Category Archives: Culture

Artificial Intelligence

Culture, Politics

ALICIA FLORRICK: Mr. Dudewitz, are we in danger of A.I.?

ANTHONY DUDEWITZ: I think its getting smarter every day. Learning our boundaries and its boundaries. It’s evolving. I think there will be an adjustment period after it takes over. But eventually…

FLORRICK: Wait, I’m sorry to interrupt. What do you mean by “takes over?”

DUDEWITZ: The singularity. When the system is capable of recursive self-improvement, when it is better at recalibrating, expanding and spawning than we are. The brief blip of humanity’s reign will reach its inevitable conclusion…I’m just saying, they won’t have much use for us.

The good wife, Season 7, Episode 5, “DRIVEN”

The above exchange occurs during a deposition in which Florrick is questioning Dudewitz, who was responsible for designing the driverless software being tested by a fictional Tesla doppelganger. A version of the test car is involved in an accident in which the corporation claims one of its employees failed to override the software when it did not operate as programmed.

Dudewitz is a modern day Victor Frankenstein. Except his monster is not made of body parts. His creation consists solely of zeros and ones. However, his testimony becomes much more relevant if you stop thinking about artificial intelligence as a mechanical substitute for the human brain. It becomes a metaphor for today’s body politic when you view the adjective “artificial” as the opposite of “actual.”

To paraphrase Jeff Foxworthy, you might be an example of artificial intelligence if…

  • …you run for the U.S. Senate from Georgia but take advantage of a homestead exemption in Texas which you must claim as your principal residence. (Herschel Walker)
  • …you compare the Russian invasion of Ukraine to asylum seekers on the U.S. southern border. (Marjorie Taylor Greene)
  • …you oppose forgiving $10,000 in student loans after supporting forgiveness of COVID relief loans which totaled in the hundreds of thousands of dollars for some individuals. (GOP Governors, Senators and Representatives)
  • …you tell Pennsylvania voters to go to the polls before Sunday’s Steelers’ home game on their bye weekend. (Mehmet Oz)
  • …you advocate establishing a mandatory retirement age of 70 for the president of the United States, but never mentioned it when TFG ran for re-election at age 74. (Local newspaper columnist Howard Pine)
  • …you run for governor on the platform “Keep Florida Free” but punish businesses that do not support your policies. (Ron DeSantis)
  • …you do not understand how you can lose the Arizona governorship after telling former McCain supporters to get lost and mock the 82 year old victim of a violent attack in his home. (Kari Lake)
  • …you admit TFG was largely responsibility for the January 6th violent insurrection but would still vote for him if he is the 2024 Republican nominee. (Mitch McConnell, Mike Pompeo, Bill Barr, etc., etc., etc.)
  • …you run on a promise of bringing down inflation, reducing crime and securing the southern border, then announce the day after winning control of the House your priority is impeaching Biden administration officials and Hunter Biden’s laptop. (Kevin McCarthy and the GOP Freedom Caucus)
  • …and finally, to be non-partisan, you think your party lost House seats in competitive districts because the candidates were not progressive enough. (Extreme left-wing Democrats)

Anthony Dudewitz may be right. These purveyors of artificial intelligence have made it pretty clear. 2020 was a learning experience. They are capable of recursive self-improvement. They will have a better understanding of voters’ boundaries and their own. They will adjust. And when their singularity arrives, they will have little use for us.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP

The Intercourse Tax

Culture, Politics

Eleven years before Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), the case in which the Supreme Court sanctioned same-sex marriage, my students at Miami University reached the exact conclusions it took the U.S. Senate another seven years after Obergfell to adopt.

In 2004, I taught a summer session of my “Imagination and Entrepreneurship” course which included the following exercise based on the false concept “there are two sides to every story.” There are always more than two sides. To prove this, I asked the students to explore a controversial topic and identify the extreme positions, i.e., the two sides. Their choice? Same-sex marriage which was viewed on one extreme as an abomination in the eyes of the Lord, and on the other, an unalienable right to the pursuit of happiness delineated in the Declaration of Independence. I then told them they should not seek a compromise on that continuum. Instead, they should look for answers ‘outside the line.’

If you think all universities are bastions of liberal dogma, you do not know Miami University. The student population is 72 percent white and they come from households with an average annual income of over $200,000. Sixty-two percent of the students are Ohio residents, a state we know from the recent mid-terms is ruby red. Not surprisingly for a school with these demographics, College Values Online ranks Miami as the 11th most conservative university in the United States.

