Tagged: politics

5 Course Corrections for Pro-Kirk Discussions/Reporting

I believe that it is exceedingly important to continually improve. Even and perhaps especially when the going is rough. That’s the reason for this post.

1. Until you saw the footage, you were safe to say he was shot and needs prayer. But once you saw the footage, it became very important to call it for what it was. He gave up the ghost on impact. We all saw it. Quit indirectly denying this. Your whole industry rests on the idea it is most important to be “first to report”, so don’t act like you wanted to wait to get the facts. You probably saw before us. He was gone immediately. Especially now that we all saw, adjust the description of what happened. Most importantly, please try to do better next time.

2. I fly sick or injured people around. They are lying there right next to me. When they have vomited (never due to my flying 😉) the backsplash has landed on my arm. Sad stuff. Do I get to cry while I do my job? No. Likewise, y’all need to stop the crying. Be a professional like me, or drop the act that you’re legitimate journalism.

3. There is a theme going around that Mr. Kirk was exemplary in his noble quest to have honest dialogue. That’s fine. But the adults in the room (aren’t you supposed to be one?) need to also say that Kirk brought talk to a gunfight. I don’t mean that we’re in a “hot war” or something. I don’t mean that he somehow caused anything. I mean that Tolstoy’s book title “War and Peace” is as simple as life gets. Life is continuously both. Don’t forget to highlight this truth. We all need to choose wisely and with the full knowledge that war is constant, just like peace. Will I send or support my kid going around the country on a public speaking tour on the topic of free speech? I’ll tell you the names of countries to where I wouldn’t send them to do it. And that there are these countries means that even you know that his choices weren’t as good as they could have been. There is a foolishness to them. Put short: noble does not encompass foolhardy. Remind us of this.

4. This brings me to another part of war talk that keeps sliding into the discussion. Pay attention all you civilian pukes. This is for you. Never submissively listen to a veteran describe that we’re in a war. Or that they know that war is coming soon. Certainly never act like veterans have some special insight or access to knowledge that leads to this conclusion. The veteran’s burden is that they can’t help but see that we’re in war. But we’re not. And more than that, us veterans need you non-veterans to call out what you see regarding how there is not a war. It is your own special burden. But it is real and you need to insist that the assassination doesn’t indicate that war is occurring or coming soon.

5. Finally, please, please, please stop believing that your words and reporting actually influences the longevity of your career/paycheck. No, ma’am. No, sir. You don’t actually help. We don’t actually care. In all likelihood, your profession is a detriment to people and society, vice. So just calm down and be yourself. We can tell when you apply pressure (for no reason) to yourself to react in a way which you think will boost ratings. It looks silly and unattractive. We watch or read because we’re bored and lack self-control. Not because we need you.

Re-Learning Biblical Hebrew While Keeping an Eye on Starship Flight 10

Seriously, could my life be more interesting?

Why learn Biblical Hebrew? Well, as the scholars put it 100 years ago, to avoid being a “helpless plaything” in the hands of biblical critics. The Bible is always under attack. If you don’t know how to work with the original languages, you are not on solid ground.

Why watch Starship Flight 10? Well, because it’s incomparably awesome and beautiful to watch and incomparably compelling and poignant to contemplate.

Pilots—Hope Embodied

I’m at work today and was chatting with the mechanic. It got me thinking.

Man, this job sure requires me to place a lot of trust in other people.

This led to me wondering What makes someone want to be an aircraft mechanic?

This led to I sure hope the answer is ‘not being as brave or good-looking’ as pilots.

But I backed off that and landed on Flying the aircraft requires more trust in other people than mechanics usually possess.

There are surely other measures of trust or, more broadly, hope. But what I mean to call attention to is the why behind the quality of the trait that pilots necessarily possess.

Once considered, I say one must conclude that it isn’t merely the mode of travel, but the fact of travel that betrays the pilot’s special embodiment of hope. From the functioning of the aircraft, to the people at the (planned or unplanned) destination not killing you upon arrival, the pilot embodies hope.

