Christie for President! Wait... What?

Now, if you are an independent-minded voter in the U.S. and a fiscally conservative-leaning type like me, you may hope to see John McCain rise from the dead, or Liz Chaney announce her candidacy, but the truth is that the soul of the Republican Party in the U.S. is buried right next to John. And through its actions against Liz, have shown its willingness to stay there.

Most all the current (July 2023) GOP candidates for the 2024 nomination are pandering cowards that fear alienating the berating imbecile Donny Trump’s cult members. All except one: Chris Christie. 

Let’s get this straight, I’m not a huge fan of Christie’s politics. He’s too far right for me on abortion and gun control. But he does understand how to attack deficit spending - and he’s intellectually a Rhodes Scholar compared to Trump.  He also shows some ability to distinguish between right and wrong.

He has been in the role of never-Trumper attack dog since he entered the race. Focusing on telling it like it really is on Trump. For all his efforts he is not popular with the cult.  

“The people in the Republican Party, and quite broadly across America, are tired of having political candidates who are snake oil salesmen who just don’t tell them the truth, who tell them whatever they think they want to hear at the moment,” Christie - on Fox News.

Boy, he nailed that one. 

Christie is polling at only about 2.5% among likely GOP voters, but he has raised some serious cash. Those that bankroll him are likely more interested in his ability to make Trump lose focus on the issues than they are in seeing Christie get nominated. Myself included.

To secure a spot in the Republican primary debates starting in August, the GOP candidates will have to get 40,000 contributor donations and poll above 1% in either three national polls or two national polls and one state poll. He is likely to make the cut.

That’s the next test for me. Can Christie play hardball with Trump standing next to him? Trump has no problem bullying, ridiculing, and demeaning an opponent to their face. He has no sense of ‘fair play’ or common rules of conduct. He’s a loudmouth that some people just love to hear no matter what he says. They love the boasting, childish name-calling, and venom he displays. It helps them digest their beer, I guess. To the cultists, he’s just a party animal. In the White House he is a danger to all we hold dear.

So, let’s ensure Chris gets his chance to go where other candidates fear to tread. The first GOP debate is on August 24th, 2023 in Milwaukee. The second will be in Simi Valley - date TBD. 

There’s already some rumbling that Trump may be a no-show for the first debate. If it's for fear of Christie… I would not be surprised. I would also give Chris the credit for his absence. Nothing could make Trump more upset. Which is exactly the point.

Fearful Justice

Recent attacks, by the religious political right, on human (LGBTQ & reproductive) rights and choices, are the tip of the “Fear Iceberg” in contemporary democratic society. I’m not all that surprised that Russia or Iran are vocal about their bias and bigotry, but the fact that a small and vocal segment of America displays the same ignorance is troubling. 

The US Constitution proclaims that “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness” are unalienable rights.  Which is apparently interpreted by these right-wing groups to mean additionally: “...as long as you are Christian, white, celibate, straight and afraid”. 

The fear factor is an iceberg. It lies beneath all the lofty rhetoric about social values and child safety. These people are afraid of the influence such personal freedoms will have on their social circle, culture, or children. They easily whip themselves into a frenzy imagining what society will be if we continue down this godless road!

The fact of the matter is, homosexual behaviors have been around as long as humans themselves.  Aborting an unwanted pregnancy has also been a common practice since the first birth. 

You would think these behaviors and ‘liberties’ were something new and dangerous if you are a modern-day right-wing extremist. They would say: “Just because we have always done it does not mean we should”. But I’m here to tell them, it’s not about “we”. It’s about You. And that is the issue. You are not harmed in any way. There are no ‘victims’ in your circle. The only victims are the ones created by your oppressive laws and the persecution of liberty sought by these groups.

I will wager a bet. I have no way to prove this, as the truth is as well hidden as the fear, but I will wager that over 50% of the politicians and right-wing groups sponsoring these attacks on liberty have been directly involved in supporting or engaging in homosexual conduct or the procurement of an abortion. Either personally or through immediate family or friends. 

It is nearly impossible - unless you are raised on a secluded hilltop somewhere - not to have had experience or relationships with those that are in need of protection from these attacks. Yet they attack anyway. 

Fear is the catalyst that foreshadows all rational acceptance of what is a real inalienable human right.  Fear removes grace, dignity, empathy, and understanding. Hate is built on fear. Wars are fought over it. Liberty is denied by it.

As long as we fear that which is human nature and human need, we will suffer fearful justice from the lowest of society to the highest court in the land. Fear knows no bounds.

