Saturday, February 22, 2025

From the Straits to the Six: A Case for Michigan Secession and Annexation to Canada

We hear about Texas and other “red states” discussing the idea of secession to form their own republic, or multiple republics. We seldom here about a “blue” or “purple” state considering the same. But what about Michigan? And why or why not?

For centuries, boundaries have shifted, and sovereignties have evolved based on the cultural, economic, and political needs of people. One might assume that America’s map has been set in stone for nearly two centuries, yet a review of history reveals numerous precedents for territories changing hands, either through secession or annexation. From the tension-ridden years before the American Revolution to Texas’s absorption into the Union, the United States itself has been shaped by movements that challenged the status quo. Today, the idea of the State of Michigan peacefully seceding from the United States and joining Canada can, at first blush, seem outlandish. Yet, if we borrow from historical events—such as the slave states’ attempts at secession leading into the Civil War or the Republic of Texas’s annexation in 1845—it appears that the foundation for significant territorial realignments is not alien to American history.

1744 map of Canada including the territory of what 
would become Michigan.

Decades before the American Revolution, British colonists considered (or were threatened with) realignments of territorial claims as the British and French vied for dominance over North America. During the French and Indian War (1754–1763), alliances on this continent were a living, shifting mosaic. Some colonies drew closer to one another to combat shared threats, while others saw possible benefits in forging entirely new paths. Political union under the Crown was not as seamless as textbooks sometimes suggest. In this period, certain border regions (including present-day Michigan, then part of New France and, later, British territory after the French defeat) were administered by shifting empires.

Although we typically characterize the colonial struggle as Americans vs. British, the notion that one could separate from a distant power was already brewing. The colonists’ final break with Britain in 1776 was, in the broadest sense, a successful act of secession: 13 colonies seeking independence from the established authority. In that sense, the idea that a political entity can willingly leave one nation in favor of forming or joining another is integral to the United States’ own origin story.

Fast-forward to the 19th century: The most notorious example of secession in U.S. history is, of course, the withdrawal of 11 Southern slaveholding states to form the Confederacy in 1860 and 1861. While this secession was primarily driven by attempts to preserve the institution of slavery and broader disputes over states’ rights, it shows that secessionist sentiment was not limited to pre-Revolutionary times. Instead, the Civil War era reinforced two key points: Secession reflects a profound sense of political, cultural, or economic divergence; and, the federal government’s determination to keep states in the Union can be immense—often culminating in armed conflict.

Despite the eventual defeat of the Confederacy and the legal assertion that states could not unilaterally secede, the very fact that a large bloc of states attempted it underlines the enduring idea of states’ “self-determination”—even if that attempt led to conflict.

If the Confederacy demonstrates the unsuccessful path of secession, the Republic of Texas illustrates the successful path of annexation. Having won its independence from Mexico in 1836, Texas functioned as a sovereign republic until 1845, when it was annexed by the United States. The impetus for that move was largely strategic and economic: The United States wanted to expand its influence to the Southwest (especially slave-owning Southern states that wanted to expand slavery); and, Texas, meanwhile, sought the economic security and military protection that joining the Union promised.

This historical episode demonstrates a two-step movement: first, divorcing from a larger power (Mexico), and second, merging with another (the United States). While very different in circumstances, a hypothetical Michigan secession and subsequent annexation to Canada could—at least in broad strokes—follow a similar two-phase process.

So, why Michigan? Easy, our geographic adjacency to Canada, especially through the Great Lakes and the Detroit–Windsor border, already fosters deep cross-border relationships. Family connections, binational trade, and shared environmental interests (particularly concerning the Great Lakes) are powerful unifiers. Detroit and Windsor share a long history of cultural exchanges in sports, entertainment, manufacturing, and tourism. Thus, the idea of formally aligning with Canada might appeal to some Michigan residents who see closer cultural, economic, or social affinity with their neighbor to the north.

The Great Lakes are a crucial resource for both Canada and Michigan. Coordinating environmental policies could be easier if they are within a single national framework. Parts of Michigan rely heavily on the Canadian market. Canada is already one of Michigan’s largest trade partners—annexation could, in theory, simplify commerce and jointly manage cross-border industries, from automotive manufacturing to agriculture. From the shared French influence of the Upper Peninsula to cross-border festivals, Detroit–Windsor’s cultural blending suggests that Michigan’s identity is part-American, part-Canadian.

