All posts by Dr. ESP

The Broken Mirror

Culture, Media

Two events in the last 48 hours make it clear, the motto for the MAGA-verse should be, “Don’t watch what we say, watch what we say!”  (No, that is not a typo.)

Event #1:  A remote segment during Friday night’s edition of Jimmy Kimmel Live consisting of interviews with three South Carolina Trump supporters.  Here are excerpts from “Debate and Switch.”  The interview starts by asking each if they would mind if she asks them about things that Joe Biden has said or done.

Interviewer:  What did you think when Joe Biden suggested that Covid could be cured by shining a bright light inside the body?
Trumpster #1:  It is very sad that Joe Biden is clearly a dementia patient.
Interviewer:  I’m so sorry.  I got my notes mixed up.  Can we start all over?
Trumpster #1: Okay.
Interviewer:  What did you think when Donald Trump suggested that Covid could be cured by shining a bright light inside the body?
Trumpster #1:  It depends on what that technology is.

Interviewer:  There are accusations Joe Biden cheated on his wife with a porn star after his son was born, and there’s actually a paper trail showing he paid the sex worker $130,000 to keep quiet about it.
Trumpster #2:   Who did that?  Joe Biden?
Interviewer:  Joe Biden.
Trumpster #2:  And he was making less than $100,000 a year at that time as a senator.  How does he do that?
Interviewer: You tell me.  Would you vote for someone who did that?
Trumpster #2:  Of course not.
Interviewer.  So Trump did do that.
Trumpster #2:  Trump had a fling with Stormy Daniels.
Interviewer:  And paid her $130,000.
Trumpster #2:  And paid her hush money.
Interviewer:  Yes, and you’re voting for him.
Trumpster #2:  I am.  My father had affairs too and I still respect him.

Interviewer:  How do you feel about Joe Biden using bone spurs to dodge the Vietnam draft?
Trumpster #3:  Joe Biden has a problem.  He isn’t an American.  He isn’t a patriot.
Interviewer:  I’m sorry, I asked you about Biden but I meant Trump.  Can I ask you the question again?
Trumpster #3:  Yes you may.
Interviewer:  How do you feel about Donald Trump using his bone spurs to dodge the Vietnam draft?
Trumpster #3:  My brother-in-law had flat feet. I’m sure you cannot go into a military zone like Vietnam with bad feet.  You just can’t do the job.  And it actually impacts the other soldiers.

To be fair, the Kimmel staffer could have spent days working on this project in order to find these three “gems.”  As we know, there are also a few nuts in every box of Cracker Jacks, even ones who would give permission for this footage to be aired on late night television.  Posthumous kudos to Andy Warhol.  It’s amazing what people will do for one minute, much less 15 minutes of fame.

Event #2:  The South Carolina GOP Primary.  Surely, most Palmetto State Trump supporters could not be this unaware.  If only there was a way to prove it.  As legendary sports reporter Warner Wolf would say, “Let’s go to the video tape.”  In this case it is National Election Pool (NEP) exit polls from yesterday’s South Carolina GOP primary.  When voters were asked about the condition of the national economy, 16 percent said it was “Good,” and 84 percent said it was “Not Good.”  They were then asked about their “family’s financial situation.”  The envelope please.

Getting Ahead/22 percent
Holding Steady/60 percent
Falling Behind/16 percent

Really?  Eight-two percent of South Carolina GOP voters are doing okay or better and yet 84 percent think the national economy is in the proverbial dumpster.  Not to mention every indicator of national economic health is performing at a record pace or trending in that direction.

This morning, not a single major newspaper or media outlet reported anything about this case of cognitive dissonance from the NEP polls.  I had to go back to last night’s MSNBC’s election night coverage to find where it appeared once on the crawl at the bottom of the screen.  None of the MSNBC commentators mentioned it during the broadcast.

