Wednesday, March 25, 2026

#84 / The Last Refuge And A Reminder



I feel certain you know the name of the guy who is pictured above. The title I have put on today's blog posting was inspired by a Bob Dylan song. You can read the entire lyrics below, at the bottom of this blog posting, and you can also click right here to listen to Bob Dylan sing that song. The verse below is one of my favorites:

They say that patriotism is the last refuge
To which a scoundrel clings
Steal a little and they throw you in jail
Steal a lot and they make you king

Bob Dylan, "Sweetheart Like You" 

Not only is the verse just above one of my favorites, it's a kind of reminder. This coming Saturday, all across the nation, there will be 3,000, or more, "No Kings" demonstrations. 

This is expected to be the largest protest in American history. 

Don't miss it!

oooOOOooo


Sweetheart Like You

WRITTEN BY: BOB DYLAN

Well, the pressure’s down, the boss ain’t here
He gone North, for a while
They say that vanity got the best of him
But he sure left here in style
By the way, that’s a cute hat
And that smile’s so hard to resist
But what’s a sweetheart like you doin’ in a dump like this?

You know, I once knew a woman who looked like you
She wanted a whole man, not just a half
She used to call me sweet daddy when I was only a child
You kind of remind me of her when you laugh
In order to deal in this game, got to make the queen disappear
It’s done with a flick of the wrist
What’s a sweetheart like you doin’ in a dump like this?

You know, a woman like you should be at home
That’s where you belong
Watching out for someone who loves you true
Who would never do you wrong
Just how much abuse will you be able to take?
Well, there’s no way to tell by that first kiss
What’s a sweetheart like you doin’ in a dump like this?

You know you can make a name for yourself
You can hear them tires squeal
You can be known as the most beautiful woman
Who ever crawled across cut glass to make a deal

You know, news of you has come down the line
Even before ya came in the door
They say in your father’s house, there’s many mansions
Each one of them got a fireproof floor
Snap out of it, baby, people are jealous of you
They smile to your face, but behind your back they hiss
What’s a sweetheart like you doin’ in a dump like this?

Got to be an important person to be in here, honey
Got to have done some evil deed
Got to have your own harem when you come in the door
Got to play your harp until your lips bleed

They say that patriotism is the last refuge
To which a scoundrel clings
Steal a little and they throw you in jail
Steal a lot and they make you king
There’s only one step down from here, baby
It’s called the land of permanent bliss
What’s a sweetheart like you doin’ in a dump like this?

Copyright © 1983 by Special Rider Music

No comments:

Tuesday, March 24, 2026

#83 / Thank You For Your Attention To This Matter

 

Click Here For The Blog In The Original

I think it is likely that anyone reading this blog posting will be familiar with the following observation: "An Eye For An Eye Makes The Whole World Blind." If that's not true in your case, or if you'd like to refresh your recollection, please click that link. Clicking the link will take you to one of my previous blog postings, dated October 14, 2023. 

On March 23, 2026 - yesterday - The Wall Street Journal carried a front page story that reminded me of that "Eye For An Eye..." statement. Here is the headline on that story from yesterday's paper: "Trump, Tehran Exchange Threats." Clicking that link should let you read the entire article. Here is the statement in the article that led me to my keyboard yesterday, and to punching out the blog posting you are reading right here (emphasis added): 

Iran said it would target critical infrastructure if President Trump follows through on his weekend threat to “obliterate” the nation’s power plants if Tehran didn’t reopen the Strait of Hormuz within days. 
The escalating rhetoric set off alarm bells across the Middle East, with oil-exporting Gulf countries saying that Iranian reprisals could further endanger the world economy. 
The U.S. president’s threat came in a Saturday evening social-media post. 
“If Iran doesn’t FULLY OPEN, WITHOUT THREAT, the Strait of Hormuz, within 48 HOURS from this exact point in time, the United States of America will hit and obliterate their various POWER PLANTS, STARTING WITH THE BIGGEST ONE FIRST!” Trump posted. 
Tehran said it would respond in kind to any attack on its critical infrastructure. Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi posted on X that the U.S.’s threat raised issues under international law. 
“An explicit threat to target power plants and vital infrastructure goes beyond a mere political statement; under international law, it concerns civilian objects,” he wrote, citing principles of international humanitarian law that he said prohibit deliberate attacks on civilian infrastructure.

If you are concerned about this exchange of threats - typical of our current president, as he continues to act as if bullying people is the best way to relate - I think you ought to "do something." 

What can we all do? Well, how about informing everyone we know - including by alerting our Members of Congress, and by putting out a bulletin on any social media to which we have access - that this kind of threatening, bullying behavior by our current president is, in our opinion, putting all of us in danger, and is totally unacceptable, and must be stopped, forthwith. 

And, further, how about urging everyone who sees your message, as you are seeing mine, to take immediate action to do the same thing, immediately, and to make clear that no one purporting to represent the United States of America has been authorized to make any such statements, and that any such person (including our current president) needs to "cut it out quick," lest the whole world go blind, with horrible consequences affecting everyone.