From another angle, consider that Mark Twain said, “Travel is fatal to prejuidce, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts.”

That’s got all the right words, but it’s backwards. From where I sit, “Prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness are fatal to travel.”

But, of course, by travel I mean more than the movement of the body from one location to another. I count as travel learning—even via books. I count attending different cultures’ events (ie, Chinamen moving to Chinatown is not travel, but one religious Chinaman’s visiting of a different religion’s Chinaman family—all who live in the same apartment building is) as travel. There are probably other meanings I would count.

Or not.

So I only mean three things count as travel. (1) travel, (2) learning, and (3) dually (i) meeting people who look identical to yourself but are, in fact, not you and (ii) meeting people who look nothing like you and finding out they are, in fact, your identical twin. And the connection which binds these three is not travel, but hope.

Do you see?

The Less Committed Noah, A Review of “The Coming Wave” by Mustafa Suleyman

To recap, I admitted to myself some months ago that I knew nothing about AI. I also doubted that anyone uttering the sounds, “A-I” (“It’s an acronym”, taught Kamala), knew much more than me. This belief was bolstered and informed by my nearly-techie brother’s share that his bosses advocated the use of the phrase wherever possible during meetings with clients as it perked people up. In other words, AI is trending. (There is nothing new in this confession of mine.)

The first book I decided to read was Melanie Mitchell’s Artificial Intelligence: A Guide for Thinking Humans.

I then asked a friend for any recommendation he might have, and that is how I ended up reading Suleyman’s book.

To be clear: there is no need to read this book. It is not earth shattering. It will not change your life. It truly does not have much by way of content. A Toastmaster friend once told excitable me, in an effort to dissuade me from buying his book, that these days books are little different than business cards. That is about right for Coming Wave.

But I did read it and consider it and this is my blog so I am going to share my thoughts.

Maybe because I have been reading a bunch of ‘evolution of physics’ books, I read “wave” in the title and pictured (and was intrigued by) the wave in lightwave. Maybe it was because I have already asserted that AI is merely man’s newfound ability to sense electricity with greater refinement than ever before that I didn’t see “water” wave. Whatever the reason, I was totally taken aback by Suleyman’s opening alignment with Noah. It’s actually shocking. Seriously, consider it. There is a man, who by all accounts is ‘successful’, and he chose to warn the world of cataclysmic disaster.

What?

Perhaps it was my background in Biblical Studies that clouded my thinking. But the end of the Deluge account in Genesis includes the Rainbow and the promise to never flood “the world” again. This leaves two choices available to authors. First, believe the Bible story and live a peace-filled life. Second, totally miss the conclusion of the Bible story and with astounding boldness, still identify yourself with the main character in some bastardized version of the story.

But what do I know? I’m often told it is better to not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

So I read on.

Suleyman opens the book with a Glossary, much like post-graduate work requires. But unlike post-graduate work, no editors or friends told him that his definitions are nebulous. Take “Waves” for example.

“The global diffusion or proliferation of a generation of technology anchored in a new general-purpose technology.”

Global, generation of technology, anchored, and general-purpose technology all need to now be defined.

Another term (pessimism aversion) includes the word elites. What exactly is an elite? My best guess is the intro-extro couple from Susan Cain’s Quiet who can’t decide on how to seat guests at their parties. (Throw pillows and a bar with top chairs was the solution, if I recall.)

All this might seem too detailed and in the weeds, but I assure you of my earnestness. What exactly is the threat? Why don’t I feel it? How come when I hear “pessimism aversion” I think, “Does he mean hope?”

I’ve talked about how unappealing it is for politicians to constantly hedge their positions elsewhere on this blog. Well, Suleyman cannot but hedge. His warning, so laughable, is always immediately followed by, “But it is also possible that it only rains the exactly perfect amount.”