This does not happen by accident.  No one wakes up one morning and says, “You know, the economy sucks but my family situation is pretty good.”  Those conclusions come from different sources.  You understand your personal financial condition through everyday experiences.  You know when you can and cannot pay the bills, even if inflation is above the target set by the Federal Reserve Bank.

Information about the national economy is provided by outsiders.  And your outside sources are a matter of choice.  I am sure if you asked the 84 percent who think the economy is “not good” where they get their news, a significant majority would be Fox News and Fox Business viewers.  I do not expect the Murdoch media empire to address this “I’m fine but…” anomaly.  Surely, someone in the “liberal press” noticed South Carolina voters were speaking out of both sides of their mouths.  Yet, they said nothing.

Is this going to convert die-hard MAGA voters?  Of course not.  But 2024 is not just about saving America from Donald Trump.  It is also a campaign to expose the irrationality underpinning the MAGA movement.  Certainly, there is someone out there who saw the Kimmel segment and thought, “I’m not that crazy, am I?”  More importantly, they should not have to depend on a late night talk show host or a Sunday morning blogger to point this out.

POSTSCRIPT

I rarely defend Donald Trump.  But unlike MAGA world which believes Fox News, NewsMax and OANN can do no wrong, journalistic integrity is important no matter the source.  Last night, Lawrence O’Donnell, who should know better, echoed a story going around that Trump called his wife “Mercedes” during Saturday’s speech at CPAC.  To be fair, Trump was lying about how supportive Melania has been despite the fact she has not been with him in court or on the campaign trail.  Of course, the lemmings in the audience applauded loudly.  Then Trump turned slightly to his left and said, “Mercedes, how about that?”  Even I know that the wife of CPAC president Matt Schlapp and Trump’s second White House Director of Communications is (drum roll) “Mercedes Schlapp.”  And chances were pretty good she was sitting in the front row during Trump’s speech.

I have no doubt there will be a Trump or MAGA PAC ad in which they talk about “how desperate the liberal press is.”  And O’Donnell and others handed him the ammunition to credibly do exactly that. 

Never has this Nate Silver quote been more relevant.  “Distinguishing the signal from the noise requires both scientific knowledge and self-knowledge.”

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP

OPENAIheimer

Culture, Random Thoughts

[NOTE: The best way NOT to get my thoughts on a subject is to identify a topic and say, “You need to write about this.”  In most cases, the seed of a specific post comes from a personal discussion with friend or former colleague.  Then, something that emerges during the course of that conversation suggests a need for a deeper dive into the subject matter.  Or, in the case of today’s topic, my reaction to the issue under consideration is, “Where have I seen or heard this before?”]

For the past couple of days, I had a totally unrelated conversation with a long time mentor and friend about the importance of the humanities as part of a well-rounded education.  He asked my thoughts about how the humanities program at his alma mater might engage students in the STEM disciplines with the goal of helping them appreciate the value of literature, art and philosophy and their relevance to their career aspirations.  Knowing his affinity for the “Socratic method” of teaching, I was reminded of a PBS program (1977-81) called, “Steve Allen’s Meeting of Minds.”  For each episode, Allen cast an ensemble of actors to portray famous figures from the past such as Plato, Marie Antoinette, Martin Luther, Charles Darwin, and Catherine the Great.  The content consisted of a largely scripted conversation in which each opined about a current topic from their own historical perspective.

I suggested the university might revive this format as part of a series of seminars open to all students regardless of major.  I then asked ChatGPT to create a sample of what the script my look like.  “Create a dialogue between Edmond Burke, Thomas Paine and Machiavelli.”  And it did with Burke setting the stage.

Good evening, gentlemen. What an intriguing gathering we have here: the advocate of conservatism, the champion of revolution, and the pragmatist of power.

My friend responded with the following email which focused more on my use of ChatGPT than the content it generated.

BEYOND BELIEF!
A real challenge going forward!

To which I replied:

It is no coincidence that the emergence of AI should come at the same time as “Oppenheimer.”  Hopefully, we learned a lesson about the benefits and risks of technology from Einstein and Oppenheimer.  Though I doubt it.