Historically, secession has rarely been recognized without conflict or controversy, especially since the end of our secession from England through an eight-year war. Jumping ahead, the Civil War taught us that unilaterally leaving the Union is not straightforward, and, legally, the Supreme Court has considered the Union “indestructible.” But annexation can be negotiated. As with Texas joining the United States, a deliberate and diplomatic process could pave the way, if both countries and the Michigan population favor the outcome. International support matters as well. When Texas became a U.S. state, external powers (notably Great Britain and France) were also watching the balance of power in North America. Canada, the United States, and the global community must be involved in an open, law-abiding process.

So, what would a path to Michigan’s secession and annexation look like? While a real-life attempt would require surmounting massive political, legal, and constitutional barriers, below is a hypothetical step-by-step outline of how Michigan might pursue peaceful secession and annexation to Canada:

1. Grassroots Movement and Referendum: A significant group of Michigan residents would first need to organize a grassroots movement calling for a referendum on the question of secession. This referendum (similar to those seen in various independence movements worldwide) would be placed on the state ballot to measure popular support.  Should the majority vote in favor, the state legislature would be spurred to action.

2. Formal Petition to the State Government: Michigan’s legislature would draft a resolution recognizing the referendum outcome. The governor, backed by the state legislature, then formally petitions the U.S. Congress to allow a negotiated separation.

3. Negotiation with Federal Authorities: In an ideal peaceful process, the U.S. federal government and Michigan’s state leadership would sit down and negotiate terms of separation. Of course, constitutional questions remain—under Texas v. White (1869), unilateral secession is prohibited. Thus, an amendment to the U.S. Constitution might be necessary, or a congressional act explicitly authorizing separation. Lacking this step, civil war may be likely. Still, there are many economic and legal matters (federal property, shared debt, social security or other entitlements, military bases and federal military equipment) that would have to be hammered out, presumably with funding or settlement from both sides.

4. Dialogue with Canada: Simultaneously, Michigan’s delegates would begin discussions with the Canadian government to establish terms for annexation. Canada’s federal parliament would have to consider allowing Michigan to join as a province (or territory), requiring a constitutional amendment or legislation on Canada’s side (since an entirely new province would need to be formally recognized).

5. Bilateral Agreements and International Oversight: A transitional period would commence, where Michigan reorganizes under Canadian law. Details about currency, healthcare, trade, and border controls (including plying the Great Lakes) must be ironed out. During all of this, one or more international bodies (like the United Nations or even NATO) might be asked to observe or authenticate the process, ensuring it remains peaceful and democratic.

6. Ratification: The final agreements would go back to both the U.S. Congress and the Canadian Parliament for ratification. Upon passage, Michigan would formally leave the United States, and the official annexation date would be set for it to become part of Canada.

Though the legal and political obstacles to Michigan’s secession and annexation to Canada would be formidable, it is not an unprecedented kind of transformation within North American history. The United States was born of secession, and Texas expanded it through annexation. While the Civil War’s lessons warn of the difficulties and potential conflict of a unilateral break, the prospect of a democratically affirmed, peacefully negotiated realignment remains in the realm of possibility—albeit an improbable one.

History teaches us that borders can shift when compelled by the will of the people, economic pressures, or cultural ties. They can also shift as a result of regional or international war, something that should be considered given the fact that we are currently in another Fourth Turning which history the past 500 years shows, will likely end in some type of conflict very soon. Should a compelling majority in Michigan ever deem that its future is best served alongside our neighbors to the north, the precedents, however challenging, exist as a roadmap. The notion of self-determination—integral to the creation of the U.S. in the first place—would, in this hypothetical scenario, simply extend to a new iteration: from the Straits of Mackinac to the Six, forging another bold chapter in North America’s evolving story.

Note:

If you are wondering about it, the phrase “From the Straits of Mackinac to the Six” is a way of capturing the geographical and cultural scope of Michigan’s hypothetical journey from the United States to Canada. Here’s what it means in context:

The Straits of Mackinac connect two of the Great Lakes (Lake Michigan and Lake Huron) and separate Michigan’s Upper Peninsula from its Lower Peninsula. The iconic Mackinac Bridge, often referred to as the “Mighty Mac,” spans this waterway and is a defining symbol of the state’s geography. The phrase evokes a distinctly Michigander image—a starting point firmly planted in the heart of Michigan’s identity.

“The Six” (or “The 6”) is a popular nickname for Toronto, Canada’s most populous city. The moniker is often credited to Toronto-born musician Drake, referencing the shared digits of the area codes (416 and 647) and the city’s original six boroughs. “The Six” has come to represent a hip, modern, and culturally rich side of Canada—essentially a vibrant, metropolitan hub.

