Are You a Lifelong Learner?: A Systematic Review

 Lifelong learning is really important. There is a saying that once you stop changing and adapting, you begin to decline. As long as you are changing, adapting, and growing, you are continuing to develop. You may become weaker in some areas while becoming stronger in others, but lifelong learning helps you stay engaged, current, and open to new ideas.

(Illustrative Only)
Life Long Learners.
🙃

Learning can also contribute to a healthier and more fulfilling life. It keeps your mind active, encourages creativity, gives you opportunities to produce and accomplish new things, and can increase the enjoyment you get from the world around you.

If you have the opportunity to stay in school and further your education, that is great. But learning does not have to take place in a classroom. If formal education is not an option, continue reading books, learning new skills, exploring new ideas, trying new things, and challenging yourself. Lifelong learning is ultimately about continuing to grow and enjoy the process of living. Over the long run, that can make a meaningful difference in the quality of your life.

Lifelong Learning in the Educational Setting: A Systematic Literature Review

• Lifelong learning extends beyond traditional schooling and includes formal, nonformal, and informal learning throughout a person’s life.
• A systematic review of 55 studies from 2000–2022 found that lifelong learning skills, competencies, and different forms of learning were among the most prominent concepts in the research.
• Lifelong learning is associated with self-directed learning, professional development, metacognition, self-efficacy, adaptability, and the development of new competencies.
• The research identified three major areas of study: lifelong learning policies and frameworks, the development of lifelong learning abilities, and factors that influence people's ability and willingness to continue learning.
• The authors conclude that lifelong learning research still needs stronger theoretical foundations and more empirical and mixed-method research, particularly research examining new learning environments, communities, technologies, and learning strategies.

Thwe, W. P., & Kálmán, A. (2023). Lifelong learning in the educational setting: A systematic literature review. Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 32, 615–625. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-023-00738-w

Institutional Integrity, Social Development, and the Need for Corrective Systems-Alllegory of the Clan

 This learning allegory-Allegory of the Clan (modeled after Plato's Allegory of the Cave) explores how institutions can at times become corrupted and how that corruption can affect society when effective safeguards, oversight, and corrective mechanisms are absent. Even if this is in a minority of places and cases it still presents challenges to the whole. The purpose is philosophical in nature: to consider how systems function, how they fail, and how societies can strengthen them. What does it take to create a powerful and upward reaching democratic society (We weave ancient and modern problems.)

Economic development cannot be separated completely from social development. Economic systems depend upon the ways people interact with one another and upon the institutions that establish the rules for those interactions. Corporate laws, property laws, laws against theft and fraud, civil rights protections, and rules governing professional conduct all influence whether people feel secure enough to participate in society and the economy. When people believe that institutions are fair and predictable, they are generally more willing to cooperate, invest, participate, and take risks.

(Illustrative Only)

Jared reminds
people that decisions
must always be anchored
to the true north of 
society's values and needs. 
In a democracy, 
we elect our leaders,
and those entrusted
with our institutions
to be public servants. 
If they are not
then they need to be removed. 

History provides examples of what happens when institutional rules divide society into separate systems. Segregation, for example, created social and economic structures in which people were treated differently based on racial classifications. (There are new forms of discrimination that can rear their form.) Although these structures existed within the same broader political and economic system, they operated through different rules and opportunities. The resulting separation weakened social integration and limited the ability of the broader system to function efficiently and fairly.

A similar problem can occur without formal segregation when institutions become ideologically divided or when officials apply rules selectively. Consider two extreme propositions about law enforcement. One position might argue that police officers can essentially do nothing wrong and therefore should receive nearly unlimited protection from accountability. The opposite position might argue that police officers are inherently doing everything wrong. Both positions are problematic because they deny the reality of individual variation. In any large institution, some individuals will act improperly, while others will perform their responsibilities with considerable integrity. The appropriate response is therefore neither unlimited protection nor blanket condemnation, but systems capable of distinguishing between appropriate and inappropriate conduct.

(My personal opinion is that the vast majority are doing the right thing and we should support, help, encourage, and have our youth join their ranks. Honor their sacrafices to keep us safe. That doesn't mean there are not individuals and groups that commit human, civil rights, and other corrupted behaviors and they need checks and balances to protect the whole. These systems should seek to serve the broader society and reduce the influence of political ideology, foreign-domestic hate or other distorting influences.)

