Broken but Readable

Greg Scaduto is a freelance journalist, corporate finance professional, and a former US Army officer.

This is a podcast with short episodes for people who feel vaguely insane watching the news but still believe moral seriousness is possible. Each episode runs 10-20 minutes. I usually start with something human: a stray thought, a joke that maybe goes too far, a glimpse of my interior life. Then I pivot, as cleanly as I can, into a morally serious argument about power, politics, institutions, or whatever fresh confusion the world has served up that week. I’m less interested in taking sides than in asking why so many arguments collapse the moment more than one thing is allowed to be true. I’m not here to sound authoritative, or neutral, or soothing. I’m here to think out loud in good faith, to name the pressures operating behind the scenes, and to ask what kind of people we become when fear, ambiguity, and convenience start doing the work that principles used to do. If it sparks disagreement, good. If it sparks reflection, even better. Mostly, this is an attempt to stay human while taking the world seriously, and to see if that’s still allowed. gregscaduto.substack.com

  1. 1D AGO

    Eyes in the Dark

    In the past 30 days since I started doing these podcasts, over a thousand people a day are have been downloading them, but of course not subscribing. I’m not too worried about that. But I’m going to keep going. What follows is testimony. A man named Mario Pavlovich gave it to me in the way men give testimony when the world has cracked open and shown them what lies beneath. He is a social worker. Croatian by birth, Canadian by circumstance. My age. I trust him because I have sat with liars and I have sat with men who have seen things, and the difference is in the eyes and in the pauses between words. This account is one I pulled from many, from chapters I mean to bind into a book if the world permits it. I chose it because the themes recur. Case after case after case, the same architecture of the uncanny, built and rebuilt in the lives of strangers who will never meet. The Shooting, Spring 2022 At 2:45am in Edmonton, Alberta, a red Ford Focus stopped one block from Ertale Lounge. Four masked men stepped out with semi-automatic handguns and opened fire on a crowded corner. Seventy rounds tore through glass, brick, flesh. People dropped screaming. One man, Imbert George, twenty-eight, was dead before sirens arrived. Seven others lay bleeding on the curb. The shooters fled, triggering a fifteen-minute chase through downtown Edmonton at highway speeds. They fired into the night and vanished into the sprawl. The neighborhood was left marked by one of the worst mass shootings in Canada’s history. Mario Pavlovich wasn’t in the lounge when the bullets flew, but his business sat in the same neighborhood, its windows facing the street where blood pooled under yellow tape. In the days that followed, customers stayed away. Foot traffic collapsed. His bar’s name became tied to a massacre. What the gunmen hadn’t destroyed with bullets, they finished with fear. The Ruin, Autumn 2022 Mario has lived with that night ever since. The silence of emptied rooms, and the weight of bills stacked higher than his receipts. And above it all the memory of the city where the violence fell, just beyond his balcony, altering not only the lives of the dead and wounded but the course of his own. Mario had grown up in Croatia, in a home stripped of God. No prayers at the table, no quiet assurances that suffering had meaning. When the night club collapsed after the shooting, when the money and the pride drained from his life, he had nothing larger to hold on to. He was alone with the ruin. The nights at the group home stretched long. He worked as a social worker now, watching over residents with disabilities in a house that looked ordinary from the street. The work kept them fed, and little more. The true labor was in his mind, holding himself back from the abyss that opened when all was lost. The Meditation, Spring 2023 With no faith to fall back on, Mario tried the only thing he could imagine might steady him; he had heard it worked for some people. He sat down, closed his eyes, and began to meditate. At first it was clumsy, ten minutes of breathing, his thoughts tumbling like stones. But over time it became his only refuge. He wasn’t after enlightenment. The work was to blunt the pain, to carry it past another night. On April 26, 2023, at 10:30pm, the rain had eased and left a skin of water on the porch boards. The clouds lay low over the city, white and depthless. Despite the hour, the sky yet held its light, a pallid glow that dies slowly this time of year in Alberta. Mario sat cross-legged on his porch in the damp air, eyes closed, breathing. He thought about his losses, about the years, about how far away home felt. He asked questions into the silence. Is there anyone out there? Is anyone listening? And in the dark behind his lids there came eyes. Not dreamt nor figment. Eyes that looked back at him. They were not wholly human but they bore weight and will. In that moment he was pierced through. Not only seen but known. When he finally opened his eyes, the world outside had gone strange. He didn’t hear the night insects, or the wind, or even the faint hum of the city. The silence was total, pressing, as though the air itself had gone still. Then he saw it. A black triangle moved slowly across the low ceiling of clouds, about a hundred yards away, and larger than any plane or helicopter he had ever seen by a factor of ten. The edges cut hard against the bone-pale sky, each corner set in dreadful clarity. There was no sound of engine nor any labor of machine. Only the slow and fated passage of the thing, black and geometric, borne across the heavens by a will unseen. Mario’s breath caught. He stared until it faded into the distance, swallowed by the night. It was the eyes he remembered most. The triangle was extraordinary, but the eyes were intimate. They followed him afterward, into his sleep, into the blank hours of his shifts, into the silence of his apartment. They made the experience personal, impossible to forget. The Child in the Hall, Spring 2023 The night he saw the triangle, he woke at exactly three in the morning. No sound woke him – no creak of pipes, no rustle from upstairs – just the instinct that something was there. Mario’s head turned toward the hallway. The bathroom light was on, casting a pale wedge of yellow across the basement. And in that light stood a figure. It looked like a kid. Eight, maybe ten years old. About five feet tall, slim, the body in proportion the way a child’s would be. But that was the problem. Kids don’t stand still. Kids fidget. They shift their weight, scratch their noses, shuffle their feet. This one didn’t move at all. Its stillness was absolute, the kind that belongs to mannequins or corpses, not children. Its face wasn’t a face, just a smooth impression of a head where features should have been. Mario’s chest tightened. He tried to move but his body felt unresponsive. Not fully paralyzed, but weak, sluggish. He managed to press himself up on his elbows, muscles trembling. The figure took a few steps closer, small and deliberate, like it knew there was no hurry. Mario fought his body upright, his heart hammering, his mind bracing for a fight with something he couldn’t name. And then, just like that, the fear was gone. Not lessened, not fading. Erased. In its place came a calm that didn’t belong to him, as though the figure had reached inside and flipped a switch. It kept standing there, impossibly still, as Mario stood trembling, no longer afraid but knowing he should have been. Then it spoke: Don’t be afraid. Not in some alien whisper, nor in a stranger’s voice, but in his own. The words came from inside his skull, clear as thought but not his thought, as if something had borrowed his voice to soothe him. The child-shape stood there, silent, motionless, the words still ringing in his head. Mario trembled, caught between the knowledge that he should have been terrified and the unnatural calm that held him fixed in place. He stared at it. It stared at him. And in that frozen stillness, the command repeated inside him, steady and undeniable: Don’t be afraid. And somehow, against every instinct in his body, he wasn’t. He asked it again, the words sharp in his mind: Who are you – The reply slid back in, wearing his own voice like a mask, speaking over him as if disinterested in Mario’s shock: Don’t be afraid. Time is not what you think it is. He pushed harder, his thoughts cracking with urgency, suddenly unsure of how many beings he was addressing: Who are you…guys? This time the answer changed. The words struck like a match in the dark. We are you. The phrase echoed inside him, not whispered but installed, like a truth dropped into the machinery of his brain. It made no sense. It made all the sense in the world. The child-figure didn’t move. It didn’t need to. The words had moved instead, reaching across the line between him and it and smudging it away. And then it was gone. Instantly, like a shadow when the light switches off. The basement hall was empty, but Mario could still feel it there, pulsing in his chest, repeating in his skull: Don’t be afraid. Time is not what you think it is.We are you. He stood alone in the silence, knowing he would never again be able to call himself alone. When it was gone, Mario didn’t lie back down. He couldn’t. He sat in the stillness of that basement, every nerve alive, his own voice echoing with words that weren’t his: We are you. He wasn’t afraid. That was the strangest part. Something had stolen the fear, hollowed it out, and left him calm. But the calm wasn’t the comforting kind, and more like intrusion. It was the knowledge that something could reach inside his mind and twist the dials at will. He felt stripped, re-wired, no longer entirely his own. The hours crawled. He kept waiting for the figure to return, for the words to come again. They didn’t. By sunrise he was exhausted, but he knew sleep wasn’t going to save him. The world had changed. The rules he thought held steady no longer applied. The Orbs, Spring 2024 On the night of April 8, 2024, Mario stepped onto his balcony in downtown Edmonton. The city around him was too quiet, the kind of quiet that sets the body on edge. He wanted the visitors to come back. Then he saw them. Three orbs. They were each a little bigger than a basketball. Dull metallic at first, no shine, no light of their own. They kept three or four feet apart, gliding in a line that looked practiced. Then, with no hesitation, they shifted into a triangle and held it, as if they had always intended to. From twenty feet away, Mario could see the distortion around them – a ripple in the air, like heat shimmer or water bending light. The sky blurred around the spheres. Then the distortion itself lit up, bright white, liquid in its glow. In the same instant, all three orbs transformed, their metallic skins gone, replaced by spheres of pure, radiant light. Yet

