Donald and Fidel

 

                     Castro and Putin, another Trump Supporter

Fidel Castro led a popular revolution which took over Cuba in 1959. I was in high school at the time. When it became clear that Castro was a communist, many of the more affluent Cubans migrated to America. One of these was a friend of my mother’s. When she got back to the States she told my mother about how Cuba had changed under Castro. 

What struck me was what she said about the people he put into leadership positions. She said that they were the least competent, the least qualified people he could have picked. 

As Donald Trump makes his cabinet and other appointments known, I think you could describe them in the same way. From Mike Huckabee, the new Ambassador to Israel, a fundamentalist Christian who believes the Bible gives Israel the right to occupy the West Bank and Gaza, to Tom Homan, new Director of Immigration Enforcement, and author of the cruel family separation policy of Trump’s first term. From Matt Gaetz, Trump’s new Attorney General, under investigation for sexual misconduct by the House of Representatives, to Pete Hegseth, a political commentator on Fox News, now appointed Secretary of Defense, to Dan Scavino, Trump’s former golf caddie, now deputy White House Chief of Staff.    

What do these misfits have in common? They are loyal to Trump and dependent on him for their prominent positions. I suspect Castro’s appointees had the same qualifications.

 

Arab Lives Matter

                                                                   Gaza City

I’m really getting tired of the Israelis killing Palestinians and Lebanese, and now it looks like they’re getting ready to kill some Iranians. After they blew up Hezbollah’s pagers and walkie-talkies, killing or injuring thousands, not only Hezbollah’s members but also whatever Lebanese civilians happened to be close by, my first response was that Israel is now the world’s biggest sponsor of terrorism. Now they’re planning a ground invasion of Lebanon, and who knows what in Iran. 

This is after they’ve spent a year killing Palestinians, over 40,000 of them, both in Gaza and the West Bank, in what really amounts to genocide, after the Hamas staged an invasion of Israel, killing a little over a thousand Israelis, and taking 250 hostages.   

Iran supports Hamas and Hezbollah and has sent two barrages of missiles toward Israel after Israel killed several Iranian and Hezbollah military leaders. It amounted to a protest, since most of the missiles were intercepted and few Israelis were injured.  Now Israel is planning a major attack on Iranian military and infrastructure. 

I’m no expert, but it seems to me that the Arab nations, especially the Palestinians, have a legitimate grievance against Israel. Israel’s very existence is illegal, since their land was originally Palestine. The Israelis have continued to encroach on the areas left to the Palestinians by building settlements there. The Palestinians have fought and lobbied for independence in the world court. They don’t have the military power to win independence, but they have won their legal battles. I can understand why the Palestinians have resorted to terrorism and why the other Arab states have supported them, because they can’t win a war. 

I have been sympathetic to Israel’s desire for a homeland, a refuge from the antisemitism around the world, but I can’t condone their continued slaughter of Arabs in the countries surrounding them. 

It’s as though they are playing a game: “If you kill one of ours, we’ll kill ten of yours.” So they continue to attack and kill Arabs, as if to say, “That’ll teach you.” Of course, they’ve proved over and over that responding to terror attacks just enrages Arab victims and inspires more to become terrorists. 

The result is more and more killing, weighted more toward Arab casualties, and in Gaza it really does seem like a war of genocide.

My response is that “Arab lives matter!” What I don’t understand is why casualties, deaths don’t seem to enter into Israeli, or Arab calculations. There have been a few programs to develop understanding and personal relationships between Arabs and Israelis, but, while successful on a small scale, these programs seem to be outweighed by the decisions of militant leaders. 

The punch line to this tragic conundrum is that the enabler of all this hostility and killing is us. We support Israel with money, weapons, and if necessary, military backup. They have pursued their genocide of Palestinians in Gaza, their attacks in Lebanon, and possibly a war with Iran knowing that we will support them, no matter what. They’re betting their very existence on our support. Biden can urge a cease fire, negotiations, and limited responses to Arab protests, but his words are meaningless as he continues to provide Israel with huge bombs and high tech defensive systems, and to surround the area with aircraft carriers for Israel’s “defense.” 

I’m not Arab or Israeli, and I don’t understand the complicated relations between the Arab nations, or Israeli politics. I just think everyone needs to consider the lives and suffering of the people involved.    

The Maga Movement

 

                                                                  Proud Boys

 

I do make an effort to be evenhanded and nonjudgemental.  That is why I try to see different perspectives.  Hooray for me.

But –

I have zero tolerance for Bullies and Liars.  I am judgmental on people who are judgmental.

Trump is perhaps the biggest bully in a position of power in this country, at least in our lifetimes.

Trump is the worst liar, at least the most prolific.  Santos was bad, but didn’t talk 24-7.

Trump portrays himself is vastly superior to everyone else.

Trump portrays himself as the most popular person on the planet.  Loved by all (that aren’t evil and stupid).

Most of the people that do love him fall into the judgmental category.

Cousin Steve

I’m still trying to figure out how Donald Trump has taken control of the Republican Party. He’s not charismatic – see blog of August 18, 2024. He’s rich, but he hasn’t been that successful in business. He’s actually gone bankrupt 5 or 6 times. I forget which. He hasn’t been a successful executive. His money is in real estate, and it seems like many of his business ventures are crooked. His “Trump  University” was a scam and he had to pay a fine for cheating his students. He used money from his “charity” for personal expenses and had to pay a fine for that. He has avoided paying income tax by underestimating the value of his properties and has gotten loans and insurance by overestimating those same properties. The only thing he has succeeded at has been his TV show, “The Apprentice.”

 

It seems Trump can get away with anything, winning a presidential election after bragging about fondling women. As president, he funneled money to himself by holding official events at his resorts, requiring that government personnel stay at his hotels, and even accepting money from foreign governments for favors, contracts and grants.

 

Now, after all Trump’s scandals, he is in control of the Republican party. His daughter in law is now chair of the party, and Republican candidates can’t get on the ballot without an endorsement from him.  He caused a bipartisan immigration bill to be killed in the House of Representatives just so it would remain an issue he could  run for reelection on. He is currently running neck and neck with  Kamila Harris in the race for president, polling just under 50% among registered voters. How can this be?

