Wednesday, February 11, 2026

#42 / Imagineering

 

Click Here For The Blog In The Original

The "all-new" ship that I have pictured above is called the Disney Adventure. If you click that link, you can book a voyage, and Disney promises that it will be an "unforgettable 3- or 4-night holiday." The first voyage of this new ship is scheduled to set sail from Singapore sometime in March of this year.

I certainly knew about Disney films and television offerings, and I knew about Disney theme parks, but I didn't really know about Disney's expansion into the cruise ship business until I read about it in The Wall Street Journal. 

As it turns out, "theme parks and cruises have overtaken television as Disney’s biggest source of profits, and the company is counting on them to fuel its growth for the rest of this decade and beyond. Disney is investing $60 billion in theme parks and cruise ships through 2033—nearly double what it spent in the prior decade." It is, of course, no surprise that The Walt Disney Company is fundamentally a money-making proposition, and that it is not really a "Magic Kingdom." Disney currently has seven ships in its cruise line, and is aiming to expand to thirteen. 

Here is a link to the article that provided me the information I have just relayed to you. The article is titled, "The 3,000-Person Team Working in Secret To Create Disney Magic." Unfortunately, given the likelihood that a paywall will prevent access for non-subscribers, I can't promise you that the link I have just made available will let you "read all about it." You can, however, give it a try. 

What most interested me in the article was its discussion of that 3,000-person team that is spearheading Disney's effort to boost its theme park and cruise ship revenue. That team has a name. Those who participate are called, "Imagineers," and they "operate largely in secret, working in unmarked warehouses with curtains surrounding the most sensitive work." They sign nondisclosure agreements, too. According to The Journal, Disney's Imagineers have been both "a source of pride for their creative genius and frustration due to their insular culture and budget-busting spending."

As those reading this blog posting of mine probably know, many people are now seeing themselves as "Influencers." They are looking for ways to "monetize" podcast presentations, and short videos, using online platforms like Tik-Tok, Instagram, and YouTube. 

Well, here's a thought. What about some of us trying to become "Imagineers." I am not talking about massive Disney-scale budgets (budgets that the Disney "Imagineers" apparently disregard, with respect to the actual expenses they incur). I'm suggesting a "non-profit" version of the "Imagineers" idea, and I mean "non-profit" in a generic sense, and am not suggesting that setting up a special non-profit corporation would be needed. 

I am suggesting, once again, that small groups might form, meet regularly and in-person, and determine to practice a "politics of imagination." What if.....? There are lots of great projects and activities to imagine, don't you think?

I know, in fact, that a group has formed, right here in Santa Cruz County, to imagine a new way for us to relate to the "World of Nature," giving legal rights to the air we breathe, the water we drink, and the lands and the ocean that sustain us. Here's a link to the website set up by this new group: "Rights of Nature, Santa Cruz." Some of those reading this blog posting may want to get involved with this movement. 

And what else can we imagine? A lot of things, don't you think?


Image Credit:

No comments:

Tuesday, February 10, 2026

#41 / Adoration Of The Present



Click Here For The Blog In The Original

The picture above comes from one of Katie Roiphe's "Personal Space" columns in The Wall Street Journal. Specifically, the picture comes from Roiphe's column published in the Saturday-Sunday, January 10-11, 2026, edition of the paper. Roiphe titled that column as follows: "Why 20-Somethings Are Trading Their Vapes For Cigarettes." 

The Journal's website tells us that Roiphe's "Personal Space" column "explores love, life, relationships and current cultural mores," and lets us know that Roiphe is the director of the Cultural Reporting and Criticism program at New York University. The Journal also tells us that she is the author of several books, including The Power Notebooks, In Praise of Messy Lives, and The Violet Hour. 

Wikipedia provides additional information about Roiphe's publications, calling out The Morning After: Sex, Fear, and Feminism on Campus (1993), Last Night in Paradise: Sex and Morals at the Century's End (1997), and Uncommon Arrangements, a 2007 study of writers and marriage.

What struck me most about Roiphe's column on how young people, today, seem to be returning to smoking cigarettes was her conclusion that while smoking was, indeed, "unhealthy," and should not, therefore, be celebrated, she nonetheless had sympathy for this new trend:

I find myself watching all these young smokers with mixed feelings. I want my students and children’s friends to be healthy, but I also understand the gesture, the fashionable nihilism, the hedonism, the why not. We could use a little more adoration of the present. Though I still hope the cigarettes are just a phase (emphasis added).

I have a long tradition, in my blog postings, of celebrating "the present," because it is in "the present" that we can act. Observing what's happening is great, and that occurs in "the present," too, but it is in "action," not "observation" that we create the world in which we live. 

"Adoration" of the present, in other words, strikes me as the celebration of observation over action, and Roiphe's use of that term spurred me to remember one of my very first blog postings. I have published one blog posting, each day, since 2010, which means that I have been filing these blog postings for fifteen years. Here is a link to my blog posting from October 14, 2010, which I titled, "Now." 

George Fox, the first Quaker, said the following, his words having been featured a number of times in my periodic writings since that first time, in October, 2010: 

You have no time but this present time; therefore prize your time for your soul's sake.

I honor Roiphe's description of our current cultural mores, but I prefer Fox, who reminds us that it is "now," while we live, that we can act. 

And how we act, and that we will act can (as Robert Frost might have said) make all the difference!