The same principle applies to the judiciary and other institutions of government. Imagine a hypothetical closed institutional system in which officials allow ideological or personal beliefs to influence investigations, enforcement decisions, or judicial outcomes. Suppose, within the allegory, that individuals are selectively investigated, followed, subjected to rumors or intimidation, or otherwise targeted because their beliefs, identity, religion, or values are considered unacceptable. Imagine further that misconduct is ignored, witnesses are retaliated against, insiders benefit from institutional relationships, and officials who possess authority are aware of these activities but choose not to intervene.

The problem in such a scenario is not simply the misconduct of individual actors. It is the failure of the institutional system to correct itself. They may have bragged about doing these things for years. 

A closed system can become particularly dangerous when the institutions surrounding it reinforce rather than challenge the behavior. If supervisors, oversight bodies, political organizations, professional networks, or other institutions share similar biases, corrective mechanisms can become ineffective. What might initially be the misconduct of a few individuals can therefore become embedded within an institutional culture.

The opposite is also possible. Institutions can develop cultures that place greater emphasis on individual rights, fairness, due process, transparency, and accountability. These values can create stronger corrective mechanisms and make it more difficult for individual actors to misuse public authority. Institutional design therefore matters because the surrounding environment influences whether misconduct is corrected or protected.

This does not require assuming that every person within an institution is corrupt or that every institution is fundamentally flawed. Or they are all perfect. In fact, such assumptions would create another form of ideological thinking. A healthier approach recognizes that institutions contain people with different motivations, values, capabilities, and levels of integrity. Some will make mistakes. Some will act improperly. Others will devote themselves sincerely to public service.

The objective of reform should therefore be to strengthen the people and structures that perform their responsibilities well while creating meaningful consequences for those who misuse public authority. Accountability is not an attack on institutions; it is one of the mechanisms through which institutions preserve their legitimacy. In one strain of logic, those who encourage higher performance are more patriotic and prosocial then those who block healthy adaptations or who fail to correct wrongdoing as a revolt against good moral conscious. 

From a pro-social and fairness-oriented perspective, the goal is not to eliminate disagreement or impose one worldview upon everyone else. The goal is to create institutions in which people with different beliefs can participate without fearing that public authority will be weaponized against them. Civil rights, human rights, due process, transparency, and equal application of the law provide important safeguards against institutional capture.

Ultimately, healthy institutions require continuous correction. No institution should be assumed to be incapable of error, and no group of people should be treated as incapable of wrongdoing. At the same time, neither should entire professions or communities be presumed to be corrupt. The more productive approach is to establish systems capable of identifying misconduct, protecting those who perform their duties properly, correcting institutional failures, and holding individuals accountable when they misuse public power.

Society benefits when good public servants are encouraged to participate, when younger generations are invited to enter public institutions and uphold their missions, and when institutional cultures reward competence, fairness, and service. The long-term objective is not simply to punish wrongdoing. It is to build institutions that are resilient enough to correct themselves before isolated misconduct becomes systemic corruption.

In this sense, institutional integrity is both a social and an economic asset. Trust allows people to cooperate. Fairness encourages participation. Predictable institutions encourage investment. Accountability protects legitimacy. And effective corrective mechanisms help ensure that public institutions remain servants of society rather than instruments through which particular individuals or groups impose their interests upon others. At least in theory but it would seem to hold true in history and in modern times. 

*The Allegory of the Clan is a philosophical thought experiment for learning purposes. There is no right or wrong answer nor does it propose a solution. 

Judicial Corruption, Legal Ethics, and Public Trust

1. Judicial corruption undermines public trust because misconduct by judges, prosecutors, and attorneys can weaken perceptions of fairness, impartiality, and institutional legitimacy.
2. The study identifies bribery, political interference, conflicts of interest, lack of transparency, and other forms of misconduct as major ethical concerns within legal systems.
3. Legal education is identified as an important point for reform. The authors report that 78% of examined institutions lacked compulsory ethics programs, suggesting that future legal professionals may not receive sufficient preparation for real-world ethical challenges.
4. Strong oversight and accountability mechanisms appear to be associated with greater public confidence in judicial institutions. The study contrasts countries with stronger ethics and oversight systems, such as Germany and the United Kingdom, with countries where perceived judicial corruption and public distrust are considerably higher.
5. The authors argue that restoring public trust requires systemic reforms rather than relying solely on individual ethical behavior. Recommended approaches include stronger independent oversight, greater transparency, mandatory ethics education, and more effective mechanisms for investigating and disciplining misconduct.