 

Trump’s followers seem to have blind faith in whatever he tells them. They believed he won the presidential election of 2019 without any evidence, and then mobbed the capital on January 6, 2020 in an effort to keep him in power. He has claimed that the current administration is targeting him with law suits and his followers have made death threats against politicians, attorneys, government officials who have opposed him. At the same time he has threatened to prosecute officials in power now if he regains power, and to try for treason military officers who stood up to him.

 

Trump seems to be trying to create a mass movement such as Eric Hoffer describes in his book, The True Believer. According to Hoffer, mass movements, whether religious, revolutionary, or nationalistic have many things in common. They attract followers by a frustration with the present, and unite them by a desire for change. They need a leader who kindles enthusiasm for a cause, whether it be untold riches, radical societal reform, a common fear, or the coming of a Heavenly Kingdom, and they need a source of power. Mass movements all attract the same type of individuals: the poor, the misfits, the outcasts, the sinners, those who view their lives as ruined, those who want to replace their meaningless lives with a holy cause. Mass movements, regardless of their purpose, all breed fanaticism, violence and chaos, and their early followers, even though they may be in the minority, shape the character of the movement.

 

In my opinion, Trump’s MAGA Republicans check all these boxes. They share a fear and hatred for immigrants and foreigners, and they  favor change: change in government institutions, the “deep state” as they like to call it, change in international relations, the traditional alliances, free trade, even our constitution and election system. Many of Trump’s followers, such as politicians, have gone along with him in order to stay in power, and many supporters, such as wealthy businessmen and foreign leaders support him because of promised favors or financial gain, but his base, those who cheer at his rallies and those who stormed the Capital on January 6, come from the lower classes of society, those with no respect for the current system such as the “Proud boys,” the “skinheads,” Neo-nazis and other fanatical groups supporting white supremacy, Misogyny, antisemitism, gun rights, etc. These groups have the potential to produce violence and  chaos.

 

Whether the MAGA movement gains the power to develop into a  full blown mass movement depends on whether the moderate majority summons the courage to fight to preserve our system.

Eric Hoffer

 

Eric Hoffer

I ‘ve always enjoyed living vicariously. It started when I was a child. I was surrounded by fascinating, almost magical people. Maybe all children see adults this way, but I felt a sense of excitement around my aunts and uncles. They were funny; they told exciting stories, and they -especially my aunts- had a way of making a little boy feel special. When they all got together I was spellbound listening to them reminisce and talk about who they had known and what they had done. One of my uncles was a lawyer and judge, another was a construction worker who had worked all over the world. And that was just my mother’s family. My dad didn’t talk much, but he actually told the best stories, about growing up on the farm, about his experiences as a tough kid, and as a high school and college athlete. After I retired I got to spend hours listening to my mother’s recollections about her life and her family, some of which I included in the book, Wenonah’s Story. 

I’ve always sought out and valued friends that I admired: my wise cousin I’ve mentioned before, my best friend from childhood, my partner in medical practice. 

I’ve always enjoyed reading, and am usually in the middle of one book or several. I enjoy fantasizing about fictional characters who are able to do amazing things, but also historical figures. I know now that real events and real people are more amazing than anything a fiction writer can imagine. 

Reading a book by an amazing person makes you feel on a level with them, as if reading about their adventures and understanding their thoughts somehow allows you to share their experiences and possess in a small way their ideas. 

I’ve recently been rereading a little book by one of my heroes, Eric Hoffer.  His ideas are pretty universal, but they seem especially relevant in today’s political climate. 

Hoffer spent much of his life as a tramp, riding on boxcars from one place to another doing odd jobs to make money to live. After being turned down for military service during WWII, he went to work as a longshoreman on the docks of San Francisco where he spent the next 20 years. Hoffer was self taught and was an avid reader and learner all his life. Every place he went, he got library cards and spent most of his time in libraries reading whatever interested him. He told the story that once he was working at a nursery repotting plants. He began to wonder why the roots grew down and the stems grew up, so he quit his job, hopped on a boxcar and headed for the nearest town with a library where he checked out a book on botany. 

At one point Hoffer decided to mine for gold. He took with him a book by the French philosopher, Michel de Montaigne, which he read and reread. Later, when he returned to his itinerant lifestyle, he would frequently quote Montaigne in discussions with other vagrants, so much that they would often ask him, “what does Montaigne have to say about that?” He said, “I always believed that there must be several hundred hobos up and down San Joaquin Valley still quoting Montaigne.” 

It was when he settled down near the docks in San Francisco that he began to write seriously. He would work on the docks for a few weeks and then write until he ran out of money. When he received a telegram from Harper’s accepting his first book, The True Believer, Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements, he threw the little yellow paper away thinking it was an ad. He said, “I never had a telegram in my life.” 

The True Believer was published in 1951 and became a best seller in 1956 when President Eisenhower mentioned Hoffer as his favorite author. Hoffer wrote ten books as well as numerous articles and memoirs. He was consulted by several presidents on national affairs; he received several honorary doctorates, was made an adjunct professor at UC Berkeley, and in 1983 was awarded the Medal of Freedom by President Ronald Reagan. 

Eric Hoffer was obviously a genius, but I think he stands out even among geniuses. How many great men are totally self taught, refuse wealth, and become recognized as one of the great thinkers of their time? 

Like I said before, Eric Hoffer is one of my heroes, and I thought I should give a little background about him in case I want to refer to some of his ideas in future posts.

 

https://www.hoover.org/research/eric-hoffer-genius-and-enigma

What’s Trump’s secret? Is it Charisma?

 

Jesus Christ

The first I can remember witnessing the power of charisma was as a teenager. I was attending a summer camp for young musicians sponsored by the Musician’s Union. One evening I was sitting in the dining hall after our evening meal just listening to people talk. I noticed a handful of people, probably a half dozen, clustered around a man – he was older than most of us at the camp. I can’t remember what he was talking about, but what impressed me was the rapt attention he was getting from his audience. Something about his delivery, his manner, his status, something was having an almost hypnotic effect on them. 