Fourteen chapters, two hundred eighty-eight pages worth of Noahic warning, immediately hedged.

Again, Noah didn’t hedge. This commitment is one major reason Noah is timeless. Suleyman, on the other hand, will not be remembered. His wave will not form—regardless of his book’s grand clarion call for containment (and central planning at a level red blooded Americans will never tolerate).

Moving on to “new to me”.

I have to admit that Suleyman did introduce a few topics that Mitchell left out of her more focused general audience primer. Synthetic Biology, according to Suleyman, is a hand-in-hand technological advancement. Think Arnold building Arnold.

Suleyman also introduces the concept that, running with the Terminator theme, Arnold won’t care about nation-state boundaries (which Suleyman defines, abhorrently, as “collective fiction resting on the belief of everyone concerned”). The example of this coming hellscape (the “warning” before the hedge) being, ta da, Hamas. Or, maybe a good analogy are the fringe groups in the NW part of America which seem to always be trying to separate statutorily from anyone who can say “sanctuary city” with a straight face.

Then again, it is possible that AI actually ushers in more rainbows and the first ever unicorns. You just never know.

To be honest, and this is the end, Suleyman’s main problem is he cannot (nor can anyone it seems) meaningfully define AI. Melanie Mitchell essentially teaches us how AI works, but Suleyman doesn’t mean that AI. His warning is about the coming AI. You know, the one that really is going to put an end to the Anthropocene and all the blood-pumping bipedal organisms with opposable thumbs and large frontal cortexes.

My final takeaway, the one I sent to the recommending friend, is: Either (A) AI programmers like Suleyman are trying to suggest the coming AI is concretely analogous to handing nuclear bombs to the homeless or (B) they don’t mean that.

If (A), then right now we must immediately issue a call to arms and begin a first of its kind unceasing kinetic war against them. If (B), then there is no coming wave.

How Would Illiterate People React to Sydney’s Jeans Advertisement?

I feel very, very special for this post’s question.

I feel like I am pretty in-touch with how the Right has handled the stupid Woke response to the ads. But I haven’t seen anyone ask this question.

How do you think illiterate people would react to Sydney’s Jeans commercials? And for bonus points, “Would the illiterate be afforded anymore grace than the Woke received?”

When I Think Of Russia and Ukraine, I Think of My Mom

My brother “blocked” me over a year ago. When there are in-person events we are cordial, and even able to have conversations. But he won’t accept texts or calls.

Naturally, he still chats with our mom.

Naturally, I still chat with our mom.

But my mom will not play the middle man. She has never had interest in playing the middle man—between anyone. That is just her prerogative.

This is why I think of my mom, when I think of Russia and Ukraine.

America (meaning “Americans”) does not want to play the middle man. I believe this is the fullest truth that can be asserted regarding the situation.

I Propose A Guessing Game

Read the following paragraph from a news article and guess the year.

I offer that the first and major clue is the last line, “…got into the papers.”

This puts us back before the internet. So pre-90s.

I’m not from New York. I have only visited once. There may be names that a New Yorker would know are old and therefore help date the event. But I don’t know them.

The idea that people are fighting about the elevation of a flag is immemorial, so that doesn’t help. But add “American” to the kind of flag and obviously we’re post-1776.

A quick review of steel’s development indicates post-1856 and Bessemer Process.

“Medical students” as a phrase immediately calls to mind post-WW2, so post-1945.

This means, if you guessed anywhere between 1945-1990, I’d say you “won” my game. Congratulations!

Of course, the true winners of the true game are those who can withstand the “hype” to which the news cycle demands undying attention.

The real date is 1970. That means for 65 years we have recorded evidence that some Americans want to lower the flag and others want to raise it back up. Or, 65 years of “Same $&@%, different day.” Or, 65 years of “Nothing to see here; move along.”

Rapid Fire Movie Reviews, The Order, 65, 28 Weeks Later

The Order with Jude Law, on Hulu, is pretty fantastic. But turn it off before you start seeing the black screen “wrap up facts”. Trust me.