Image Credit:

No comments:

Monday, February 9, 2026

#40 / Facts? Forget About The Facts!

   


Did you know that the Central Intelligence Agency has, for the last sixty years, published a so-called "World Factbook," on an annual basis, and that this publication has provided "detailed figures on birth and death rates and major exports, relied upon first by government agents and eventually researchers, educators, journalists and more?"

I didn't know this - at least I didn't know it until I read an article published in The New York Times on Saturday, February 7th. That article, linked right here, announced that this publication has now been abruptly terminated, with no reason given. 

Perhaps, it is suggested in the article, the "World Factbook" is now just duplicative, since anyone with access to an Internet browser can probably get whatever information they might want, or need, by simply typing a request into a search bar. 

Maybe that's it. I can't help but think, though, that our current president doesn't really put much value on "the truth," or on "the facts," and that having the facts so readily available, in an authoritative governmental publication, would inevitably get in the way of our current president's habit of asserting as true whatever the president would like the facts to be.

So, why has publication of the "World Factbook" been so abruptly terminated? I am betting that our current president had something to say about that, and for someone who certainly doesn't want his many untrue assertions contradicted by a government publication that provides access to the real facts, getting rid of this source of genuine "facts" probably seemed way overdue.

No comments:

Sunday, February 8, 2026

#39 / A Part Of The Main





Anthony McNaught is pictured above. His friends didn't really call him "Anthony." They called him "Ant." On February 4, 2026, I read Ant's obituary in The Santa Cruz Sentinel. He was born on Februry 13, 1952, and he died on January 22nd of this year.   I didn't really know Ant at all well, but I did have a chance to talk with him, on several occasions, when mutual friends threw dinner parties to which we were both invited. Ant's death, from pneumonia, was very sudden and I think quite unexpected. When I got the word, from our mutual friend, I was startled. Ant was younger than I am, and he was in vigorous health, at least so it appeared. 

Ant was an artist. His obituary tells us that he studied fine art at Christie’s, in London, after which he headed up fine art departments for several big American auction houses, before starting his own gallery, McNaught Fine Art. Ant's obituary lets us know that he loved finding beautiful paintings, making art, and spending time with the people he loved - specifically including his son, Michael, whom Ant mentioned to me in every conversation I ever had with him. Ant also loved to write and perform his songs.  He recorded two albums in Nashville, first “Apache Lane” (2011) and then “Feast of Stone” (2017).

In recent years, I find that I often read the obituaries that show up in The New York Times, and in our local newspaper here in Santa Cruz County, the Santa Cruz Sentinel. Ant's obituary is where I actually found out about Ant. As I said at the start, I didn't really know him well, though we had crossed paths several times. The obituary printed in The Sentinel, on February 4th, announced that a memorial mass for Ant would be held on February 5th (last Thursday) at Star of the Sea Church. I knew that our mutual friends would certainly be there, and I decided to go. 

At the church, those who came were given a little card:

Stella Maris 
(Star of the Sea)

Anthony McNaught
February 13, 1952 - January 22, 2026

Peace I leave with you,
my peace I give unto you; 
not as the world giveth,
give I unto you.
Let not your heart be troubled,
neither let it be afraid.

John 14:27

Love is all there is, it makes 
the world go 'round / Love and
only love, it can't be denied.

Bob Dylan

I was not surprised to fiind that Bible verse on the card I was handed, but I must admit that I was a little surprised to see the quotation from Dylan's song, "I Threw It All Away." The fact that Dylan was featured at this very Catholic service for Ant is an indication that I truly didn't know Ant very well. We would have talked about Dylan, I am sure, had I known that Ant knew something about him, or cared about him. We might even have gotten into a discussion of my own hope that Dylan's songs will be featured at any memorial service that might be held for me, after I have died. 

Going to Ant's memorial mass - going to a mass for someone I really didn't know very well at all - made me think about all the other obituaries I have read, since I have gotten in the habit of reading them. In our local paper, I sometimes see an obituary for someone I know, but mostly the obituaries I read are for people whom I don't know - really, people just like Ant, though in his case, I did at least meet him, and get to speak to him, during the time he was alive. 

Who are these people in those obituaries, people with whom we have lived, and who now have died? John Donne's wonderful poem came to my mind: 

For Whom the Bell Tolls
        by John Donne
No man is an island,
Entire of itself.
Each is a piece of the continent,
A part of the main.
If a clod be washed away by the sea,
Europe is the less.
As well as if a promontory were.
As well as if a manor of thine own
Or of thine friend's were.
Each man's death diminishes me,
For I am involved in mankind.
Therefore, send not to know
For whom the bell tolls,
It tolls for thee.
Each one of us is precious - and unique. We are each special. You. Me. Ant. Everyone. We don't even really know most of those who are living with us, nearby - neighbors, acquaintances, friends.

When we think of each other.... Let's Ring Them Bells! 

In celebration. In gratitude. With joy!

 
Image Credit:
https://www.forevermissed.com/ant-mcnaught/about

No comments:

Saturday, February 7, 2026

#38 / "Nationalizing" Our Voting System?

 

Click Here For The Blog In The Original

Our current president has proposed that the United States should "nationalize" its voting system. Click this link to hear the president's spokesperson, Karoline Leavitt, talk about that idea. Click right here to read a New York Times' article that disscusses the topic. This link, which will also access an article from The Times, advises that the president's scheme would represent a "doubling down on unsubstantiated claims that U.S. elections are rigged." 