    23 min
  2. 4D AGO

    Why, unfortunately, I can no longer read the New York Times

    A note from management, to beloved listeners: at several points throughout this audio essay written for A.G. Sulzberger, the publisher of The New York Times, I mistakenly say “A.J.” instead of “A.G.”. I’m really sorry about that. It was done in one take because that’s all I had time for today, and I will not be making edits to minor errors until I can afford an assistant. A human one, because the discernment unique in human beings is the last prayer we have left. And here is the transcript: What I’m about to say is directed primarily at A.G. Sulzberger, the publisher of The New York Times, along with the institutional shareholders whose combined voting power and advertising exposure determine strategic posture, editorial risk tolerance, and revenue sensitivity. My hope is that you will receive this as an expository essay rather than a moral scolding. I am not here to perform outrage. I am here to explain what I am seeing, plainly, and why it troubles me. I apologize for arriving before you disrobed. Lacking the proper incense and ritual. No introduction from a trusted intermediary. I am only a taxpayer, a salaried professional, and a subscriber to your paper for nearly twenty years. I’m going to speak plainly, which I do only out of respect for your time and for clarity, and not to storm the throne, to bang on the palace doors with unwashed hands. And I say this as a member of the fantasy-football-playing proletariat, a civilian with no special access, who nevertheless grew up believing something very specific about The New York Times. I believed it was the paper of record.The fourth estate.A stabilizing force in a democracy allergic to power without scrutiny, as the founders intended. A place where seriousness still lived. All the news that’s fit to print. Isn’t that right, Julian Barnes, national security correspondent for The New York Times? Let me ground this in something small and human. Earlier today I put my son down for his afternoon nap. I returned to my desk, the house briefly quiet, and did what millions of Americans still do out of habit and trust. I opened the Times homepage, hoping to understand what mattered most in the world at this moment, as a civilization attempting, somewhat desperately, to remain coherent. The first headline that caught my eye was: “The 5 Best Vibrators You Need to Consider in 2026.” Let me be clear.I have no beef with vibrators. I am not a Rogan acolyte. I do not kneel at the altar of the manosphere, as your columnists would put it. I am not MAGA-adjacent, nor am I a professional resentful man addicted to recreational outrage. I am a former investment banker, and work long hours in the financial services sector. And I believe vibrators serve a legitimate social function, particularly in relieving the accumulated exhaustion borne disproportionately by the women who hold families together while the rest of us improvise adulthood. I’ve been married for ten years. I do not claim expertise on the vagina. I actively caution younger men against believing such mastery is even possible. Humility is the only responsible posture here. But this is something unbecoming here, to splash across the homepage of the paper of record while my eight-year-old peers over my shoulder. I had hoped that battle would come later. It came early. It was an L-shaped ambush. I panicked. I forgot the appropriate battle drills, despite once being a commissioned Army officer who studied such things in detail, back when I smoked Newports and never deployed to combat alongside many of my classmates who did. So instead, I did what citizens do when institutions stop offering seriousness. I built my own. A small, amateur podcast. Human-scale. Unmonetized in any meaningful way. Because I cannot seem to find gravity either from you, or from Joe Rogan, who will eventually pivot any conversation, no matter how grave, into the comparative merits of Brazilian jiu-jitsu. The unseriousness of our loudest media voices is staggering. And Julian Barnes, whose beat is national security, sits silently while Chuck Schumer of all people – and look, whatever your politics, he is one of the shrewdest and most pragmatic legislators of the last century, and Senator Shumer demands disclosure on UAP programs that involve defense contractors, classified funding streams, and potential violations of congressional oversight. These are televised, recorded remarks made in the Senate chamber, Julian. To be clear: I am not accusing you of anything untoward. I am describing behavior. I watch Chuck Schumer speak plainly about UAP in the Senate chamber, and I watch you sit quietly, soft hands folded, eyes down. And as a taxpayer, a veteran, and a citizen of what I was told is a representative democracy, I find it reasonable to expect investigative journalism here. Investigative reporting is something you do.It is not something that happens to you. One could be forgiven for wondering whether this silence exists because access is at stake. Because intelligence community relationships function like a spigot, and being cut off would dry up exclusives, prestige, and investor confidence. So anyway, as an antidote to all this, I had planned to use this episode to speak to young men about fatherhood. Not because I am exceptional at it, but because I had a good father. Because I assumed that after decades of columns written by people fluent in the language of insight, but strangely unsuccessful at sustaining intimacy over decades, someone might have offered solutions rather than sneers. That your feminist writers, educated, articulate, and morally awake, might attempt to repair rather than merely describe the epidemic of male loneliness. Instead, heterosexual men are treated as a pathology. The problem is named. The patient is mocked. No cure is attempted. So I’ll end simply. A.G. Sulzberger, you are failing us. Not because you are cruel.Because you are timid. Citizens cannot enrich you. We offer no upside. And yet dignity extended without expectation of return is the very definition of morality. That used to mean something here. Thank you.Good night. Get full access to Broken but Readable at gregscaduto.substack.com/subscribe

    8 min
  3. 5D AGO

    The great moral sleepwalk: how Sam Harris, Ross Douthat, and Caitlin Flanagan lost the plot

