Category: Lessons Learned
I Want to Know Obama’s Thoughts
Like many of you, I have now seen (again?) the video of President Obama explaining to us why he had to deport illegal immigrants.
I don’t think showing that video to the rioters and the Democrats will do anything.
What I want to know is Obama’s actual, honest-to-goodness thoughts about his political children and grandchildren. Does he own them? Does he disown them? Does he believe that the CA Mayors and Governor (and elsewhere’s Dem leaderships) are proper democrats?
I want to know Obama’s thoughts.
Reading Log 6.9.2025




Heart of Darkness was a spur of the moment addition to what I had lined up. I stepped out of my car in my sister’s neighborhood and the neighbor whose yard I was parking in front of, and of whom I inquired if the parking spot was okay, became chatty and mentioned he’d read the book 10 times. He mentioned many other things about it too. I hadn’t read it in years (there’s a review on here from a decade or so ago). So I figured I’d give it a re-read. It is scary. Definitely not for kids. And yet it is a must read. Also, the film adaptation Apocalypse Now is probably the best adaptation of any book/story ever.
****
Freud is someone I kinda disdain with all my heart. What a waste.
So everyone is living on the planet, all hunky-dory, and then one man says, “You know that feeling in your belly, the one you get when you haven’t filled your belly in a while? Well, we get hungry and have needs in our minds too, don’t ya know? Oh, and this means we invented religion.”
I enjoy reading people who I disagree with—I like trying to imagine arguing with them. So there’s that. But Freud is someone whose influence I could live without. I will say this, though. Rather, I’ll let him say it.

Freud went on to declare that Marxism and its “suffer now, be rewarded later” propaganda was, to him, no different than religion—and needs to go, too. So with that I say, Freud, ol’ buddy ol’ pal, pull up a chair. Let’s get you another round.
****
I had been reading that Eddington for far too long. I am happy to be finished with it. He is exactly my style and we see the same world. The main takeaway that an honest man like Sir Eddington gives is the truth about the speed of light. He very clearly explains that the speed of light is, in fact, not unsurpassable. Instead, what the physicists mean is the speed of light is universal. His analogy is that it is the “wood grain” of the (wood)universe. Even while he was alive they had experimentally collided electrons or whatever together and gone “faster” than the speed of light. But that doesn’t affect the fact that nothing is faster than the speed of light. This is because the speed of light is the separation of time from space. So if you were to go “faster”, you’d be combining time and space, which is clearly unimaginable.
****
I picked up this book on AI for obvious reasons. And guess what? My instincts were right again. There is nothing to fear. AI does not learn. It does not read. It does not understand.
In short, the computer nerds learned from the brain nerds that between 1. a conscious decision to move the body, and 3. the brain-activity that moves the body are 2. many other brain-activities whose purpose is unknown. So the computer nerds built (2.-like) delays between “do this” commands and “do this NOW” action. And then, the computer nerds programmed the “do this NOW” action to respond to “you failed” responses with (actual jargon alert) back-propagation. It is this back-propagation that is “mysterious” and where the nerds say the AI is “learning”. But again, the AI is not learning, it is following commands and making exceedingly subtle adjustments. The trouble for the nerds is the time it would take to map out all the exceedingly subtle adjustments of back propagation is considerable—and even if they took the time, they’d simply have a ton of data points and not really any necessary reason to draw one conclusion from another as to why the program executed either 1. that many actions or 2. those actions in particular in order to not “fail” again.
Talk about navel-gazing.
Regarding handling and “seeing” images, the computer nerds, this time, learned from the eyeball-nerds. In short, the eyeball nerds have learned that there is a distinct method to how we see, which essentially goes from big to small. Like, outside, blue sky, green earth, forest, tree, tree branch, tree leaf, leaf veins etc.
So on an image, the computer nerds tell a program to find edges first, and then go from there. Again, AI does not see anything. It just is really good at the game of “memory” (unless humans screw with images in certain, invisible to naked eye, ways.)
One final comment of recommendation for this book. (You really should admit ignorance and read it.) The author describes the phrases “AI Spring” and “AI Winter”. And she proceeds to use them throughout her description of AI’s history. In short, AI “astounds” someone (Computer beats Chess Champion), and money shows up in large amounts. The computer nerds take the money and promise everlasting life. This is AI Spring. Then the computer nerds fail to deliver. The money dries up. This is AI Winter. The cycle repeats. ICYMI, we are currently in AI Spring, more like AI Monsoon. But winter is coming. It always does and always will. Withstand the hype! You can do it!
The Idea: Keep My Kids Out of War
How best to accomplish this?
My method is simple. I will teach them of the utter madness of most wars. If I am successful, then my kids will be so distrustful of the concept of destruction-based-improvement, that they’ll only engage in it when it is absolutely the best decision.
Why this post? Because I am not certain my simple method will work.
What say you?
Our Betters
You know those semi-recent additions to highway signage? The huge black digital signs?
Well, last night, my windshield wipers were going so fast and making such a racket that I almost couldn’t read the message some of our betters felt necessary to share with me: “Rain and Wet Roads. Caution.”
This is as bad, probably worse than, as texture-less braille on the sign at the local park.
Filling Space
George Carlin joked about how people acquire space—then we fill it up. Something like, “Look! There’s some space! Let me put something there!” (It’s Saturday. I know. I’ll help if you’re not yet bright-eyed and bushy-tailed. Think of our closets, rooms, trunks of cars, open land etc.)
Isn’t the same thing true for mental space? I’m thinking specifically about “misinformation” “delusions” “lies” and the like. What is our problem? We just can’t keep mental space empty? We can’t admit “I don’t know” and wait to fill it until we do? Does there have to be a filler for every single topic that enters our mind?