I think it's pretty obvious that the proposal to have our current president "take over" all elections in the United States would be a big step towards tyranny, and I am just a bit worried that some will think that such a "nationalized" voting system would be acceptable. 

Let me point out that the nation we live in is called "The United States" for a reason. While governmental efforts to deal with our main problems - and to pursue our main goals - have more and more become "nationalized," with the federal government more and more playing a primary role, even in areas in which "local control" (like education) has always been prized, the nation was founded upon the idea that state governments are primary. Our national government is a "second layer" government. The states are the "first layer," closer to the people and more susceptible to democratic control. 

It is always hard - it's a challenge - to maintain citizen control over "government," even in the best of times, and yet maintaining our system of democratic self-government depends on the practical ability of "the people" to make sure that "the government" actually does what the people want. The smaller the unit of government, the easier it is to achieve that democratic goal. 

In the end, we won't maintain a system of "self-government" if we, as citizens, are not personally and directly involved in participating in, and closely supervising, the actual operations of government. 

I was a local government official for twenty years (elected to serve in that capacity five times). I know, from personal experience, that it is possible for elected officials to be both responsive to those citizen-voters who put them into office, and to be "in charge" of key governmental decisions. But it does take work! As one example of what I'm talking about, let me report that before every meeting of the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors (the Board met, basically, on a weekly basis, and I maintained this practice during the entire twenty years I was in office), I held an open public meeting to receive comments from anyone who wanted to speak to their elected representative directly. Anyone could come and speak to me, face to face - and they did. I handed out the agenda for the upcoming Board meeting, and let those in attendance ask questions, and make comments. That's one way that I kept in touch with the ordinary people in my community who are supposed to be "in charge" of the government - the government that is supposed to do what "we, the people," want it to do. 

Elected officials who let non-elected governmental bureaucracies set the agenda and implement policy are not doing their job. But.... let's not fault those elected officials for their dereliction. We, the people, are the ones who are mainly derelict, if we let unelected bureaucrats make all the big decisions. 

"Nationalizing" our elections would be a big step in the wrong direction. Let's not allow ourselves be fooled!
 
No comments:

Friday, February 6, 2026

#37 / The Third Civil War

 


Pictured above is Thomas Friedman, a columnist for The New York Times. In his column published in the December 13, 2025, hardcopy version of the paper, Friedman characterizes what is going on in American politics as a "Third Civil War." That characterization is highlighted in the hardcopy headline - "The United States Is Entering Its Third Civil War." Online, Friedman's headline reads this way: "Trump Isn’t Interested in Fighting A New Cold War. He Wants A New Civilizational War."

What quickly attracted my attention to Friedman's column was this statement, contained in a pull-quote (again, I'm citing to the hardcopy version of his column): "Trump wants to define the American homeland, and determine who belongs in it." 

In thinking about who "belongs" in the United States, Trump and J.D. Vance, our current Vice President, both have a hang-up about "race" and "ethnicity." Both of them suggest that our national definition is both linked to, and properly limited to, those whose progenitors came here from Western Europe, and who are, for the most part, both White and from a Judeo-Christian background. 

In fact, and to the contrary, the greatest thing about the United States is that our "nation" has never been defined by a shared racial or religious legacy. We are, to use that now-suspicious phrase made famous by John F. Kennedy, a "nation of immigrants."

What does, then, define an "American," if it is not race, religion, or origin? 

What defines an "American" is the fact that Americans are self-selected and self-designated by having pledged their lives and fortunes to the proposition that "all persons are created equal," with an equal opportunity to act both individually and collectively. This means that our national identity is connected to our acceptance of the "political" definition of who qualifies, as specified in both the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution. 

And who are those who qualify? Who qualifies is anyone who accepts what the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution say about how we will live together, and build what I try to get people to understand is a "political world." 

As I bring this blog posting to its finish, let me quote from Friedman's column (emphasis added): 

To me, the deep backdrop to Trump’s National Security Strategy [is that] he is not interested in refighting the Cold War to defend and expand the frontiers of democracy. He is, in my view, interested in fighting the civilizational war over what is the American “home” and what is the European “home,” with an emphasis on race and Christian-Judeo faith — and who is an ally in that war and who is not. 
The economics writer Noah Smith argued in his Substack this week that this was the key reason the MAGA movement began to turn away from Western Europe and draw closer to Vladimir Putin’s Russia — because Trump’s devotees saw Putin as more of a defender of white Christian nationalism and traditional values than the nations of the European Union. 
Historically, “in the American mind,” Smith wrote, “Europe stood across the sea as a place of timeless homogeneity, where the native white population had always been and would always remain.” However, “in the 2010s, it dawned on those Americans that this hallowed image of Europe was no longer accurate. With their working population dwindling, European countries took in millions of Muslim refugees and other immigrants from the Middle East and Central and South Asia — many of whom didn’t assimilate nearly as well as their peers in the U.S. You’d hear people say things like ‘Paris isn’t Paris anymore.’” 
Today’s MAGA-led American right, Smith added, does “not care intrinsically about democracy, or about allyship, or about NATO, or about the European project. They care about ‘Western civilization.’ Unless Europe expels Muslim immigrants en masse and starts talking about its Christian heritage, the Republican Party is unlikely to lift a hand to help Europe with any of its problems.” 
In other words, when protecting “Western civilization” — with a focus on race and faith — becomes the centerpiece of U.S. national security, the biggest threat becomes uncontrolled immigration into America and Western Europe — not Russia or China. And “protecting American culture, ‘spiritual health’ and ‘traditional families’ are framed as core national security requirements,” as the defense analyst Rick Landgraf pointed out on the defense website “War on the Rocks.” 
And that’s why the Trump National Security Strategy paper is no accident or the work of a few low-level ideologues. It is, in fact, the Rosetta Stone explaining what really animates this administration at home and abroad.