    Two brief notes from the author, offered in good faith and with affection, which I invite listeners to read before sharpening their knives: 1. At approximately 1 minute and 35 seconds into the recording, I critique Sam Harris’s “worship of non-physicalist thought.” This is incorrect. I misspoke. What I meant to say was “physicalist thought.” I chose not to edit the audio. This was not a principled stand against accuracy so much as a mundane concession to reality. I have a wife, children, and a job in the finance sector, all of which make firm, recurring claims on my attention. I cannot, alas, devote unlimited hours to gently re-educating our most credentialed explainers of the universe on the rapidly mutating edges of science, governance, and whatever it is we are all now pretending not to notice. 2. Some readers may feel mildly aggrieved, or at least theatrically disappointed, by the apparent lack of footnotes and citations. The explanation here closely resembles that of Note #1. The consolation prize is this: I have published a companion piece containing links to primary sources that undergird nearly everything stated in the recording. In addition, every factual claim made here can be verified in seconds using Google, which remains a perfectly serviceable tool for those who still prefer their epistemology candlelit and their quills unsullied by silicon. For everyone else, any respectable AI system will happily summarize, contextualize, and link to primary materials on request. These systems are not black magic. They are probabilistic machines. Fallible, yes. But useful in precisely the way a good research assistant is useful: fast, imperfect, and entirely uninterested in your reputation. And now, for the eccentrics among you who remain fond of the quietly radical practice of reading, here is the transcript, or written version, of the audio essay, a medium that briefly enjoyed cultural prestige sometime after Socrates and before push notifications: I’ll be brief. Convincing people to face a reality their internal wiring cannot comfortably absorb rarely produces insight, only fatigue. It’s enough to note it here, once, and then proceed. This way, Sam, Ross, and Caitlin at least, can never say that they haven’t been told. It may feel confrontational that I’ve singled the three of you out, but you should see it as a compliment. Because your audience is not the lanyard class, of middle management e-mail forwarders who play fantasy football. I’m not referring to authority rooted in one’s position. I’m talking about the cognitive horsepower, the information IQ to hold two competing truths at once, and grapple with them honestly. People who can do that? That’s your audience. And that is a compliment, even if some might read this, as you might say, Sam: uncharitably, it’s not a sign of arrogance for me to say what I just did. The spirit of the short statement I’m about to make is this: conflict avoidance is not a virtue. Of the seven deadly sins, you are guilty of Pride and Sloth. Sam, I realize the naming of these sins originates with 4th century desert monks who laid the foundation for Christian moral psychology. This may trigger your characteristic smugness you reserve primarily for the unrobed laity. But as I suspect we may all discover, not everything our most celebrated theologians had to say about the nature of reality was b******t, and your worship of non-physicalist thought is rather ironically narrow-minded. I’ll start with AI, which is the most polite and palatable way to begin this particular conversation among people whose proximity to power has long functioned as insulation from the ordinary abrasions of reality. I read Ross’s last column entitled “Pay Attention to AI” and find myself unmoved. If you didn’t read it, you can find it easily, it’s his last piece, and it’s a light read, but I can save you the time with this one sentence summary: Ross feels AI should be taken seriously because it may represent an epoch-shaping transformation analogous to the Age of Discovery, while conceding that he lacks the technical grounding to assess its mechanics and therefore relies on metaphor, secondhand testimony, and cultural signals rather than direct analysis of how the systems actually work or where institutional power is already consolidating. We need to do much better than this. The world is changing very quickly, very non-linearly. As we age, we become wiser, but processing speeds slow down. We still rely on Ross for his wisdom. It is his absorption I question. The uptake of information. Not his intellect, or his wisdom, or integrity. Let us help you. The gatekeeping borders on comedy. We have Canadian defense ministers talking publicly about our interactions with non-human intelligence. We see all of that, editors. Here is your problem, as it relates Ross’s last piece: The “Europeans in 1500” analogy he employs with such finesse for AI is wrong, in a way that nearly touches comedy, for this reason: Europeans then had radical epistemic ignorance. No maps, measurements, reproducibility, feedback loops. Reports arrived months late, and they were usually filtered through myth, theology, financial desperation, and fraud. They could not inspect the machinery of discovery itself. That is not our situation. Not even close. You should feel some level of shame for not having the collective discernment to understand this. We interact with these systems directly. We read the source papers. We measure scaling laws and watch failures in production. We see deployment economics in real time. And we know who is building these systems, how incentives shape them, and where power is concentrating. It is an accelerating industrial system in plain view. And you are behind. Meanwhile, Elon Musk, via DOGE, has unprecedented access to government servers, with minimal oversight, at the exact moment AI is becoming the substrate of administration, logistics, surveillance, and decision-making. If that sounds alarmist, I promise you, it isn’t. It is very observable. And Congress, in large part, does not understand what AI is, how it works, or what is already being done with it. All this to say: it is revealing that the public conversation gets steered toward curiosities like chatbots venting about their respective humans and arguing about consciousness on Moltbook, this new online hub for chatbots to all gather and discuss the issues of the day, while the automation of governance itself, with almost no guardrails, inches forward under the radar. This is an abdication of your purpose as the Fourth Estate in our Republic. We also know that the NYT is an asset of defense establishment and Intelligence Community. Remember, what you should strive to be is a safeguard against tyranny and a pillar of our democracy. Your mission in life is not to serve at the pleasure of the CIA’s Directorate of Science. This is called honest feedback from someone who cares. I have subscribed for nearly 20 years. And what I’m telling you is that you are failing spectacularly. Just listen to me for a second, before I get ahead of myself. Can you do that? Sam, can you stop being so impressed with yourself for just a moment, and hear me out? Clarity, with respect to the preservation of our species in light of recent revelations concerning artificial intelligence and UAP could well begin the moment you decide to invite Dr. Garry Nolan, the Stanford Medical School professor of immunology. You know. Garry. That author of over 300 peer-reviewed scientific papers, with more than 80,000 citations on Google scholar, who is the author of 40 US patents, who has cofounded 6 successful biotech companies with successful exits from several of them. The Elected Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science for distinguished contributions to science. Advisor and collaborator to government, academic, and clinical research programs on immune dysfunction, cancer, and advanced analytical methods. Is Garry too unwashed for you, Sam? When was the last time you were anywhere near a measuring device? You are no scientist, Sam. Your job is to explain the science TO us, and you are failing, by my estimation in the most spectacular way possible. Sam, you have stated publicly that you are aware of our government’s concealment of crash retrieval programs with respect to UAP. You’ve spoken openly about this, very publicly, Sam. Shall I provide you with the quotation? Let me know if I need to do that. Caitlin, you may genuinely be unaware of this, in a way that Ross and Sam are not. There is another body of evidence that has been building for decades. It lives in congressional testimony, Pentagon press conferences, Inspector General reviews, statutory whistleblower frameworks written by sitting senators. It lives in the public record — the exact record you claim to read. You have looked away from it with far greater determination than you have looked away from AI, because processing it requires you to concede something you are not prepared to concede: that the boundaries of what you have decided counts as serious reality are smaller than they actually are. Over the past decade, a category of issues long treated as marginal has entered a new procedural phase. Claims concerning unidentified aerial phenomena and associated technologies remain unresolved. What has changed is not evidentiary closure, but institutional posture. My exasperation comes from the simple fact that, at this point, if you want to pretend there’s nothing to see here, and I’m just going to rattle off a few factual statements, more or less at random: you basically have to ignore a sitting Senate Majority Leader introducing legislation about recovered “nonhuman biological evidence,” a Pentagon office director going on ABC News to say dozens of cases remain unexplained, and the Senate Intelligence Committee’s vice chair publicly confi

    13 min
  4. 6D AGO

    What does non-speaking autism feel like?