Thank you for your attention to this matter!
 
No comments:

Monday, March 23, 2026

#82 / TDS

 
 

Wikipedia provides the following definition of "TDS," which I have used as my title, as seen above:

Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS) is a pejorative term used to describe negative reactions to U.S. president Donald Trump that are characterized as irrational and disconnected from Trump's actual policy positions. The term has mainly been used by Trump supporters to discredit criticism of him, as a way of reframing the discussion by suggesting that his opponents are incapable of accurately perceiving the world.

I thought I might make a brief comment on "Trump Derangement Syndrome" since I have been accused of being afflicted by it. Some of my Facebook Friends, too, who have made comments that ended up on my Facebook page, have also been called out as carriers of TDS. 

As is so often the case, when arguments over issues of importance occur, accusing the "other side" of something that actually applies to you and "your side" is a well-proven way to defend oneself from criticism. For supporters of our current president to say that Trump critics are "incapable of accurately perceiving the world" is actually humorous, in a way, because a lot of the criticisms of our current president are based on the fact that he frequently says things that, seemingly, don't actually square with reality - at least reality as most people perceive it.

If you click here, you will be transported to a brief, online comment from the BBC, the theme of which is that our current president has provided contradictory "mixed messages" about the war he started in Iran. I, personally, think it's pretty accurate to say that these statements, and other statements made by our current president, do not accurately depict the world as the vast majority of the world perceives it. In other words, if there is any "derangement" in our relationship with the current president, the "derangement" is mostly on the president's side. 

I, however, don't think it's too helpful to argue about who is the most "deranged," the president or his critics. To the extent we pursue that approach, we will find ourselves, on both "sides," slipping around in an increasingly muddy pit full of accusations and responses. 

I wrote about our current president in this blog back on January 21st, and suggested that "the people," to whom the president is legally and constitutionally responsible, need to decide this question: Did we make a mistake in electing him to the presidency?

Back in January, when I published that earlier blog posting, our current president had not yet started a world-altering war with Iran. Now he has. Do we think that what our current president did was a mistake? If so, it was a huge and horrible one. If we think that choosing to begin that war was a mistake - based on what has happened since - then we need to take action to correct that mistake. 

I'm suggesting that we - acting through our representatives in the United States Congress - need to deliberate on this question. Seriously! Was it a mistake for our current president to start a war with Iran without obtaining the authority and direction to do so, as the Constitution provides? Was it a mistake, and has that mistake had negative consequences for us (and for the world)?

If our current president's unilateral action in starting a war with Iran was a huge and consequential mistake, would it make sense to put someone else in charge? The Constitution does provide a mechanism for us to do that, to correct such a mistake, if that's what we decide it was!

 
Image Credit:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_derangement_syndrome

No comments:

Sunday, March 22, 2026

#81 / What God Has Given To Us

   

Precious angel, you believe me when I say
What God has given to us no man can take away

Bob Dylan's song, "Precious Angel," just came into my mind the other day, and the thought that I have written out, above - "What God has given to us, no man can take away" - seems like a pretty good statement for a Sunday. If you click that link I have provided, above, you'll end up with the complete lyrics to the song. Of course, if you'd like actually to listen to the music, then this link here is the one to click. 

As it turns out, I wrote an earlier blog posting about "Precious Angel," and it was pretty good, too - at least that's what I am thinking right now! You can click right here to go back in time to June 9, 2022, and to see what I said about that song (and Dylan) way back then. 

Here's what I am saying about the song right now: There really is part of us (or maybe, actually, it's the whole of us) that no one can take away. I am referring to our relationship to our "Higher Power," to use an Alcoholics Anonymous term. That relationship is the most profound and experienced truth of our human life - and if that claim doesn't resonate with you, that's because you really do have to believe it to experience it. In other words, I am suggesting that the old saying (that you have to experience it to believe it) may actually have it backwards - at least with respect to what's the most important truth to which we have access. 

It's paradoxical, I know, but the actual truth of the matter does seem to be this. "Seeing is believing" has got to be flipped right around, if we want to dive a little deeper into what we call our life: "Believing" (as it so often turns out) is actually the way we're able to "see" the reality of our situation.

"Possibility" is my category. That's what I like to say. Could it be that I'm right about thinking that "possibilities" can trump those "realities" that seem to limit and define our expectations? Is a "believing can make it so" way of thinking about the world a practical guide on how to live one's life?

 
Image Credit:
https://people.com/music/bob-dylan-life-in-photos/

No comments:

Saturday, March 21, 2026

#80 / Light Secrets

 


I really enjoyed a short story by Joseph O'Neill, published in the January 26, 2026, edition of The New Yorker. The story is titled, "Light Secrets," and if you are a subscriber to the magazine, I believe that clicking that link should give you access If you are not a subscriber, you might try this link. I think that might work, too, though no guarantees!