Let us use Friedman's "Rosetta Stone" to understand what political proposition is being suggested to us. 

When we have understood that, when we are clear about what is being proposed to us, let us then reject that proposition - outright and unequivocally - since it is clear that this proposition is so profoundly "unAmerican!"   

No comments:

Thursday, February 5, 2026

#36 / The Mitford Sisters (And Equality)

  


An article in the December 1, 2025, edition of The New York Times provided an in-depth look into the life of Jessica Mitford, who is best known, I believe, for having authored The American Way of Death. 

But did you know she was a communist? Well, I didn't, or had forgotten that fact, if I ever knew it. 

The recent article in The Times is titled this way: "The High-Born Rebel Who Took Up the Cause of the Commoner." It provides a lot of background on Mitford, known to her family and friends as "Decca," and the article includes the picture above, in which Jessica/Decca is at the far left. That picture also appears in an earlier Times' article, "The 6 Mitford Sisters, Their Jewelry and a New TV Series." That article was published on May 25th of last year.

Oddly enough, The most recent Times' article made me think about our Declaration of Independence, and particularly its claim that it is "self-evident" that "all [persons] are created equal." 

I know that the Declaration actually says that it is all "men," not all "persons" who are created "equal," but I think we now all believe that the 1776 expression was certainly intended to apply to everyone, not just males. Of course, there may be an argument to the contrary, since if it was truly "self-evident" to our Founding Fathers (and to those who came after them) that men and women were "equal," politically and governmentally speaking, then it is a little difficult to explain why women didn't get the right to vote, as our nation came into existence, and why the Constitution was amended to give freed [male] slaves the right to vote in 1870, but women only got the right to vote in 1919, almost fifty years later.

Anyway, here is how the recent article mentioning all of the Mitford sisters made me start thinking about the Declaration of Independence, and its claim that all persons are created equal. There were six sisters, and they were all quite different in their political preferences, not to mention in other things, too. 

The oldest sister, Nancy, became a novelist and parodied the upper classes. No real political involvements are mentioned. The next oldest sister, Pamela, went into seclusion at an early age, and it is intimated that she lived as a lesbian - again, no real "political" views are mentioned. Diana, the next in line, called the "great beauty of the family," was a bonafide Fascist, who got married at the home of Joseph Goebbels. Unity, the next sister, went to Germany to pursue a romance with Hitler, and ended up as one of his inner circle. Then came Decca (Jessica), who became a Communist. The youngest, Deborah was a Duchess, with "royalty" her seeming political preference. 

I have always thought that it is critical to understand that "Equal" does not mean "the Same," or "Similar," and this listing of the different political affiliations of the Mitford sisters made me think about it again. If, in fact, if we are "all Equal," as the Declaration claims is "self-evident," this is obviously not because we are similar, or are in any way "the same." We are, all of us, totally "different" from one another. We are not created "the Same." If there is anything that is "self-evident" that's it. The Mitford women illuminate how true that is. 

But what, then, does it mean to affirm that it is "self-evident" that all of us are "created equal"?

That language in the Declaration, it seems to me, is the strongest possible affirmation that we are absolutely "Equal" in our rights, and privileges, and in our absolutely proper demand that we receive equal treatment by our government, despite every possible difference that might be cited to divide us. 

What about "transgender" persons, to pick a "hot topic?" Transgender persons, like women, like person with dark skin, like everyone in all their manifold distinctiveness are totally and absolutely "equal" to everyone else with respct to their claim upon the society, which is to be enforced and enabled by our government. 

Why the article on the Mitford sisters made me think of this is not completely clear, but that single family, in its differences, does illustrate how we need to understand that our society and our government is committed - must be committed - to treating everyone "equally," no matter how "different" they may be. 

Isn't that a wonderful understanding of what it means to be alive? 

We live in a nation that has been founded on what we have claimed as a self-evident truth that we are "Equal," and that this radical equality of all humans, everywhere, is the only relevant thing when it comes to government. Our "differences," so often held to be of such importance, have no real relevance, at all, when we consider our government, and how it is supposed to act.

Despite differences, we are "all in this together." Once we think about it, that is, indeed, "self-evident." All different. All "Equal." All "in it together." 

How great!

No comments:

Wednesday, February 4, 2026

#35 / De-Skilling America - And The World Entire

   


Natasha Singer has told readers of The New York Times that "Tech Giants" are "Racing To Add A.I. To Schools Around The World." Just click that link to read all about it. 