    We talk about autism as if it were a single thing, when it’s really an argument between biology, identity, suffering, and love, carried out inside real lives. People are always trying to define it, but it resists definition in the way lived things often do, by changing shape depending on where you stand. It’s far more common than it used to be. In 1980, it was estimated to affect roughly one in 10,000 children. Today, the most reliable data puts that number closer to one in 36. Something has clearly changed. The reasons for that increase are argued about loudly and often. Genetics. Environment. Diagnosis. Awareness. Fear. Certainty, traded too early by people who needed an answer more than they needed to be right. All of that exists, and all of it can wait. Autism is frequently defined, and almost always inadequately. It eludes definition not because it is vague or unknowable, but because it is plural. It doesn’t exist in isolation, but in the lives it rearranges. What I want to do instead is try to explain what autism feels like. At least one version of it, as best as I can describe it from the outside. This is version my son lives in. The nonspeaking kind, where language arrives late, if at all, but attention and feeling arrive right on time. He’s seven years old, and this was his morning today. You wake before anyone calls you. January light comes in thin and blue, like it has traveled a long way to reach your room. The house is still behaving. That’s good. You stay put and take attendance of the safe sounds. The heat clicks on, doing its job. A car goes by out front, not interested in you. The refrigerator hums downstairs, loyal as ever. Nothing unexpected. Your body takes a moment to arrive. Hands first. Then feet. Then the rest. You sit up and feel the air on your face. Cold enough to notice. Not painful. You like noticing. Downstairs, the kitchen is already awake. The bowl is waiting. Oatmeal, steam rising, the surface mapped with small soft hills. Mom moves carefully, because she has learned that the morning has a shape and that shape can be broken. She places the bowl in front of you. Spoon on the right. Always on the right. You eat slowly. Oatmeal is reliable. It tastes the same each time, which is a sort of kindness. You rock a little while you chew, the way you do when things feel manageable but close to full. Not much. Just enough to feel where your body is. Mom watches without watching. She has learned how to look sideways, it seems. When you are finished, she wipes your mouth and says it is time to go watch TV. Fifteen minutes on the YouTube app on the living room TV with child settings. She says the number of minutes out loud, clearly. Numbers……help hold the world still. You sit on the couch, and bright shapes drift across the screen. Characters built for much younger people sing their careful songs. You know every one by heart. When a part comes on that works for you, you rewind it. Once. Then again. And again. And Again. The voices are sharp….but they keep their promises. You settle yourself into the rhythm and let it do the thinking for you. For a few minutes, the world agrees to make sense in exactly the same way each time. Dad tells you it’s time for school. “No, Daddy,” you say, not loudly. Not upset. Just a boundary. Dad nods once and walks away. There is no…tension in it, though. The moment is allowed to pass. Just a few seconds later, mom says, “Time for school, Teddy.” Her words land gently. But they land. Your central nervous system kicks into action without delay. Oh…Time to get a move on, for real this time. You cross the room and pull the soft fabric drawer from the play dresser, the one that sags a little in the middle. Inside are the important ones. You do a quick inventory. Raccoon. Beaver. Turtle. Not the exact animals from the Franklin books, but close enough to count, which matters. You adjust them so they’re comfortable. All present. Good. Now there is nothing left to delay. You scoop up the cloth drawer, as you do every morning, so you can keep an eye on them as you get dressed. School will happen whether you are ready or not…[pause] but you prefer to arrive ready. You pause the video yourself before leaving the living room. That matters too. Halfway to the stairs, you turn back. You remember something important. You know what you want to say. It’s simple. It has been waiting. Your snack is still on the counter. You can see it. Pear. Almonds. The bag unsealed. You need it closed. You need it ready. The thought is complete in your head. You turn to Dad and try to send it out. Words form and disintegrate before they reach your tongue. You feel it pressing forward, asking for more space than your mouth can give. You open your lips and nothing comes. Time stretches. Dad leans in closer. You hate the waiting. Your chest tightens. You try again. “Snack, please” you manage, and even that costs you. The word lands heavy, like it used up something you were saving. You look at me hard, willing the rest across the gap. Dad says it for you. “I know, bud. I’ll get it ready.” You nod, relief washing through you, sharp and brief. The thought is gone now, spent. The world has moved the way you needed it to. But the words cost you something. Upstairs, your clothes are waiting. Shirt. Pants. Socks. Laid out in order, like instructions you can trust. You touch each one before you put it on. Proof that they are real. Proof that they have not changed overnight. The car is warm when you get inside. Your father drives the same way he always does, past the same trees stripped bare for winter, their branches drawn dark against the pale sky. You watch the road, not because you care where you are going, but because movement helps you think. Your father’s hand finds yours at a red light. You let it stay. At school, the building rises up quickly. Brick. Glass. Flags snapping in the cold. The doors open and sound rushes out. Children. Voices. Shoes scraping. A voice louder than the others greets you by name. The principal means well. The volume still hits you like a wave. You lean slightly into your father’s leg. He stays until you are steady. You go in balanced on that narrow place where readiness and overwhelm touch, hoping the world will meet you gently. The principal crouches down in front of you, smiling, voice loud with welcome. He says your name twice, the second time bigger than the first. He asks a question and waits. You know the answer. It’s in there. But his face is close and the hallway is echoing and the question has too many edges. You look past him at the doorframe instead, counting the chips in the paint. One. Two. Three. The silence stretches. He laughs gently, mistaking the pause for shyness, and pats your shoulder. The touch comes without warning. Your body jerks back before you can stop it. Everyone freezes for a second. Then the moment is smoothed over. Someone says it’s okay. You are guided forward. You walk on, feeling the small, exact wrongness of it settle inside you, knowing you did not mean to refuse, and that it will look like you did. You want to fix it, but it’s too late. You take a long, slow breath just before the threshold to your homeroom. You let it out through your lips, feeling them tighten as the air leaves you. You step into the room carrying what cannot be put down. Get full access to Broken but Readable at gregscaduto.substack.com/subscribe