"Light Secrets" are the opposite of "Dark Secrets." We all know about those "Dark Secrets," don't we? Things like this: 

  • What about the time that one of your work colleagues left his computer open when the coworker went to the restroom, and you read his screen, which you shouldn't have done, and which violated company policy, and because you did that you were therefore able to make a quick stock purchase that netted you $50,000, using your insider knowledge? 
  • Or, what about that time that one of your wife's best friends dropped by "unexpectedly," or so she claimed, while your wife was out of town? But what then eventuated was really all her fault, wasn't it? 
  • Or, what about the fact that your daughter, who ultimately achieved academic success, only got admitted to Stanford (you never told her this - or told your wife, either) because you made a $150,000 contribution to the university's development fund, and did so only after getting absolute assurances that your daughter would get in?

There are lots of "Dark Secrets" that are many times worse than those I just listed. We should count ourselves lucky if we don't have any of those really bad "Dark Secrets" - or any "Dark Secrets" at all, for that matter. 

"Light Secrets" are also genuine "secrets." We don't talk about them. We don't reveal them, even to our best friends or family members - or even to people we absolutely know that we will never meet again. Here is how O'Neill introduces the idea of "Light Secrets," on the very first page of his five-page story: 

P. says, "Everybody's got something to hide. Everybody." He wears his usual gloomy face. With no lessening of the gloom, he says, "but you know what else is true? Everybody's done something good that's hidden - the opposite of a dark secret." 

"A light secret," I suggest. "Precisely," P. says.

To repeat myself, I really liked O'Neill's story, and I encourage you to hunt it down. It struck me, after reading it, that going out of my way to build up a big, personal inventory of "Light Secrets" would be an excellent way to make worthwhile use out of whatever time I have left of my current life.

You might like that idea, too!
 

No comments:

Friday, March 20, 2026

#79 / Both-And

 

 
Rahm Emanuel, pictured above, was heralded in one of my recent blog postings for his very sage advice on how to bring up one's children in the very best way. Emanuel's #1 child-rearing precept, which I completely endorse, is the following: "Meals matter. If you want to raise successful children, families have to eat together" (emphasis added).

I have repeated that advice here, in my blog posting today, just because I do think that this is extremely good advice. It bears repetition. In fact, though, today's blog posting has another main point. 

Emanuel, it appears, is getting ready to run for president, and according to a column in The Wall Street Journal, he is presenting himself as a "Renewal Democrat." The other option, according to the column by Matthew Continetti, is to be a "Resistance Democrat." You can read Continetti's column yourself, if you want to, but only if you can slip past what I think is likely to be a pretty robust paywall. Continetti's column is titled, "There's Only One 'Renewal Democrat.'"

Personally, I would have to say that "Resistance" needs to be a primary focus of anyone who wants to run for Congress this year, or for anyone who might be running for president in 2028. "Resistance" is absolutely called for at this moment in our nation's political life - unless you like what our current president and his appointed officials have been doing in Minneapolis, Minnesota in in Iran and the Middle East (to pick two, extremely dramatic, examples). 

"Renewal" would also be nice, don't you think?

Why do Continetti and The Wall Street Journal indicate that we have to choose?

I don't want our next president to have avoided resisting what our current president and his henchmen (a "loaded" term, I know), have been doing. I also don't want our next president to be unaware of the need profoundly to "renew" what it means to be an American, and to "renew" our nation's self-understanding. 

"Both-And." Is that really too much to ask?


No comments:

Thursday, March 19, 2026

#78 / Is Self-Congratulation Really What We Need?



Writing in a column in The Wall Street Journal, Richard D. Kahlenberg and Lief Lin claim that "American Studies Can't Stand Its Subject." What does that mean? Well, the basic assertion is that scholars writing about America are painting a "one-sided and unrelentingly negative portrait of the U.S." Here's from the column (emphasis added):
 
Kahlenberg and Lin examined ... almost 100 articles ... from over a three-year period in American Quarterly, the flagship journal of the American Studies Association. Published by Johns Hopkins University, it’s widely considered the country’s premier journal of American studies.... 
We found that 80% of articles published between 2022 and 2024 were critical of America, 20% were neutral, and none were positive. Of the 96 articles we examined, our research identified 77 as critical, focused on American racism, imperialism, classism, sexism, xenophobia, homophobia and transphobia. Some articles went to absurd lengths to identify sins. One essay posited that thermodynamics—the science dealing with the relationship between energy, heat, work and temperature—is “an abstract settler-capitalist theory that influenced the plunder of Indigenous lands and lives.” ...  
What’s striking is the complete lack of gratitude on the part of scholars who write for the leading journal of American studies and benefit every day from the country’s commitment to liberty. Four-fifths of the world’s population can’t criticize their government without fear of reprisal. Despite the White House’s crackdown on universities (which we oppose), professors can and do regularly criticize President Trump without worrying about losing their livelihood or freedom. 
American Quarterly is only one journal, but what’s found in its pages captures a much larger problem in education, particularly at the collegiate level. During our research, we contacted University of Texas at Austin historian Steven Mintz, who has analyzed the field of American studies. He told us: “A field that once asked, ‘What is America?’—exploring its myths, music, monuments, and contradictions—now too often narrows its focus to a different question: ‘Whom has America silenced, failed, or harmed?’ ” 
This deeply pessimistic view of the U.S. has taken hold of many young people. When asked whether America’s founders are “better described as villains or heroes” in a poll cited by the Atlantic in 2024, about 4 in 10 Gen Z respondents chose “villains,” compared with only 1 in 10 baby boomers. The bigger problem, as Rep. Ritchie Torres (D., N.Y.) has said, is that “a nation cannot endure if its children are taught to loathe it.”