Apaza, E. E. F., Huincho, M. C., Villanueva, J. J. P., Garcia, P. E. B., Machaca, V. R. M., Iparraguirre, D. F. del C., Valencia, S. M. H., & Diego, C. F. (2025). Judicial corruption and public trust: Assessing the effectiveness of legal ethics reforms in global legal systems. Journal of Posthumanism, 5(6), 3649–3662. https://doi.org/10.63332/joph.v5i6.2499

Decision Making Ability of Leaders Within Corporate Culture, Authority, and Information

 We are always looking for great leaders of organizations and great leaders of society. We tend to identify, emulate, and even idealize leadership through our culture. History is often shaped and adjusted through the idealization of certain cultural values.  As a result, we sometimes emulate these cultural ideals on leaders without considering the broader context of the environment that could raise up or doom the success of a leader. In other words, we minimized the other factors to highlight the ideal while not seeing the broader contributions. That is where science begins to create more objectivity.

(This is why in my theoretical speculation I use I, ME and WE as economic lenses. I being the power of an individual leader, ME is their/our socialized constraints/context (ability to understand-cultural programming), and WE is the power of the collective many that must trust leadership as an emulation of collective benefit.)

Consider an organization where there is little balance between the CEO and other executives. If the CEO does not have meaningful opportunities to vet decisions, gather input, and consider alternative perspectives, the quality of organizational decision-making can suffer. Many of us have worked in organizations where a strong personality enters the organization and essentially declares, “This is how it is going to be done.” Investors and employees may assume that a leader will gather information, consider different perspectives, and develop a thoughtful plan, but there is no guarantee that this process actually occurs.

The quality and functionality of leadership are therefore dependent, to some degree, on the environment in which leadership operates. An environment that encourages open discussion allows the leader to hear different perspectives before ultimately making a decision or providing a sense of direction. A direction others find of value. Leadership can take many forms, but the leader generally provides direction or synthesizes the information necessary to establish that direction.

Decision-making capacity is influenced by factors such as the availability of information, organizational structure, authority, and corporate culture. Managers and employees throughout an organization must constantly evaluate these factors when determining how decisions should be made. An individual may recognize a problem and know what needs to be done, but the decision may fall outside their authority. They may therefore need to consult someone else who has different responsibilities, perspectives, or ideas. These organizational relationships create additional influences on the decision-making process.

This is why the environment fostered by leadership may be as important as the leader's direction itself. Cultures exist to give cues of collective direction. Organizational members make decisions based not only on formal policies and instructions but also on the environmental cues they receive from leadership and from one another. A healthy environment encourages people to think critically, discuss problems, consider alternatives, take personal responsibility, and make appropriate decisions.

The opposite can occur in organizations dominated by a highly controlling personality. A highly dominant leader may unintentionally create a rigid and immobile structure in which employees become reluctant to make decisions because they fear overstepping their authority or conflicting with the leader's preferences (or at least the person above them). When the relationships among different decision-making levels become unclear or dysfunctional, the entire organization can begin to slow down (Think transactions).

(Highly dominant leaders may be good during short-term organizational crisis but becomes a detriment after crisis is over. The leader has to make the change or they will become out of sync with the greater environment.)

Conversely, when an organizational leader understands the environment they are creating and deliberately fosters openness, discussion, accountability, and appropriate autonomy, decision-making can occur more effectively throughout the organization. Leadership, in this sense, is not simply about making decisions; it is also about creating the conditions in which other people can make good decisions. A 'right fit' leader where ability, social context, and resources align to meet challenge. 

These are some important considerations when thinking about leadership and organizational effectiveness. The study below is particularly interesting because it examines how factors such as information, leadership authority, and corporate culture influence managerial decision-making. It is in line with the discussion on leadership and environment.