Supreme Incite

No, I did not mean Supreme Insight. 

Affirmative Action: A declaration of reparation, not discrimination. For nearly 100 years African Americans endured slavery, murder, and hate before eventual emancipation. Add then another 100 years of racial segregation and discrimination. Fifty years ago, even after the Equal Rights Amendment, there were still “White-Only” businesses and universities throughout America. 

According to the Digest of Education Statistics, in 1976 (the earliest year for which there was a detailed breakdown), only about 9.4% of all college and university students in the U.S. were Black. This included historically black colleges, meaning that the largest white-run universities had far less. The percentage was even lower in the 1960s - but real data is lacking due to the suppression of racial statistics and information.

In the realm of higher education, many universities, especially in the Southern states, still maintained "whites preferred" admissions policies through the1960s and 1970s. The exact number of such universities is difficult to determine due to incomplete historical records and the varying degrees to which universities implemented and enforced segregation policies. In many cases, even where there were no explicit policies barring Black students, discriminatory practices and a hostile environment effectively kept these institutions mostly or entirely white.

One notable example is the University of Mississippi, which didn't admit its first Black student, James Meredith, until 1962, in the face of enormous resistance and violence. Many other universities in the South also began to integrate in the early to mid-1960s, often under court order or federal pressure - and then with only ‘token’ numbers.

Affirmative Action policies (1961-1965) focused on making the government, and companies doing business with the government, give equal opportunity based on the racial makeup of society rather than social bias. University admissions were NOT a specific focus of affirmative action in its initial form.  But, without equal education, it was hard to find equal employment and representation. So universities took up the policy in an attempt to make college admissions sensitive to the demographic makeup of society. Of course, the racists challenged these policies in the Supreme Court. Of note are these: 

1: "Regents of the University of California v. Bakke" (1978): The Court held that while race could be considered as a factor in admissions, the use of strict racial quotas was not permissible.

2: "Grutter v. Bollinger" (2003) and "Gratz v. Bollinger" (2003): In these cases related to admissions at the University of Michigan, the Court upheld the use of race as one factor among many in law school admissions in Grutter, but struck down an undergraduate admissions policy that awarded points based on race in Gratz.

3: "Fisher v. University of Texas" (2013 and 2016): In these cases, the Court upheld the university's use of race as one factor in admissions, affirming that universities have a compelling interest in fostering a diverse student body.

The data from the 2020 Census showed that the non-Hispanic White race was around 58% of the total U.S. population. 18.5% of the U.S. population identified as Hispanic or Latino, and about 13.4% identified as Black or African American.

Also in 2020, according to the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), about 56% of undergraduate students were White, 20% were Hispanic, 15% were Black, 7% were Asian/Pacific Islander, and 1% were American Indian/Alaska Native. This, of course, could vary significantly by the institution and region, but overall significantly more representative of ‘equal’ admissions than in the past.

What all this tells me, is that affirmative action has indeed succeeded in providing equality in education, overall.  And it had significant legal precedent to continue. Affirmative action was about equal education - not racial profiling or “reverse discrimination”. For the SCOTUS to rule race was not to be used as a measure of racial equality in college admissions was a patent racist ruling in and of itself.

This most recent religious and politically motivated court also engaged in Ideological and political activism that had nothing to do with constitutional interpretation. 

The LGBTQ ruling on artistic expression and religious objections had no standing (the plaintiff was NOT actually asked or forced to serve any LGBTQ person or entity), and a Student Loan Forgiveness case was brought by GOP state governments that had no legal standing (could not show harm to the states) for purely political reasons. The court not only decided to hear these cases without good cause, but it ruled on purely ideological (rather than constitutional) grounds in each.

A “Christian” postal worker did not want to work on the “Sabbath”. In a country that is constitutionally bound to NOT promote religion or rule in favor of one, SCOTUS did the opposite. What's next? Baptists refusing to work on Wednesdays? Muslims taking 5 breaks a day for prayer? Jewish workers refusing to work Saturdays? Religion's Pandora's box is open for business.

All this followed the SCOTUS ruling that interpreted that the Constitution allowed the state's Government to decide if a woman must use their body for reproduction. The Government!

Add to this the mounting evidence that more than one Justice has been receiving gifts and rewards from political and special interests - and we have a REAL inciteful problem. 

The road back to justice, equality, and the rule of constitutional law must be instilled back into SCOTUS.  Due to arcane laws that do not allow for a Justices' term limits or require the Senate to confirm appointments in a timely manner, we have allowed one or two individuals to stack the court with people not fit to judge with impartiality. 