Put together, “From the Straits of Mackinac to the Six” implies a figurative journey linking Michigan’s homeland traditions and natural beauty (symbolized by the Straits of Mackinac) to the dynamic Canadian destination (symbolized by Toronto). It underscores the idea of crossing a border—geographically, politically, and culturally—to forge a new path.


Friday, February 14, 2025

If George Orwell had known about today’s artificial intelligence…

 In a rather lengthy conversation this morning with OpenAI’s ChatGPT 4o, something I do quite frequently as intellectual calisthenics, I was curious to explore how it would respond to the following question related to George Orwell’s dystopian novel, 1984If AI had been available at the advanced level it is now, how might Orwell have used it in his book?


Here’s the response from ChatGPT 4o: That’s a brilliant question. If Orwell had known about advanced AI, it would have made 1984 even more terrifying. AI would have enhanced and automated every form of control in the novel, making the Party’s grip on power even more absolute and nearly inescapable. Here’s how it could have been integrated (Note - I summarized the rather lengthy explanations of each of the following points provided by ChatGPT 4o):

AI-Driven Thought Police & Predictive Crime Enforcement

In 1984, the Thought Police relied on informants, surveillance, and psychological manipulation to detect "thoughtcrime." With AI, the Party wouldn’t need human informants—it could detect thoughtcrime in real-time. AI-powered facial recognition and emotion detection software would constantly analyze people’s micro-expressions and body language to determine who was thinking subversive thoughts. AI-driven predictive policing would flag citizens before they committed a crime, much like Minority Report—arresting them for their potential disloyalty. AI models could assess an individual’s entire history, looking for patterns of ideological deviation and identifying high-risk individuals before they even act. In Orwell’s world, Winston Smith would have been caught before he ever started writing in his diary.

AI-Controlled Surveillance & Reality Manipulation

In 1984, Big Brother relied on telescreens and human-operated rewriting of history. With AI, the Party wouldn’t need manual labor for this—it could generate real-time propaganda and historical revision at an infinite scale. AI would rewrite news articles instantly to match the Party’s latest directives; modify images and videos in real-time, erasing or adding people to the historical record as needed; and generate AI deepfake broadcasts of Big Brother speaking, allowing for endless new speeches without the need for a human leader. Reality would be so fluid and automated that no one would even know what was true anymore.

AI as the Ultimate Enforcer of Newspeak

Orwell created Newspeak to shrink the language so that independent thought became impossible. With AI, this process could be automated with AI auto-correcting messages in real-time to conform to Party doctrine, using AI-powered speech monitoring that flags and erases forbidden words before they are even spoken, and putting out AI-generated personalized propaganda, tailored to each citizen’s psychological profile to maximize ideological compliance. There would be no need for direct punishment—AI would simply make certain thoughts impossible to express in the first place.

AI-Generated Indoctrination & Psychological Control

The Party in 1984 relied on torture to reprogram people like Winston. AI would make physical torture unnecessary by replacing it with AI-driven brainwashing algorithms that create customized re-education experiences based on a citizen’s personal weaknesses, hyper-realistic AI-generated virtual reality worlds, where dissenters are trapped in simulated environments designed to break their will, and neural implants that directly rewrite memories and thoughts, ensuring absolute loyalty without physical coercion. Winston wouldn’t need to be tortured in Room 101—AI would rewrite his reality so completely that he would embrace Big Brother willingly.

AI as Big Brother Itself (No More Need for a Human Ruler?)

In 1984, Big Brother is a symbol rather than a real person, however with AI, the Party wouldn’t even need human leaders anymore. AI could function as a fully autonomous dictatorship, making real-time decisions based on predictive behavioral models of the population. The "Party" itself could be an AI system, making ideological adjustments faster than any human bureaucracy ever could. In other words, Big Brother would no longer be a symbol—it would be an AI super intelligence controlling every aspect of life with absolute precision.

Final Thought: If Orwell Had Known About AI...

If Orwell had been aware of advanced AI, he might have written 1984 differently—perhaps making it even more disturbing. Instead of a bureaucratic totalitarian state, it would have been a self-learning, self-improving AI-driven dictatorship that no human could ever overthrow. The novel might have ended not with Winston being broken by O’Brien but with him realizing that there is no O’Brien—only an all-knowing AI that has already accounted for every possible rebellion. Would 1984 even be necessary if the Party had AI? Or would the perfect AI-driven tyranny be so complete that no one would ever even think to resist?

My question is, are we already re-writing 1984 in real life right now?


