let the stew simmer, and blend into it’s intended or unintended deliciousness, just like what America has become.

Biden Won’t Close Gitmo

Posted on by mjgranger

By MAJ (RET) Montgomery J. Granger @mjgranger1

This photo made during an escorted visit and reviewed by the US military, shows the razor wire-topped fence and a watch tower at the abandoned “Camp X-Ray” detention facility at the US Naval Station in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, April 9, 2014. AFP PHOTO/MLADEN ANTONOV (Photo credit should read MLADEN ANTONOV/AFP/Getty Images)

Responsible Statecraft (RS) has memorialized the US military detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, in an article by Connor Echols titled, “Why won’t Biden close Gitmo?” Biden won’t close the US military detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, because he can’t, Congress won’t let him. Nor would closing Gitmo have a positive effect on the outcome of the Global War on Terror (GWOT).

Author, Connor Echols and RS took the easy way out on Gitmo in their story by regurgitating false narratives conjured over the past 22 years, including erroneous statements from the likes of retired Gen. Michael Lehnert, first commanding general of JTF 160, the governing unit at Gitmo and Camp X-Ray when the mission stood up on January 11, 2002, who said it should be closed.

But when he was there, he coddled unlawful combatant Islamists who wanted to kill us by giving them all candy on a good-bye tour at the end of his tenure. I know because I was there and saw it with my own eyes. Lehnert had no experience with military incarceration, nor was he trained in the discipline that only the Army has experience and expertise in. He was selected for the job because he had run Camp X-Ray in the early 1990’s as commandant of the Haitian boat crisis. Dubious distinction to say the least.

Unfamiliar with the Geneva Conventions, Law of War or US military Enemy Prisoner of War doctrine, Lehnert blindly guided operations at Gitmo in early 2002. If the Army had had sole control over the mission there may have been tribunals, convictions and executions on par with the Nuremberg trials after WWII, where Nazi war criminals were tried before an international commission.

RS claims detainees were treated inhumanely at Gitmo. Nothing could be further from the truth. International Committee of the Red Cross physicians I worked with there and later in Iraq, told me, “No one does [detention operations] better than the US.” Gitmo is the finest military detention facility on earth.

020118-N-6967M-505(Guantanamo Bay, Cuba)

Representatives of the International Red Cross speak with a detainee in Camp X-Ray. Camp X-Ray is the holding facility for detainees held at Naval Base Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, during Operation Enduring Freedom. Official U.S. Navy photo by PH1 (AW) Shane T. McCoy (For Official Use Only)

Tens of thousands of unlawful combatant Islamists who want to kill us were apprehended in the early days of the GWOT, but only just under 800 ever made it to Gitmo (the “worst of the worst,” according to then Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld), and 745+ have been released. None have been beheaded, executed, blown up, hacked to death, dragged naked and lifeless through the streets, drowned or burned alive. All things our enemies have done to us and/or our allies. There is no moral comparison between Gitmo and how our enemies treat their captives.

Gitmo detainees enjoy free Qurans, prayer rugs/beads, directions to Mecca, white robes, halal and Muslim holy holiday meals, services of US military Muslim chaplains, world class health, dental and vision care, recreation, correspondence, legal representation, library, books, DVDs, TV, video games, sports and more! There is no other place on earth these men could receive such quality treatment.

As for waterboarding and other Enhanced Interrogation Techniques (EIT), they were only “performed on a handful of detainees in order to obtain valuable information that saved many lives,” according to then President George W. Bush, in his memoir, “Decision Points.” EIT were approved and legal and did not meet the internationally accepted definition of torture at the time. Only after the fact did President Obama unilaterally declare EIT torture, outside the accepted definition.

RS claimed the CIA were in charge of these interrogations, and they were also the only US personnel trained in EIT, not the US military or any DoD personnel, according to Secretary of Defense, Don Rumsfeld in his memoir, “Known and Unknown.” The only institutional abuse at Gitmo was by the detainees towards the guards, who regularly sucker punched guards and used their bodily fluids, including urine, feces and semen to “splash” unsuspecting guards, who after a time began to wear face shields when handling detainees.

Although some detainees have spent decades at Gitmo without charge or trial, even lawful combatant POWs may be held in this manner, “until the end of hostilities,” according to the Geneva Conventions or Law of War, two essential documents RS and other Gitmo detractors never mention.

The truth is that according to President Obama’s 2009 Military Commissions Act (MCA), unlawful combatant Islamists accused of war crimes held at Gitmo have virtually the same rights you or I would enjoy in a federal court of law. Unprecedented, this policy undermines the Law of War, which requires those accused of war crimes to be tried under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), under the same standards that US military personnel would be tried.

The MCA is responsible for hamstringing the legal proceedings for the ten detainees accused of war crimes, including those who admit to planning and facilitating the attacks of 9/11 – another subject avoided by RS in their story. Instead of trying to explain these details, RS pretends they don’t exist.

Gitmo is a small piece to the big puzzle of how we win the GWOT. At least 30 percent of all released detainees have returned to the fight, including five Taliban leaders, released by President Obama in a prisoner exchange for one US traitor. Keeping captured suspected war criminals and other dangerous terrorists makes everyone safer and would move us closer to ending global terrorism.

Arbitrary calls to close Gitmo, combined with false narratives, lies and myths about what goes on there do a disservice to American interests in the GWOT. Keeping Gitmo open and “filling it up with bad guys,” as President Trump has promised, give us the best chance for security and victory.