But the hens are being guarded by the fox these days. Change will come only from We The People at the ballot box. Elect legislators that will change laws that incite constitutional activism in the Court and return it to its stated role as a check and balance, rather than a tipping point.

JWB

Opposites Attract

The GOP seems to sincerely believe that all things opposite to common sense and decency will attract voters. In the case of Donald Trump’s base - they may have a point.

“University of Chicago research finds support for violence to achieve political goals and general distrust of democracy.* Two and a half years after the January 6 attack on the Capitol, an estimated 12 million American adults, or 4.4% of the adult population, believe violence is justified to restore Donald Trump to the White House.” - The Guardian, June 2023.

So far in 2023, the GOP has pushed public book bans, joined in LBGTQ bigotry, cast immigration as an ‘invasion’, and led multiple attacks on the rule of law - All in an effort to win over the Trump base of hate and racism.  While many in the GOP decry the “weaponization” of the FBI, the DOJ, or the courts, they seem quite comfortable with weaponizing fear, bias, hate, and discrimination.

Rather than finding accommodations for our differences or solutions to our problems, they have devised a new Trumpist tact. The social drift from “Political Correctness” to “Woke” is a mainstay of the political landscape for the GOP. By adopting jargon that older and more conservative citizens know little about, they have rebranded being socially and/or politically correct - to being pejoratively woke and leftist. This rings a special note with Trump cult members and right-wing extremists. These represent the core voters the GOP believes they MUST have to regain the white house. 

By being opposite to the basic individual American values such as ‘self-evident’ life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness - the GOP is recasting the American dream for millions of Americans to include bigotry and violence as a possible - and indeed proper - course of action for a democracy.

The dye for the destruction of our democracy was cast not on Jan 6th, 2021… but on Feb 4, 2022, when the Republican National Committee (RNC) Chairwoman (Rinna McDaniel), after over a year of review, made the following press release:

“Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger crossed a line. They chose to join Nancy Pelosi in Democrat-led persecution of ordinary citizens who engaged in legitimate political discourse that had nothing to do with violence at the Capitol.” -  RNC Feb 2022

It bears repeating: Legitimate political discourse.  A resurrection led by a sitting president with the stated objective to overthrow the 2020 election results - was legitimate.  In America.

Today June 8th, 2023 former President Trump was indicted on 37 counts of federal crimes relating to classified document misuse (and possibly, theft).  Trump has yet to answer for his incitement to insurrection that we all watched unfold on TV on Jan 6th, 2021… as if in a movie. It’s still hard for me to believe even though I watched it with my own eyes.

In the most recent political moves, would-be GOP autocrats from Ronald DeSantis to Donald Trump himself are vying for a 2024 run at president of the United States. They together lead all polls. With a new America emerging where fairness, decency, and correctness (Wokeness) goes to die - along with personal rights to equal treatment under the law.  The political party of ‘less government’ is preaching a road ahead with the most expanded government control over liberty since Jim Crow - in schools, medicine, free speech, human rights, and immigration.  

I can only hope the next election attracts the opposite. 

JB

*”12m Americans believe violence is justified to restore Trump to power”, Kira Lerner, The Guardian, Retrieved Fri 9 June 2023 06.00 EDT from: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jun/09/january-6-trump-political-violence-survey#:~:text=Two%20and%20a%20half%20years,Trump%20to%20the%20White%20House.

Gender Affirmation

America has a unique Constitution. When it was first introduced to the world it was actually laughed at by many foreign heads of state, kings, and autocrats. Many world leaders thought the idea that a civilian population was entitled to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” was a ridiculous foundation for a political system. A “right of happiness”? Indeed!. Hogwash.

Thus started the most progressive and insightful writings of the 16th century: Our Declaration of Independence (1776), The Constitution of the United States, and the Bill of Rights (1787 - together, the Constitution). Unequaled in its purported respect for dignity, rights, and individual liberty, the Constitution was far from a conservative document. From the right to carry arms to personal freedoms and equal justice under the law, these documents were bleeding-edge progressive in their time. 

Many of the provisions of the Constitution, however, were not readily accepted by the States or their representatives in 1787. To many U.S. politicians of the time, they were simply words on parchment.  From the enslavement of African laborers and religious persecution to the lack of voting rights for women and the attempted extermination of the American Indian, it has taken nearly 250 years to realize many of the promises that document made. And we are still far from its intended goals.