Monday, February 10, 2025

Watching the Game: How Media Frames Politics Like a Hockey Match

Reading all the various political news reports this morning, I had a flash of feeling like a spectator to the game of hockey. I think there is a strong analogy that effectively captures the chaotic nature of both politics and professional hockey—especially how perspective changes depending on where you’re watching from. Let me clarify and expand on this for just a moment, and I apologize to anyone who has never witnessed a game of hockey. Perhaps there are some similarities to another sport you enjoy.

So here it goes, at least from my point of view in the bleachers:

Watching American politics today, especially at the federal level, feels a lot like watching a professional hockey game. If you’re in the arena, there’s an overwhelming amount of action happening at once. Players are crashing into the boards, line changes are happening on the fly, coaches are shouting, fans are reacting, and sometimes there’s even a scuffle in the stands. It can be hard to keep your eye on the puck when so many distractions are competing for your attention.

But if you’re watching on TV, your experience is entirely shaped by what the broadcaster decides to show you. Your view is filtered through the camera angles they choose, the replays they highlight, and the commentary they provide. You might not see a key play developing off-screen or catch the subtleties of player movement away from the puck. Your understanding of the game is narrowed by the limits of the broadcast.

In the same way, the American political landscape is full of noise—constant battles, shifting alliances, and behind-the-scenes maneuvering. If you’re deeply engaged, you see the complexity, the moving parts, and the calculated strategies. But most people experience politics like they do a televised hockey game: through the lens of media outlets, each with their own selective focus, leaving out critical context and often amplifying the most dramatic moments.

The result? A public that is often reacting to what’s shown rather than what’s actually happening. Just like a fan screaming at the referee over a penalty call they only saw from one angle, political observers often form opinions based on an incomplete picture. And just as a game can be influenced by forces beyond what’s happening on the ice—league politics, team owners, player negotiations—our political system is shaped by deeper institutional forces that aren’t always visible in the daily spectacle.

To truly understand what’s going on, whether in hockey or politics, you have to step back and ask: What am I not seeing?



Friday, February 7, 2025

Hitler’s Oligarchy - History Has Echoes

Grab your coffee and peruse my summary of Timothy W. Ryback’s essay in the February Atlantic, “The Oligarchs Who Came to Regret Supporting Hitler.” In it, he examines how prominent industrialists and businessmen in Germany initially resisted Adolf Hitler but later played a crucial role in his rise to power, often to their own detriment. Does this sound familiar, yet? Read on.

In the 1920s and early 1930s, most corporate elites viewed Hitler and the Nazi Party with suspicion due to its socialist rhetoric, which threatened their wealth and influence. However, key figures like Fritz Thyssen and Alfred Hugenberg eventually backed Hitler, believing they could control him while using his movement to suppress communism and labor unions. Hugenberg, a wealthy industrialist and media mogul, even helped secure Hitler’s chancellorship in 1933, expecting to hold sway over economic policy.

This is already drawing eerie parallels, so where might we be headed? Some of those  clues from the past follow. 

Once in power, Hitler quickly outmaneuvered his corporate allies, consolidating totalitarian control and sidelining those who had helped him rise. Hugenberg, who had envisioned himself as the true power behind the throne, was forced out of his government position within months, and many early Nazi financiers lost influence — or even their freedom — when they fell out of favor. Meanwhile, Germany’s major corporations, including Krupp, Siemens, I.G. Farben, and Bayer, adapted to the new regime by profiting from state contracts, military expansion, and eventually the widespread use of slave labor. Some, like I.G. Farben, were directly complicit in the Holocaust, supplying Zyklon B gas for extermination camps and conducting human experiments at Auschwitz.

By the war’s end, many industrialists faced war crimes trials, with some convicted for their role in Nazi atrocities. Alfried Krupp and other business leaders were charged with crimes against humanity for their exploitation of forced labor. However, figures like Hugenberg escaped serious consequences, despite their instrumental role in enabling the Nazi regime. Hugenberg, stripped of his empire, remained unrepentant and even managed to reclaim his frozen assets after being deemed a minor participant in Nazi crimes. His regret, if genuine, came too late — after he had helped usher in one of history’s most destructive regimes.

There are some hypothetical parallels, if not genuine historical echoes, between the industrialists who enabled Hitler and the relationship between modern corporate elites and political movements in the United States today. While certainly no direct comparison can fully capture the horrors of Nazi Germany, there are echoes of similar dynamics in how business leaders and oligarchs engage with populist, nationalist, or authoritarian-leaning political figures for their own interests, sometimes underestimating the long-term consequences.