My friend is not one to let me off so easily.  He came back with:

Ironically, we (referring to himself and his wife) just watched it, ending just 10 minutes ago, with very interesting observations from her.
Neither of you were witness to VJ Day!
However, no use of nuclear weapons since that fateful day!

The debate was afoot.  The following is an edited, expanded version of my next email about the perceived connection between the emergence of readily available artificial intelligence in the form of Open AI and a movie about the birth of nuclear warfare.

First, I wanted to correct the record.  I wondered if my friend assumed that I thought the decision to use atomic weapons to bring a quicker end to World War II was a mistake.  If you have read my book on the creative process, you would know I believe there is no such thing as a bad decision.  The outcome and long-term consequences of the decision may not be what we hoped for,  but at the time and circumstances under which the decision was made, it was not wrong.

What I find hard to believe, in hindsight, is that nobody, even as the Enola Gay took off from North Field in the Mariana Islands, asked the question, “What do we need to do on day one after Japan surrendered to ensure that this threat to humanity is properly managed?”  Especially, since they had to know Russia or someone else would master the technology to create their own bomb.

You might argue winning the war was such a priority, no one had time to consider what comes next.  But another situation in the exact same time period tells us that did not have to be the case.  Consider the almost immediate response to stabilize Western Europe after Germany’s surrender.  In 1947, Secretary of State George C. Marshall outlined what would become known as the Marshall Plan, authorized with passage of the Economic Cooperation Act of 1948.  Economic distress in Europe post-World War I was a major factor in Hitler’s rise to power.  The United States was determined to make sure that environment was not recreated after the Nazi defeat.

What’s more, the Western allies recognized there needed to be a credible deterrent to discourage future efforts by Germany or the Soviet Union to annex territory as Hitler did in Austria and Czechoslovakia.  The groundwork was laid by Great Britain and France with the Treaty of Dunkirk in March 1947,  The March 1948 Treaty of Brussels expanded the mutual assistance pact to include the Benelux nations.  The February 1948 communist coup d’état in Czechoslovakia became the catalyst for the establishment of NATO with the U.S. and Canada as members in April 1949.

From watching the movie about his life, one could contend Robert Oppenheimer was a visionary in the same mold as Marshall.  He knew what he created and the long-term dangers of an arms race.  His warning went unheeded.  The U.S. and other nuclear powers waited until 1968, 23 years after the wartime use of atomic weapons, to sign a nuclear proliferation treaty.  By then the genie was already out of the bottle.  Introspection about the estimated civilians who died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, even if justified from a military perspective, should have raised moral questions about “what next” to preempt or at least temper a multi-national nuclear arms race.

Should we not be asking those exact questions with the emergence of artificial intelligence?  Or, are we going to wait until AI produces some devastating outcome before we have mechanisms to manage its constructive use, potential benefits and unimagined dangers?

For what it’s worth.
Dr.  ESP

Guilty As Charged

Media

Tuesday’s rejection of the latest appeal by [Wall Street Journal reporter Evam] Gershkovich’s lawyers means he is set to remain behind bars until at least March 30, which would mark more than a year since he was taken into custody on an allegation of espionage that the Journal and the U.S. government vehemently deny.

~Wall Street Journal/February 21, 2024

Gershkovich has become a cause célèbre within the journalistic community.  But let us be honest.  How was Bob Woodward meeting with FBI deputy director Mark Felt in the garage of the Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts any different than Aldrich Ames or Jonathan Pollard’s rendezvous with their respective foreign sponsors? Or journalists embedded with U.S. troops in Vietnam or during the second Iraq war.  The Defense Department granted permission for these “moles” to accompany military units in hopes they would built support for American engagement in these conflicts.  But were less than pleased when they exposed atrocities such as My Lai and Abu Ghraib.