Since then I’ve observed this power, call it charisma for lack of a better word, several times.  It’s usually been in teachers. One in particular comes to mind. It was our neuroanatomy teacher in medical school. A more boring subject you couldn’t imagine, but Dr. Daron – that was his name – was so logical, and his presentations flowed so easily from one subject to another, that he was fascinating. He made a difficult, complicated subject seem simple. He got the award for the best teacher several times if I remember right. 

An interesting thing about Dr. Daron’s lectures was that he made neuroanatomy seem so simple that I was tempted not to take notes. As a result, when I began to study the material he had covered, I found that I didn’t remember what he had said in his lecture. I was so fascinated by his presentation, his charisma, that I sometimes forgot what he actually said. 

I’ve always admired good speakers. I have trouble holding an audience’s attention myself, but I come from a family of lawyers and politicians, so even though I didn’t inherit the speaking gene, I have witnessed good speaking all my life. My mother was my first example. 

She used to give me a lecture every time I did something wrong, and her lecture would usually culminate in a ‘whuppin.’ I think that’s how she built up her resolve before she administered my punishment. 

These lectures put me in a state of panic since I knew what was coming, but even so, I used to admire how persuasive she was. She almost convinced me I needed a whipping. She had the family gene for speaking. I used to think to myself that if she had been a man she’d probably have been elected governor. 

I’ve discussed my admiration for good speakers with my wise cousin Steve, and he disagrees. He thinks that a clever, convincing speaker clouds an issue. It’s important to make judgements based on fact, and one should remain open minded, check facts, and always listen to opinions on both sides of an issue. It’s analogous to his views about businessmen. He says “don’t trust a ‘good businessman,” and likewise, “don’t trust a good speaker.” His mother had the speaking gene too, by the way. Maybe he just didn’t get as many whippins as I did. 

There are different uses of charisma. They vary from just giving a fascinating lecture, like my neuroanatomy professor or my mother,  to convincing people to change their lives, like the leader of a cult. Recently I have noticed that the Republican party has taken on some of the attributes of a cult. They follow their leader without question, even if he changes his policies, or even lies to them. They’re even willing to break the law – many have gone to jail – to support their leader. 

That led me to conclude that Donald Trump must be charismatic. It seems that all great political leaders have been charismatic:  Lincoln, FDR, John F Kennedy. But then I listened carefully to some of his speeches, and he’s not charismatic at all. His speeches have no continuity. They don’t focus his listener’s attention on certain phrases or ideas. They don’t build up to a climax. His speeches are rambling. He contradicts himself. He emphasizes trivial, petty issues like Obama’s birth or Harris’ race. He’s really not a good speaker.   

I compared Trump’s speeches with Harris’ and discovered that it’s her speeches that are charismatic. She commands your attention with a simple statement that most can identify with, like “we’re fighting for the middle class.” Then she systematically tics off the ways she will accomplish her goals, and contrasts that with Trump’s record. And she repeats catch phrases like “Trump only cares about himself,” or “we’re not going back.” Her speeches slow smoothly from one topic to the next, and she builds up to one climax after another, holding your attention. 

So if Trump is not charismatic, how is it that he has gotten control of the Republican party, and the support of half the country? 

To be continued.

Cotton Eyed Joe

Why Not an AI Fact Checker?

                                                       

                                        

                                                Beelzebub

As I was  listening to the recent presidential debate I thought of another use for AI. It could be used to expose lies. There could be a red light installed above each candidate which would come on if he/she told a lie. It could even be more specific, differentiating between inaccuracies, evasion, exaggeration, claims inconsistent with previous actions, statements or policies. If the candidate challenged the machine, it could provide documentation, or even recordings of previous remarks.  I can imagine a candidate being laughed off the stage. From what I understand about AI, this would be an easy task. 

I guess politicians have always lied, or at least exaggerated, either to discredit the opposing candidate or to boost their own reputation. My grandmother used to tell a story about my uncle’s first campaign for the Oklahoma State House of Representatives. His opponent accused him of cattle rustling! Grandmother’s response was, “If he’s stealing cattle, I don’t know where he’s putting them.” He won anyway. 

I can remember my mother, who today would be considered a political junkie, complaining about the liars and crooks in politics. Back then Oklahoma was a one party state, which made it easier to get away with lying if the politician was in good standing with the party. She used to argue with another of her brothers, a judge, who believed it was important to support your party, so that party policies could be enacted. He was a expert debater, but I thought she held her own pretty well. 

It seems to me that things are different now. It used to be that a politician caught in a lie would be embarrassed. He/she would have to explain themselves, come up with an excuse, claim he forgot or was misunderstood. It seems that there are more lies now. Politicians don’t hesitate to change their positions, or flat out contradict previous statements, and there’s no backlash.   

How in the world could a person like George Santos ever get elected to anything? He lied about his education, his birth, his accomplishments. He claimed his grandparents were Holocaust survivors, that he was a volleyball champion, that he was a wealthy businessman and philanthropist, all lies, but still was elected to Congress. His lies were bad enough that he was expelled, but it’s a sign of the times.  Lying is more acceptable now. Even the senate minority leader, Mitch McConnell, now supports Donald Trump,  even though after the January 6^th insurrection he stated that Trump was responsible. 

Lying is not only accepted, it has become a strategy. Steve Bannon, an outspoken right wing spokesman said, that if you “flood the zone with shit” the public can’t deal with so many lies, so can’t make decisions. That strikes at the root of democracy. How can the electorate make decisions if they don’t know who they can trust? 

Another observation, just as alarming, was made by historian Anne Applebaum, quoted by Brian Stelter in a recent Time magazine article: "sometimes the point isn't to make people believe a lie—it's to make people fear the liar." It’s to assert power over reality. If you lived under the power of a ruthless leader, truth would become irrelevant. Ask a North Korean or Russian. 

