All posts by Dr. ESP

OPENAIheimer

[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

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

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

[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

Truth and Consequences

[Today’s post is an open letter in response to Americans who have indicated they would never vote for Joe Biden based on his support of Israel following October 7, 2023.]

I know you are angry.  So am I.  So are most Israelis and Palestinians.  It takes a total lack of humanity to witness the bodies of innocent men, women and children killed by Hamas on October 7, 2023 or from Israel’s response and not be angry.  But that anger must not keep us from some inconvenient truths.  Benjamin Netanyahu and his right-wing coalition government have the blood of Israelis on their hands by failing to advance the Oslo Accords.  And Yahya Sinwar and Hamas have the blood of Palestinians on their hands for promoting the destruction of Israel and the Jewish people.

This experience again proves what diplomats and generals always tell us.  “It is easy to start a war.  It is much harder to end one.” And the key to a successful outcome is often having not only a war plan, but having a plan for day one after the shooting ceases.  That hard lifting depends who is conducting the peace.  The Israelis and Palestinians have to decide if they believe the individuals–Netanyahu and Sinwar–who have proven they can be masters of war have the will to be masters of peace.

We Americans also have a role.  Our allies in the Middle East–Egypt, Jordan, Qatar and most importantly Saudi Arabia–have made it clear the United States is an essential partner in achieving that peace.  But only if we can be an honest broker.  And I understand many of you believe, due to American support for the Israeli military, U.S. policy favors Israel.  It is hard not to feel that way when, perhaps, members of your family or friends have died from American manufactured munitions.

No one can guarantee these 75 years of bloodshed will ever end.  But if we want to give peace one more chance, consider the following.  The United States will have a major role.  And the nature of that engagement depends on who sits in the Oval Office next year.  You say you will never support Joe Biden because of his support for Israeli genocide.  Yes, Joe Biden went to Israel and hugged Netanyahu immediately after October 7.  Yes, Joe Biden proposed more military aid to Israel.  But neither have the goal of Palestinian genocide.

If that were the case, what would explain Joe Biden being a consistent supporter of the Oslo Accords and the two-state solution as Obama’s vice-president, as a private citizen and now as the leader of the free world.  This is no last-minute conversion in response to Hamas’ terrorism.  In July 2023, months before the attack, Biden met with Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas in Bethlehem and reaffirmed his belief the two-state solution was the best path to peace between Israelis and Palestinians.  In January, the U.S. abstained on a U.N. resolution to increase the flow of humanitarian aid despite the fact the resolution made no mention of Hamas’ attack on October 7 as the U.S. requested.  A position that opened Biden to criticism from many of his own party.  He has continuously criticized the Netanyahu government for expansion of West Bank settlements and for not taking a more targeted approach in the fight against Hamas militants. And in the vein of Harry Truman’s being the first world leader to recognize Israel on May 14, 1948, the same day Israel declared its independence, Biden has indicated he is considering the same for a Palestinian state created in compliance with the Oslo criteria.

Now consider the alternative.  Despite protests that more Jewish settlements on the West Bank were a violation of international law, Donald Trump supported Israel’s territorial claims over the West Bank.  The Netanyahu government rewarded this change in U.S. policy by naming one of the settlements Ramat Trump (Trump Heights) and putting a statue of a sabbath menorah and eagle honoring Trump at the entrance.  To further exacerbate the situation, Trump symbolically moved the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, although most diplomatic functions remain in Tel Aviv.  Trump’s vision for the Palestinians is a economic protectorate as laid out during a White House press conference with Netanyahu.  The fact Palestinians were not invited to participate in the announcement tells you all you need to know about the proposal.  Aaron David Miller, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, described the status of Gaza and the West Bank in the proposal as “a faux state.”

And there is no sign things would be different in a second Trump presidency.  Just this week we saw how Trump sold out U.S. interests in Europe for Vladimir Putin’s friendship.  Do Palestinians think the situation will be any different between Trump and Netanyahu?  Listen to Trump’s response to Israel’s execution of the war as reported by Brett Samuels of The Hill three days after the Hamas attack.

Former President Trump suggested in a new interview that the war between Israel and Hamas will just have to “play out” despite concerns about rising civilian casualties.

“So you have a war that’s going on, and you’re probably going to have to let this play out. You’re probably going to have to let it play out because a lot of people are dying,” Trump told Univision in an interview that aired Thursday night.

Please do not tell me you agree with these sentiments from a man who thinks people dying is a reason to let the death and destruction continue.  Peacefully protest U.S. policy toward Israel if you want.  But also keep in mind two undisputed facts.  First, even if you believe Israel is engaged in genocide with U.S. support, you make no friends promoting your own brand of genocide against Israel or the Jewish people.  Two, only one of the two candidates for president has been a life-long supporter of a Palestinian state as the only path to a lasting peace and has pushed Netanyahu to come to that same conclusion.

Shalom/Salam.
Dr. ESP