In that environment, I feared our discussion of marriage equality would be a dogfight. Not even close. As is so often the case, the critical point came when a student asked an important question. What is the purpose of a marriage license? A not unexpected response came from class members I knew to be actively engaged in religion-based student organizations. They viewed government sanction of a marriage secondary to that of God’s. Which led to the suggestion it was not about the license but the fee to obtain the license. In other words, this was just one more way for local governments to raise revenue by taxing the formation of a household.

Yet, they pointed out lots of non-married couples form households. College students live together in off-campus rental housing. Co-workers form households to share the cost of shelter in cities where the sale price or rental fees are beyond the reach of many who work there. Why shouldn’t they be taxed as well? Which brings me to the title of this post. The tax was only applied to those household occupants the government assumed were having intercourse. Without stating the obvious, you can see where this is going. Government regulation of relationships makes no sense.

And that is EXACTLY what the Senate compromise on an amendment to the Respect for Marriage Act proposes, an amendment that garnered the bipartisan support of 62 senators including 12 Republicans. An amendment based on the same conclusion reached by my students 18 years earlier. The First Amendment prohibits Congress from mandating that any sectarian institution which opposes marriage other than that between a man and a woman must conduct a union for a same-sex couple. But those who had their marriage ratified by either a civil or religious authority must be honored nationwide. The government should keep it nose out of the marital business.

I know some may be offended by the fact the revised bill codifies the right to religious discrimination. But that has always been the case. Most orthodox rabbis will not officiate in an interfaith marriage. Catholic priests will not bless a second marriage unless the first has been annulled. And somehow there are still interfaith unions and second Catholic weddings. In other words, “forum shopping” is not reserved for those in search of a sympathic judge to hear their case.

My wife occasionally reminds me how often, as an agnostic, I cite scripture to make my point. And I am sure she will remind me again when I point out, the Senate amendment to the Respect for Marriage Act is just one more example of the Biblical underpinning in Matthew 22:21 that justifies the separation of church and state. “Therefore render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” Perhaps, the spouses of the 27 GOP senators who voted against the amendment need to remind them to open both their Bibles and the pocket-sized copies of the U.S. Constitution they always carry with them.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP

The FIRE Didn’t Start the Fire

Culture

With great power comes great responsibility.

Ben Parker (Cliff Robertson), Spider-man 2002

Last Thursday, my alma mater the University of Virginia hosted its second annual Oratory Competition. Conducted underneath the dome of Mr. Jefferson’s historic Rotunda, 10 finalists addressed the question, “Is free speech important at a public university in our democracy – and why?”

The winner, third yearman Jered Cooper, began by quoting Richard Nixon’s first inaugural address, as follows:

In these difficult years, America has suffered from a fever of words; from inflated rhetoric that promises more than it can deliver; from angry rhetoric that fans discontents into hatreds; from bombastic rhetoric that postures instead of persuading.

Richard M. Nixon, January 20, 1969

I am sure Jered chose those words to remind listeners the vitriol in today’s political rhetoric is nothing new. He then suggests the United States has seemed “…to have collectively forgotten something that is key to a healthy democracy: free speech.” Words that are right in line with those of a Philadelphia-based non-profit, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE). Their mission? “…to defend and sustain the individual rights of all Americans to free speech and free thought — the most essential qualities of liberty.”

Sounds admirable. And in many instances it is. For example, FIRE has defended students and faculty at American universities who have been punished for their personal opinions. For example, this year FIRE provided legal services to a Collin College professor who was reinstated after being fired for union advocacy and supporting removal of Confederate monuments.

However, the First Amendment is not absolute. In 1919, Supreme Court Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., in response to speech designed for the principal purpose of creating panic, famously opined the right to free expression does not include “shouting fire in a crowded theater.” Neither should we blindly accept advocacy of free speech as absolute. My right to free expression demands that I address the flaws in both Mr. Cooper’s and FIRE’s position on the topic.

First, reread the Nixon quote. He is not advocating free speech as an absolute right. Just the opposite. He is siding with Ben Parker. The First Amendment gives every American “great power.” But it also demands citizens wield that power responsibly. Nixon simply pointed out three instances in which he believed individuals had abused the power and shirked their responsibility–inflated rhetoric, angry rhetoric and bombastic rhetoric.