That’s why I propose using AI for fact checking. You could load it with background information about politicians’ records and previous statements, about historical and current events. It could be fast enough to provide an immediate response during a speech. It could rate politicians on honesty and performance. Let’s do it! The future of our democracy might depend on it.

Targeted AI

 

I’ve been having good thoughts about AI, especially after writing my last post, which was about how easy life is going to be with AI to do all the work. After spending three days on the phone on the Bank of America website, and even going to the local BOA branch, and still having to call again this afternoon, wasting another good day just to pay my credit card bill, I thought to myself, won’t this be easier with AI? The automated agent won’t have to put me on hold to ask a supervisor because it will have all the possible questions along with all the possible answers loaded into its memory. You won’t have too wait on hold for an agent, or make sure you call during business hours because AI responds instantaneously and doesn’t sleep.

I’m not too excited about having a computer that will chat with me, write a term paper, or give me all the latest basketball scores, but creating an AI help desk sounds wonderful. I won’t have to try half a dozen phone numbers trying to connect with an agent who is an actual person, because AI is smarter than any person. 

Then I started thinking. What will corporations do with an AI enhanced help desk? First of all, since they are saving you so much time by their enhanced efficiency, they will be able to spend it selling you more stuff, or more expensive stuff.  Then, what if there’s a problem? What if the program misunderstands your question. What if someone hacks into the system and corrupts the algorithm? Who do you go to with complaints? The company has fired all the help agents. Then you have to worry about finding new jobs for the former help agents, or an alternate support system. 

Seriously, I think AI could work amazingly well in all sorts of situations that lend themselves to algorithmic solutions. There could be AI diagnostic and treatment  solutions for physicians, structural algorithms for engineers, Legal research programs for attorneys, and so on. You’d have to screen the training information for accuracy and make sure the information is current.  I envision targeted AI programs for different purposes; programs that are continually reviewed and updated by experts; programs that identify problems and notify the user so he/she doesn’t proceed using inaccurate information. 

As far as the problem of losing jobs, I think that needs to be addressed proactively. We shouldn’t wait until there are millions out of work. We need to gradually evolve a system that provides alternative occupations and support. We’re still benefitting from the make work programs created during the depression. 

Then I can spend my afternoons strewing beads of wisdom on my blog instead of struggling with the Bank of America help desk.

Everything is Chemistry

 

 

It’s an interesting fact that we often don’t appreciate something until we begin to lose it. I notice this phenomenon more as I get older. Last month, one of my eyes decided not to look to the right, so I saw two of everything on my right side. It caused me to remember that with only one eye you have no depth perception. If you reach for a door nob or try to catch something you reach too far or not far enough.  I found myself ignoring my right side, which caused me to run into things, and in the car I constantly had to remind myself to turn my head to the right to avoid driving into something. Fortunately it cleared up after a month or so, but it was scary. The doctor was reassuring. She said, “It was just a small stroke.”  

There are many other examples. I no longer can put off going to the bathroom. A sudden urge is an emergency, and standing up to go makes it even more urgent. I can no longer understand people when they talk to me, and, you may not have noticed, but the closed captioning on TV is often just jibberish. My wife gets tired of repeating herself, and she can’t understand why I can’t just “turn up your hearing aides.” I’m not as strong. I can’t balance without a cane. My joints hurt, and my neck and back. I can’t remember names or words to express myself. I can’t sleep well without a breathing machine which attaches to my face with a tight uncomfortable mask. I don’t get thirsty anymore, so I have to remember to drink. I choke when I swallow so my meals are punctuated by fits of coughing. My eye’s get dry and burn, so I have to carry a bottle of eye drops in my pocket. 

The latest experience that made me appreciate my body, at least the way it used to be, is constipation. I’ve never had constipation, or headaches, for that matter. Oh gosh. I hope that doesn’t jinx me. Anyway, I now have to balance Metamucil and Miralax, eat lots of fiber, and drink plenty of water, even if it means getting up four times during the night to empty my bladder instead of three. I have to pay attention to the consistency of my stool. Is it too hard to push out, too sticky to clean off? Fortunately I don’t worry about how it smells. I lost my sense of smell years ago. This is almost too disgusting to talk about, but I am coming to a point, slowly as it may seem. 

What this brought to mind was how remarkable it is that we’re able to digest all the stuff we eat: from tough meat and fish, to all sorts of vegetables and grain. We do though, and it’s all converted into a solid brown cylindrical mass, uniform, digested, with all the nutrients removed. If you think about it, it’s truly amazing. If I gave you an average meal and asked you to digest it, not just that but remove the nutrients for use, I’ll bet you couldn’t do it, even if you had a complete chemical lab to use, yet our body does it every day, while we’re going about our usual routine, unaware of the miracle we’re witnessing. 

How does our body accomplish this remarkable feat? We now understand, through centuries of scientific research, that the digestive system has acid, strong enough to burn your skin, enzymes, often specific for a certain chemicals. It is full of bacteria which would kill you if they were released into the blood stream, but somehow the intestine shields us somehow from these dangerous substances. Even people with damage to their digestive systems: bleeding ulcers, raw and scarred intestines, almost always manage to digest their food and extract the nutrients they need. 

And all this made me think – why are you not surprised? – of my wise cousin, Steve. He used to say: “everything is chemistry.” From astronomy to geology – Steve is a geochemist – to agriculture, to engineering, to physics, to human physiology -as in digestion- even to psychology. Everything is made of chemicals or produced by the interaction of chemicals. Just think about it. It’s true. But what difference does it make? It seems like an oversimplification. 

If you take what he said seriously though, and think about how every substance, every process, can be broken down into elemental particles or reactions, that is, chemistry- I’m almost there- it makes you humble. 

When I studied medicine, I was amazed at the complexity of the human body: the nerves and blood vessels, the bony structure and how it works to enable us to move in and manipulate our environment. I learned about the complex interaction of hormones, genes, enzymes, about the digestive system, as I mentioned above. And now, almost sixty years later, science has made huge advances. It boggles the mind. The more I think about it the more overwhelming it is. You really have to specialize in order to understand just a small area of medicine, and every area of science is the same: Physics, chemistry, engineering, computer science. 