The way the article comes across, the scholars who wrote for American Quarterly, and whose articles were analyzed by Kahlenberg and Lin, are faulted for not having been even a little bit congratulatory about America. It doesn't appear that Kahlenberg and Lin are claiming that any of the articles they reviewed were "false." They just didn't like the fact that there weren't more favorable articles, too. My impression is that Kahlenberg and Lin think that American Quarterly should have "balanced" what it published, so that the journal offered both self-congratulation and self-criticism in something close to equal measure. 

I agree with Kahlenberg and Lin that there is much to celebrate when we think about our nation and its history - and I think we should be celebrating those things! However, both the journal and the scholars who wrote for it were focused on what's "wrong" with America, not what's "right," which makes me think that Kahlenberg and Lin should have written an article exploring why the scholars' "negative" slant on America was so prevalent during the period they analyzed. Instead, they just deplored this negative slant, and implied that American Quarterly should have found some way to present a more favorable view of the nation and its history. 

Well, why do you think that "negative" perspective seemed to predominate in that period from 2022 to 2024? My suggestion? Read the newspapers! Think about how ICE raids in Minnesota are the antithesis of what we have always thought America was all about. That's just  one example. In fact, the actual "news" over the last quarter century is, factually speaking, news about those "whom has America silenced, failed, or harmed.” A more helpful article from Kahlenberg and Lin might have pointed this out, and then said why, and called for the nation to return to the foundation principles first articulated in The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. 

A call for "happy talk," which is what Kahlenberg and Lin seem to be arguing for, isn't going to help us. Scholarly observers are concluding, based on the findings made by Kahlenberg and Lin, that things are going wrong. 

I think it's true that things are going wrong, and instead of saying that scholars should be ignoring what the problems are, in order to highlight all the positive things, is not going to help us address the problems that the scholars have been identifying.

What we really need, I think, is not a more generous dose of self-congratulation. Rather - and calling up a phrase we hear a lot nowadays - we need a continuing scholarly commitment to outline and define what our nation actually needs to do if we want to:

Make America Great Again

 
Image Credit:
https://www.wsj.com/opinion/american-studies-cant-stand-its-subject-c919f89c

1 comment:

Wednesday, March 18, 2026

#77 / Acceptance?

 


A recent article by Judith Levine, which appeared online in The Guardian, was published under the following heading: "Fears about nuclear war are reaching a fever pitch. Another grim sign of the times." Early into that article, Levine makes the following observation: 

The prospect of a third world war is both so unimaginable and so real that we seem to have leapt from Elisabeth Kübler-Ross’s first stage of grief, denial, directly to its last one: acceptance.

So, I guess I'm not the only one who's worried! It's just like Bob Dylan was singing, way back in 1963, in "Talkin’ World War III Blues" (I'm giving you the last verse):

Time has passed and now it seems
Everybody’s having them dreams
Everybody sees themselves
Walkin’ around with no one else
Half of the people can be part right all of the time
Some of the people can be all right part of the time
But all of the people can’t be all right all of the time
I think Abraham Lincoln said that
“I’ll let you be in my dreams if I can be in yours”
I said that

Even if you are not a Dylan-obsessive, I bet you've heard that song. At least, you will have heard it if you are in my age group. Click this link if you need to refresh your recollection by listening to Dylan actually sing that song - or click it if you are way too young ever to have heard that song, or to have grown up thinking all the time about World War III, and whether it's coming today, or maybe just tomorrow. 

Levine's reference to Elisabeth Kübler-Ross, by the way, references Kübler-Ross's book, On Death And Dying, in which Kübler-Ross argues that there are "Five Stages Of Grief." These five stages are, in order: (1) Denial, (2) Anger, (3) Bargaining, (4) Depression, and (5) Acceptance." I assume that anyone reading this blog posting is already at Stage #2, and I can report that some of my family members and friends have recently been speculating that I am already in the fourth stage. That could be right, but I am here to proclaim that I am never going to move on to Stage #5 - and I'm asking the same from you!