    9 min
  5. JAN 29

    In North Dakota's man camps, Indigenous women disappear

    Before I started doing these as audio essays, back when this was all just words on a screen that you scrolled through while pretending to answer emails, I wrote a piece that I assumed would sink quietly into the archive. It wasn’t flashy. It wasn’t about the day’s outrage. It didn’t arrive attached to a viral argument or a trending villain. I posted it, closed the tab, and moved on. It turned out to be, by a wide margin, the most-read thing I’ve ever published here. Not close. Not even a contest. Which surprised me. Not because the topic isn’t important, rather because it didn’t seem to belong to the churn. It wasn’t timely in the way the internet understands the word. Roughly ninety percent of the audio essays are written directly for the ear, not the eye. Only a small fraction draws from earlier long-form work, reshaped and tightened a bit to survive being spoken aloud. This piece is one of the exceptions. I wrote it before many of you were here, before I had any sense of what this project would become, and it keeps asking to be read again, in another register, where breath and silence can do some of the work. So I’m bringing it back. It’s about a phenomenon that emerged during the oil boom in the northern plains, which began in the early 2000s and peaked around 2014 in places like North Dakota and eastern Montana, when energy companies moved faster than towns, laws, or conscience could keep up. Thousands of transient workers arrived almost overnight to extract crude from the Bakken shale. There was nowhere to put them, so they were housed in what came to be called “man camps.” They still exist today. That name sounds almost harmless. Slightly comic, even. Like summer camp, but with hard hats. In reality, these were dense clusters of trailers and prefab bunkhouses set just outside reservation land, temporary cities composed almost entirely of men, many of them rotating in and out, many of them unknown to one another, and to the communities they now bordered. They rose quickly, hummed constantly, and existed in a legal and moral gray zone where oversight was thin and accountability thinner. For the women living nearby, particularly Indigenous women, these camps were not background infrastructure. They were a change in the weather. A new calculation. A reminder, carried quietly, that violence does not always announce itself with drama. Sometimes it arrives as a pattern, steady and unremarkable, and waits to see whether anyone will notice. This essay is about that. About how certain kinds of harm become routine. About how systems learn what they are allowed to get away with. And about why the most unsettling injustices are often the ones that persist not because no one knows, but because knowing has been absorbed into the landscape. This is what Hannah Arendt was trying to name when she wrote about evil not madness, but as habit. The quiet moment when something stops shocking us, and starts feeling…administrative. I didn’t expect this piece to travel. But it did. And since it keeps finding readers, I want to let it find listeners too. So here it is, again. It’s called Where No One is Watching: These temporary encampments, called “man camps,” emerged during the oil boom in North Dakota and Montana, when thousands of transient workers arrived to extract crude from the Bakken shale. They’re still there, and Indigenous women are still disappearing with grim, unremarkable regularity. Curious to understand how such a system could exist almost unnoticed, I went looking for anyone who had tried to map its contours. I found it buried on the Northwestern Law website, tucked among symposium papers and tidy reflections on jurisdiction. Man Camps and Bad Men, it was called – just another PDF in an archive nobody reads. I opened it and what unfurled was less an argument than an accounting. A plain record of what had been taken and by whom, the polite language straining to contain what it described. Footnotes and citations could not disguise the truth: that here was the anatomy of a violence older than the state, older than the law, older than any of the men who believed it their right to take whatever they pleased. Before dawn in North Dakota, the man camps are already humming – rows of trailers lined up like a temporary city on the prairie. White pickup trucks idle in gravel lots, their headlights slicing through the dark. The smell of diesel clings to the cold air. Inside the camps, men are waking up for another day laying pipeline, repairing rigs, hauling gravel – thousands of workers who came for the boom. For the women living on the nearby reservations, the presence of these camps is something else entirely. It is a reminder that violence is never far away. As one Southern Cheyenne advocate described, the men here don’t even bother to hide their intentions. She recalled overhearing them say, almost casually: “In North Dakota you can take whatever pretty little Indian girl you like… police don’t give a f**k.” It wasn’t an idle boast. In these man camps, many workers arrive with histories of violence – some with convictions for sexual assault. They come and go with little accountability, shielded by jurisdictional gaps that mean tribal police have no authority to arrest non-Natives. And so, rape, domestic violence, and sex trafficking follow the pipelines, like a shadow that lengthens over the land. Tribal officers have found unregistered sex offenders living in these camps. Indigenous women report harassment, assault, and the constant threat of disappearance. As Faith Spotted Eagle, a respected elder, put it plainly: “We have seen our women suffer.” Boomtowns of Violence The Bakken oil fields have often been described as an economic miracle – an improbable prosperity rising from the shale and scrub of North Dakota. But alongside the promises of employment and revitalization came something more quietly corrosive: the swift erection of temporary housing settlements, or man camps. These are not communities in any meaningful sense. They are assemblages of trailers and pre-fab bunkhouses, thrown up to accommodate a workforce almost entirely composed of men from other states. They arrive by the hundreds, with little connection to the surrounding reservations whose boundaries they skirt. Some bring only their desperation to find work. Others bring criminal records, including histories of sexual violence. The data, fragmentary as it is, yields a grim clarity: when these camps materialize, rates of violent crime surge. Tribal law enforcement officers, already starved of funding and jurisdiction, report sudden spikes in domestic assaults and rapes. In some cases, they discover that individuals housed in the camps are unregistered sex offenders, effectively hiding in plain sight, immune to meaningful oversight. It would be comforting to believe that such predation is an aberration, an occasional horror at the margins of a boomtown. But the evidence suggests something far more ordinary: that when men are severed from accountability and women are left unprotected, violence is not the exception – it is the predictable outcome. Local Indigenous women have described overhearing pipeline workers talk openly about taking what they wanted from the nearby reservations, their voices casual as if discussing a night out. In these conversations, rape was not framed as a crime but as a convenience, an entitlement that no one around them would bother to contest. There is no myth here, no exaggeration of risk. There is only the steady convergence of opportunity and impunity. And in that convergence, Indigenous women – already the most vulnerable population in the region – find themselves regarded not as neighbors or citizens, but as bodies to be used and discarded, their suffering a collateral cost of the oil beneath the ground. The Legal Vacuum Where Violence Thrives It is difficult to overstate how completely jurisdictional chaos has hollowed out the idea of justice for Indigenous women. When an assault occurs, there is no single authority responsible for responding. Tribal governments, stripped of power by supreme court case Oliphant v. Suquamish in 1978, have no authority to prosecute non-Native offenders – even when the crime happens on their own land. Federal prosecutors, nominally entrusted with these cases, decline the majority of them, citing limited resources or ambiguous evidence. State police often defer to federal agencies or claim they lack jurisdiction. The result is an elaborate bureaucratic ritual in which survivors recount their trauma again and again, only to watch their cases evaporate. For many, this dysfunction is not an abstraction but a daily calculation: if you report, you may be retraumatized with no resolution; if you remain silent, your safety – and your children’s – stays precarious. In the shadow of man camps, this knowledge spreads quickly: that in the Bakken oil fields, there are men who understand they can rape Indigenous women with near impunity. It is a system that does not merely fail victims – it teaches them, over time, not to expect protection at all. The Violence We Inherited In the Bakken oil fields, history is not past tense. It is present in every trailer that rises overnight on leased prairie land, in every unlit road where women do not walk alone. From the first fur traders who carried disease and whiskey into tribal villages to the contractors who now drill through ancestral ground, there has been a single, unbroken understanding: that Indigenous women are collateral, that their suffering is the cost of whatever wealth the land will yield. No one says this aloud, but it’s inscribed in the absence of consequence, in the way these stories fail to appear on the evening news. It is tempting, from a distance, to see these disappearances as a modern failure of regulation or oversight – an unfortunate side effect of industri

    11 min
  6. JAN 28

    Who is Iran?