Second, FIRE’s website makes no reference to responsible oratory or behavior. Are they not concerned expression based on demonstrable lies is not what the founding fathers had in mind? By their silence, do they not see how the “big lie” is the epitomy of Justice Holme’s dire warning that shouting “Hang Mike Pence” in a crowded Capitol Building is not protected under the Constitution.

Third, I would be more sympathetic to FIRE’s efforts if they were more consistent in the application of their principles. In their press release announcing Suzanne Jones’ reinstatement at Collin College, FIRE attorney Greg Greubel proclaimed:

Censorship is un-American. FIRE is proud to defend people of all political views who are punished simply for speaking their minds. And we’re not stopping now.

Among things Collin College cited as leading to her dismissal was the fact she signed a petition requesting the McKinney, Texas city council remove a Confederate statue. Yet, FIRE did not offer to defend three University of Florida professors when they were barred from testifying in a lawsuit to overturn newly enacted alleged restrictions on voting rights. However, FIRE was quick to applaud Florida governor Ron DeSantis when he announced the state’s university system had adopted a free speech resolution based on the University of Chicago’s “Report of the Committee on Freedom of Expression,” often referred to as the “Chicago Statement.” Perhaps FIRE’s new mantra should be, “Watch what we say, not what we do.”

The U.S. Constitution is a unique and wonderful document, a model for governance. But it was flawed. It permitted slavery. Overuse of punctuation makes some passages ambiguous. Those shortcomings can and, on occasion, have been addressed by the 27 amendments adopted since 1789. The most grievous flaw, however, is its one-sidedness. It delineates multiple rights each of us as citizens retain and specifically prohibits government from restricting those rights. “…Congress shall make no laws…”

Yet it says nothing about each citizen’s responsibility not to abuse those rights. Instead, we are expected to align the Constitution with our personal value systems. Let me close by pointing how confused this makes me when it comes to elected offiicials such as Marjorie Taylor Greene who espouse Christian nationalism. The term suggests they are bound by two documents: the Bible and the Constitution. As originalists they believe they must adhere to the written word of the Founding Fathers, yet apply it selectively when it comes to judicial interpretations.

The same holds true when it comes to the Old Testament which they accept as the virtual word of God. If only they did. I guess when it comes to election fraud and the attack on Paul Pelosi, the 9th Commandment does not apply. “Bearing false witness” seems to be their stock-in-trade. Furthermore, based on what we’ve seen the past two years, if God him/herself issued a subpoena for them to bear witness (false or not), they would fight it tooth and nail.

FIRE did not start the fire. But its absolute defense of free speech encourages others to stoke the flames which may eventually incinerate Madisonian democracy.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP

Fool Me Once…

Culture, Politics

Amnesia runs deep in the Democratic Party. Especially when it comes to compromise with Republicans. In 2009, Democrats watered down the Affordable Care Act to secure bi-partisan support. Yet not one GOP senator voted for the final bill. In 2015, they accepted Mitch McConnell’s justification for blocking consideration of Merrick Garland’s nomination to the Supreme Court and took him at his word he would feel the same way if the president were from his own party. Can you say, “Justice Amy Coney Barrett?”

Which is why I do not share the enthusiasm of those who believe the compromise on gun legislation reached by the Murphy/Cronyn working group represents “progress.” I’ve not heard one Republican say, “This is a good start.” If not, what is it? Look at the trade-offs to secure 10 GOP votes. It looks more like “the end.”

Consider this one example. In lieu of raising the age from 18 to 21 for purchase of a semi-automatic assault weapon, the drafters agreed to “enhanced background checks” for purchasers under 21. This morning Connecticut Senator Chris Murphy who put the working group together explained how this provision might have stopped the shooter in Uvalde. When he walked into a gun store to purchase the two AR-15s, the dealer would have been required to contact local police to see if the shooter had ever had a run-in with law enforcement.

Senator, I know you mean well. You have been the leading advocate of gun safety laws since Sandy Hook. But this provision, WITHOUT background checks at gun shows and on-line sales, ensures weapons of war will continue to fall into the hands of young men who will use them on victims in such a brutal way the corpses are beyond recognition. What good is an ENHANCED background check if there are still pathways to acquire these weapons where the seller is not required to follow the same procedures as the owner of a licensed gun store.