Decision-Making Ability of Professional Managers Based on Neurocognitive Factors

• The study examines the factors that influence the decision-making ability of professional managers using a neurocognitive model and questionnaire-based empirical analysis.
• Decision-making information, leadership authority, and corporate culture were found to significantly influence managerial decision-making ability.
• Leadership authority emerged as the most influential factor affecting managers' decision-making ability.
• Governance structures and decision-making systems also matter, but their effects appear to operate indirectly through other organizational factors.
• The findings suggest that effective managerial decision-making depends not only on individual cognitive abilities but also on organizational context, information availability, leadership structures, and corporate culture.

Liang, G., & Li, X. (2019). Decision-making ability of professional managers based on neurocognitive. Technology and Science, 10, 129–134. https://doi.org/10.1515/tnsci-2019-0022

Fencing Provides Historical Significance to Modern Technique and Fitness (Jonny and Tommy Invent Dock Fencing)

 Well, I’ll be back in San Diego pretty soon, so I need to start thinking about my fencing game again. I’m an okay fencer. I belong to a club there, and I regularly fence against people who show up pretty consistently. By consistently, I mean they might practice three times a week. Do some competitions. I show up more like three times a month.

(Illustrative Only)

Jonny and Tommy
decided to duel 
over who is going to
start chopping wood
for the winter. 
A new sport of
'dock fencing'
was born just now. 🙃
If you step out of
the lane you fall off. 

I know what I’m doing for the most part, though in Saber and Foil. Compared with the average person, I’m probably above average. Compared with the competitive fencers at the club, I’m probably somewhere around the slightly-below-average range. I win some and lose some, but I probably lose slightly more than I win. A lot of that simply comes down to practice. If you fence three times a week and I fence three times a month, you’re naturally going to have an advantage.

When I’m in San Diego, though, I really enjoy going to the club. Fencing is a fun sport, and the people tend to be interesting. I like the type of people it attracts. There is an appreciation for the beauty and history of the sport, but there is also something appealing about the one-on-one nature of the competition. You are directly challenging another person, and you have to react to what they are doing in real time.

Our group has just about everybody. We have nerds, former Marines, college students, professionals, and just regular people who happen to enjoy fencing. It also isn’t an outrageously expensive sport to get into, so there is a pretty diverse group of people who participate.

From a fitness standpoint, fencing is an excellent cardio workout. It is fast, explosive, and you can burn a lot of calories in a relatively short period of time. You are constantly moving, accelerating, stopping, lunging, recovering, and reacting. It can be surprisingly demanding.

The one downside from a fitness perspective is that fencing is highly asymmetrical. Your lunges and much of your movement are repeatedly practiced on the same side. My general suggestion with any activity like this is to balance things out. If you are practicing 20 lunges on one side, do another 20 on the opposite side. It may not necessarily improve your fencing performance, but it can help keep your body more balanced and may be better for your overall physical health.

Another thing I like about fencing is that there is always something new to learn. You can always find a technique, maneuver, or strategy that you haven’t tried before.

I recently started looking into something called a distance trap. I haven’t really tried it fully yet, but the basic idea is interesting. Fencers become accustomed to one another. Over time, they learn your distance, your pacing, and your rhythm. Once someone becomes comfortable with those patterns, you can sometimes use their expectations against them.

One way to do that involves manipulating the opponent’s perception of distance. Because the opponent is often watching your hand and blade closely to judge what is happening, you can create the appearance of changing distance without actually moving your feet very much. A small movement of the hand or blade can make it look as though you have moved away or changed position, while in reality you have maintained or even shortened the distance.

That is where fencing gets really interesting. It isn’t just about being faster or stronger. There is a psychological component to it. You are trying to understand what the other person expects you to do, establish patterns, and then break those patterns at the right moment.

And that is probably one of the reasons I enjoy the sport. It combines conditioning, coordination, history, technique, strategy, and a little bit of psychology. You are not just exercising—you are trying to outthink another person while moving at a pretty high speed.

I'm a licensed fitness trainer, yoga trainer, and engage in a lot of sports so send me a message to the right or an email if your interested in some fitness help. muradabel@gmail.com

Fencing Intro

The history of this sport is so interesting and a lot of people who play like learning about the history of different types of swords. 