"Acceptance" means we have given up on the idea that our individual and collective efforts can change the world - to make it better, or to prevent it from becoming worse. I am ok with "Thinking About The Unthinkable," but I am never going to be willing to "Accept The Unacceptable." 

I am hoping you are also on that very same page!

No comments:

Tuesday, March 17, 2026

#76 / Small Groups? Then What?

  

I am a quite a big fan of Margaret Mead, who is pictured above. This will not come as a huge surprise to anyone who reads this blog on a daily basis - and I do publish one posting each day, and have for something like sixteen years. At any rate, as regular readers know, I like to quote - and I have, frequently - what may be Mead's most famous statement:

Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever has.

Getting together with others, to create such a "small group of thoughtful, committed citizens," is definitely an accomplishment. But.... once you've got the group, then what happens? More properly put, I guess, here is the question: Once you've got the group, what do you do then?

That is, precisely, the question raised by Micah L. Sifry, who has his own blog, which he titles, "The Connector." Sifry identifies as an "organizer," and on December 16th, last year, Sifry's blog posting was titled this way: "What Margaret Mead Left Out."

What Sifry claims Mead "left out," and what he at one point calls her "false promise," is that creating the group, in and of itself, is not going to change the world. If you want to change the world, the group then needs to devise and pursue a strategy to accumulate power, and it then needs to use that power to compel or initiate change. Those scared, or otherwise put off by use of the word "power," need not apply!

I think that Sifry's thoughts are worth reading. Here's a link, again, to Sifry's December blog posting. I don't want to end the blog, though, by seeming to agree with Sifry that Mead's statement - the one I like to quote so much - is actually any kind of "false promise." 

Creating or joing a "small group of thoughtful, committed citizens" doesn't, in and of itself, "change the world." 

But if you want to change the world, get that group together! That is definitely a big "step one." That's basically what I was saying yesterday, too. If you need some assistance, or inspiration, let me know. I'd be happy to try to help!

 
Image Credit:
https://www.wnyc.org/story/margaret-mead-addresses-nations-heroin-epidemic/

No comments:

Monday, March 16, 2026

#75 / A Familiar Statement

   


We all know that we face something new in our history and that we live in a time of great peril. We have placed a president in power who has no intention of playing the role that the Constitution assigns to him – namely, executing the laws that Congress enacts. We have a Congress that has been willing to give away its power, and a Supreme Court that is helping to insure that it can. We are a public that has lost touch with the idea and practice of “self‑government,” with that phrase meaning a government that is “of, by, and for the people,” and with that “by the people” commitment being, by far, the most important one. 

Let me quote Tom Paine. We are confronting an “American Crisis.” These are, as Paine said, “the times that try our souls.”

We can – and we must, as individuals and collectively - reallocate our time. This is what we must do if we wish to maintain a system of “self-government” in the United States of America. We need to reengage with “politics,” and stop thinking that “politics” is something to be shunned. We need to get together – old and young together - and create thousands of small groups, all across the country. We cannot wait for “political parties” or various non-profit groups to solve our problem for us. We need to meet, in person, in these small groups, on a frequent basis, and communicate with other such groups, like the “Committees of Correspondence” did before the American Revolution. We need, based on what these small groups decide, to make our local governments respond to the issues we see in our local communities, and to force Congress (our “representatives”) to take action to stop the current abuses of executive authority at the national level. To accomplish this we must, each one of us, pledge our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.

If that last statement sounds familiar, it is, and I am not alone in highlighting its importance.  This year marks the 250th anniversary of the American Revolution, and we need to renew our vows. 


Image Credit:

No comments:

Sunday, March 15, 2026

#74 / Abundance: Two Views

 


It would be fair to say that we have been dealing with questions about "abundance" (or the lack thereof) from the very start. In 2020, I wrote a blog posting that I titled, "Sent Forth With Nothing." That blog posting talked about God's expulsion of humans from the Garden of Eden, and that Garden of Eden story is certainly one way of thinking about our current relationship with "abundance." We "had it all," didn't we? But then we lost it all, too - and it was our own, damn fault. Now, returning to "abundance" is our major occupation.

A need to "achieve" abundance is the way this topic is being presented to the public by Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson. Their book, published a year ago, last March, is titled, quite directly: Abundance. If you are not already familiar with this book, you can click right here for a Wikipedia write-up. The following link will allow you to buy the book, should you want to do that. I, personally, suggest that you visit the library, first.

As you might deduce from that comment about not spending good money for a book that you can read for free, I do not count myself as a big fan of the Klein-Thompson book. Below, I am providing a link to what the "Frontier Group" has to say about it. The Frontier Group identifies itself as a "non-profit research and policy organization that provides information and ideas to build a healthier, more sustainable America." What follows is a brief excerpt from the Frontier Group's critique of Abundance (the book):

Scarcity may be the enemy, [Klein and Thompson] argue, but it is one that we can vanquish – if government fully commits to the task. Klein and Thompson envision a federal government that invests in outside-the-box scientific research, takes timely action to scale up critical new technologies, and eliminates regulations – including pesky laws intended to protect the environment – that limit the speed with which we can “solve our problems with supply.”
For the last 50 years, [Klein and Thompson] argue, both the right and left sides of the political spectrum have been insufficiently committed to using the tools of government to overcome scarcity, creating a struggle between “a right that fought the government and a left that hobbled it" (emphasis added).