Is that healthy? Does it even accomplish anything? We all just walk around spouting lies as if no one can tell, even though we also, on some level, know we “don’t know” everything?
Is it really so hard to keep a clean mental house? Is it really so hard and inhumane to tell your conversant, “Now, you know that’s not true”?
What is it? Is it that we need people in proximity to us so desperately that we’d rather put up with their incessant, void-preventing bullshyat than call them to try harder to keep their integrity?
I don’t get it.
Parental Bliss
Your 4 year old is eating a watermelon wedge.
She loves it.
And you love watching her bite diligently closer and closer to the rind.
You turn away to talk to your spouse.
You turn back and there is no more watermelon. No red part. No rind.
Behind the empty plate on the table is nothing but your little girl wearing the satisfied expression that only comes from a job well done.
That is bliss.
“Had I Known”, The Game
I have all sorts of analogies for why I read—current favorite is, “Books are the map of life; find yourself.” But when I read something totally new—Vietnam War history in this case—I find myself continually considering, “Wow. Had I known this earlier in life, I would’ve…” and then a fun imagination game plays out.
How about you? What information have you read which forced you to play the game, “Had I known…”?
I just ordered a “F%#* Communism” flag, probably for ceiling of garage, because of my reading. (The one created by Paul Krassner and John Francis Putnam in ‘63.) I share this so y’all won’t think I only read for its mental fitness.
It was mentioned (as a sign, not a flag) in an article about the “defoliation” AF squadron whose classically AF Pilot wit-filled motto was, “Only YOU Can Prevent Forests.”
I can hear you now. “Why?” And, “Don’t you have toddlers?”
Because as much delight as this game provides, I don’t want my kids to play it regarding such a pivotal war.
Seriously though, do comment below with any instances that have initiated the “Had I Known” game in your mind.
On The Highly Placed Women Of Mission Impossible: The Final Reckoning
The only criticism I dared mention to my group after the movie (it was midnight and we were tired) was, “I think they went a bit overboard on the ‘women as leaders’ part. I mean the President, the aircraft carrier boss, the president’s close friend/cabinet member, both Osprey pilots, and even a Navy SEAL with the biceps of a 15 year old boy. It was a bit much.”
For this blog, forget the twin aspects of whether women should be in those roles and whether women ever would be in all those roles together. Instead, consider the following.
Before AI, Hollywood didn’t make movies with that many women in leadership roles.
In other words, the rise of Hollywood’s portrayal and seeming belief that it is important and necessary to portray women in leadership roles if we want women to actually be accepted as leaders across the board, but especially in areas that are traditionally male dominated, has come about at precisely the same time that AI is “taking over”.
Coincidence?
Irrelevant?
Boring to consider?
Or maybe there is fruit in the consideration of just how this pairing happened and its meaning—especially if men invented AI.
Just thoughts.
“Bare All” vs. “For All”, A Joint Review of The Return by Uberto Pasolini and Mission Impossible: The Final Reckoning by Christopher McQuarrie
I have always longed to be absolutely open-minded when it came to art. At an early age I was aware there were art critics who could find and explain beauty and power and relevance in art that I generally found unappealing. “What do they see?” was my question. This was followed closely by, “Will I ever see it?”
Ralph Fiennes has a full frontal nude shot in Mr. Pasolini’s telling of “The Odyssey.” I really want to understand why. My guess and how I understood it was it provides fodder for reviews like this one. He gave me the line, “Like Ralph Fiennes’ bold nude scene, Pasolini’s film presents Homer’s epic as nakedly as ever. It’s a ‘Just the facts, ma’am’ retelling.”
Then I would add, “Unfortunately, whatever he was aiming for, it hits more like a Cliff’s Notes summary of the definitive epic than a masterful adaptation. The poem is more than the naked delivery of facts because beauty, power, and relevance demand more.”
Tom Cruise, on the other hand—while still baring much epidermis—does not bare all in Mr. McQuarrie’s latest and final(?) Mission Impossible installment. Why not? There are probably many reasons. Surely near the top is his desire to make a movie which will entertain every living human on Planet Earth, now and forevermore.
We all already knew China was important to him (ref: Taiwan flag removal on leather jacket in TG2). He released this one in Tokyo, I gather. So there’s that. But we’d be fooling ourselves if we thought only in terms of round eye and slant eye. He wants all of us.
For me, there is a blandness that necessarily accompanies this approach to universal art. It is best captured by how jokes, to be funny, must remain particular. “A priest, a nun, and a monk walk into a bar” works. “One religious man, one religious woman, another variation of a religious man walk into a workspace” does not work.
So when art is made, for me, the same applies. There is a requirement for creating something that ensures there is some level of audience guaranteed to understand it, but if you worry too much about this and try to be certain that everyone will understand and not be offended etc, then you lose the point.
To this I will add and conclude that what TC and McQ made is beyond this attempt at universality. They aimed so high and are such capable men that they achieved something truly remarkable. I mean that I believe they fulfilled their goal. It’s not a perfect movie. But it is a movie that every living human being on Planet Earth will enjoy, now and forevermore.
No More LifeGuard Babes
I don’t know if you saw, but the other day a nerd-bomber with a drone just spontaneously and brilliantly saved a person from drowning by flying out a rescue device. (Took two tries actually.)
For those of you who can read facts but struggle to draw conclusions correctly, allow me to help. This simple, lifesaving effort just removed all hope of me ever receiving CPR from a Baywatch-style lifeguard, a la Sandlot scheming.
Until this event, I have to say that I didn’t believe any single person’s actions could be more disastrous to life on earth than the first man to work through the siesta.
The future is bleak. And apparently limitlessly so.