Let me tell you, however, before you do click that link, that the Natasha Singer who wrote the article I am linking is a technology reporter, and is not the vocalist from the Dominican Republic, who is, I am betting, considerably more "famous" than The Times' reporter. Let me also say that while the hardcopy version of The Times' headline is different, The Times reveals in its online headline that not everyone thinks that adding A.I. to schools is a great boon to humanity. "Skeptics Raise Concerns," is how that web-based headline puts it. 

It will be no surprise to anyone who regularly reads my blog postings that I am personally skeptical of the benefits of A.I.. In fact, "largely opposed to," instead of "skeptical of," is how I would chart my thoughts about disseminating A.I. to schools - or to anywhere else, for that matter. My blog posting yesterday discussed that very topic.  

Here is an excerpt from the Times' article that reflects the kind of concerns I have: 

A recent study from Microsoft and Carnegie Mellon University found that popular A.I. chatbots may diminish critical thinking. A.I. bots can produce authoritative-sounding errors and misinformation, and some teachers are grappling with widespread A.I.-assisted student cheating. 
Silicon Valley for years has pushed tech tools like laptops and learning apps into classrooms, with promises of improving education access and revolutionizing learning. 
Still, a global effort to expand school computer access — a program known as “One Laptop per Child” — did not improve students’ cognitive skills or academic outcomes, according to studies by professors and economists of hundreds of schools in Peru. Now, as some tech boosters make similar education access and fairness arguments for A.I., children’s agencies like UNICEF are urging caution and calling for more guidance for schools. 
“With One Laptop per Child, the fallouts included wasted expenditure and poor learning outcomes,” Steven Vosloo, a digital policy specialist at UNICEF, wrote in a recent post. “Unguided use of A.I. systems may actively de-skill students and teachers.”

I think that using A.I. will not only "de-skill" students and teachers; it will "de-skill" anyone who relies on A.I. in connection with trying to "think" about something. A.I., in fact, deemphasizes the need to "think" in the first place. Want a poem to serenade your sweetheart? Want to find out how inflation has affected the nation, over the years? Want to...... whatever? If all you need to do is to ask your friendly A.I. Chatbot, you will never have to comb through obscure reports, or think about how to make your verses melodious.

Wasn't there an effort, one time, to get people to understand that the following phrase was actually the right way to think about using drugs:



This is, in my opinion, exactly how to think about the "usefulness" of A.I..


Image Credits:

No comments:

Tuesday, February 3, 2026

#34 / Sam (B.S.) Altman

   


The title on my blog posting today was stimulated by a column by Michelle Goldberg, who writes for The New York Times. My title, implicitly, accuses Sam Altman of "bullshit," to spell it out for you. That's Sam Altman, pictured above. 

I, personally, think that it is pretty clear that the deployment of Artificial Intelligence, or AI, as that deployment is currenty underway, raises hugely important questions. I also think that these questions are properly catagorized as "political" questions, and they are of consumate importance. Frequent readers of my blog will not be surprised by this assertion. Senator Bernie Sanders spells out a number of these political questions in the video below: 


Michelle Goldberg, in the column I have linked in my first paragraph, also spells out important reasons to question the deployment of AI. Her column focuses on "which party" will lead anti-AI efforts, but her concern about that question stems from Golberg's contention (agreeing with Sanders) that we are "sleepwalking into a dystopia that any rational person can see from miles away." 

If you haven't spotted that upcoming dystopia yourself, do listen to what Senator Sanders has to say in his video, and read Goldberg's column, outlining her thoughts (The Times' paywall permitting, of course). 

As Goldberg properly notes, AI "obviously has beneficial uses." However, she says, "the list of things it is ruining is long." Goldberg's list of things being ruined by AI includes (1) Education; (2) Employment; (3) The environment; (4) Privacy, and (5) "Our remaining sense of collective reality." Again, Goldberg and Sanders are both pointing to REAL threats and concerns. 

And what about Sam Altman? Altman began his involvement with AI by helping to set up a nonprofit corporation dedicated to preventing the potentially negative impacts that AI might have. Time having passed, Altman has transmuted his nonprofit into a for-profit company, and he is a "booster." Here is how Goldberg describes the trajectory of Altman's "changing views" (emphasis added):

In “Empire of A.I.,” Karen Hao’s book about Altman’s company, she quotes an email he wrote to Elon Musk in 2015. “Been thinking a lot about whether it’s possible to stop humanity from developing A.I.,” wrote Altman. “I think the answer is almost definitely not.” Given that, he proposed a “Manhattan Project for A.I.,” so that the dangerous technology would belong to a nonprofit supportive of aggressive government regulation. 
This year Altman restructured OpenAI into a for-profit company. Like other tech barons, he has allied himself with Donald Trump, who recently signed an executive order attempting to override state A.I. regulations.

Goldberg's column goes on to raise a question about "what we get in return for this systematic degradation of much of the stuff that makes life worth living," and in looking for an answer to that question, Goldberg quotes Sam Altman, directly: 

“The rate of new wonders being achieved will be immense,” he wrote in June. “It’s hard to even imagine today what we will have discovered by 2035; maybe we will go from solving high-energy physics one year to beginning space colonization the next year.” 

Altman's answer to the concerns being raised is that what we're going to get from AI will be "immense, hard even to imagine." Let's not try to avoid saying it. This is nothing but promotional bullshit, intended to keep investors willing to put their money into Altman's corporation, hoping for a big win, moneywise. Altman and those who are funding his efforts are aiming to make billions, and there is no substantive discussion about the very real concerns that Goldberg and Senator Senators are enumerating. In fact, as Goldberg says in her column, "the most high-profile innovations that OpenAI’s ChatGPT has announced in 2025 are custom porn and an in-app shopping feature."