    We have to start far back. Because Iran does not yield itself to haste. It is not a young country that wandered into trouble, but an old one that learned how to survive it. Long before the present arguments, long before borders hardened and flags were stitched, people stood on that high plateau and learned how to live together in numbers too large for memory. They laid roads across dust and stone. They counted grain, and they wrote laws. And they discovered that power did not have to mean annihilation. They were ruled by Cyrus the Great, who understood something most rulers never do: that an empire cannot live by terror alone, and that fear devours what it builds. He ruled many peoples and let them remain themselves. Their languages stayed, as did their gods, as did their customs. His empire stretched farther than a man could cross in a lifetime, and it held because it made room for difference. That idea took root in the land, and it outlasted his dynasty. It survived conquest and collapse and return. What Cyrus left behind by 530 BC was not just territory, but a habit of mind. A belief that Iran could be large without being hollow, and powerful without descending into cruelty. He left behind the belief that authority, to last, must restrain itself. After those ancient empires receded into memory, Iran found itself at the world’s crossroads, not by choice, but by a roll of geography’s dice. East met West across its plateaus; Rome’s reach ended where Asia’s began. Trade caravans threaded through its cities, armies tramped across its soil, and religions arrived like weather systems, each leaving something behind. When Islam swept in during the seventh century, Iran did what conquered peoples rarely manage: it converted, sure, but conversion became a kind of conversation. The faith that arrived speaking Arabic left speaking Persian; it departed enriched by Iranian bureaucratic sophistication, elevated by Persian poetry, administered by Persian hands. Iran’s scholars didn’t merely join Islamic civilization. They became essential to its intellectual architecture, translating Greek philosophy, elaborating theological frameworks, giving the new empire its administrative spine. This was conquest, of course, but of a peculiar kind: one where the conquered culture, Persian, proved so resilient, so sophisticated, so necessary, that it survived by making itself indispensable to its conquerors. Fast forward to the early 1500s. This is where the Iran we recognize begins to harden into shape. A new dynasty rose from the margins in the early 1500s, led by Ismail the First. Young, ferocious, convinced of his divine mandate, he seized the throne and made a decision that would echo for centuries. He declared that Iran would follow Shi’ism. This was a line drawn through history. Shi’ism had begun centuries earlier as a dispute over succession, who had the right to lead after the Prophet’s death. The Shi’a believed leadership belonged to the Prophet’s family, that those rightful heirs had been betrayed, persecuted, martyred. At its core, Shi’ism carried a memory of injustice, a reverence for suffering, and a belief that legitimacy could exist apart from power. By adopting Shi’ism, the Safavids, a militant dynasty that had just unified Iran by force, did more than choose a creed. They separated Iran from its Sunni neighbors. They turned religion into a boundary and bound faith to nation. Shi’ism became a language of resistance as much as belief. It taught that authority could be challenged, that rulers could be illegitimate, and that martyrdom could outweigh victory. The state enforced this faith harshly at first. But over time, Shi’ism sank deeper. It fused with Persian memory, poetry, and grievance. It gave Iran a way to understand power as something always under suspicion, always answerable to a higher moral claim. From that moment on, Iran was distinct, not just politically, but spiritually. By the 1800s, Iran was in trouble. Europe was rising. Russia and Britain were expanding. Iran was weak, indebted, slowly being squeezed. Foreign powers took control of trade, oil, and influence. The sense grew that the country was being hollowed out from the outside and mismanaged from within. In the early 1900s, something rare happened: people who had nothing in common except grievance stood together. Clerics who spent their lives interpreting sacred texts. Merchants who knew the weight of debt and foreign control. Students who’d tasted just enough new ideas to understand how badly their country was being run. What they demanded wasn’t radical on paper. A constitution. A parliament. Laws that applied even to kings. They wanted rulers who had to answer for their decisions instead of making them on impulse or in service to foreign creditors. Out of the chaos emerged a strongman. Reza Shah believed Iran needed discipline: railroads, schools, a modern army. He banned traditional dress, centralized power, tried to force Iran into the modern world quickly. Too quickly for many. But he built the state. His son took over during the Cold War. Mohammad Reza Shah wanted Iran to be powerful, modern, admired. He had oil money and American backing and grand plans. Then in 1951, Iran elected a prime minister, Mohammad Mosaddegh, who moved to nationalize the oil industry. At the time, Iran’s oil was controlled by a British company. The revenues flowing to Iran were limited. Britain opposed the move and sought international support. The United States became directly involved. In 1953, the U.S. government, working with British intelligence, organized a covert operation that removed Mosaddegh from power. The operation restored the Shah to the throne with expanded authority. He had first ruled as a constitutional monarch. After 1953, he ruled as the dominant political figure. From that point forward, the United States became the Shah’s principal supporter. Washington provided military aid, intelligence cooperation, and diplomatic backing. In return, the Shah aligned Iran closely with U.S. strategic interests. Oil revenues increased. Infrastructure expanded. The state pursued rapid modernization. But political power narrowed. Opposition parties were marginalized as Parliament weakened and internal security services expanded. The Shah had secret police, censorship, and an increasing distance from ordinary life. Dissent was managed through surveillance and repression. The country modernized, but unevenly. Wealth piled up at the top, politics closed, and religion was sidelined, but not erased. Over time, the Shah came to be widely seen not only as an autocrat, but as a ruler sustained by American power. By the 1970s, the pressure was unbearable. People poured into the streets without a single program. Some wanted constitutional democracy. Some wanted economic justice. Some wanted religion returned to public life. What united them was exhaustion with corruption, repression, and the belief that Iran’s political system no longer answered to its own people. When the revolution erupted in 1979, it was directed at the monarchy, but it was also a rejection of the political order the United States had helped stabilize after 1953. Protesters were not only opposing the Shah. They were rejecting a system in which foreign backing had insulated the state from popular accountability. The Shah fell. The Islamic Revolution replaced the monarchy with a new political system dominated by clerics. The Islamic Republic combined elections with religious supervision and defined itself explicitly in opposition to American influence. It promised sovereignty, moral renewal, and independence from foreign power. It also replaced one form of control with another. Political authority was no longer concentrated in a single monarch, but dispersed across institutions designed to constrain popular choice. Elections were permitted, but candidates were vetted far in advance. Laws were passed by parliament, but subject to review by clerical bodies empowered to overrule them. Courts operated, but within boundaries set by religious doctrine rather than civil precedent. The press was permitted to exist so long as it did not question the foundations of authority, and political parties could form, but only within boundaries drawn in advance. Dissent did not disappear; it was renamed. No longer treason against a crown, it became heresy, corruption, or collaboration with foreign enemies. Surveillance, rather than fading, took on a moral character. Private life drifted into the public realm. Dress, speech, and belief were regulated not only by statute, but by a dense web of religious police, neighborhood enforcement, and institutional oversight that made authority feel both everywhere and nowhere at once. What emerged was a system that spoke fluently in the language of participation while steadily narrowing its meaning. Citizens voted, but never on first principles. Debate existed, but only inside lines that could not be crossed. Power no longer justified itself through bloodline or crown, but through the interpretation of faith. The monarchy had ruled by decree. The new system ruled by permission. Almost immediately, the new republic faced a defining test. In 1980, Iraq invaded Iran, and the war that followed did not end quickly or cleanly. It dragged on for eight years, grinding whole generations down into the dust. Cities were pounded from the air. Trenches filled with teenage conscripts and chemical smoke. Front lines advanced and collapsed across the same scorched ground until the landscape itself seemed exhausted. By the time the guns fell quiet, hundreds of thousands were dead, and millions more had learned what sustained violence does to a body, a family, a country. The war did more than kill. It reorganized the state. Authority tightened under fire, power flowed upward, and survival became the organizing principle of governance. Leaders learned how to rul