Effective investigative journalists are as proficient in the “dark arts” of espionage as any intelligence operative.  They communicate in code using burner phones.  They conduct clandestine business in remote locations.  When they are skeptical of the information they obtain, they seek corroboration from additional sources or tangible evidence.

Dr. ESP, surely you are not suggesting that Russia is justified in detaining Gershkovich.  And if not, what is the difference between what he was doing, reporting on the Russian invasion of Ukraine, and say, the February 15 arrest of FBI informant Alexander Smirnov? 

Thank you for that softball question.  It puts Tucker Carlson’s interview with Vladimir Putin to shame.

The simple response is, like any profession, there are honest practitioners and dishonest ones in both journalism and intelligence.  An honest player in either field seeks accurate and truthful information whether it supports or refutes an initial hypothesis.  Consider Gershkovich’s last report before his arrest on March 30, 2003.  The March 28 article “Russia’s Economy Is Starting to Come Undone,” co-authored by colleague Georgi Kantchev is bolstered by readily available statistical data and interviews with named sources.  If their goal had been to suggest a financial crisis–weakened ruble, loss of European oil customers, etc.–signaled an imminent end to Russian aggression in Ukraine, they would not have included the following paragraphs.

The government can still borrow domestically, and the sovereign-wealth fund still has $147 billion, even after shrinking by $28 billion since before the invasion. Russia has found ways to sell its oil to China and India. China has stepped in to provide many parts Russia used to get from the West.

Russian officials have acknowledged the difficulties but say the economy has been quick to adapt. Mr. Putin has said his government has been effective in countering the threats to the economy.

They even quoted Putin’s state of the nation address where he claimed Russia did not face a choice between the prosecution of the war and the domestic economy.

You know, there is a maxim, guns versus butter. Of course, national defense is the top priority, but in resolving strategic tasks in this area, we should not repeat the mistakes of the past and should not destroy our own economy.

Which makes Gershkovich’s arrest all the more puzzling.  Would an American-sponsored spy tasked with helping to bring down Putin’s government suggest that global sanctions have not deterred Russian military goals?  Arresting Gershkovich says more about Putin and the Russian economy than anything he wrote for the Wall Street Journal.  It even suggests Putin knows Gershkovich gave him the benefit of the doubt, which perhaps he also knows he did not deserve.

Compare this to the sad tale of New York Times reporter Judith Miller whose was responsible for accounts of the false “weapons of mass destruction” justification for the 2003 Iraq invasion.  She relied solely on sources within the Bush administration, most notably Lewis “Scooter” Libby, Jr., and then invoked the First Amendment in an attempt to avoid exposing Libby’s criminal use of the same false information he fed to her.

Which brings us back to Smirnov whose “spying” more resembles Miller than Gershkovich.  Perhaps, even worse.  Miller could he classified as what is now commonly referred to as “a useful idiot,” someone who caters to the powerful to garner their favor.  Smirnov must have known Putin favored Trump’s reelection in 2020, and therefore, should have questioned information from Russian intelligence agents that would hurt Joe Biden’s candidacy. However, he shared Putin’s goal of keeping Trump in the Oval Office and assumed he would be rewarded for helping make that happen.

I can only wonder what Donald Trump, who surely welcomed efforts to impeach Biden by the confederacy of useful idiots in the House GOP conference, especially Jim Comer and Jim Jordan, must have felt following Smirnov’s arrest.  He must be thinking, “Smirnov is no hero.  I like spies who aren’t captured, okay?  I hate to tell you.”

When I look at Evan Gershkovich’s body of work, I believe he is “guilty as charged.”  Not as a spy, but as an exceptional purveyor of “journalistic espionage,” otherwise known as investigative reporting.  And for this he is more deserving of a Pulitzer prize than detention in a Russian prison.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP

 

The Second Gunman

Politics

No, this is not a crass commercial advertisement for my recent fictional account of John F. Kennedy’s assassination, In the National Interest, available locally at Story and Song Bookstore and Bistro and from all on-line booksellers.  (Well, maybe it partially is.)  Nor is it in response to the many other books, podcasts and documentaries which coincided with the 60th anniversary of the events in Dealey Plaza on November 22, 1963.  The title refers to another Kennedy murder but again not the one you might imagine, the 1968 assassination of Robert F. Kennedy at the hand of Sirhan Sirhan.  But you are getting warmer.  Today’s post explores a conspiracy surrounding a crime that is yet to be committed.