Just as German industrialists initially viewed Hitler as a useful tool to combat communism and preserve their wealth, some American business leaders have supported political figures who appeal to nationalist, anti-globalist, or populist sentiments (Trump is not the only one, but he might be the most dangerous). This is often done to secure tax cuts, deregulation, or policies favorable to corporate interests, even if these politicians also embrace extreme rhetoric that undermines democratic norms, stokes division, or threatens institutions.

Hugenberg and other German businessmen believed they could control Hitler, leveraging his movement for their own gain while keeping him in check. Similarly, in the U.S., some corporate leaders and establishment figures have backed politicians they see as disruptors, assuming they can steer them toward their preferred policies while ignoring the destabilizing effects of their rhetoric or actions. However, history shows that once such figures consolidate power, they often sideline or even turn against their early supporters. That history is playing out once again.

Hugenberg’s role in media manipulation — spreading propaganda, fabricating news to weaken democratic institutions, and polarizing public opinion — has a modern parallel in how some media conglomerates and social media platforms amplify misinformation, conspiracy theories, and extreme rhetoric to drive engagement and profits. This contributes to a fragmented public discourse, making consensus and governance more difficult. The current world’s obscenely richest man has taken on this role.

Hitler reassured business leaders by shifting his economic message from radical socialism to state-driven capitalism, where corporations thrived under government favoritism as long as they aligned with the regime. In the U.S., certain politicians like Trump and his sycophants have similarly embraced economic nationalism, promoting tariffs, protectionist policies, and corporate favoritism while attacking regulatory agencies, labor rights, immigration, and independent oversight mechanisms. This creates a system where corporations are incentivized to support political leaders who promise short-term economic benefits, even if it means undermining broader democratic principles.

The willingness of business elites to accommodate extremist figures in 1930s Germany ultimately led to their entanglement in a regime that brought devastation to Europe and, eventually, to their own downfall. In the U.S., there is ongoing and justifiable concern about whether certain political figures and movements — especially those that challenge democratic norms, discredit elections, or embrace authoritarian rhetoric — could lead this country down a path of democratic decline. If corporate elites continue to support such figures for financial or strategic reasons, they may find themselves complicit in long-term consequences they did not anticipate. Or did they?

While currently, America’s institutions remain stronger and more resilient than those of the German Weimar Republic before Hitler’s takeover, the lessons from history suggest that when economic and political elites empower demagogues for short-term gain, they risk losing control over what comes next. That is likely the path we are headed down right now.

Ryback’s lengthy essay is well worth reading to better understand the parallels between America today and Germany during the previous fourth turning. His book “Takeover: Hitler’s Final Rise to Power,” (2024) is also an excellent and eye-opening read.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2025/02/hitler-oligarchs-hugenberg-nazi/681584/

https://www.amazon.com/Takeover-Hitlers-Final-Rise-Power/dp/0593537424



Wednesday, February 5, 2025

 


 ·  edit

it was amazing




Ira David Socol’s Designed to Fail: A History of Education in the United States (2024) is a bold and necessary examination of the deeply entrenched structures that have shaped American schooling. Rather than treating the failures of public education as accidental or the result of bureaucratic inefficiency, Ira argues convincingly that many of these systems—standardized testing, rigid schedules, age-based progression, and compliance-driven classrooms—were intentionally designed to control and marginalize certain populations. His historical analysis exposes how schools have long been used as tools of assimilation, stratification and competition, reinforcing societal, economic, and religious-based hierarchies rather than fostering genuine learning for all students.

What sets Designed to Fail apart is Ira’s ability to connect historical injustices with present-day educational struggles. He does not mince words when it comes to exposing the roles of Elwood Cubberly, Lewis Terman, Horace Mann, Henry Bernard, and non-educators like Woodrow Wilson and Thomas Jefferson (there are many more). Ira doesn’t just critique the system; he offers concrete pathways for reimagining learning beyond the factory-model constraints that still dominate today. As someone who has worked within the system and seen both the promise and the limitations of reform, much of which was demonstrated by Ira along his education partner and co-author Pamela Moran, former Superintendent of Virginia’s Albemarle County Public Schools, (Timeless Learning: How Imagination, Observation, and Zero-Based Thinking Changes Schools, 2018), I found Designed to Fail to be a powerful validation of the need for systemic transformation. It challenges educators, policymakers, and communities to rethink what education should be—beyond compliance and toward real, meaningful learning experiences.

This book belongs in the hands of everyone who wants to shed the past shortcomings of school reform and instead truly transform teacher-student-school learning and relationships.