Corruptions Impact on Human Rights and Much More-The Allegory of the Clan

The integrity of social institutions is essential to a functioning society. Institutions such as courts, government agencies, law enforcement, and other public organizations derive their legitimacy from the public trust. When corruption, hatred, discrimination, or misconduct enters these systems, the problem extends beyond the actions of individual people. It begins to weaken the institution itself. For this reason, societies must continually examine and strengthen their systems of checks and balances.

Not everyone will agree about political, religious, or social questions. Disagreement is a normal and even necessary part of a free society. The greater danger arises when institutional power and resources—which ultimately belong to the public—are used to silence opponents, target minorities, protect-enrich insiders, or advance private interests. When this occurs, the institution begins to serve a network rather than the society it was created to serve.

These issues can be explored through a theoretical and philosophical thought experiment called the Allegory of the Clan. In the allegory, religious and racial minorities become targets of organized discrimination while elements within the institutional system implicitly or tacitly permit the behavior. Courts and other authorities fail to provide equal protection. Institutional resources are used to suppress speech, protect insiders, retaliate against witnesses and whistleblowers, encourage hostility toward victims, and provide preferential treatment to those responsible for misconduct.

The deeper issue in the allegory is not simply that individuals behave badly. It is that an internal network gradually alters the purpose of an institution. Rules that were intended to protect society become instruments for protecting the network. Authority becomes detached from responsibility, and public resources become tools for private or factional purposes. Infected institutions may continue to appear functional on the outside while internal practices increasingly contradict the principles upon which its trust and support rests.

Eventually, however, institutional misconduct creates its own evidence. The more extensively an organization departs from its stated principles, the more records, witnesses, documents, and inconsistencies are produced. What begins as an attempt to conceal wrongdoing can therefore create a larger historical record of that wrongdoing. When exposure occurs, those responsible may attempt to shift responsibility onto the victims, minimize the misconduct, or withdraw from the institution while preserving the possibility of future influence. Then they have no more excuses and the extent of the wrongdoing and failure to do their duty laid bare.

The philosophical lesson is that institutions cannot rely solely upon the personal morality of those who occupy positions of authority. Good institutions require structures that constrain power, challenge misconduct, protect dissent, and make accountability possible. Checks and balances are therefore not expressions of distrust in every individual who serves the public. The vast majority try to do the right thing. They are safeguards against the possibility that power can be concentrated, abused, or captured by an internal network not serving their perfection responsibilities.

The allegory also illustrates how hatred and prejudice can become institutional problems. Religious hostility, racial prejudice, and other forms of discrimination can produce social fragmentation when they are permitted to influence public institutions. In a society committed to freedom of religion, equal protection, and individual rights, institutional tolerance of such behavior creates a contradiction between professed principles and actual conduct.

That contradiction has consequences. When people observe institutions applying rules selectively, protecting insiders, or failing to correct obvious misconduct, public trust declines. Individuals begin to question whether the social contract actually applies equally to everyone. Over time, this can produce cynicism, political polarization, and a willingness to disregard institutions altogether. A trail of other victims who have been sold out.

The scale of the problem also matters. Imagine millions of people experiencing variations of the same institutional failure. The consequences would not be limited to the individuals directly harmed. Public resources would be consumed addressing preventable conflicts, capable public servants would have their reputations undermined, institutions would lose broad support, and citizens would become increasingly skeptical of the systems intended to protect them. Doing the right thing is essential.

This is why institutional integrity should be understood as a collective responsibility. The purpose of checks and balances is not to advance one political party, religious tradition, racial group, or ideology over another. Their purpose is to ensure that no group can claim exclusive ownership of public institutions or exclusive entitlement to their protections.

A public institution ultimately belongs to the public. Those who occupy positions of authority therefore hold a fiduciary-like responsibility to the broader society. Their obligation is not simply to the people who appointed them, the people who agree with them, or the networks within which they operate. Their responsibility extends to everyone subject to the institution's authority—including those with whom they disagree and those who may be unpopular or vulnerable.

The Allegory of the Clan therefore raises a fundamental philosophical question: What happens to a society when the people entrusted with protecting its institutions begin using those institutions against members of society they were sworn to serve?