I am always promoting "self-government," which means that we, the ordinary people of the nation, who will be directly affected by what happens, should be having a direct impact on that "what happens" question. We should be "running the place," not acting like spectators at a tennis match. That idea about self-government is what got us started almost 250 years ago. 

To be in charge, we need to confront the hard questions, and then figure out what to do. 

Bullshit does not assist us!


Image Credits:
(2) - https://youtu.be/K3qS345gAWI?si=1CYaM9PqZliBFa3A 

No comments:

Monday, February 2, 2026

#33 / Curtains For The Movie Theater?

 


In an "Upward Mobility" column in The Wall Street Journal - a column that appeared in print on December 9, 2025 - Jason L. Riley opined  that it would "soon be curtains for the movie theatre." He could be right! As a "pull quote" in the hardcopy edition of the newspaper put it: "older generations can't be bothered to go, and younger people want to stream their films." Right at the end of his essay, Riley expanded on this "pull quote," as follows:

Younger generations raised on smaller screens can’t miss what they never experienced, and they seem mostly to enjoy staring at themselves on their devices, which is a topic for another day. In any case, streaming allows them to consume movies on their terms rather than the theater’s, and Netflix is giving them what they want.

Let me address Riley's "topic for another day" right here - and right now. As he notes, our relationships with truth and reality, are now most typically experienced as we gaze into a "screen" of some kind. That includes how we relate to the movies we watch, but the same phenomenon is evident in education, in business, in social interchanges, and in politics. A preference for human interactions mediated by our "screens," and by "online" exchanges instead of "real life" exchanges, has diverted a lot of real life political action into online engagement - when it hasn't switched it off, entirely.

I don't think this kind of approach to politics will "compute," to pick a verb. Effective political action requires real people gathering in small groups, meeting frequently and jointly working to achieve specific governmental actions - making our so-called "elected representatives" actually represent the people they are charged with representing. 

I recently had occasion to respond to a Santa Cruz County resident who is upset with a proposed development proposal in an unincorporated part of the County, and who had written me for encouragement, asking if she and her neighbors were, now, basically, "powerless." As I read Riley's observations about the movies, and thought about some of the political implications of the migration of so much of our lives, including our politics, "online," my advice to this county resident came to mind: 

I don’t really know anything about this proposed development. It’s in “the County,” not the City, so the land use policies of the County will apply, and the Supervisor who represents this District is, by reputation, pretty pro-development. State law is also very supportive of higher density housing developments, so I am sure this is an uphill battle. However, “powerless” is not the right word. 
The key thing, I believe, is to have an organized group in opposition. Such a group would need to meet, in person, on a frequent (probably weekly) basis, and learn everything that can be known about the project, and then build broad opposition to the project as now proposed, and then make the County Supervisor who represents this area know how much opposition there is, so the Supervisor starts working to respond to local constituents. 
Bottom line, local residents are not “powerless,” but they need to get organized to consolidate and maximize their power - they need to spend a lot of time (and probably some money) to impact governmental decisions, in an environment in which lots of residents are really “detached,” and in which the state government is now affirmatively helping development interests defeat local residents who [oftentimes quite properly] are opposed to a development proposal that might have very negative environmental and other impacts.

The need for "in-person" engagement is necessary for effective political action at all levels - local, state, and national. To be politically effective, in other words, we need to do it in "real life," not "online," and we need to reallocate our time so that "politics" and "political organizing" gets some increased and appreciable share of the time not already absolutely committed somewhere else.

Less "entertainment," and more "engagement." Whatever the future for the movie theater, that's the prescription that will keep our politics healthy.

No comments:

Sunday, February 1, 2026

#32 / Our "God-Given" Right?

 

I learned, from the January 26, 2026, edition of The New York Times, that Republican members of Congress were "split in response to the shooting" of Alex Jeffrey Pretti, who was killed by a federal agent in Minneapolis on January 24th. 

I assume that those reading this blog posting will have heard of this killing, and will, probably, have already formed an impression about whether or not it was justified. The circumstances were a bit different from those present when a federal agent killed Renee Good, but in both cases, citizens who believed that they were exercising their rights, as American citizens, were killed by federal immigration agents. I have already commented, in an earlier blog posting, about the killing of Renee Good. 

Cited in the January 26th article was Representative Thomas Massie, a Republican from Kentucky. Here is what Massie apparently said, in criticizing what the federal agents dealing with Pretti did: 

Carrying a firearm is not a death sentence, it’s a Constitutionally protected God-given right, and if you don’t understand this you have no business in law enforcement or government.

I am not willing to go quite as far as Representative Massie. There is no doubt that American citizens have a Constitutional right to carry a firearm. The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution secures our right to do that - and it's clear. The Second Amendment provides that we have an explicit, Constitutional right "to keep and bear Arms."

Our Seconed Amendment rights, however, are not "God-given." The right to "keep and bear arms" was established by a political choice made at the time that the Bill of Rights was added to our Constitution. God was not directly involved. That right to "keep and bear arms" has been established by human (not divine) action. 

We could change that, you know! 