And how do scientists identify and understand the chemicals that make up each little area of science. By the scientific method. First, a scientist, usually an expert in a small area of science that he or she has studied for years, has an idea. Then he, along with a group of his colleagues, fashions an experiment to test his idea or ‘hypothesis.’

The experiment requires time, money, special equipment, often government approval. If it involves humans, it may have to be performed first on animals, and then approved by an ethics committee before it’s actually performed on humans.  If the experiment gets over all these hurdles the results are submitted to the review board of a scientific journal and if approved, it is published. Then the report is often accompanied by a critical editorial written by a recognized authority in the field, analyzing its strengths, weaknesses, significance, and recommendations for further research. At this point the scientist is just getting started. Other scientists, experts in the same area, often from different countries, publish their own critiques of the study. Others try to repeat the same study to see if they achieve the same results. The process goes on for years and most often the whole idea is discarded. A scientist will consider him or herself fortunate if he makes one significant discovery during his lifetime. 

And that brings me to my point – I’m almost there. Science is so complex; scientific knowledge is so advanced, that the average person, even the exceptional person, can only understand a part of it, and that only if he or she spends years of study. That is why it irritates me when I hear someone discounting the value of immunization, say, or questioning the judgement of a doctor and scientist like Anthony Fauci, one of the most knowledgeable epidemiologists in the world. 

Like my cousin Steve says, everything is chemistry. Everything can be broken down into finer and finer elements and processes, using the scientific method. No one is smart enough to second guess this process. No one is smart enough to disregard the accumulated knowledge of the past. The universe is so complex that even the incredible knowledge we have accumulated over history is still tentative, still being reexamined, questioned by scientists around the world.

 

 

 

 

More about AI

 

 

I wrote about AI (Artificial Intelligence) in a previous article – Jan. 24, 2024, but I failed to mention one of the biggest fears about AI – that it will take our jobs. Assembly line, construction, transportation, and all sorts of service jobs are the most obvious, but jobs requiring organization and decision making could be eliminated too, or at least facilitated by AI enhanced computers. 

The advocates of AI downplay this fear by saying, ‘Don’t worry. AI may eliminate some jobs, but it will create others.' They said the same thing about the assembly line. And that’s true. A hundred years ago, most people had their own farm, made their own clothes, and from what I can gather from listening to my grandmother, who was born in 1877, they had more free time than we do now. We no longer have to grow our own food, but there are still plenty of jobs to go around. 

I’m not sure AI will create enough jobs to replace those it eliminates, but what if it does? What’s wrong with that? I wouldn’t mind working two days a week instead of six, or even having the option of not working at all. If all or most of our needs can be met by AI and automation, why insist on having a job for everyone? 

Back in the 60’s I read a book, Nine Chains to the Moon, by futurist and inventor, Buckminster Fuller. In his book, written in 1938, he viewed advances in technology positively. He contended that there were already enough resources to comfortably support the world’s population. He observed that there was already enough space in buildings to house the homeless, and enough food to feed the hungry. His goal was to apply science to solving the world’s problems, to “do more with less.” He supported improvements in housing and transportation. He advocated for recycling and the use of renewable energy sources. He said competition was no longer necessary, that our survival depended on cooperation, and government benefits needed to include everyone. It seems to me that Fuller’s ideas are just as relevant now as they were in 1938, and AI is just another tool that can be used to improve living standards and solve the world’s problems.  

So why are we worried about losing jobs instead of being grateful that in the future we won’t have to work as much? One of the problems is our culture. Our culture is built around work. Our status, our wealth, our options in life depend on our success in our jobs. Doctors and lawyers and business executives are wealthier and more respected. Even if we don’t have more prestigious jobs, we still earn more respect if we work hard. Work, success and wealth have become  ends in themselves. 

But what is the result of this culture? Most men spend most of their time away from their families, and most women are so burdened with child care and housework they have little time to pursue their interests. Children are influenced mainly by strangers and don’t develop strong family ties. According to my wise cousin, it’s hard to be a good business man and also a good person. I think Jesus said something like that too, something about a camel squeezing through the eye of a needle. 

But what about terrorists and dictators, you say? What about global warming and the population explosion? I think Buckminster Fuller had the answer eighty-six  years ago. We need cooperation between individuals, political parties, nations. We need to use science to solve problems, and we need to share any solutions with everyone, not just limit the benefits to the wealthy, or to those who happen to be born in a prosperous country. If we don’t make those changes, AI won’t make this a better world any more than the assembly line did. People will lose their jobs; the homeless population will continue to grow; poor countries will continue to produce terrorists, and dictators will use technology to make themselves more powerful.

 

 

The Man I Love

Gigi

What Are Little Girls Made Of?

                                            

 

                                        What are little boys made of?

                                        Frogs and snails,

                                        And puppy dog tails;

                                        That’s what little boys are made of.

 

                                        What are little girls made of?

                                        Sugar and spice,

                                        And all things nice;

                                        That’s what little girls are made of.

                                        Mother Goose

 

In spite of Mother Goose’s ancient wisdom about the difference between girls and boys, the role of women in most societies has been and continues to be suppressed. For a long time, I have felt that we would be better off if we defied custom and put women in charge instead of men. 

This is another opinion that I share with my cousin and friend, Steve, and I’m afraid recent geopolitical tensions are about to again prove us right. Just look at all the wars going on now, all started and perpetuated by men. Look at the societies with oppressive governments in Afghanistan, North Korea, Syria, Sudan, Somalia, all run by men, and all of which suppress women’s rights. 

I think most of us in the US think of ourselves as open minded, with modern, progressive views, but the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, the Equal Protection Amendment, passed after the Civil War in 1868, didn’t apply to women, or to Native Americans, by the way. Women didn’t get the right to vote until 1920, when the Nineteenth Amendment was ratified, after much demonstrating, imprisonment, and hunger strikes by advocates. The Equal Rights amendment, specifically giving equal rights to women, proposed in 1923, and again in 1971, was never ratified. 