The answer suggests why institutional design matters. Good intentions are not enough. Oaths are not enough. Laws are not enough. A healthy society requires transparency, independent oversight, meaningful accountability, protection for witnesses and whistleblowers, equal application of rules, and mechanisms capable of correcting institutional wrongdoing.

Ultimately, the preservation of democracy and public trust depends not upon assuming that institutions will always be virtuous, but upon building institutions capable of recognizing and correcting their own failures. Public authority carries with it a moral obligation: to serve society as a whole.

 *The Allegory of the Clan is for philosophical purposes so take with a grain of salt. 

Corruption and Human Rights

• A shift to a human rights approach frames corruption not just as economic loss, but as a direct driver of human rights violations that disproportionately harms marginalized populations.

• Persistent corruption severely erodes the rule of law, undermining democratic institutions, judicial independence, the right to a fair trial, and fundamental political participation.

• Misappropriation and bribery restrict the maximum available state resources, directly hindering obligations to fulfill basic economic, social, and cultural rights like health, housing, and education.

• United Nations charter-based and treaty-based human rights mechanisms offer underutilized avenues for civil society to report on, monitor, and seek accountability for corrupt practices.

• Protecting the human rights of non-state actors—such as journalists, whistleblowers, and anti-corruption activists—is essential to ensuring transparency and exposing institutional misconduct.

Prasad, D., & Eeckeloo, L. (2019). Corruption and human rights: How to better integrate corruption issues in the UN human rights mechanisms: A practitioners' guide and strategic advocacy tool for civil society organisations. Centre for Civil and Political Rights; Geneva Academy of International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights. https://share.google/CjC3Fb7MynZACUago

Innovating Manufacturing and Supplies for Critical Industries

The ability to create new products, supply industries, and manufacture goods rests on more than a single facet of the economy. There has been recent discussion about ensuring that critical entities can obtain the supplies they need. The concepts are relatively similar if you are talking about essential products, services, manufacturing, military supplies, etc. Doing so requires us to rethink our supply chains and production capabilities in the United States.

There are complex issues involved, but we can begin by considering a few ideas. There will be lots of people who have their own thoughts but vetting those ideas and making them useful is part of the process. These are only starting points for discussion. They can be agreed with, disagreed with, changed, adjusted, or expanded. Starting a discussion is not the same as reaching a conclusion. These are simply some initial points to consider. Think as you wish....

Idea 1: If we continue awarding contracts to a similar group of stakeholders at the top, we should not expect significant changes in innovative capacity. A mix of small, medium, and large companies could improve innovation while also strengthening the diversity and resilience of our production base. Keep in mind that the successful strategies that made a company large and the owners rich doesn't mean it will continue to be successful. Rapid innovation is about doing new things while maximizing the capacity of things that are already working, 

Idea 2: We should consider attracting more investment and manufacturing to the United States. There are people who are trying to do this across the political and non-political spectrum. Simply saving a little money by moving production overseas to make a few more pennies on the dollar can make the country weaker in the long run if if it makes the big investors rich but depletes capacity. If American workers help build a company, a significant portion of that production should remain in this country (At least that is what some people might say who have a sense of commitment to our society).

Idea 3: We should consider bringing more new people and new ideas into decision-making positions. While we do not want to replace everyone, we should encourage innovative people to enter these organizations and strengthen existing processes. Elect and hire your best and brightest from society and your communities. Same old vetted group doesn't change things. They are chasing the big money and campaign finance reform, insider traiding restrictions, etc. are impacting decision making. Vetting can mean ensuring quality in one context and paid for in another.

Idea 4: From a policy standpoint, we should consider broader policies that strengthen the manufacturing base by attracting new businesses, encouraging investment, and fostering more start-ups. How we do this is a complex issue but our infrastructure, labor, research, local governance and education can help. 

Idea 5: We should ensure that human capital is developed by encouraging new ideas, participation, and innovation while rewarding people based on their contributions rather than their backgrounds, race/religion, politics, connections, or position within established networks. New ideas that come from fresh people makes a big difference in the long run. 

There is much more to this then a number of basic ideas but it is interesting to explore. 