Let's not forget that fact!

 
Image Credit:
https://gundigest.com/handguns/best-9mm-pistol

No comments:

Saturday, January 31, 2026

#31 / A Peace Action Questionnaire

  

Click Here For The Blog In The Original

I am a contributor to Peace Action, a nonprofit group based in Silver Spring, Maryland. Click the link if you'd like to become a contributor, too.

Peace Action describes its work as follows: 

Peace Action is the nation’s largest grassroots peace network with chapters and affiliates in states across the country. We organize our network to place pressure on Congress and the administration through write-in campaigns, internet actions, grassroots lobbying and direct action. Through a close relationship with progressive members of Congress, we play a key role in devising strategies to move forward peace legislation. As a leading member of various coalitions, we lend our expertise and large network to achieving common goals. 
For over 60 years, Peace Action has worked for an environment where all are free from violence and war. We understand that long-standing global conflicts require long-term solutions and that US foreign policy has a lasting effect on the world. We are working to promote a new U.S. foreign policy that is based on peaceful support for human rights and democracy, eliminating the threat of weapons of mass destruction, and cooperation with the world community. We organize against pre-emptive wars, and advocate for the withdrawal of American troops and contractors from the endless wars across the Middle East. 
There are still nearly 15,000 nuclear weapons in the world today. The U.S. and Russia have thousands of nuclear weapons on hair trigger alert ready to launch in minutes. While the Cold War may have ended, the nuclear threat has not. The only way to ensure that nuclear weapons will never again be used – whether purposefully, or accidentally – is global abolition.

Recently, as a past contributor, I received a questionnaire from Peace Action, a "2026 Campaign Priorities Survey." I was asked for my personal views about what Peace Action should be focusing on during this year just now beginning this January. Peace Action asked some specific questions, and then also for any general "feedback I might have about the orgnization's programs and strategies." Peace Action provided me with a half-page space to write down my thoughts. Here's what I wrote: 

We need, as a nation, to inspire young people, particularly, to see their personal lives not from the perspective of how can I get ahead/survive individually, but from the perspective of what we can each do, individually, to help bring about, together, the huge economic, social, and political changes that will allow us - and the whole world - to survive. In other words, we need to find an effective means to encourage and allow concerned people (and especially young people) to reallocate their time, moving away from individual career and entertainment activities as the most important priority to activities that will promote environmental protection, economic and social justice, and genuine peace, on a worldwide basis.

Time reallocation. That's what I am advocating as a major need. And I think that is true for all of us. For we "old folks," too - as well as for young people. During the 1960's, people redirected their energies from inidividual efforts to "get ahead" to engage in joint and collective efforts to stop the war then proceding in Vietnam, and to end the centuries-old regime of racial injustice that has afflicted our nation from its beginnings. We changed the world - and for the better - though backsliding has definitely occurred.

Today, global warming and the increasing threat of nuclear war loom over every one of our lives. And while some progress has been made on racial, economic, and social justice, I do believe much more work is needed. 

My "old folks" view is that "time is short." 

Time reallocation - for all of us. That can help us meet this moment! For those who follow my blog postings on a more or less regular basis, you will see that I am reiterating, as this first month of the year comes to an end, what I said as this month began!

 
Image Credit:
https://www.peaceaction.org/who-we-are/

No comments:

Friday, January 30, 2026

#30 / Could, Should, Might, Don't!

 


I heard about the book pictured above from a review in the "Bookshelf" column in The Wall Street Journal. Andrew Stark's review was headlined, "A Profession Of Prediction." Stark says that the book he reviewed, Could Should Might Don't, by Nick Foster, is an examination of "how we think about the future." 

Let me weigh in with a personal observation, which is directed at a slightly different, though clearly related, question. "How should we think about the future?"

My comment here replays comments I have made before, in earlier blog postings. I continue to be concerned that we not see ourselves mainly as "observers" of reality, but as the "creators" of reality. That is even more important when the "reality" we are thinking about, and discussing, is a "future" reality. 

"Observation," telling us "what is," makes the most sense when we are talking about current conditions. When we think about the future, though, I suggest that we need to think in terms of "possibility," not "observation." Thus, any discussion of what the future "could" be, or what the future "should" be, needs to include a focus on our own ability, by our personal action, to "make it so," to use the language notably employed by Jean-Luc Picard, in Star Trek.

Based on the review, it looks to me like Nick Foster's book is mainly focused on how we might best "predict" the future, and that, of course, is important. It's important to plot the trajectory of events and to know what "might" happen in the future. It's also important to consider those "don't do" actions and activities, too, as we contemplate what sort of a future we might have to confront. Here, for instance, is one of my favorite "don't do" actions: Don't ever use nuclear weapons again, ever! Click right here to see what I said about that topic last Wednesday.

When we "think about the future," though, what is most important is to think about what we want the future to be, and then about what actions we need to take to create that future. 

Our "real" future - the future "reality" that we will confront (starting with tomorrow, and moving forward from there) is not properly understood by looking ahead at what "might" happen (including all the bad things that "might" happen if we undertake some of those "don't do" proscriptions). 

What is the best way to "think about the future?" 

What "could" we do? What "should" we do? Those are the questions we need to focus upon, as we think about the future, and what we really need to do is to start is by thinking first about what we "want" to do. 