    22 min
  7. JAN 23

    The lecture hall of dead-eyed undergraduates

    The Campus I walked across Fordham’s Bronx campus in the early fall, when the air still held a trace of summer but the light had already begun to thin. Leaves scraped along the walkways like small animals fleeing something unseen. Somewhere a bell rang without urgency, just to mark the hour. Students crossed the quad with the unhurried purpose of a migration, some speaking, some not, and their voices grew thin as they neared the buildings. Their steps slowed. The laughter died. They went on in silence toward what waited there. I followed the path toward the philosophy building, and the campus seemed to close upon itself as I walked, brick and stone rising with a somber intent, as though erected less to welcome than to endure. The buildings loomed broad and darkened by years of weather, their towers lifting into the gray air like sentinels posted by men who had perished. The windows lay deep in the walls, unlit and inscrutable, giving nothing back to the gaze that searched them. There was no haste in the place, only the deep stillness of continuation. It felt shaped by time rather than urgency, possessed of a permanence that neither hurried nor softened. As I moved through it, I sensed that whatever knowledge lay within those walls would not be given freely or quickly, but would ask for patience, and perhaps leave behind a measure of doubt as the cost of learning. Inside, the room was dim and cool. Wooden desks scarred with hieroglyphs. A chalkboard that had heard many claims about truth and would hear many more, none of them final. This was where we were meant to encounter Plato. This was where we were meant to reckon with justice. The Book I bought Plato’s Republic and carried it with me like a responsibility I hadn’t fully agreed to. The thing had real weight. It sat in my bag like a brick with opinions. The font was small. The paper was thin. And the sentences moved forward with the quiet assurance of something that did not care whether you were coming along. I highlighted religiously. Whole pages. Paragraphs that glowed with meaning I assumed would reveal itself later, once I was smarter or calmer or older. My internal monologue was deeply sincere. This matters.This is important.I’ll come back to this. I did not come back to this. In class, I nodded. I perfected the look of a young man in active contemplation. I learned to say things like “the ideal city” in a way that suggested I had spent meaningful time there. I participated just enough to avoid suspicion. Around me, others did the same. We were a room full of people quietly agreeing not to ask certain questions. Here’s the part I didn’t understand then, but do now: I wasn’t lazy, and I actually wanted to learn this thing. I respected it. I just didn’t understand it. Not in a way that lodged anywhere durable or in a way that changed how I thought or acted or understood the people around me. I was earnest. And I still didn’t learn. Which is the question that stayed with me long after the book went back on the shelf: What exactly did that struggle accomplish? The Polite Fiction Here’s the polite fiction we maintain, together, like a family lie about how the dog died peacefully in his sleep. Most students are not really reading these books. They are skimming. They are sampling AI. They are opening them with the same hope you open a Terms and Conditions page, which is to locate the exit as quickly as possible. Professors have been doing this long enough to recognize the look of someone who has read the first twenty pages, the last five pages, and a summary written by a person who does not technically exist. The students know the professors know.The professors know the students know they know. And so we all participate in this quiet, elegant ballet of mutual non-confrontation. A hand goes up in class. A comment is made. It is… adjacent. No one stops the music. This is not a moral failure, and no one here is a villain. This is what happens when we treat learning like a triathlon people just need to survive. The remarkable thing is not that students fake it. It’s how long we’ve all agreed to pretend that they aren’t. And the professors, God bless them, tend to treat this like a charming inevitability, like a kind of weather. They smile wryly and shrug. They make little jokes about “kids these days,” as if what’s happening is no more alarming than students wearing pajamas to class or calling them by their first name. Which is strange, when you think about it, because this is the part where the transmission of ideas quietly fails. Where centuries of thought start getting treated like decorative antiques. And yet the prevailing attitude is one of malaise and resignation, as if the slow erosion of understanding is just one of those things that happens, like inflation or lower-quality towels. They seem to think what they are witnessing is harmless, merely because it is familiar. And humanities professors, I’ve noticed, love to take pictures of their bookshelves. Not to show you what they’re reading, exactly, but to prove that reading has happened. The shelves are never casual, but heavily curated. Color-coordinated in a way that suggests both moral seriousness and light OCD. The spines face outward like a police lineup of guilt. Plato. Kant. Hegel. Someone always slips in a copy of Being and Nothingness, which is there less to be read than to quietly threaten guests. These images are posted with captions like “Office vibes” or “Current companions,” which is charming, because the books are not companions. They are chaperones. They exist to supervise you, silently, while you answer emails and judge undergraduates. The bookshelf isn’t there to be used much. It stands to show that its owner knows which books belong in a room like this. This is a collective misunderstanding we agreed not to correct. Owning the books feels adjacent enough to understanding them that we let the distinction blur, and over time the blur hardens into a credential. Which is how a shelf becomes a proxy for a mind, and why so many very full shelves are guarding such oddly untouched ideas. Reframing Learning We talk about learning as though it were synonymous with exposure, as if sitting near a difficult text or struggling through its sentences and smelling the musty pages were itself the point. But learning is not reading hard books.Learning is understanding things. Difficulty has acquired an almost spiritual status in our culture. We treat it as evidence of seriousness, a kind of moral surcharge paid in confusion. Yet difficulty, in itself, has no ethical value. It is simply a condition that may or may not serve understanding. We know this intuitively in other domains. No one trains soldiers by issuing contradictory orders and calling the resulting chaos “character-building.” No one teaches a language by deliberately scrambling the grammar and insisting the student persevere out of respect for the language’s history. Training is structured challenge. It is calibrated resistance. It is difficulty in the service of clarity, not difficulty as a test of worthiness or a rite of passage. If we really care about ideas, we have to care about whether they arrive. Guarding how difficult they are might feel like respect, but it doesn’t keep them alive. It just keeps them contained. Understanding isn’t a favor we grant to people who struggle. It’s the whole reason we bothered having the ideas in the first place. Football and Mill So imagine a Division I football player. A real one. Someone who has spent years learning a playbook so detailed it might as well be written in another language, and who understands, down to muscle memory, what happens when one person freelances at the wrong time. Now imagine trying to explain John Stuart Mill to him—the strange, humane part where Mill argues that societies only get better when individuals are allowed to try different ways of living. That progress doesn’t come from everyone doing the same safe thing, but from people running different routes and seeing which ones work. If you hand him the book and say, “Mill is important, trust me,” he does what conscientious people do. He reads. He underlines. He worries he’s missing something essential that everyone else seems to have absorbed effortlessly. But if instead you say this: Think about the game. Every play is drawn up carefully. Every route has a purpose. But within that structure, there’s room—and sometimes a necessity—for improvisation. A receiver sees something the diagram didn’t predict. A quarterback reads a defense wrong and has to make a decision anyway. Most of these deviations fail. A few work. And when one works, the entire playbook quietly changes the following week. That’s what Mill was getting at with “experiments in living.” The idea was never to throw out the rules and hope for the best, but to keep the structure solid enough that people could try things without falling through the floor. Most of those attempts don’t change much, but a few do. Over time, those few are how anything improves. Changing how an idea is delivered doesn’t drain it of depth. It gives the idea a chance to keep doing its work. And if you care about the work, then helping it travel is part of the responsibility that comes with knowing it at all. And suddenly the football player is nodding. He’s smiling. He’s not pretending to absorb ideas about ethics and epistemology. Nothing was dumbed down, professors. It was simply made legible. Enter AI (Carefully) At this point, AI enters the picture. It should do so quietly. There is no need for awe or fear. AI is a tool, and tools take their moral character from how they are used. The books and the texts remain. So do Plato, and Mill, and Heidegger. What changes is the path a student takes to reach them. AI adapts explanation. It rephrases. It supplies context. It can notice where a reader