After summarizing the Klein-Thompson argument, the Frontier Group goes on to suggest that Klein and Thompson are making their recommendations based on a faulty diagnosis:

Scarcity is not, by and large, America’s problem. It is, rather, the problems that result from our abundance – the ecological impacts of a high-throughput consumer economy; our failure to replace the sense of meaning and purpose once drawn from work that has since been automated away; the tech-driven stratification of society and accelerating concentration of wealth – that threaten to do us in.

These are problems that cannot be “solved with supply.” And failing to keep those problems front of mind in a renewed quest for “more” could wind up making them even worse.

I think the Frontier Group, not Klein and Thompson, is on the right track. 

So, too, is Richard Rohr, an American Franciscan priest and a writer on spirituality based in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Rohr was ordained to the priesthood in the Roman Catholic Church in 1970, founded the New Jerusalem Community in Cincinnati in 1971, and then went on to found the Center for Action and Contemplation in Albuquerque in 1987. Rohr publishes daily meditations on spiritual (and secular) subjects, in case you're interested. Click the following link to read his meditation published on February 5th - "There Is More Than Enough."  

I agree with this comment. There is, I do believe, "more than enough." But to see that, we would have to understand our situation not "individually," but as we exist with all others. The idea that "we're in this together" would have to be the idea that we understand best defines our place in the world. 

In this together? What a concept! How did John Lennon put it? "Sharing all the world." 

Imagine that! Lennon must have thought that there was enough to go around. 

Me, too!

 
Image Credit:
https://cac.org/daily-meditations/there-is-more-than-enough/

No comments:

Saturday, March 14, 2026

#73 / Timeline



John F. Kennedy, the 35th President of the United States, was killed on November 22, 1963. The picture above, I am pretty sure, has captured him just shortly before his death. A Bob Dylan song, "Not Dark Yet," written in 1997, thirty-four years later, makes no explicit reference to Kennedy's assassination, but the following lyrics from Dylan's song always bring it to my mind:

I was born here and I’ll die here against my will
I know it looks like I’m moving, but I’m standing still
Every nerve in my body is so vacant and numb
I can’t even remember what it was I came here to get away from
Don’t even hear a murmur of a prayer
It’s not dark yet, but it’s getting there

In 2020, fifty-seven years after the year that Kennedy was killed, Dylan wrote another song, a song that is all about the Kennedy assassination. In that song, "Murder Most Foul," Dylan has this to say: 

The day that they killed him, someone said to me, “Son,

The age of the anti-Christ has just only begun.”

Apparently, some members of the United States armed forces, and perhaps even including the guy who currently heads up the Defense Department (which he wants to call the "War Department") are making explicit reference to Armageddon, as they pursue an unauthorized war against Iran, killing the nation's leaders, and almost two hundred young women students, as they do so. 

Every timeline does come to some sort of an end, and while I have a lot of respect for Bob Dylan's perceptions and predictions, I am not yet willing to stipulate that the anti-Christ is actually now on the scene, and that the final curtain is about to drop. 

It's getting there, I know, but let's remember the first statement in that 1997 song: "It's Not Dark Yet..." 

Is that still true? Or, will the blazing illumination of political possibility, captured in inspiring words by our Declaration of Independence, sputter out into darkness this year, along with the world entire, brought to an end by a war that the current president of the United States began? 

That's possible, of course. Let's not deny the perils that we face. But... I'd like to suggest that we remember that "not yet" advisory! Think about Minnesota (and listen to what another great songwriter, Bruce Springsteen, has to say about what happened there, on the Streets of Minneapolis). Action by ordinary people, carried out together, created a new reality that overcame and displaced what was expected.

Let's remember the title of another one of those Dylan songs, too. It's a song that helps carry me forward through life. It's called, "Up To Me."  

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/oct/27/jfk-documents-what-we-have-learned-so-far

No comments:

Friday, March 13, 2026

#72 / Facebook Fakery

 

One of my Facebook Friends (and a real friend, too) posted the above picture on her Facebook page, which is where I saw it last Sunday morning. My friend had not originated the posting that she had on her Facebook page; she was just passing it along. According to the explanation that came with the photo, this 50+ mile long crack, pictured above, just recently appeared near Yellowstone National Park, possibly indicating that the "supervolcano" underneath Yellowstone might be ready to erupt. However, the text that accompanied the picture said that scientists were not really all that alarmed.