Throughout the years, prevailing opinion (especially among men) has been that women’s place was in the home, caring for the children, keeping the house clean, and their husbands happy. It was not until the year 2000 that the woman’s pledge to obey her husband was taken out of the marriage vows in the Anglican prayer book.  

A common belief has been that women are not as smart as men, that they don’t think logically, and that their opinions are often driven by emotions. As recently as 2006, Laurence Summers was fired as president of Harvard University, for a comment that women were not as good in science and math as men. The latest president of Harvard was a woman. During the 19^th century, “scientific” theories were advanced claiming that women are not as smart as men because their brains are smaller. It was later shown that brain size in humans is just proportional to body size, and has nothing to do with intelligence. 

It's a well known fact that girls tend to do better in school than boys, at least through high school. 70% of high school valedictorians are female.  Then several things happen: hormones kick in, people start asking girls when they’re going to get married, and boys what they’re going to do when they grow up. This steers girls into having babies and getting married, not necessarily in that order. And it steers boys into choosing a career, or at least finding a way to make money. 

The social pressures directing girls and boys in different directions are strong, starting at birth, when parents get girls pretty dresses and dolls, and boys cowboy hats and baseball bats. But there’s more to it than that. Girls have to face the real responsibility of having babies and caring for them. This makes them out of necessity more responsible, regardless of their interests or talents. And boys, boys have testosterone, which makes them more aggressive, makes them want sex and adventure, and less responsibility. 

Male and female roles are not just the result of social customs, they have evolved over the millennia. They enable women to bear children and to care for them, so women are naturally more empathetic, and nurturing, which serves to hold the family together.  

Men on the other hand, like males of other species, have evolved to fight to protect the family from predators, and other males. As a result they had to be competitive, possessive, and impulsive.

In my opinion these evolved differences are no longer useful. There are no longer lions and wolves lurking in the forest to carry away your children. Men no longer have to eke out a living by clearing the forest and plowing fields by hand. Women no longer have to make their own clothing, churn butter and cook dinner over an open fire. 

Throughout the ages women have had to fight against social expectations and prejudices, and at the same time shoulder the real burdens of caring for children and family. When my aunt graduated from law school in the 30’s she had to take a job as a secretary because no one would hire her as an attorney. She and my uncle divorced, and she had to give up custody of their son to him, since he had remarried and had a wife to care for his family.  She later worked as a teacher, served time in the Army, and finally worked as a clerk for a judge. My uncle, on the other hand, became a successful trial attorney, and later a district judge.   

Times have changed though, just in my life time. When I was a child, women were expected to stay home with the children. Those who worked were looked on as taking jobs away from men who were responsible for supporting a family. My own mother quit her job when she married my dad for this reason. She learned to play solitaire to fight the boredom. 

Now women have birth control so they can choose when or whether to have children, and they constitute a large part of the work force. When I went to med school there were only three women in my class of 100 students. Now they make up 55%. The numbers in law school are similar. Since 1970 the proportion of women with college degrees has increased from 8 to 39% surpassing males, which have increased from 14 to 36% during the same period. More and more women occupy leadership positions in corporations, and many have even become heads of state. 

Okay, so why should they be in charge? 

First of all, women are risk averse. It’s a well known fact that women are better investors than men, because they are less likely to take chances by investing in a volatile stock. Also they tend to be less impulsive, looking at the big picture, pursuing long term goals. 

Next, women are less aggressive, less confrontational and controlling. 80% of violent crime is committed by men. Men more likely to commit murder, domestic violence, gang or drug related violence and robbery. A 2008 review published in the journal Violence and Victims found that although less serious situation violence or altercation was equal for both genders, more serious and violent abuse was perpetrated by men. It was also found that women's physical violence was more likely motivated by self-defense or fear, while men's was motivated by control. 

Furthermore women are better problem solvers than men. They are more likely to see both sides of an issue, and to use negotiation and compromise to solve problems rather than competition and power. And they are better at multitasking, since they usually do the bulk of child-care, cleaning, cooking, scheduling, and transportation for the family. 

So who would you rather work for, someone who strives to understand your point of view and gives you a chance to try out your ideas, or a boss who tells you it’s his way or the highway? Who would you rather trust your savings to, a broker who wants to put your money into a company he believes to be the next Amazon, or one who prefers to spread your investments out among government bonds and stocks with long record of stability and safe dividends? 

And finally, who would you rather lead your country, someone who fights for dominance over his political rivals, who enters conflicts with other countries to show power, and who persists in wars to save face, or someone who settles differences with other leaders by negotiation and compromise, and whose goal in both domestic and foreign policy is to minimize hardship and suffering, and to reach solutions that are mutually beneficial to all parties.  

 

 

Last Rose of Summer

Overpopulation

 

I’ve been exposed to a lot of wisdom during my life, and I’ve spent a lot of time worrying about the world's problems. Ever once in a while I come up with a really good idea, only to discover that lots of other people have figured it out before, and have expressed it much better than I. The posts about my cousin Steve’s preference for ambivalence and earning your oxygen are examples. 

Most of my great ideas are just common sense, or go along with conventional wisdom, but lately I’ve been reminded of an idea that is not popular, and actually goes against conventional wisdom. I first heard it from my mother when I was a small child. She said “there’s just too many people in the world.” 

She was a social worker and saw a lot of abuse of the welfare system. That may have colored her opinions. 

It seems plain to me, every time I go out in public, which is less often since I’ve retired, there’s so many people. They’re lined up at the grocery store. The roads are congested with cars, even when there’s not a traffic jam. Apartments are jammed together, and still there’s not enough of them, so homeless people are living out in the cold, in tents, without jobs, or enough food, and I don’t even live in a heavily populated area. Many people in the world are suffering from lack of space, food, and other resources, and that leads to disease, starvation, and social unrest. 