Any reference to a “second gunman” should not be taken literally.  There is no Italian-made Mannlicher-Carcano rifle like the one owned by Lee Harvard Oswald.  There is no grassy knoll.  And the intended victim is not a human being.  Most importantly, the targeted victim is not a Kennedy.  Quite the opposite.  The role of “second gunman” is played by none other than Robert Kennedy, Jr.  And the quarry is American democracy.

If the latest Emerson poll is to be believed, the 2024 presidential election is a toss-up.  In a two-way race, Trump has a one point lead over Biden 45-44.  As I have said many times in an effort to talk Democrats off the ledge, Trump’s 45 percent is a ceiling while Biden’s 44 is a floor.  It is hard to imagine the 11 percent still undecided voters are going to break for Trump, especially as the former guy continues to insult and shock those who are not totally committed to him.  As any campaign manager will tell his/her candidate, “Electoral victory is about addition, not subtraction.”

When the Emerson poll adds three independent candidates–Kennedy, Cornell West and Jill Stein–to the mix, both Trump (40 percent) and Biden (38 percent) lose support.  West and Stein garner a combined total of two percent and Kennedy has the support of seven percent of those surveyed.  More importantly, the percent of undecided voters increases from 11 to 13 percent, something I find quite curious.  Instead of the original undecideds finding a home with one the independents, two percent abandon their initial Trump/Biden choice but do not to gravitate toward anyone else.

The greater the number of undecideds as election day approaches, the more volatile the electorate becomes.  Take 2022 as the premier example.  On October 23, just two weeks before the mid-term elections, a POLITICO/Morning Consult poll identified 11 percent of likely voters as still undecided.  Based on questions related to Biden’s job approval, an unfavorable opinion of Nancy Pelosi and whether the nation was headed in the right or wrong direction, POLITICO analyst Steven Shepard wrote, “The news isn’t good for Democrats.”  However, as Shepard noted in his article, “The poll was conducted prior to the attack on Pelosi’s husband in their San Francisco home on Friday.”   Yet, everything still pointed to a “RED tsunami.” However, late deciders, who historically, in mid-terms, vote against the party that holds the White House, broke for Democrats in House, Senate and gubernatorial races across the country.  The “RED tsunami turned out to be an unprecedented mid-term victory for the party in power.

We know Trump and MAGAworld will be “gunning” for Biden.  In a two way race, the outcome will depend on what it always does.  If Democrats vote, Democrats win.  If they don’t, they lose.  And Democrat turnout relies heavily on early and mail-in voting as again proven during last week’s special election victory by Democrat Tom Suozzi in New York.  Which is why Kennedy is the potential “second gunman.”  He will not be the next president.  He may even take an even number of votes away from each candidate.  The bigger danger is his ability to maximize the number of voters who remain on the fence until election day, on which they may decide not to vote at all, increasing the odds of a second Trump presidency and the end of American democracy we have known for the past 247 years.

The United States will have its first king, if not worse, with all the pomp and circumstance afforded such title.  I have no doubt Trump will use the 250th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence on July 4, 2026 to hold a military parade down Pennsylvania Avenue.  How do I know that?  On January 18, 2018, during a Pentagon meeting with Defense Secretary Jim Mattis and Joint Chiefs Chairman Joseph Dunford, Jr., Trump gave them a directive.  He wanted a Veterans’ Day parade with soldiers, wheeled military vehicles, tanks positioned for his address at the Lincoln Memorial and a flyover of 50 aircraft to celebrate the 100th anniversary of the World War I armistice.  He told reporters that his idea followed his attendance at the 2017 Bastille Day parade in France which he promised “to top.”  When Defense officials cunningly told him the parade would cost $92 million, three times the original estimate, Trump cancelled the event.  This time no one in the Pentagon or the cabinet will say “No,” including Secretary of  Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.