The LGBTQ (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender/Transvestite, and Queer/Questioning) movement has been testing the limits of the promise of a right to happiness for several decades. I, for one, believe in the personal right to love whom you wish and marry whoever you please. I am a live-and-let-live straight white guy that has had many LGBTQ friends, acquaintances, and employees in my life. I respect their rights and choices as if they were my own. 

The self-RIGHTeous movement embedded in the Republican Party these last few years has now taken aim at ‘Gender Affirmation’.  For those of you not familiar with what that is, it’s simply the NEED for a person to be seen as the opposite sex (gender) from which they were born. I stress the word NEED. It’s not simply a “choice” as many straights like me once thought. It is actually a hormonal, physical, and psychological need. Gender-Affirming care is the medical term for evaluating and treating this condition.

Restricting gender-affirming care is an affront to the Constitution itself. It is NOT something a government should be meddling in. The medical community, mental health professionals and, for pre-adults, parents, should be the sole source of medical care decisions. 

But, as with all ‘rights,’ there are limits to what should be considered fair and equitable. That brings me to my ‘limits’, so to speak: Transgender athletics and gender-affirming medical procedures in children and adolescents.

Just as PEDs (performance-enhancing drugs) are banned from competitive sports, I believe PEG (performance-enhancing gender) should be limited as well. Now I sincerely believe it is the right of every child or adult to engage in athletics – regardless of gender. But we have always recognized the fairness of gender alignment, especially in team sports and competition. From gymnastics to the WNBA and WNT, women have been given their own athletic scholarships, statistical records, and awards. Allowing PEG to share in these artifacts would be quite unfair to those who were not availed of the genetic or medical enhancements available through transgender care.

It is also a medical truth that the human brain in general, and the prefrontal cortex in particular, is not fully formed or fully functional until around 24 years of age. The prefrontal cortex is the area of the brain responsible for performing reasoning, planning, judgment, and impulse control - all necessities for being an “adult”. While providing gender-affirming care is, I believe, very important for the healthy maturation of a young brain, surgical or other irreversible medical procedures to change gender artificially, should be limited and controlled, if allowed at all, for individuals under the age of 21.

Just My 2 cents.

Reference:

What is Gender Affirming care? Your questions answered. Association of American Medical Colleges. Retrieved from: https://www.aamc.org/news-insights/what-gender-affirming-care-your-questions-answered  - April, 2023

Gender Affirming Care and Young People. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Retrieved from: https://opa.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/2022-03/gender-affirming-care-young-people-march-2022.pdf  - April 2023

Maturation of the Adolescent Brain. National Library of Medicine. Retrieved from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3621648/ - July 2023

Artificial Intelligence: When the Real Thing is in Short Supply

The term Artificial Intelligence (AI) has been around for decades. Back in the day, if anything was automated, it was considered “AI”. From early computerized task automation and robotics to autopilot and cruise control, AI was anything an engineer or programmer wanted it to be. 

In 2023 a new level of AI was introduced in the form of an LLM (Large Language Model).  As the acronym may imply, an LLM has three major characteristics: It’s Large, it relates to a Language and incorporates learning Modeling. 

The Large in LLM takes advantage of recent advances in computerized storage in the petabyte (1,000 terabytes) range. With interconnected arrays allowing related storage in the exabytes (1,000 petabytes) range.

The Language function incorporates vast amounts of text data, such as books, articles, and web pages, in order to learn (store) the patterns and structures of a given language.

The Model brings the enormous storage and the language functions together through programming. Large Language Programs and their parameters, however, require an equally large processing capability.  Only recently has this capability been enhanced through neural network architectures and will soon benefit further from quantum computing technologies.

The programming and the large relational database are combined with billions of parameters that can generate human-like text that is difficult to distinguish from text written by humans. This has led to a “self-learning” Q&A type of AI that has only been possible in the last couple of years.

A ‘Perfect’ LLM would be one that is only populated with facts. But if an AI is tasked with ‘talking’ to a human, the language model parameters must be capable of understanding human abstract thought – in the context of a conversation. A conversation among humans is rarely, if ever, based solely on fact – but rather the lack thereof.

So, the current ChatGPT LLM, which is taking society by storm, had its initial language model populated from years of content of an online chat service (Reddit). As it matures, the inputs and reactions from actual human conversation are meant to strengthen its interactive reliability and applicability. 