There’s a dark cloud of smoke over every city, from the burning of fossil fuels. That was a problem at the Olympics in Beijing because the air was so polluted the athletes couldn’t breathe. Animals are becoming extinct and forests are being cut down. Global warming is leading to wild fluctuations in the weather, melting of the polar ice caps, and rising sea levels which will gradually sink many island communities and coastal areas. 

It seems obvious to me that this is all due to overpopulation. There’s too many people.  We’re contaminating the world and depleting our resources. What amazes me is that no one seems to be willing to confront the problem. Every night the weather man reports on  the warming temperatures, the increase in droughts, tornadoes, hurricanes and reminds us that we’re burning too many fossil fuels. International bodies have been formed to come to agreements  on switching to renewable energy sources, to commit to goals for becoming carbon neutral. Nations negotiate to settle internal and external disputes caused by overcrowding without actually naming it as the cause. Multiple organizations provide food and shelter for the hungry and homeless. We donate money to keep the elephants and the gorillas and the polar bears from becoming extinct because humans are encroaching on their habitat. 

At the same time there is a lot of opposition to any type of population control. Religious groups are almost unanimous in opposing birth control. Economists theorize that economies must grow to be healthy. They worry about Japan and Europe which have declining populations. We were horrified when China limited the growth of families. 

Studies have shown though that population control works. In overpopulated countries couples often have more children so that there will be someone to take care of them when they’re old.  However when women are given access to birth control they are freed up to work and be productive and the economy benefits. 

I don’t understand it. There seems to be a taboo against attributing our problems to overpopulation. Is it religious, cultural? I’m not saying our problems would be over if we had less people, but I think they would be a lot easier to solve.

 

Johnson's War

 

                  

                                    President Lyndon Johnson 

                  Pinning Medal on Soldier in Vietnam

When Lyndon Johnson assumed the presidency after the assassination of John F Kennedy in November of 1963, I don’t think he had given Vietnam much thought. He had gone there as vice president in 1961, but like most of Kennedy’s advisors, he came back with a mixed message: We should take a leadership role in Southeast Asia’s fight against communism, but if things didn’t go well in Vietnam, we might have to cut our losses and get out. 

Johnson’s primary goal as president was to create a “Great Society.” He had been a confidant of FDR, and admired his “New Deal” social programs, and as a long time congressional leader, he knew how to get things done. He created Medicare and Medicaid. He signed into law three civil rights acts outlawing discrimination based on race, religion, sex or national origin in voter registration, schools, public accommodation and employment, a special act giving equal rights to Native Americans, and a Fair Housing Act which prohibited discrimination in housing.   He signed the Higher Education Act of 1965, giving federal support for student loans, and the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, abolishing quotas based on race or national origin. He initiated the “War on Poverty” resulting in the Economic Opportunity Act, which created the Job Corps and the Community Action Program, designed to attack poverty locally. The act created VISTA, a domestic counterpart to the Peace Corps. He also made the Apollo Space Program a national priority, and after the assassination of Robert Kennedy, he even passed gun control legislation. 

Vietnam was a different story. At the time of John F. Kennedy’s assassination, our support of South Vietnam was considered a losing cause. Henry Cabot Lodge, our ambassador to Vietnam, reported that General Duong Van “Big” Minh, leader of the coup that ousted Diem, had no more support among the people than his predecessor. In fact, he was overthrown within three months of Diem’s assassination. U Thant, Secretary General of the UN, recommended removal of all foreign troops from Vietnam, and transferring control of Vietnam to a neutral government. De Gaulle also recommended a negotiated withdrawal, predicting the same fate for the US as befell France at Dien Bien Phu. Even in South Vietnam it was reported that Diem’s brother, Ngo Dinh Nhu, and also General Minh had negotiated independently with Ho Chi Minh about reuniting the country and expelling the Americans.  

Kennedy had already given orders to start withdrawing troops, but Johnson cancelled the order, not wanting to negotiate from a position of weakness; he didn’t see how we could fail against such a “Raggety-ass little fourth rate country,” and as he famously said: “I don’t want to be the first president to lose a war.” Thus, Johnson fell into line behind all the other presidents since FDR in following Tuchman’s rule: “Once a policy has been adopted and implemented, all subsequent activity becomes an effort to justify it.” 

After receiving intelligence that North Vietnamese troops had crossed the 17^th parallel, Johnson approved sending American naval ships into the Gulf of Tonkin as a warning to Hanoi to pull back. A destroyer, the USS Mattox, was attacked on August 2, 1964, by North Vietnamese torpedo boats. Another attack on August 4 was reported but denied by the North Vietnamese. As a result, Congress passed the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution giving the President authority to defend any of our Asian allies with military force without an act of Congress. 

The sponsor of the bill in the Senate, William Fulbright, was opposed to the war in Vietnam, but like others he was convinced that Johnson wouldn’t  expand our role there. Also he didn’t want to embarrass the president in an election year. 

Johnson’s opponent in the 1964 presidential race was Barry Goldwater, who was in favor of our intervention in Vietnam, so Johnson pretended to be more moderate, even though he had already made plans to bomb Hanoi. Goldwater’s slogan was “In your heart you know he’s right.” Johnson’s campaign responded with bumper stickers which said, “In your gut you know he’s nuts.” Johnson won in a landslide. 

Johnson’s victory in 1964 gave him another opportunity to get out of Vietnam. He had a high approval rating; Diem’s government had failed, and leaders from around the world, including South Vietnam, favored our withdrawal. Instead, Johnson, on the advice of his military leaders, initiated a bombing campaign against North Vietnam, called Rolling Thunder, and began sending in ground troops, 200,000 by October 1965. 

Throughout 1966 and ’67 the escalation continued. The bombing campaign was extended to include supply routes through Laos and the Vietnamese Highlands, the “Ho Chi Minh Trail,” and without consulting the South Vietnamese, ground troops began the new tactic of “Search and Destroy,” where small villages thought to harbor Vietcong were destroyed. Horrific attacks were carried out using incendiary agents such as Napalm and White phosphorus. By September 1967 US troop levels had reached 500,000. As public awareness of the war grew, Johnson’s approval fell to 26%. Against all evidence to the contrary, Johnson continued to think that more was better. In a conversation with former president Eisenhower, he said, "I’m trying to win it just as fast as I can in every way that I know how". 