For what its worth.
Dr. ESP

The Mariel VoteLift

Politics

[Today’s post is an open letter to the Cuban-American community.]

Cuban-American support for Republican candidates has become a major factor when analyzing the success of GOP candidates, especially in my current state of residence Florida.  Pew Research reports there are approximately 1.4 million Cuban-Americans of voting age of which 65 percent live in the Sunshine State.  And they lean heavily toward the GOP.  In 2016, 54 percent of Florida Cuban-Americans voted for Donald Trump. Likewise, Ron DeSantis carried Miami-Dade County in 2022, a usually reliable blue firewall, with even greater support among Cuban-Americans.  To attract and sustain this advantage, the Republican message to this target population has largely been (paraphrasing), “We cannot elect Democrats who will make America the kind of socialist country, you know, the exact kind of country you escaped from when you came to America.”

Makes sense, with one caveat.  It is just not true.  Before the Castro revolution in 1959, Cuba was viewed as a land of opportunity with more migrants seeking residence than leaving.  The first wave of Cubans entering the U.S. following Fidel Castro’s takeover, often referred to as “Historical Exiles,” are described by Jorge Duany, professor of anthropology at Florida International University, in his research profile “Cuban Migration: A Post-revolution Exodus Ebbs and Flows.”

The majority were urban, middle-aged, well-educated, light-skinned, and white-collar workers. Most were born in the largest cities, particularly Havana. Many fled for political or religious reasons, fearing persecution by the revolutionary government. 

After this initial wave of immigrants to the U.S., Duany lists three reasons why Cuban residents continued to relocate in America.

  • Political persecution and harassment associated with political beliefs or practices.
  • Economic hardship due to a shortage of goods and services, low wages and limited employment.
  • Family reunification, reconnected with relatives who previously left Cuba.

For a non-Cuban-American, such as myself, it is hard to understand how this history justifies an overwhelming fealty to Republican policies and especially Donald Trump.  If you came to America because of political persecution and harassment, why would you support a candidate who is running on “retribution” for his enemies?  Who has said he would arrest and jail his political opponents?  Who promises to build internment camps for immigrants?  Imagine if Donald Trump had been president in 1960 when you fled to America to escape those exact conditions.

Furthermore, many of you opposed Fidel Castro’s close ties to the Soviet Union.  Yet, you prefer a candidate who publicly praises Vladimir Putin.  And more importantly, thwarts efforts to repel Russian dominance of Ukraine, a situation not unlike what you faced in the late 1950s.

If you came for family reunification, have you forgotten it was a Democratic president Barack Obama who normalized relations with the Cuban government allowing travel to be with relatives who remained in Cuba?  In 2017, Donald Trump reimposed those sanctions and restrictions on trade and travel.

And last but not least, polls suggest you believe GOP messaging that the Democrats are an existential threat to American capitalism.  Consider the following.  Since Castro’s rise to power Republicans have held the White House for seven four-year terms and the Democrats for six terms.  The average growth in Gross Domestic Product (GDP) during the Republican administrations has been 3.02 percent.  During Democratic administrations it is 3.98 percent.  And in those 63 years, how many U.S. industries have the Democrats nationalized?  Zero!

To be fair, any failure to make these connections between your own self-interests and allegiance to the GOP is not entirely your fault.  Democrat political leaders, especially in Florida, have not sufficiently engaged with the Cuban-American community to make the case why Democratic policies and outcomes over the past six decades are more in line with Cuban-American aspirations.  Without doing so, they should not expect, nor will there be, a change of attitude or voting behavior by Cuban-Americans.

Por lo que vale.
Dr. ESP