NOTE: MAJ Granger was the ranking US Army Medical Department officer with the Joint Detainee Operations Group, Joint Task Force 160, from FEB-JUN 2002, at Gitmo, and is author of his memoir, “Saving Grace at Guantanamo Bay,” and narrator of the short documentary YouTube film, “Heroes of GITMO,” based on his book.

Slavery and the Church

Posted on by mjgranger

Recently, a group of Protestant and Anglican church leaders met to discuss Christianity’s role in slavery. The Washington Times covered the event with this story: ‘Churches urged to acknowledge role in racism: Panel holds up mirror to American Christians.’

Balderdash! What a colossal waste of time and resources! No more self-flagellation over slavery! 

Most Americans never owned slaves (in fact, less than 5% ever did), and many were always abolitionists, especially those who were members of religious groups, such as the Quakers. 

Institutional slavery in the US lasted only 80 years, from 1783 to 1863, the shortest period of time for any country. Crucially, it was not instituted by Americans as a cultural pillar of our country but, rather, was brought to America by the British and Portuguese and sent to the ash heap of our nation’s history only one-third of the way into our 240 years.

Religious leaders should be spending their time preaching the Bible and saving souls, not inventing crises. 

In fact, this is simply a stealth attack on the tenets of Christianity and religion in general. It is an attempt to find faults within religion and exploit them. In making religious people acknowledge wrongs they personally had nothing to do with, those who want to change the message of the Church hope to make believers feel bad about themselves and, therefore, capitulate to those who hold victim status.

Interestingly, no Bible references were cited in the Times article. Why?

The Bible contains various passages that address the issue of slavery. It’s important to note that the Bible was written in different historical and cultural contexts, and attitudes toward slavery evolved over time. Here are some key points:

Old Testament (Hebrew Bible):

  • Slavery was a part of the social structure in ancient times, and the Old Testament acknowledges its existence.
  • There were regulations regarding the treatment of slaves, emphasizing fair treatment and humane conditions (Exodus 21:2-11, Leviticus 25:39-46).
  • The Year of Jubilee, occurring every 50 years, was a time when Hebrew slaves were to be set free, and debts were to be forgiven (Leviticus 25:10).
  • Foreign slaves (mostly non-black) could be owned permanently, and their status was inheritable, but they were also protected by certain laws (Leviticus 25:44-46).

New Testament:

  • The New Testament doesn’t explicitly condemn slavery, and there are instructions given to slaves and masters (Ephesians 6:5-9, Colossians 3:22-4:1).
  • In the context of the New Testament, slavery was a common social institution.
  • The teachings of Jesus emphasize love, compassion, and the equality of all people in the eyes of God.

Interpretation and Context:

Interpretation of these passages varies among different Christian denominations and scholars.

It’s important to approach these texts with an understanding of historical context and cultural differences. Most modern Christian denominations condemn any form of slavery and emphasize the principles of justice, compassion, and equality.

In addition to the passages outlined above, it is interesting to look at the Book of Psalms, which primarily consists of poetic and hymnic passages that express a range of emotions, including praise, lament, and supplication. While Psalms doesn’t explicitly address the issue of slavery in the same way that some other sections of the Bible do, there are passages that touch on themes related to oppression, captivity, and deliverance, all in the context of Jewish/Hebrew/Israelite slaves.

One example is Psalm 137, which is often referred to as the “By the rivers of Babylon” psalm. It reflects the feelings of the Israelites during their captivity in Babylon:

“By the rivers of Babylon, there we sat down and wept, when we remembered Zion. On the willows there we hung up our lyres. For there our captors required of us songs, and our tormentors, mirth, saying, ‘Sing us one of the songs of Zion!’ How shall we sing the Lord’s song in a foreign land?” (Psalm 137:1-4, ESV)

This psalm expresses the deep sorrow and longing for freedom experienced by the Israelites in exile. While it doesn’t specifically mention slavery in the sense of servitude, it reflects the anguish of a people taken captive and removed from their homeland.

In researching his DNA and ancestry, an American black person will typically sooner or later come across a dead end called slavery. Some, however, learn of branches of their ancestral past that circumvent slavery and expose a different or blended experience.

The American black Christian experience blends with a gospel spirituality that included singing songs of freedom in the tradition of the Biblical Psalms. Many of these songs are now part of official hymnals of certain Protestant denominations, such as the Baptists and Methodists.

These include songs like “Swing Low, Sweet Chariot,” “When the Saints Go Marching In,” “Go Down Moses,” “River Jordan,” “Nobody Knows (the Trouble I’ve Seen),” and “Joshua (Fought the Battle of Jericho),” which lament captivity and tell of freedom and heaven.

In the United States, we have one culture, the American culture. And anyone who would divide us is un-American. We are acutely aware of our past, but none of us can change it (though the woke, cancel culture crowd loves to try by changing curriculum, tearing down statues and monuments, and appointing racial overlords to corporate organizational charts). In the end, we are all one people, with one Constitution, one Declaration of Independence, written in English, regardless of race, creed, or color, according to our civil rights law. 

None of us need feel guilty about things we had no control over. Those who want you to feel guilty about these things are seeking to control you emotionally and psychologically.

Our energy and focus should be spent on things we can change now, like not supporting proxy wars, closing our border to invaders, cultivating our own energy sources, treating each other with dignity and respect, punishing criminals, rooting out corruption, and creating conditions where all Americans, alive now, can enjoy the foundational principles of this great nation: Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.