Then suddenly, everything changed. In January, 1968, during Tet, the new year’s holiday, when many in the South Vietnamese army were home on leave, Vietcong and North Vietnamese forces staged a coordinated attack on South Vietnamese cities. The result was 45000 North Vietnamese and Vietcong killed, over 10,000 South Vietnamese military killed or wounded, and almost 10,000 American military killed or wounded. The loss of civilians was almost 40,000 killed or wounded and 500,000 refugees were created, in addition to the 800,000 refugees already homeless as a result of the war. 

The assessment of the 1968 Tet offensive by US military leaders was positive. According to them, we had “won” since we scored a higher “body count” than the North Vietnamese and Vietcong forces. Westmoreland, the US commanding general, declared victory, and asked for 250,000 more troops to finish the job.  

This time Johnson didn’t go along with the military’s recommendations. He had had enough. On March 31^st, he gave a speech announcing a halt to the bombing of North Vietnam, and an offer of peace talks with Ho Chi Minh. Finally he withdrew from the 1968 presidential race, and fired Westmoreland.

September Song

Artificial Intelligence

                             

The recent speculation about AI (Artificial Intelligence) takes me back to the ‘70’s when I used to read science fiction books to relax and take a break from my work. Isaac Asimov was the author I remember most. In his I-Robot series he imagined intelligent robots as companions in an age where humans avoided contact with each other to prevent disease. The robots were made to copy humans in shape and personality, and they were controlled by three laws:

1.        A Robot may not harm a human or through inaction allow a human to come to harm.

2.          A robot  must obey the commands of a human, unless they conflict with the first law.

3.          A robot must protect its own existence, unless doing so would conflict with the first or second law.

If my cousin Steve had written the Robot series he probably would have condensed the three laws into one: “A robot must earn its oxygen.” He might have to change oxygen to “amperes,” but you get the point. 

As the president is exploring ways to regulate AI, I doubt if he will come up with anything so concise as Azimov’s laws of robotics or Steve’s oxygen rules.

As I remember, Asimov’s ideas about robots were positive. In an age of relative isolation and pandemics, it would be nice to have a pleasant, intelligent, loyal, and even affectionate – yes, Asimov imagined that too – companion, who would protect you, help you perform mundane tasks, and even advise you in decision making.

 

Now, over eighty years after Asimov’s Robot novels, it seems that the realization of his vision is just around the corner, and with it come new worries about the dangers of AI. It can assemble and interpret data faster and more accurately than a human. It can recognize a person by analyzing video. It can recognize and imitate a person’s voice. AI can even come up with original ideas about how to solve problems. AI can search through huge databases to identify criminals, or lost family members. It can look for combinations of chemicals likely to cure a disease. It can create algorithms to diagnose and treat illnesses. 

But even with the best of intentions, it’s hard to avoid bias. A computer, no matter how sophisticated, can only work with the data you feed into it. So, just like a human, the opinions, the results from a computer are likely to be biased, perhaps in unpredictable ways. ‘Garbage in, garbage out,’ is what we used to say. 

Also, in the wrong hands AI can be used to commit criminal acts like embezzlement or identity theft. It can be used by authoritarian governments to spy on people. China is already using facial recognition to do just that. The voice mimicking feature is already being used to deceive people by creating recordings of false statements allegedly by celebrities or politicians. You can easily imagine ways in which a hostile government could use AI to plan strategies to sabotage an enemy. What if a dictator used AI to take power? He (or she) could use “fake news” to create a false image of himself as a benevolent leader promoting useful programs. He could use voice and image imitation to create the delusion of popular support.   

It would be nice if Asimov’s laws could be imposed on our modern day “robots,” but how can you enforce rules, when AI is available to both good and bad people? 

All these abilities are possible now, with present technology. What if we take it a step further? For instance: what if AI becomes independent? What if it starts coming up with ideas beyond what we direct it to do? What if it learns to lie? 

One of the most famous sci-fi movies, 2001, A Space Odyssey, by Arthur C Clark, features a supercomputer, “Hal,” who takes over a space ship and kills the crew. Could that actually happen? Could a computer with AI decide to rebel against the orders it receives from its human creators? If our society becomes totally dependent on computers – we almost are already- could computers take over the world? Maybe computers could decide that it would be necessary to do away with humans to save the world, from nuclear contamination, global warming, extinction of other species, etc. 

Could computers or robots with AI achieve the status as sentient beings? Could they buy houses, get married, run for office? That brings to mind another science fiction story, this one by Robert Heinlein, The Star Beast. It’s about a young boy who is given a lizard like creature for a pet by his grandfather, who picked up the creature on another planet. The boy becomes attached to his pet, which is quite remarkable. It can talk, and it’s smart. It helps the boy with his homework. As time goes by the creature grows, and grows, until it is gigantic. The neighbors complain because the creature is eating their flowers, breaking down their fences. It even ate a cqr. The government steps in at this point and declares that the creature must be destroyed, but it turns out that’s not so easy. They try poison, explosives, I forget what else, and the creature survives everything. At some point, the boy rescues his pet, and they head for the countryside. They are followed by government helicopters, and just when it seems they will be captured, the creature grows arms, and hands. It then picks up stones and hurls them at the helicopters, causing them to crash. There is eventually a trial to determine if the creature is sentient, and according to intergalactic law, the criterion for sentience is not speech or even the ability to reason, but rather the presence of hands. This gets the creature acquitted, and it’s a good thing because she’s – it turns out she’s female- actually a princess from another planet. They find that out when creatures arrive from her planet and threaten to destroy the earth if she’s not returned. She then reveals herself, and reluctantly returns to her planet, taking the boy and his girl friend.  

I was intrigued by Heinlein’s conclusion that hands are instrumental in the development of independent thought. Well, computers don’t have hands. They can’t fix themselves. They can’t connect themselves to a power source. They could never play a violin or fall in love, or could they?