Then, we all need to turn into Star Trek fans, and follow this famous admonition: 


 
Image Credit:
https://us.macmillan.com/books/9780374619350/couldshouldmightdont/

No comments:

Thursday, January 29, 2026

#29 / With More Tragedy And Stupidity

 

 
The image above depicts Holman W. Jenkins, Jr., a member of the editorial board of The Wall Street Journal. Below, I am providing you with a copy of his column dated January 28, 2026, so you can read it in its entirety. I think it's worth reading. 

The column is particularly worth reading if you know something about the editorial positions that have typically been taken by The Wall Street Journal. The Journal is (or has been, perhaps) extremely supportive of our current president - at least, that's the way I read it. The column below, though, is different. It claims, for instance, that "Fight, fight, fight isn't a presidential coalition built to achieve anything." The title of the column implicitly calls our current president "mean," and the column states that our current president is repeating a [failed] pattern with respect to his "deportation binge," but that he has done so "with more tragedy and stupidity." 

Now, do you think that there is any chance that Republican Members of Congress might start doing a little "truth telling" of their own? 

We can only hope that they'll start doing that - and/or we can replace them this coming November. Let's not forget that option!

oooOOOooo

Trump’s Regression to the Mean

By Holman W. Jenkins, Jr., January. 27, 2026

Only with more tragedy and stupidity, Donald Trump repeats a pattern. Like every other president’s deportation binge, his is ending in a backlash while producing no meaningful effect on the large U.S. illegal immigrant population.

Take the headline on this column as a double entendre but today’s subject is the conventional meaning of regression to the mean, the statistical phenomenon whereby extreme outcomes are followed by more typical or average outcomes.

To give the most obvious indicator, the betting markets have signaled for months that Republicans in the fall are likely to lose the House and perhaps the Senate. 

Lacking in last week’s Davos hysteria was any sense of politics. Mr. Trump’s address was a stump speech for channel flickers at home, on the way to dropping the Greenland threat that he so typically parlayed into global attention.

Guess who else is a politician? Every national leader in the room in Davos, who all have voters back home. Mark Carney could have not bothered getting back on his plane unless he found a suitably viral way to express what Canadian voters were feeling about Mr. Trump in that moment.

And yet NATO will survive. Quite obviously it will become only a more attractive U.S. partner as Europeans shoulder more of the cost and responsibility. 

Say what you will about the Davosites, they are worldly types who understand regression to the mean. The next U.S. president won’t be anything like Mr. Trump, most importantly lacking the license he gave himself to behave the way he does by being Donald Trump in public for 40 years before becoming president.

Nor will the next president’s way be paved by the political gold that Mr. Trump got from the idiocies of Adam Schiff, Rachel Maddow, James Comey and the Bidens Joe and Hunter, who might as well have been on the Trump payroll.

Nor will he or she benefit from the nakedly commercial, ratings-based codependency of Mr. Trump and his cable TV detractors, also a product of his unique career path.

At every opportunity, headline writers define Mr. Trump as an outlier, a norm breaker, an offender against all that is holy. That is, until he opens his mouth at Davos. Then he becomes, alarmingly, synonymous with “the U.S.”

Davosites aren’t fooled. They know Mr. Trump is not a country of 340 million. They may even know a bit of electoral history. Nationalist, Midwestern, isolationist, culturally conservative America gets its hands on one party or the other’s nomination every 60 years or so: William Jennings Bryan, Barry Goldwater, Mr. Trump.

I would add another reversion to the mean. An OECD study finds a measurable increase in the stupidity of U.S. and other Western publics in the social-media age. Politicians speak frankly of a post-literate electorate. A practicing psychotherapist pointed out on these pages that Trump derangement syndrome is actually a bipartisan affliction. You suffer from it when your self-esteem is threatened by somebody saying something positive about Mr. Trump. You’re no less afflicted if you’re a supporter who feels threatened when somebody says something negative about him.

There’s only one way for the pendulum to swing: back toward adulthood, or what our therapist contributor calls proper psychological distance.

How will you know? When one of those serious, lauded Democratic governors, the kind always being cited as a future president, decides it’s safe to give an adult speech about Ukraine. Or when there is a sudden abatement in the panting ambition of Sen. Chris Murphy of Connecticut to be this cycle’s Adam Schiff.

As for Mr. Trump, he has three years to change the story line, but the provisional epitaph has been written. He is failing to expand his coalition. He shrinks it with reckless gestures aimed at keeping his name in the news. He had the AI wind at his back, the post-Covid recovery, a business and investment community united in revulsion at the fake moderation of his predecessor Mr. Biden. Mr. Trump could be building a pro-growth legacy like Ronald Reagan’s, leaving his mark on both parties by reviving Americans’ faith in themselves as a free and enterprising people.

What is Reagan not remembered for? Deportations. He put his effort into legalizing people already here—nearly three million, the largest such legalization in U.S. history. He made a point of promoting and signing a law with increased enforcement powers but barely used them. He deported in eight years fewer people than President Obama did in six months. Reagan understood the purpose of prosecutorial discretion. America had failed so long and so consistently to enforce its own immigration laws or make them sensible. It owed better to those now here than to treat every undocumented grandmother and restaurant worker as the equivalent of a Tren de Aragua gangster.

This even Mr. Trump has repeatedly given an impression of understanding.


No comments:
Subscribe to: Comments (Atom)