65, with the new Star Wars bad guy, is not about only him on a violent planet. I hate when they mess up the previews. I’m talking from the opening scene you‘re struck by the fact that the movie is not what the previews made it out to be. On the whole, the very idea of people marooned on killer, dinosaur infested planet Earth while the dinosaur-killing asteroid is visibly on its way is kinda a cool story. Add in some language barrier stuff and other family interest moments and it really isn’t a bad sci-fi flick. Just very poorly marketed.

28 Weeks Later is old, but it is still fantastic. The best part—and now I am really looking forward to the newest one—is the speed which the virus infects the new zombie. It is nearly instantaneous. This got me thinking though.

Is the novel speed concept an analogy for the times we live in? I’m not saying the writers intentionally meant to make an analogy. I mean more like in the sense that it was inescapable. Like how 80s movies had muscular military men instead of breathy and broken women saving the day.

I am talking about politics and education.

We seem to be living in a time when everyone makes up their mind instantly, and then attacks incessantly. And no one ever changes their mind.

TDS strikes and BOOM! You won’t talk to your parents.

MAGA hits and BAM! No more chatting with your brother.

Follow me?

Compare this rage virus zombie tale to, say, any movie which portrays leprosy, or other old and slow moving diseases and what is the difference? The time period. No rapid rage virus zombie conversions in the dark ages or period pieces. And no slow leper death scenes in air conditioned rooms with laptops and Twinkies.

Just something for your consideration as the winter and family meals approach.

In the end, there are three lessons to be learned from these movies.

Number 1. Do not read The Turner Diaries.

Number 2. Do not become a pilot if the reason you are doing so is to save your daughter’s life.

Number 3. Do not make out with your long lost wife whom you thought you saw die from a zombie attack—at least not until the military doctors clear her.

My Money on What Bongino “Saw”

I’m so tired of conspiracy theorists. Lunatics one and all. I can’t even listen for amusement anymore. Thanks for nothing, guys.

Want to know where my money is bet on Dan Bongino’s claim?

Bongino’s talent, if you ever listened to his podcast, is keeping an audience in suspense. It’s an impressive skill, but ultimately no different than selling nothing burgers.

Want to know what he “saw”?

He will soon report that what he saw was bureaucracy.

That’s it.

Bomb Shelters In North Vietnam

So I’m reading Reporting Vietnam, published by the Library of America. It consists entirely of articles from throughout the war.

The last article I read mentioned how President Johnson, in March of 1968 declared that due to the fact that during war the President need to focus his attention entirely on the war, he wouldn’t be running for re-election (can’t mix campaigning). This article also mentioned that by this time many advisors of his wanted to stop bombing the North.

I repeat, many advisors wanted to stop bombing the North.

To be sure, fact: America and South Vietnam were bombing North Vietnam.

Today’s article includes, “Outside Hanoi, the driver’s first job, I discovered, was to look for a shelter for the passengers whenever the alert or the pre-alert sounded. Every hamlet, sometimes every house, is equipped with a loud-speaker, and the alarm is rung out by the hamlet bell…When there is no hamlet nearby, a band of soldiers, tramping along with a transistor radio, may warn you that planes are coming.”

Fact: the NV commies had decided they wanted to live and so built and used bomb shelters.

****

Like fish which breathe in the water, or Everest climbers who pack oxygen for their summit, it seems that there are “tells”, if you will, that can be used to make sense of life on Earth. Can’t breathe underwater? Probably don’t live there.

One such “tell” that you live in a country that is being “bombed” is the presence of “bomb shelters.”

Final question in today’s lesson: What, then, does it mean if you claim to be “bombed” but have no bomb shelters?

Bonus question: What does it mean if you repeat the claim that some country is consistently being bombed, without ever thinking to ask, “Do they have bomb shelters?”

(Answers: 1. The claim is a lie. And 2. You’re a demonstrable fool.)