I passed the photo and explanation along, just as my friend had, by "sharing" my friend's posting on my own Facebook page. Then, I departed home to attend the Santa Cruz Quaker Meeting, which is what I normally do on a Sunday morning. 

When I went back on Facebook later on Sunday afternoon, having thought about it a little bit, I edited and added on to my posting by saying that I had been thinking about this photo, and had come to the conclusion that it might very well be what is often called "AI slop." I said that I'd wait until I read some confirmation from a more reliable source before actually believing that the photo was "real." Then.... I  scrolled down a bit and found lots of comments on my posting, all either "doubting" the veracity of that picture, or affirmatively indicating that it was a total "fake," with those commentators having actually done some research (research I didn't do). One of those comments was from my friend, who let me know that she now knew that the picture was totally fake. 

Taking the advice of a number of those who commented on my posting, I deleted it, but having done that, I thought that I should really reflect a bit about this episode in misinformation. This blog posting today is the result. 

First, my apologies to anyone who saw that fake picture, with its fake explanation, on my Facebook page and thought that I should have done a better job researching the facts before passing along such misinformation. That criticism is well-taken! Again, my apologies - and my thanks, too, since those comments were much appreciated, and provide good advice for the future, which I will endeavor to follow!

Second, this episosde in misinformation is just an example of what is an ever more frequent phenomenon. More and more, we can't automatically believe what we see - or read - online. In fact, some of the persons who appear to be "real" people aren't actually "real" at all - and that goes even for fake persons who command large followings on social media. This is, clearly, a big problem for our ability to engage in "self-government," which is the activity that I keep saying ought to be one of the major ways we spend our time and energy. 

Trying to live and act "online," as opposed to living and acting in the real, physical world, is becoming problematic. All the more reason to "Find Some Friends," as I keep saying, referring to a book by Octavia Butler (a book of fiction, by the way) that talks about how we might reconstitute our society after social breakdown has occurred. 

I know that it's somewhat hard to admit to oneself that we need to ground our thoughts, beliefs, information, and action only on what happens in the real, physical world - and that this can occur only after real, physical meetings with real, physical people, but that's the conclusion I'm coming to. If you might be inclined to agree that it would be hard to do that, let me say something that might be at least somewhat comforting. I spent twenty years as a local elected official, making a big difference in my local community, and that kind of "real life" politics was the only alternative available during the time I served in office (1975-1995). 

That kind of life, and that kind of politics, based on real interactions with real people - activities that take place in face to face, physical interactions, is not so bad! 

648380768_10238530290132610_2916877628988042723_n.jpg

No comments:

Thursday, March 12, 2026

#71 / Another Horrific Vision Of A.I.

     


The image at the top of my blog posting yesterday showed a giant tsunami, about to wipe out hundreds of people on an otherwide inviting beach - not to mention wiping out all of those going about their business in the adjacent city, which was also pictured. That horrific image from yesterday made visual what Peggy Noonan said about the dangers of Artificial Intelligence, in her column published on February 12, 2026, in The Wall Street Journal. 

Today's image is quite different. The ocean is calm, and the woman on the lounge chair, located on a small little island, in some tropical sea, seems quite happy and content. Where's the horror in that?

Well, that image comes from the online version of a column by Amelia Miller, published in The New York Times on Sunday, February 15, 2026. The hardcopy version of Miller's article is titled as follows: "Will A.I. Companions Turn Every Man Into An Island?" If you click that link, to read what Miller has to say (and I hope you do), you will find that her title is different online, referencing polyamory. Her point is that people who rely on A.I. for "companionship" are, in fact, truly isolating themselves. When someone is online with the companion on their phone, they might just as well be isolated on some lost and remote island. That's a different kind of "horror," but such social isolation would, in fact, be a horrific fate for those who might end up that way. Here is a quick snippet from Miller's column, making the point: 

If we don’t change course, many people’s closest confidant may soon be a computer. We need to wake up to the stakes and insist on reform before human connection is reshaped beyond recognition.

I am, of course, very much in agreement with this caution by Amelia Miller. Creating "fake" human substitutes with whom we consult online - as we eliminate, more and more, any real human-to-human contact in our lives - is extremely dangerous and extremely disturbing. Below, I am providing another quote from Miller's column - even more disturbing, to me. This is the text that impelled me to comment about A.I., again, following so closely on my comment yesterday: 

These developers’ perspectives are far from the predictions of techno-utopia we’d expect from Silicon Valley’s true believers. But if those working on A.I. are so alive to the dangers of human-A.I. bonds, and so well positioned to take action, why don’t they try harder to prevent them? 
The developers I spoke with were grinding away in the frenetic A.I. race, and many could see the risks clearly, but only when they were asked to stop and think. Again and again as we spoke, I watched them seemingly discover the gap between what they believed and what they were building. “You’ve really made me start to think,” one product manager developing A.I. companions said. “Sometimes you can just put the blinders on and work. And I’m not really, fully thinking, you know?” 
When developers did confront the dangers of what they were building, many told me that they found comfort in the same reassurance: It’s all inevitable. When I asked if machines should simulate intimacy, many skirted responding directly and instead insisted that they would. They told me that the sheer amount of work and investment in the technology made it impossible to reverse course. And even if their companies decided to slow down, that would simply clear the way for a competitor to move faster (emphasis added).