You may not understand what is going on here, but I can assure you Mitch McConnell does. The proposed legislation has more loopholes than the tax code. Which means there WILL be another Sandy Hook, Parkland or Uvalde. And McConnell will come out of his shell and declare, “We restricted gun sales and that did not stop these travesties. That proves it was NEVER about access to guns. So let’s stop pretending it does. We have enough laws on the books. Let’s enforce those before we consider new ones.” [After which, McConnell holds a fund-raising conference call with the NRA and gun manufacturers and reminds them how he predicted passing the 2022 bill would shut down any possibility of REAL gun legislation.”]

This morning Joe Scarborough quoted Abraham Lincoln to justify this incremental approach to sensible gun legislation. “I am a slow walker, but I never walk backwards.” Joe, if memory serves me correctly, Abraham Lincoln was the victim of gun violence. So was Martin Luther King, Jr., who said, “The arc of history is long but it always bends toward justice.”

Sadly, these and other “slow walkers” took their last steps way before their time. And in the cases of Lincoln and King, we still have not realized their respective visions of a reunited America or racial equality. Instead, we should be listening to Albert Einstein. “To do the same thing over and over and expect a different result is the definition of insanity.” Approaching gun safety the same way America dealt with reconstruction and civil rights suggests, 100 years from now, we will be engaged in the same discussion we have following every mass shooting.

No, we will not have taken a step backwards. Instead, we will have been stopped dead in our tracks.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP

The Good Old Days

Culture

Critics of the “Make America Great Again” movement believe it is a euphemism for taking the country back to the 1950s or earlier. You know, before women’s rights, civil rights and gay rights. But every idea, regardless of how insane or inane it appears to be, often contains a kernel of wisdom.

In one respect, I too would like to return to the days of my childhood. For the record, my minor status ended (i.e. 18th birthday) in January 1968. As I look back, there is one aspect of my experience I would again welcome without hesitation. The way disagreements and anger among schoolmates were resolved, i.e. fisticuffs.

Human nature, especially among hormonal teenagers, is a fact of life. There has always been a caste system in American schools. The jocks versus the nerds. The bullies and the bullied. Tempers flared. There were legitimate and imagined grievances. But NO ONE was ever killed or seriously maimed. There were scrapes and bruises, and on rare occasions, a broken arm or stitches.

The difference? The only available weapon was one’s fists. And short of the Marquis of Queensberry rules, there was an unwritten code. Seldom would one combatant ambush another. The more likely scenario was an agreement to “meet me after school.” Even when hostilities broke out spontaneously during recess or in the hallway, principals and teachers would step in and separate the fighters.

If the loser wanted revenge, he (as it was always males) did not ask his parents for an AR-15 for Christmas or use his life savings to purchase an arsenal of assault weapons. He might hang a speed bag from a rafter in the attic or basement. Or lift weights. His goal was not to kill his adversary, but to defend himself better the next time.

Though not a perfect social science experiment, school children of that era were the control group in any examination of violence in today’s institutions of learning. And there is one glaring, inescapable difference. The presence of firepower in the form of handguns, rifles and assault weapons.

So, please do not tell me guns are not the issue in the ever increasing number of dead bodies and wounded students and teachers in elementary and high schools across the nation. If the totals over the past 70 years had creeped up incrementally, I would concede maybe it had something to do with video games, increases in mental instability or the extent to which school buildings have been fortified. But the jump is from ZERO to HUNDREDS.

As Edward R. Morrow once said, “The obscure we see eventually. The completely obvious, it seems, takes longer.”

POSTSCRIPT: I WISH I’D SAID THAT

Speaking of the obvious, Connecticut Senator Chris Murphy made an indisputable argument for raising the age to 21 for a individual to buy a semiautomatic assault weapon. He pointed out the shooter in Uvalde could buy an assault weapon at 18 while current federal law sets the minimum age for purchase of a handgun at 21.

The federal law did not include rifles and shotguns because the drafters considered those firearms to be legitimate sporting equipment used for target practice and hunting. Murphy added, “At that time, handguns were considered more dangerous than a long gun and more likely used in the commission of a crime.” Under that logic, Murphy challenged his Senate colleagues to argue a semiautomatic weapon was less dangerous than a handgun. And if they could not make that case, raising the minimum age to 21 in order to purchase such weapons of war was beyond dispute.

We’ll see!

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP