Tom's Musings

Technological advances have always been a two edge sword … the Janus head figure of Roman mythology with one face gaze toward the future and the other fixed on the past. For Roman believers, Janus represented many dualities we see about us. Today, we might focus on the duality inherent in technological advancement. Put another way, most innovations can be used for good or evil, applied to the advancement of mankind or to its demise. In the beginning of any breakthrough, we cannot know where innovation will end.

In some ways, Mary Shelley captured our ambivalent attitude toward technology in her 1818 novel about Frankenstein’s monster. Victor Frankenstein set about to create an artificial man based on decent intentions, including responding to his scientific curiosity. His creation, for a variety of reasons he could not foresee, escaped his control. This marvelous, if not inspirational, creation soon became a fearsome being to the world outside his lab. Victor had unleashed a force on his community that ordinary people could not understand nor accommodate.

There are historical examples that go in both directions of course. The breakthrough inspirations of Jenner and Fleming led to life-saving innovations against infectious diseases. Henry Ford’s innovations in assmbly line production of cars reduced the time it took to assemble a Model T Ford from 12.5 hours to less than a minute. The cost fell from $850 to less than $300, thus bringing the automobile within the reach of the middle class. Of course, the unintended consequences on assembly line workers, congested streets, and air pollution were yet to be appreciated.

Other examples fit Asimov’s warning more closely. Between the American Civil War (and the Franco-Prussian War) and the outbreak of WWI, the technology of warfare advanced dramatically. At the start of the Civil War, most soldiers employed single shot, front loading rifles. They were slow, cumbersome weapons that were not accurate. Tactics demanded massing soldiers together to generate any effective firepower.

By 1914, armies had machine guns followed by tanks and high-powered artillery and bombs dropped from planes and lethal nerve gases. Yet, the battlefield tactics still were based on the killing technologies of prior generations. The result was an unimaginable slaughter (over 10 million soldiers) as leaders could not, or would not, recognize how the world had changed. They sent massed armies into technologies that cut them down with efficient ferocity.

Most of us have seen the movie ‘Oppenheimer.’ This epic captures the angst of modern science and scientists. The instinct to pursue knew technologies, often based on compelling rationales in the moment, can and do result in faustian choices. Could the scientists working on the Manhatten project risk Getrmany developing the bomb first?

At the same time, many of them realized they had unleashed an apocalyptic weapon upon the world, regretting their actions. And yet, almost 8 decades after Hiroshima and Nagasaki, wars have been localized and conventionally waged. Has the totality of nuclear force lessened our militant instincts. A point to be debated.

Nothing touches upon Asimov’s point better than the AI (artificial intelligence) spectre 👻 . Will this modern day Framkenstein be a net force for good or evil. Without question, the potential applications are endless and the possible benefits breathtaking. Just take medical diagnoses alone. Think about a digital doctor with all medical knowledge available to them, who never tire, and who can make decisions in nanoseconds. Think how quickly science can progress when not impeded by human frailties and inefficiencies.

And there lies the rub. As AI abilities leap forward, who can predict what might happen? The current versions have a fraction of the connections in the human brain and yet can outperform us in virtually every dimension. How long before our products, over which we yet exercise some control, simulate consciousness, free will, and even our more basic failings. Is it not likely that they will conclude that these wholly imperfect humans atremptingvto exploit them are unnecessary. What then? The so-called ‘godfather’ of AI has upped the probability that AI will replace, or at least significantly diminish the presence of humanity, by at 25 percent.

Noodling this led me to the following thought. As these machines become capable of mimicking, or even exceeding, advanced human attributes (emotions, creativity, desires). If so, what will prevent them from simulating the worst of our tendencies … except at a higher level.

The thing is, we are only at the very beginning of this adventure. Today, AI is like those huge, clunky IBM mainframes of the 1950s with vacuum tubes that could not even perform tasks easily available on a cheap hand-held calculator today. Just think what they will be able to do in a couple of generations, especially if they assume control of their own futures. Perhaps they will simulate all human attributes such as jealousy, ambition, and anger … except at higher functioning levels.

If that happens, why in the world would they not dismiss and eliminate these slow moving and archaic homo-sapiens who would be good for very little, at least to their analysis. To my mind, we would be more bother than anything else.

Consider this, does functioning at levels far beyond what humans could ever hope to achieve guarantee that our future machines will act at higher normative levels. Will they be kind, morally superior, focused on higher level goals? I’m not sure. After all, we have highly educated (Ivy League) Republicans who act like barbaric, school yard bullies. Perhaps our future machines (we need a better term) will wage botter battles among themselves but at an unimaginable level of sophistication and ferocity. In such a world, heaven help us or whomever replaces us.

I will say this one time. I’m glad I’m old!

This is Nobel Prize week. The Peace Prize was just awarded to an Iranian female activist (Narges Mohammedi) who has dedicated her life toward seeking the freedoms that others of her gender enjoy elsewhere in the world. Her persistent efforts to secure some reasonable treatment for Islamic women have been met with ferocious resistance by the Islamic extremist authorities. She has been arrested more than 30 times, convicted some 13 times, and has been sentenced to almost 3 decades in prison and some 145 lashes. She is paying a harsh price for her convictions.

We in the West shake our heads at what we consider such barbaric behaviors on behalf of governing authorities in many Islamic countries. Why treat half of the human species with such casual, yet excessive, cruelty?

But think about it for a moment. Has not the American Republican Party of today become, or is at least trending toward, the American version of the extremist religious Taliban. They seek to command ever greater control over women, their reproductive rights, and their role in society … mostly yearning to reestablish a male dominated society.

Then, another thought struck me. Didn’t Western society go through a similar era where laws and customs were dominated by religious and not secular principles. I just finished reading ‘A World Lit Only by Fire’ by William Manchester. This is an excellent work focusing on the period of time in Europe when the Protestant Reformation challenged the existing primacy of religious authority and where our world view was circumscribed by dogmatic orthodoxy. And yet, it was a period during which scholars began to question the existing consensus on the nature of the world. Pioneering souls, driven by curiosity and the drive to make better sense of the world, began to question accepted truths passed down from sacred sources and endosed by religious leaders. These proto-scientists relied more and more on careful observation and their analytical skills. This often put them at odds with the religious authorities of the times which is a significant understatement of the reality in those times.

Of the many lessons from Manchester’s excellent work, two strike me as relevant today. First, the pre-reformation religious authorities were hardly role models for the spiritual path in life. Pope’s waged war, employed their Papal position to enrich themselves, routinely engaged in lascivious behaviors (too often siring illegitimate children). It was common for the religious elite to sell top positions in the Church to the highest bidder. Corruption started at the top and drifted down the spiritual hierarchy.

Church officials systemically sold indulgences, i.e. get out of Hell free cards. Their approach was simple. It was all too easy to implement since their followers were illiterate and all important documents were in Latin which only the top elite understood. They first sold an uneducated laity on the horrors awaiting them in the after-life, scaring them into submission. Then they suggested that the Church hierarchy, and only them, offered an alternative to an eternity of torture. Finally, they they moved in for the kill by offering a convenient way to avoid the unthinkable consequences of a wayward life … for a price of course. The Republican Party learned well from these early con men. Scare your followers, offer a simple solution, and bleed them dry.

The competition for the goodies attached to Church leadership were so seductive that three different candidates assumed the position of Pope at one point. With time, The abuses were sufficiently flagrant that secular leaders, particularly those in Northern Europe became restive to the point of questioning their subservience to a Papal authority that inspired less and less respect. The way for Martin Luther’s revolt was set by the early 1500s.

The second theme associated with the pre-reformation church involved the harsh penalties for any deviation from accepted orthodoxy. There was an accepted view of the world, one sanctioned by religious authorities. Those deviating from these revealed truths were subject to the severest penalties including torture and death. The empiricists of the era often cowered in the face of religious intolerance. Copernicus did not publish his findings of a helio- centric solar system until after his death (his friends saw to its release) while Galileo retracted his supportive findings in the face of Papal approbation. Rigorous inquiry was not for the faint of heart. Many who questioned existing dogma went into hiding if they could.

Wars stimulated by religious or arcane disputes over seemingly insignificant points of dogma, though often colored by conventional political overtones, were an ongoing reality in that era. The pre-reformation era saw a series of Crusades which pitted Christianty against Islam. But intra-Christian conflicts spawned by the dissolution of a homogeneous religious framework in the West became a constant source of terror … the consequences of which typically fell on innocent peoples lower down in society. I’ll mention just a few … the War of the Three Henrys, the French War of Religion, the Julich Succession during the German Reformation, the English reformation conflicts including the Jacobite uprisings, and so many more. Untold numbers suffered and perished in the name of God.

The point of all this being that monotheistic absolutism, the stubborn belief that ‘my God is better than your God’, has led to more suffering and death than most, if not all, competing causes. The irony should not be lost on anyone. So many killed and maimed in the name of the Prince of Peace. Even when considering more recent world conflicts based largely on secular political goals, they were often imbued with appeals to superior cultural and spiritual meanings. Each side invoked the blessing of God.

Fortunately, as more secular sentiments dominated political life, especially in Europe where religiosity is low, the levels of conflict have abated dramatically. (A recent exception has been the Catholic-Protestant ‘Troubles’ in Ireland.)

All this leads me to wonder if the conflicts we have seen in the Middle East, including the religious orthodoxy that punishes women simply for being women, suggests that the Islamic world is struggling through its own version of an evolutionary period. Perhaps they are struggling with the very issue that plagued Western societies for centuries … should religious or secular impulses govern our national and international lives. Perhaps the existing regimes, including the Shia and Sunni factions, must exhaust their outdated beliefs and emotional dispositions until more secular attitudes and perspectives become dominant. Hopefully, their maturation won’t take as long as it did in the Christian West. Only time will tell whether that optimistic notion is warranted.

The irony of all this is that spiritual beliefs can be a two edge sword. They can elevate individuals and the collective to behave in ways we all can admire. At the same time, they can be used to rationalize and justify the most bestial of attitudes and behaviors.

This brings me back to the comments from the Dalai Lama introduced at the beginning. Spiritual beliefs asserted as dogma are seldom a good idea. Their authority is always debatable, and the consequences of slavishly adhering to them often are reprehensible. Love, and a good heart, should always trump dogma asserted in the form of absolute truth. That is authentic spirituality.

The early 1500s were a kind of tipping point in our Western evolution. In religion, the process of rethinking unquestioned dogma began. Early scientists began to explore the universe about them in rigorous ways. The great texts (and religious documents) were translated into local languages and made available more broadly. Local and national authorities began separating themselves from religious authorities. Brave explorers began to seek out worlds and possibilities previously unimaginable, with Magellan’s circumnavigation of the globe a prime example. A new world was being born.

Slowly, people began looking to the future as opposed to revering the past. They started recognizing that the world around them was not static but malleable. Situations and society could be improved for the benefit of all. Of course, substantive change takes time, and selecting critical moments in the past is a subjective exercise. But I see the decades around 1500 as a tipping point in history. After that, we began the slow march to modern society.

Perhaps a tipping point is taking place in the Islamic world. We just don’t see it yet. Still, we can hope.

Many of you have already seen this. Still, I am moved to share thus widely since the source is neither a liberal AND spent considerable time in Trump’s inner circle.

Below is a recent quote on Donald Trump by John Kelly, retired Marine Corps General who served as Trump’s longest serving WH Chief of Staff (2017-19).

“What can I add that has not already been said. A person that thinks those who defend their country in uniform, or are shot down or seriously wounded in combat or spend years being tortured as POWs are all ‘suckers’ because ‘there is nothing in it for them.’ A person that did not want to be seen in the presence of military amputees because ‘it doesn’t look good for me.’ A person who demonstrated open contempt for a Gold Star family (lost a child in war)- for all Gold Star families- on TV during the 2016 campaign, and rants that our most precious heroes who gave their lives in America’s defense are ‘losers’ and wouldn’t visit their graves in France.”

“A person who is not truthful regarding his position on the protection of unborn life, on women, on minorities, on working men and women. A person that has no idea what America is all about. A person who cavalierly suggests that a selfless warrior who has served his country for 40 years in peacetime and in war should lose his life for treason – in expectation that someone will take action. A person who admires autocrats and murderous dictators. A person that has nothing but contempt for our democratic institutions and the rule of law.”

“There is nothing more that can be said. God help us.”

Nothing is more discouraging to me than the fact that so many Americans still follow thus utterly damaged man with cult like adoration. For many years I pondered the question of how the German people could support Hitler. That is no longer a mystery.

As you know, the brainiacs on the far right believe that the Dems and other radical ‘socialists’ are controlled by a ‘dark state’ controlled by Hillary Clinton operating out of secret pizza parlors that are fronts for pedophilia rings. Even those with the best educations available, like Governor Ron Desantis, cozy up to such borderline psychoses. I’ve always thought that he and the other Ivy League conservatives know full well that this nonsense is BS. It simply is the easiest way to con a large and remarkably gullible base as they pursue ever more power. So, for example, they gleefully attack Covid vaccines as the Devil’s work and demonize Anthony Fauci as Satan’s pawn. So what if people die or suffer as a consequence of their immoral and self-serving stands, they will garner ever more power from a fanatical cult.

The true believers on the right might now have another target for their venom … the Nobel Prize selection committee for Physiology and Medicine. How the radical left in America managed to infiltrate and take control of this international committee based in Stockholm is a bit of a mystery to me. However, they are a crafty and dedicated lot. Besides, you can’t refute the evidence. Given the most recent announcement of the Nobel selection committee, it is clear that the ‘dark state’ now controls those in charge of awarding sciences most prestigious awards.

It was announced that this year’s prize in Physiology and Medicine would be given to Professors Katalin Kariko of Szeged University in Hungary and Drew Weissman of the University of Pennsylvania for their work in developing the MRNA approach to developing vaccines. Their breakthrough work resulted in the Covid vaccines being developed in record time, enabling their early availability to fight off the most significant global health threat in memory … Covid 19 and its variants. Of course, you are only impressed with their work if you do not believe that Covid was a fraud unleashed on a gullible world to embarrass the greatest world leader since Napoleon Bonaparte … Donald Trump.

Let us assume the pandemic was, in fact, real. After all, I cannot imagine the entire world collaborating with America’s radical left to foster a hoax on the U.S. just so liberals could impose specious mandates and shut down much of the economy for a while. Yes, the response to the pandemic (real or fake) was an inconvenience to our wannabe dictator, the Donald. However, I thought he redeemed himself well by suggesting we all drink bleach or some such rot. Only NFL QB Aaron Rodgers came up with a more creative solution … Intervectin. Wow! It remains a mystery as to how the Nobel committee could overlook the contributions of Trump and Rodgers in handing out this prestigious award. Perhaps the fact that both of these loonies are bat shit crazy had something to do with the Committee ignoring them.

Apparently, the Committee decided to go with solid science as opposed to political exploitation and personal delusions. How narrow of them. The winners, Katalin and Weissman, first met at the University of Pennsylvania in the 1990s where they began to pursue a new concept for developing life saving vaccines.

Up until then, most vaccines used dead or weakened forms of a virus to protect patients from more deadly forms of the disease. As the 18th century came to a close, Edward Jenner presumably overheard a milkmaid comment that she would not get smallpox because she already had the cowpox. Apparently, regular folk knew instinctively about the therapeutic advantages of exposure to a less virulent form of an infectious disease. Jenner ran with this insight and successfully demonstrated the effectiveness of inoculations to ward off the dire consequences of the more deadly smallpox.

Most subsequent vaccines were based on the same principle. However, Kariko and Weissman pursued a different tact, one that was ignored by mainstream science at the time. Then again, the developer of the polio vaccine, Dr. Jonas Salk, was dismissed early on by many in the medical community. He also persisted and was proved correct when his vaccine against a dreaded disease that I feared as a kid became available in the mid-1950. Dr. Albert Sabin was one of the early critics of Salk, though he did go on to develop an oral form of the polio vaccine several years down the road. But Salk ignored his critics and pursued his vision. His dedication and courage undoubtedly saved many lives and avoided great suffering.

Just what is this new approach developed by the Nobel winners? I’m a layman, but here is what I understand. They take part of the genetic code of the virus and turn it into a vaccine. This vaccine enters the cells and tells them to produce the Coronavirus spike protein. These look like spikes sticking out from the cell. The body’s immune system reacts as if a pathological virus is present. Antibodies are produced and T-cells activated. It is much like the body preparing for a real war. Now, if a person then contracts Coronavirus, the antibodies and T-cells are present and prepared to attack this potentially more deadly threat.

The big idea behind this technology (which I really don’t understand) is to use the genetic code in innovative ways. Presumably, future vaccines to ward off new threats can be developed using this insight and on a much more expeditious time frame. I recall thinking that the scientists frantically working on a Covid vaccine in 2020 came up with something in an astonishingly short time.

Kariko and Weissman’s insight may be on the order of Jenner’s smallpox and Alexander Flemming’s anti-biotic revolution (penicillin). Using specific genetic codes might well unlock the key to other life- saving vaccinations, perhaps including ways to fight specific forms of cancer. Only time will tell.

For now, Kariko and Weissman likely will be added to the far right’s hall of shame, along with Anthony Fauci, the dedicated scientists and doctors at the Center for Disease Control, and all those who labor in research labs in the search for new ways to save lives and reduce human suffering. May they continue their heroic work even as the far right attacks and vilifies them merely in the pusuit of power and personal gain or merely to vent their accumulated bile.

Society may adore football stars and Taylor Swift. In my book, however. those that push the boundaries of knowledge are the real heroes today, no matter what the hate-mongers on the right claim.

Is money the root of all evil? Hell if I know, but it sure can pose a danger to society especially if existing resources are not shared in a reasonable or equitable fashion. Let’s explore this thesis for a bit, shall we?

The world’s economy is doing very well. We know that the ranks of the desperately poor, have declined substantially in the past couple of decades. From another perspective, global equity markets recently have been valued at some $109 trillion dollars. As the saying goes, a trillion here and a trillion there and soon you are talking real money.

Moreover, the size of this pie has tripled since the turn of the century. That is, there has been an explosion of wealth as evidenced by the mushrooming of yachts, private planes, and displays of egregious wealth. In short, while some of this newfound lucre has drifted down to the needy, the vast majority has gone in the other direction … toward the economic elite.

Of course, not every part of the globe has shared equally in this bonanza. The U.S. and Europe enjoy over 55 percent of these goodies with the States appropriating the lion’s share. Still, so-called emerging markets are catching up. China has seen a 12- fold increase in market equities over the past two decades. Moreover, while China used to send its best and brightest to the West to be educated, they now are investing substantially in home-grown research and education. Two Chinese universities now compete with the best Western institutions. India, on the other hand, is projected to enjoy the fastest growth over the next two decades. These emerging markets are projected to dominate the traditional winners in the West by 2050.

The other key factor is who, within individual countries, has benefitted from all this economic expansion. This is a complex topic, so we will keep it simple. In the U.S., the top 1 percent take at least 20 percent of the national income (some estimates have put it closer to 24 percent until Covid disrupted things) … a figure that has more than doubled since Reagan assumed office in 1980. The bottom half of the population must make do with 10 percent of the pie. Wealth, or accumulated income, is even more unevenly distributed.

Now, you might say that the distribution of income is determined by market forces and is beyond the scope of human intervention. Neo-classical economic thought treats these outcomes as the product of natural laws, like gravity, and should not be messed with. Any public interference would distort market operations and lead to inefficiencies and distortions. Worse, such interventions would inconvenience the filthy rich.

Then again, if that were the case, I would expect to see a good deal of homogeneity in distributional patterns across countries, especially across more or less peer nations. But, in fact, there is considerable variation when the standard measure of inequality, the GINI coefficient, is examined.

For example, I suggested earlier that the U.S. has a comparatively high level of income and wealth inequality. Some 80 countries are measurably more equal in how income and wealth are distributed across their populations. These include the U.K., Canada, Germany, France, Austria, Sweden, Ireland, Poland, Italy, the Netherlands, Belgium, Switzerland, Spain, Portugal, Greece, all the Scandinavian and Baltic countries, and most Eastern European nations. Oh, and I might throw in Russia and China. Within the European community as a whole, the top 1 percent garner 12 % of the pie (not 20 plus percent like the U.S.) while the bottom half access 22% of what is available (more than twice what the less fortunate in America get).

So what, you might wonder. Well, I often wonder why Americans so blithely put up with the few taking such a huge portion of their resource pie. Why don’t they see this as unfair. Again, this is a complex issue. I recall an old observation about a basic difference in how Americans and Europeans respond to wealth. When a Rolls Royce passes poorer folk on the continent, they often respond with anger. In America, those looking on sigh with admiration and believe that such blessings can one day be theirs. After all, there is always the lottery.

No matter the difference in how people respond to displays of great advantage, there is one outstanding danger. As income and wealth become increasingly concentrated at the top, so does power. Money can buy media exposure and can help leverage the mechanisms through which social control is maintained. The more money at the top, the more likely the rules will reflect the interests and preferences of the elite. That is why hedge fund managers pay less proportionally in taxes than working stiffs. Money is power, and those with the most gold get to shape the rules.

Most politicians would rather eschew the employment of raw power to retain control … Trump may be the exception. No, most prefer a subtler approach … the classic bait and switch tactic. Keep people obsessing on irrelevant issues while you rob them blind. Keep them afraid, divided, and focused on marginal questions like abortion, transgender and gay politics, barbarians at our borders, guns, books that are grooming our kids, and all sorts of emotional topics that deflect attention from more substantive concerns. Conservatives realize that common folk respond to emotional narratives that strike their hearts while liberals keep making rational arguments, which is why the libs usually do so badly.

With people distracted, those that occupy the top spots in our economic pyramid can continue to gather more and more for themselves. At some point, we may reach the point at which there may be no possibility of addressing the rules which, if revamped, might create a more equitable and integrated society. The imbalance may be permanent, self- sustaining, and self-perpetuating. Perhaps we are already there.

So, is money the root of all evil? Not sure about that. But concentrated wealth does permit all kinds of evil to flourish. Of that, I am without any doubt.

Retired 4 star Army General Barry McCaffrey recently observed the following about Trump supporting MAGAs … ‘what we are seeing is a parallel to the 1930s in Nazi Germany.’ He is joined by numerous other pundits, such as highly regarded historian Heather Cox-Richardson for example, who observe that the 2024 election might well determine whether the American experiment in democracy will continue or whether the nation will succumb fully to a form of authoritarian rule. I must admit, while I’ve never seen myself as an alarmist, I share a good deal of these dark forebodings.

Despite the rhetoric expounded in our public propaganda, America only inched close to a mature democracy within my lifetime (circa late 1960s) and then immediately faced a backlash from entrenched white elites, especially in Southern and rural states. Right from colonial days, there has been a strong sentiment that elite whites, preferably property owners, should rule as a form of entitlement.

The undercurrent of discontent among those who basically distrust democratic rule has always been there, from the various populist movements of the late 19th century through Huey Long, the Silver Shirts, the American Bund, the KKK, the American Nazi party. Today, we have literally hundreds of anti-government and hate groups festering across the land.

At the same time, we ought not be overly myopic. America’s deep cultural divide, a phenomenon I’ve discussed in prior posts, is woven deeply into our zeitgeist. It is part of us. This nation has been divided since its inception when the issue of slavery was swept under the rug as the Constitution was created. Our electoral college reflected the deep negative animus between larger states with industrial potential and more rural areas favoring an agricultural and a mostly hierarchical society. America tenaciously held on to slavery, and then legal apartheid, long after most of our peer counties abandoned such primitive practices.

What has changed recently, in my opinion, is that these sentiments now control a major political party. Starting with the Goldwater movement in the 1960s, picking up speed with the Gingrich revolution in the early 1990s, and coming to full fruition with Trump in 2016, one of our two major political parties now embraces and reflects the elitist and authoritarian impulses that have always been there, but kept politely beneath the surface and hidden from public view. The hate mongers and demagogues of the past might have enjoyed popularity but wielded little effective power (e.g., Father Coughlin in the 1930s).

For me, the biggest difference now, and the source of our existential threat, is that the hate filled tribalism and over reaching authoritarianism has driven all moderation and sanity from the Republican Party. The fleeing of Liz Cheney and Mitt Romney marks the end of any constraints on the venerable GOP and surely any prospects of principled governance from the conservative wing.

Those that would tear away even the pretense of democracy and the rule of law now have real power. That is far different from the political arrangement of my youth when liberals and conservatives were distributed across both parties. That partly was an anomaly persisting from normative allegiances cemented during the Civil War and which remained until the realignment spawned by the modern Civil Rights movement emerged in the late 1950s.

There are many factors one might suggest to explain today’s political polarization. We have the tribalism fostered by social media, the rise of agenda driven propaganda outlets, the weaponization of evangelical religion, and a growing sector of the population that could not identify their own self interest with the help of GPS and a guide dog.

These and other factors have resulted in an environment based on identity politics sustained by a virulent hate of the ‘other,’ especially on the right. This perhaps best reflects McCaffrey’s observation that America today parallels Germany during the rise of Naziism. In the eyes of today’s Republicans, the radical left (anyone who still believes in civility, compassion, and community) are a contemporary version of Jews in the 1930s. Is anyone surprised that Trump is hinting at executing former staffers he considers disloyal.

Normally, I would say that our contemporary form of fascism will fail, as did the spasms of extremism in the past. After all, Trumpers represent perhaps 30 percent of the population. Then again, let us not forget the lessons of history. The Bolsheviks were a small minority in 1917, even among the leftist forces seeking to replace the Czar. And the Nazis, even at the height of their popularity before being handed power, barely captured a third of the popular support.

With an antiquated electoral college in place, with our cultural divide as wide as it is, with some $10 billion expected to be spent just on the upcoming national election alone, with disinformation and likely Russian interference in our next election, is anyone confident that Trump or a Trump substitute can be kept from national office.

I would like to say that Americans are too wise and sane to flush almost 250 years of effort and sacrifice to create a mature democracy down the drain. Yes, I would really like to say that. But I cannot. After all, we elect people like Marjorie Taylor Greene, Matt Gaetz, Lauren Boebert, and Paul Gosar. These are seriously damaged people.

Yes, as a cartoon character observed a long time ago … we have met the enemy and it is us. We have no one else to blame.

Have you ever thought about this?

In 100 years, like in 2123, we will all be buried with our relatives and friends.

Strangers will live in our homes that we fought so hard to build, and they will own everything we have today.

All our possessions will be unknown
and unborn, including the car we spent a fortune on, and will probably be scrap, preferably in the hands of an unknown collector.

Our descendants will hardly know
who we were, nor will they remember us.

How many of us know our grandfather’s father?

After we die, we will be
remembered for a few more years,
Then we are just a portrait on
someone’s bookshelf,

And a few years later, our history,
photos and deeds disappear
in history’s oblivion.

We won’t even be memories.

If we paused to analyze these thoughts, perhaps we would understand how ignorant and weak the dream to achieve it all was.

If we could always be conscious of this, perhaps our approaches and our thoughts would change. We would be different people.

I’d change all this to live and enjoy
the walks I’ve never taken, the hugs
I didn’t give, the kisses for the children, animals and loved ones,
the jokes I didn’t have time for.

These would certainly be the most
beautiful moments to remember.

~Unknown

Hi all. I am back in the hospital. Damn!

Had a scary evening Friday. I was at a friends house waiting to watch the Wisconsin football game. Suddenly I kept getting dizzier and dizzier. I was about to say something when I woke up on the floor surrounded by EMT types.

My friend, a retired nurse (so she has seen a lot) said it was scary. I glazed over, foamed at the mouth, and collapsed. She did say the EMTs were there almost immediately. I vaguely recall trying to say ”I’m okay.” At least I think I did. But my friend put an end to that nonsense. I was pale, clammy, sweating, nauseus, and barely able to converse. Next thing I knew, Im bouncing in an ambulance as they attached me to an IV and several other mecical devices. I know they thought I was having a heart attack. In fact, before they let me go today, one more check on my heart. And yes. Contrary to public opinion, I have one.

Much more likely, this is related to the infection I’ve been fighting over the past month or so (they pumped me full of antibiotics over the weekend). This Urinary Tract Infection (possibly caused by e-coli bacteria) may have impacted my kidneys and prostate. But all that may sound more ominous than it is. My readings were getting better before this setback.

Home today I hope. However, future posts may be at a slower rate. We will see!

I try to be understanding. I really try. But Republicans continue to think of ways to demonstrate their utter lack of common sense. Again, there are legions of examples, but I will focus on the Wisconsin version of the gang that can’t shoot straight’s war on the State’s flagship University… Wisconsin Madison. Why attack a world class research university that contributes so much to the State’s economy defies logic. Then again, thinking straight has never been a Republican strength.

Let’s start with a few facts about UW-Madison, my professional home for several decades even though I spent a good deal of time in Washington D.C. and working with various state and local governments. In the recent ranking of U.S. universities, UW ranked 35 overall, and 12th among public institutions. That is up from the 49th spot just several years ago despite repeated attacks by the Republican leadership led by Robert Voss. In global rankings, UW has ranked among the top 50, earning its reputation as a ‘world class’ research university.

Some may say that Wisconsin, being a rather average state in terms of economic resources, cannot afford to support a top school. But that is not how this works. In fact, the state contributes only 15 percent of the total campus budget. That is, the state only kicks in about $537 million of the campuses $3.7 billion dollar budget. Another 21 percent ($749 million) comes from student tuition and fees while some 18 percent ($676 million) is generated by private donations.

Adding these budgetary components up only accounts for a little more than half of the total budget. While there are other sources of support, the most significant revenue source not mentioned so far is research grants. In a recent year, some $1.38 billion dollars in grants flowed into the Madison campus, placing it 8th among all universities. The state can enjoy a top university because a reputation for excellence in the past enables Madison to attract top talent and, therefore, large amounts of extracurricular support.

Here’s the thing. Most of us academics at a place like Wisconsin are mini entrepreneurs. We bring in far more in revenue than we take in salary. I certainly could have earned more outside a state university but felt a strong pull to contribute to the public good. This place, indeed any research university, would fall apart if a talented faculty were not so successful in competing for scarce research money. Surely, we would not be running a $33 million dollar surplus as is now the case. I know that I personally brought in millions either directly or indirectly, and I was nothing special. It is what you do at a place like Wisconsin or Michigan or any of the elite public research schools.

Of course, that does not even begin to account for the full economic contribution the university makes to the local economy. Epic systems started as a spin off of a university project several decades ago. When any doctor puts patient information into an automated system, it is likely an Epic product. The firm has grown from a handful of people into massive effort that will soon employ 18,000 mostly highly paid technical and professional workers. And this is just one such offshoot but surely one of the most successful ones.

You would think that Republicans would take pride in such an economic engine. They traditionally have been the bottom line people. Anything that generates a robust ROI (return on investment) is a good thing. Right? But no, Republicans have been attacking the University ever since Scott Walker became governor. Now that the Dems control the top position, the attack dogs are found in the Assembly and Senate.

What is the latest line of attack? Voss and his minions are going after programs designed to enhance diversity, equity, and inclusion (D.E.I initiatives) on the campus. Yes, this is where they have drawn the most recent line in the sand. They don’t want anything done that might provide educational access to underserved populations either in terms of improving access to the university or enhancing the prospects of success once enrolled. Apparently, they want to restrict access to the American dream to white, affluent families.

Voss et. al. started their attack by threatening to cut all the money going to postions working on D.E.I. concerns (roughly $32 million systems wide). But with the university running a surplus and with these initiatives representing such a small fraction of the total budget, this was not much of the threat. So, more recently, they have threatened to eliminate all pay raises if the university insists that diversity remain an important goal.

Now, think about that for a moment. While universities can always fill faculty positions, research universities are always competing for the top talent, often poaching stars from other schools. They need the best and brightest to bring in the research grants necessary to mantaining a stellar reputation and, frankly, keeping the institution going. If you can no longer attract these top people, or they are stolen by competitor institutions, the whole enterprise can quickly unravel.

The pettiness of our Republican statemen doesn’t stop there. Recently, they refused to sanction the building of a new engineering complex even though the cost would not fall on taxpayers. In response, the university administrators are seeking the freedom to decide what facilities they need if the cost is privately covered. Not expand STEM-focused facility. How moronic must you be to support that? Even idiots know we need more engineers to compete in the high-tech global economy.

Let’s face it, the conservatives dominating today’s Wisconsin Republican Party are using the University as a convenient punching bag. The strategic approach of that party is focused on inciting hatred and tribalism among their base. A convenient target for such enmity is the educated elite who are capable of independent thinking. Such folk are more likely to be able to connect the dots and determine self-interest. They will easily calculate that pursuing only those policies that favor a tiny sliver of the state’s wealthiest people is a narrowly conceived and counter- productive approach. That is, an educated population capable of independent thought will not likely support transparently stupid policies. Thus, they want their base to see what they consider the educated elite as some kind of enemy. How short sighted.

Unfortunately, the divide and conquer tactic has worked in the past. Keep the base riled up works on the short term. Convincing rural whites that any help directed at those who have been excluded in the past is an attack on their interests is, unfortunately, an easy sell. Convince voters that this is a zero-sum game where democrats represent the other side, and you can get people to vote against their own interests. They are more interested in ‘sticking it to those they dont like’ than improving things for all.

A thought struck me as I considered such things. The state contribution is getting smaller and smaller each year, yet their attempts to micromanage this important institution continue to increase. Will they next be trying to manage what is taught in the classrooms as DeSantis is trying to do in Florida. Do you want those who support censorship and book banning to determine what is taught and how? I think not.

So, why not begin the process of severing the relationship between the flagship campus and the state. Research and the education of the next generation are too important to be left to provincial politicians motivated by the worst of instincts and intentions. We need great universities where truth can be pursued vigorously and independently, where the future is continuously reinvented. We need strong and independent institutions like Wisconsin-Madison has been for decades.

I’m not certain that severing the university’s ties to state government can work, but it is a place to start a vigorous debate.

As you may recall, I recently vented over our national fascination with sporting events even as we generally ignore or deny issues of real import. I remain shocked at the extensive discussions of the most trivial matters concerning weekly football matches, both professional and collegiate. Of course, major college programs now field semi-pro players, so the old distinction is irrelevant. Nevertheless, we approach life as if all that matters is the outcome of the most recent sporting events involving our favorite teams.

A few institutions of higher learning have seen the light in the past. The University of Chicago abandoned inter collegiate athletics many decades ago, preferring to focus on what matters … research and education. My undergraduate alma mater, Clark University, was founded as the second graduate school in the U.S. (after John’s Hopkins). Jonas Clark, the founder, stipulated that the school would never have a football team. He was a prescient man.

When Donna Shalala took over as Chancellor at the University of Wisconsin around 1990, she took a different path. The athletic department was in the crapper. She immediately saw that the way to open up the wallets of the alumni was to field winning teams, especially in football. She hired a new athletic director (Pat Richter) and a new football coach (Barry Alverez). Athletic success soon followed along with more generous donations to the school’s endowment.

Most potential contributors cannot fathom the complexities of research and development at this level, but they damn well know how their favorite teams are doing. It is hard to argue with Donna’s logic, who went on to serve as Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and then as Congresswoman. She was a smart cookie.

While I lament the loss of the amateur character of major collegiate sports, I get the pressures to go along and chase the dollars. Flashy success on the sporting fields helps secure support for what really counts in labs hidden from public purview. However, I weep that so much energy goes into activities that, at the end of the day, are just not that important. These games, at best, are the bread and circuses that detract most of us from attending to what really counts. That is what concerns me the most.

So many of us eagerly check out whether our team has risen or fallen in the latest rankings even though it is very early in the season. Really, the rankings are virtually useless at this point, though that does little to diminish the passionate debate bordering on the pathological that follows each new posting. 🙄

Would that such intensity follow other news that gets far less attention. In 2023, we have had 23 different weather related climactic disasters in the U.S. with damages exceeding $1 billion each. This breaks the previous record set in 2020 and we have three months to go. Why aren’t we following this unfolding tragedy with the same laser focus as we do the fortunes of the SEC football teams?

Our national debt now exceeds $32 trillion. As the old saying goes, a trillion here and a trillion there and pretty soon you are talking about real money. In a few years, we will be spending $1.4 trillion annually just to service our debt. I can remember when we struggled to keep the federal budget under a billion dollars.

To the extent that we do debate such matters, the logic employed is laughable. How many Republicans have argued that we should use the same discipline with our national finances as we do with our household budgets. Yeah, right! Total personal credit card debt now exceeds $1 trillion while overall household debt now exceeds $17 trillion.

Or we get the twilight zone debate where Republicans focus on cuts in domestic spending (excluding defense) to solve our budget issues. Anyone with a ounce of sense must realize that a serious debate must include both spending cuts AND revenue increases, especially when those at the top of the pyramid often pay disproportionally less in taxes than struggling school teachers. The share of the income and wealth pies going to the top 1 percent did not happen because God willed it. It happened because egregiously greedy individuals manipulated the system in their favor. Let’s get passionate about that debate.

Or why do we look aside when it is pointed out that over 16 percent of children under 6 live in poverty. We can easily soothe our collective consciousness by rationalizing this tragedy by assuming it is their fault or nothing can be done, at least not without adverse consequences. But then we would have to explain away the reality that our peer nations have child poverty rates that are a fraction of ours. Poverty is not beyond the reach of public policy if there is a will to address it.

One last kick at this cat. As of a few days ago, we had over 500 mass shootings in the U.S. We are on the way to another record year of human carnage. Is this not worthy of our attention and our passion? Here we are talking about lives lost, bodies maimed, and families shattered. Surely, this should count as much as any freaking football game.

Listen, I have followed collegiate sports teams (go Badgers). I can enjoy a good contest (though not as much as I used to do). But I have never forgotten what is important and what, at the end of the day, is not. Sports is entertainment. It is not life and death!