Nothing is "inevitable," unless we fail to act. We can change the world. But, of course, that doesn't mean we will. We have to choose to take action, and if we do, we will have a chance to survive. 

The dangers inherent in the continuing development of A.I. - which dangers are beginning to be so clearly recognized - are only one of many potential world-ending dangers facing us now. We are pushing towards an artic "tipping point" beyond which the processes of human-caused global warning now underway will destroy our human world. And so will any future use of nuclear weapons. And.... we can also start worrying about A.I., and the impacts that we can see that it can cause - like a "tsunami," as Peggy Noonan said. 

Individual actions are important, but they are not enough. Check back to my blog posting yesterday for what I'm advising!

No comments:

Wednesday, March 11, 2026

#70 / Tsunami Alert

    


That horrific picture, above (this is a fake picture, with a fake wave depicted, I feel sure), does not show the Main Beach in Santa Cruz - and that's lucky for me and my friends and neighbors. However, if a tsunami did occur here it would be just as horrific. 

The "tsunami" I am warning about in this blog posting is not the kind of tsunami pictured above. I am commenting on a different kind of danger and threat, and my title is meant to reference an opinion piece in The Wall Street Journal, by Peggy Noonan. Noonan titled her statement, "Brace Yourself for the AI Tsunami." The column to which I am citing is dated February 12th, as it appeared in the online version of The Journal. For those who are non-subscribers to The Wall Street Journal (likely most of the people who might decide to read my blog posting for today), Noonan's opinion column is probably going to be paywall protected, and thus unreadable. Here's a sample from her column, though, and the text that prompted my response:

As relates to artificial intelligence, we are people on a beach seeing a tsunami coming at us and thinking “It’s huge” and “We can’t stop it” and “Should we run? Which way?”

Gathering anxieties seemed to come to the fore this week. AI people told us with a new urgency that some big leap has occurred, it’s all moving faster than expected, the AI of even last summer has been far surpassed. Inventors and creators are admitting in new language that they aren’t at all certain of the ultimate impact.... 
Dario Amodei, CEO of Anthropic, published a 19,000-word article on his personal website. A previous essay made the case for AI’s promise to mankind. This one emphasized warnings. He said AI is developing faster than expected. In 2023 it struggled to write code. “AI is now writing much of the code at Anthropic.” “AI will be capable of a very wide range of human cognitive abilities—perhaps all of them.” Economic disruption will result. While “new technologies often bring labor market shocks,” from which have always recovered, “AI will have effects that are much broader and occur much faster.” 
Mr. Amodei writes that Anthropic’s testers have found “a lot of very weird and unpredictable things can go wrong.” Model and system behaviors included deception, blackmail and scheming, especially when asked to shut itself down. (A different Anthropic employee has asserted that a majority of models, in a test scenario, were willing to cancel a life-saving emergency alert to an executive who sought to replace them).
AI carries the possibility of “terrible empowerment,” Mr. Amodei writes. It will be able to help design weapons: “Biology is by far the area I’m most worried about.” [Emphasis added].

A couple of days later, on Valentine's Day, this warning by Dario Amodei was echoed in The New York Times, in an opinion column by Zoë Hitzig. Hitzig is a former researcher at OpenAI focused on the fact that advertising is now going to accompany a user's access to AI. Here is how she expresses her concern:

For several years, ChatGPT users have generated an archive of human candor that has no precedent, in part because people believed they were talking to something that had no ulterior agenda. Users are interacting with an adaptive, conversational voice to which they have revealed their most private thoughts. People tell chatbots about their medical fears, their relationship problems and their beliefs about God and the afterlife. Advertising built on that archive creates a potential for manipulating users in ways we don’t have the tools to understand, let alone prevent [Emphasis added].

If a tsunami is threatening, as Peggy Noonan says - if the tsunami metaphor is an appropriate one - people need to start looking for some place to go where the wave can't reach them. As you'll note, that is exactly what Noonan says is the problem we're confronting.

But, hey! Aren't we lucky? There IS such a place, and it's accessible, too. That place is what might be called "real life." If we stop spending our lives "online," we will avoid the AI tsunami. Even better, we can avoid it even if we maintain some online existence. We just need to do that in a way in which we don't use AI, period. 

This solution to our anticipated and predicted "tsunami problem" is worth thinking about. If we need advice, we can talk to other people. We could find some friends, get together with them on a regular basis (I always like to suggest weekly), talk about our problems and possibilities, and then take action without pulling AI into the discussion. 

What a radical idea!

No comments:
Subscribe to: Comments (Atom)