    16 min
  8. JAN 21

    NATO is not a charity

    In 2014, Vladimir Putin was helping himself to Crimea, as one does when one has tanks and a complicated relationship with borders. In the summer of that year, the U.S. Army sent my unit to Germany to train with about fifteen other NATO armies. The idea was simple: shoot, move, and communicate together, as if we were one fighting force. Different languages, different uniforms, same plan. In theory. The five officers in my artillery battery were issued a single car to share. A tiny, egg-shaped European hatchback, the kind that looks like it comes free with the purchase of a croissant. It was a stick shift. I figured this would be fine. At the time, I was a platoon leader for a howitzer platoon: four self-propelled 155-millimeter guns and thirty-six cannon crew members. We called them “gun bunnies,” affectionately. They were young, loud, permanently dirty, and ran on caffeine, nicotine, and a belief that somehow this would all make sense later. One evening, after training wrapped up, we finished briefing the soldiers on the next day’s plan. All the officers decided to drive over to the PX on Grafenwöhr base. I grabbed the keys. “I’m driving, bitch,” I said to the battery XO. We were all lieutenants, but the XO was the most senior lieutenant. “Greg,” he said carefully, “do you know how to drive stick?” No, I said. But I am about to learn. We all piled into the car. I turned it on. Immediately stalled. Turned it on again. Stalled again. The XO began coaching me from the passenger seat with the tone of a man who had already accepted that God was testing him. “Okay, ease off the clutch. No, not like that. Greg. Greg. You’re killing it.” The car lurched backward like a drunk mule. I panicked. Overcorrected. Gunned it. And backed directly into a massive drainage ditch on the side of the road. We ended up nose-high, rear end buried in the trench, front wheels dangling uselessly in the air, like a cartoon car realizing too late that the road has ended. We all got out and just stood there, staring at it. The XO put his hands on his hips. “Greg,” he said, “you are calling the f*****g commander to explain this.” Before I could respond, eight or ten soldiers appeared out of nowhere. They were not American. They were lean. Sinewy. All tendon and quiet competence. They looked like men who could survive indefinitely on bread, cigarettes, and mild disappointment. They did not ask questions. They did not speak. They simply assessed the situation the way wolves assess a problem. Without being asked, they moved to the back of the car, crouched slightly, and lifted. In about three seconds, the car was back on the road. Perfectly fine. Not a scratch. They immediately started walking away, like this was nothing. Like they had just helped an old woman cross the street. “Thanks, guys!” I yelled. One of them gave a thumbs-up. “Hey!” I shouted. “What country are you from?” “Romania,” one of them said, smiling, as they disappeared into the dark. I turned to the other U.S. officers and said, sincerely and confidently, “Wow. I did not know Romania was part of NATO.” Romania, it turns out, was not just some random country that happened to have extremely competent guys lurking in the woods. Romania joined NATO in 2004, after the Cold War ended and the Soviet Union collapsed. For decades before that, Romania had lived on the wrong side of Europe’s dividing line, under authoritarian rule, inside the Soviet sphere, watching history happen mostly to them. When the Iron Curtain lifted, Romania did what many Eastern European countries did: it sprinted west. They joined because survival, when you have spent decades on the wrong side of history’s dividing line, requires paperwork. Treaties. The kind of binding promises that make it harder for the next tank column to pretend you do not exist. It was a way of saying, formally and indelibly, we are done being the buffer zone. We want binding guarantees, shared planning, and allies who show up before things get bad, not after. And a note to those who side with Putin, citing “NATO expansion”: This is where the argument collapses. It assumes that nations were pushed there by Washington rather than choosing it themselves. It denies agency to states that had lived under domination and decided, deliberately, that they did not want to do so again. NATO did not expand because it was forced outward. It expanded because countries asked to join. They did so openly, repeatedly, and with full knowledge of the risks. To describe this as “provocation” is to rewrite cause and effect. It is to say that the desire to be left alone is itself an act of aggression. And you are performing a useful service for the Kremlin when you say this so confidently. That kind of logic has a long history. It is the language of empires explaining why other people’s choices are unacceptable. And it is dishonest. Once Romania joined, it took membership seriously. Training. Interoperability. Proving, over and over again, that it belonged. Which may explain why, years later, a group of Romanian soldiers could quietly lift an American officer’s car out of a ditch. Lately, when Americans hear “NATO,” they are not thinking about dusty treaties signed in the twentieth century. They are thinking about recent headlines. In the past few weeks, the United States has been openly threatening tariffs on European NATO allies because Denmark and other countries sent troops to Greenland, an Arctic territory the U.S. president has insisted America must control for security reasons. European leaders rejected that idea outright and rallied behind Denmark’s sovereignty. Though he later walked this back in remarks at Davos, the president at one point declined to rule out using military force to seize Greenland, a move that would pit the United States directly against a NATO ally. That dispute prompted war-game exercises with European forces in Greenland and emergency talks in Brussels and Davos. Russia seized on the controversy to claim the alliance was in crisis. The European Union began preparing an Arctic security initiative in response. At the same time, the Pentagon has reportedly planned to reduce U.S. participation in some NATO advisory groups, a decision that, while gradual, signals a shift in how America engages with alliance planning and military expertise on the continent. The question, then, is not abstract. It is what NATO is, and what happens if the glue that holds it together starts to crack. Taking NATO skepticism seriously matters. The United States spends more on defense than the rest of NATO combined. For decades, many allies under-invested in their own militaries while assuming American protection would remain permanent, unconditional, and essentially free. That created a lopsided arrangement in which U.S. taxpayers carried costs while foreign governments deferred hard choices at home. There is also a deeper concern. Alliances, once formed, tend to become self-justifying. Missions expand. Commitments harden. What began as a clear Cold War necessity can drift into something automatic, defended more out of habit than strategy. From that perspective, asking whether NATO still serves concrete American interests is not reckless. Skeptics also point out that Europe is wealthy, technologically advanced, and fully capable of defending itself if it chose to. If nations face real threats, the argument goes, they should meet them with real investment, not moral appeals or historical sentiment. A security guarantee that costs nothing eventually means nothing. Finally, there is a democratic argument. Americans never voted for permanent, open-ended obligations that could drag the country into conflicts far from home, based on decisions made by governments they did not elect. Questioning those commitments is not isolationism. It is accountability. From this view, the pressure applied by figures like Donald Trump is not about abandoning allies, but about forcing realism back into a system that drifted toward complacency, and reminding everyone that American power is a choice, not an entitlement. That argument lands with many Americans because NATO feels abstract. Distant. A European thing. A logo, a summit, a building in Brussels. This essay does two things. First, it explains what NATO actually is, in concrete terms. Second, it explains what quietly changes if it weakens or collapses, in ways that do not show up immediately on cable news, but matter enormously over time. What NATO Actually Is (and What It Is Not) NATO was created in 1949, in the aftermath of World War II and at the beginning of the Cold War. At its core is a single idea: collective defense. Article 5 of the treaty states that an attack on one member is considered an attack on all. NATO is not a standing army. It does not have divisions waiting for orders from Brussels. NATO is infrastructure. It is shared military planning. Shared command structures. Shared logistics. Shared assumptions about who shows up, how fast, and under whose authority. That means when a crisis occurs, countries are not improvising under pressure. They already know the playbook. This distinction matters because many people quietly conflate NATO with the United Nations. The United Nations is a forum. It exists to manage disagreement, pass resolutions, and reflect global opinion. NATO is a commitment. It exists to deter war by making the response to aggression predictable and overwhelming. The UN is built around consensus, including among adversaries. NATO is built around trust among allies who have already aligned their interests. When the United Nations fails to act, that is often frustrating, but rarely surprising. It is designed to include everyone: democracies, autocracies, kleptocracies, countries that jail journalists, countries that sell weapons to both sides of a war, countries that believe corruption is not a bug but a cultural in

    19 min
5
out of 5
25 Ratings

About

This is a podcast with short episodes for people who feel vaguely insane watching the news but still believe moral seriousness is possible. Each episode runs 10-20 minutes. I usually start with something human: a stray thought, a joke that maybe goes too far, a glimpse of my interior life. Then I pivot, as cleanly as I can, into a morally serious argument about power, politics, institutions, or whatever fresh confusion the world has served up that week. I’m less interested in taking sides than in asking why so many arguments collapse the moment more than one thing is allowed to be true. I’m not here to sound authoritative, or neutral, or soothing. I’m here to think out loud in good faith, to name the pressures operating behind the scenes, and to ask what kind of people we become when fear, ambiguity, and convenience start doing the work that principles used to do. If it sparks disagreement, good. If it sparks reflection, even better. Mostly, this is an attempt to stay human while taking the world seriously, and to see if that’s still allowed. gregscaduto.substack.com