These thoughts are not intended to be a final solution. Research would generally support these basic details. The tactical specifics would take a considerable amount of effort and cross industry collaboration (i.e. multi clusters).They are a starting point for a broader conversation about how the United States can strengthen its manufacturing capacity, supply chains, innovation, and ability to produce the goods needed for both economic purpose and national resilience. 

The American Way of Innovation and Its Deficiencies

• The United States remains strong in basic research, particularly through universities and government-supported research, but has weakened its ability to turn scientific discoveries into manufactured products.
• Manufacturing and applied research have declined together. The loss of domestic production capabilities has also meant losing technical knowledge and supplier networks necessary for continued innovation.
• Outsourcing can weaken future innovation because manufacturing experience contributes to technological knowledge. When production moves overseas, some of that knowledge and expertise can move with it.
• The United States needs stronger innovation intermediaries that connect universities, government, and industry. Germany’s Fraunhofer Institutes provide one example of how applied research can support industrial innovation.
• Innovation policy should place greater emphasis on applied research and domestic manufacturing. Rebuilding these capabilities can strengthen productivity, employment, technological development, and long-term economic competitiveness.

Adler, D. (2018). The American way of innovation and its deficiencies. American Affairs, 2(2), 80–95. https://americanaffairsjournal.org/2018/05/the-american-way-of-innovation-and-its-deficiencies/

The Health of Home Cooking: Tomato Soup and Catfish (Catfish Bisque if Your Fancy)

 The quality of the food we eat matters. We’ve learned, especially in recent years, that home-cooked, local, and natural foods can be better for us than highly manufactured foods that often seem to win the grocery-store price competition. There is certainly a place for convenience foods, but one tends to give us more nutrition and fewer ingredients we need a chemistry degree to pronounce.

(Ilustrative Only)
Cooking tomato soup
and then putting catfish 
in it. 

The other day, I cooked catfish in tomato bisque.

Yes, catfish. In tomato soup. Sometimes you have to color outside the cookbook.

The process was actually pretty simple. I made a basic tomato soup using tomato paste, bouillon cubes, garlic, onions, and a few spices. That gave me about three meals. I ate one and saved the other two for later, because I have discovered the revolutionary concept of leftovers.The next day, I put one bowl of the soup into a pot and let it simmer until it thickened up a little. Then I added a few pieces of catfish and let everything simmer together until the fish was thawed and cooked through. I turned the heat up a little toward the end just to make sure the fish reached a safe cooking temperature.

And yes, it was store-bought catfish. I would have preferred to catch it myself, but the fish have not yet agreed to participate in my dinner plans.

The end result was actually pretty good.

This is one of the advantages of cooking in bulk: you can make one thing and then use it as the foundation for something completely different later. It saves time, reduces waste, and keeps you from spending your entire evening standing in front of the stove wondering what you're going to eat.

Multi-use cooking is a pretty simple strategy. Make a little extra, save it, and think about what else you can do with it later. Today it's tomato soup. Tomorrow it's catfish tomato bisque. Next week? Who knows. At this rate, that soup may eventually become a casserole and start paying rent.

The point is simple: cooking at home doesn't have to be complicated. Cook a little more than you need, save some for later, and look for ways to turn leftovers into something new. Your wallet, your schedule, and possibly your taste buds will thank you.

Cooking, Food Agency and Pro-Health Behavior

1. Cooking at home is associated with healthier eating patterns, including greater fruit and vegetable consumption and overall higher diet quality.
2. The authors introduce the concept of food agency, which extends beyond cooking skills to include the practical and cognitive abilities involved in planning and preparing meals.
3. Cooking confidence and frequency matter because individuals who feel more capable of preparing food are more likely to engage in home cooking and potentially make healthier choices.
4. The modern food environment creates barriers to home cooking. Convenience foods, processed foods, time pressures, and social expectations can make preparing meals from whole ingredients more difficult.
5. The authors argue that encouraging cooking and strengthening food agency could contribute to better nutrition security and public health, but more research is needed to understand exactly how these behaviors produce better health outcomes.

Trubek, A. B., Belarmino, E. H., Wolfson, J. A., & Lahne, J. (2026). Cooking, food agency and pro-health behavior. Current Environmental Health Reports, 13(1), Article 21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40572-026-00541-x