Reddit was not the only source of ‘information’ however. When I asked ChaptGPT: “Where do you get your facts? Is there a primary source like Wikipedia?” It answered thus:

“As an AI language model, I don't have the ability to browse the web or search for information like humans do. Instead, I have been pre-trained on a large corpus of text data, which includes a wide range of sources such as books, articles, websites, and other textual materials.

"The training data is carefully curated to ensure accuracy, diversity, and relevance, and it comes from a variety of sources, including but not limited to Wikipedia. However, it's important to note that while my training data is designed to be as accurate and reliable as possible, there may still be errors or inaccuracies in some of the information I provide.

"To help ensure the accuracy of my responses, I rely on a combination of statistical patterns and machine learning algorithms, as well as various natural language processing techniques. Additionally, my responses are generated based on the specific wording and context of each question or prompt I receive, so the information I provide may be influenced by the wording or phrasing of the original question.”(1)

Herein lies the rub.

The basis that the AI model has “…been pre-trained on a large corpus of text data...” and “The training data is carefully curated” - means program parameters, curators and trainers are the primary basis of information and interaction. Machine learning takes up the slack – as much as allowed.

So, what if the LLM programmers, curators, and trainers are all Chinese communists? And what if the platform for interaction with the LLM is monitored and censored by the government? Or an Islamic state was to launch and train a similar AI? Or a Jewish state, Or Christian... yada yada…. Humans have considerable biases that they are required or indoctrinated to accept as fact and truth. The LLM they create will contain the same biases and likely the same misinformation.

Reminiscent of the early days of the internet - when all that could come out of a global social network was seen as good and wholesome – the AI revolution could very well create even greater walls between cultures, governments, and the people therein, than ever before.

The internet of today is almost a religion in and of itself. Take it away from the population and you will likely see chaos. AI could be the next tech-religion and another way for those with power to control those without.

Be careful of what you wish for. 

JWB

(1) ChaptGTP 3.5 – March 23, 2023 – Captured & copied from https://chat.openai.com/chat, April 7th, 2023.

Crimes Against Humanity

In the last weeks of June in the year 2022 the Supreme Court of the Unites States (SCOTUS) rescinded federal protection of common sense gun laws and a woman's reproductive rights. In the act of doing so they also weakened the separation of church and state and endangered constitutional guarantees to such basic constitutional precepts as life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. 

And I'm all for it.

This is a simple case, and a common case, of fundamentalism taking over the judiciary. It happens. But it may be a blessing in disguise. 

First, let's look at the premise of these two cases:

1. New York's concealed carry gun laws (in effect for nearly 100 years). This law stated, among other things, that a person that wants to carry a firearm outside their home had to show cause as to why they needed to. 

SCOTUS interpreted the 2nd amendment of the constitution to mean, literally, a persons right to carry arms will not be infringed. Period. In other words, the onus is on the State to determine why a citizen cannot carry arms - it's not the citizens responsibility to show why they can. The Constitution says they can. Score one for SCOTUS.

2. The Roe vs. Wade (Row) decision that was interpreted to allow a woman's right to abortion was overturned. The Row so called "abortion rights" decision was actually based on a right to personal privacy - not on reproductive rights.

Again SCOTUS rightfully established that reproductive rights are not guaranteed protection in the Constitution, per se. They asserted the association of personal privacy to a reproductive decision in Roe was far and away too separate to be joined in a legal context.

Ramifications of overturning Row:

If reproductive rights are not associated with personal freedoms or privacy in the Constitution, then there may be a complete set of religious social "anti-choice" targets (atheism, adultery, same sex marriage, LGTBQ rights, transexual medical procedures, sex education,...) that States can now legally impose laws against. 

Likewise, other states and private parties, individuals and corporations that defy another State's anti-choice laws could be liable, under said laws, to be sued - and individuals that aid and abed those seeking rights elsewhere could be fined and/or imprisoned in the subject state.

The Blessing:

With a clear majority of American's supporting the right to personal choice - from reproduction to firearms, the time may be right for the progressive left in this country to move our congressional makeup back to the center - where the rest of the western world has been for some time.

With enough votes, we can update the Constitution with reproductive rights and place restrictions - if not replace entirely - the 2nd amendment. But the 2nd amendment is really the harder one to address.

2nd Amendment Details:

The actual wording of the second amendment has always been ambiguous:

“...a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

It's that darn comma between "State" and "the right". It's almost as if it denotes a parenthetical clarification as to what allows an effective Militia - not a singular pronouncement for all citizens. If the word "and" was used in place of the comma, there would be no question as to the intent of the amendment. The author HAD to know that this was going to be scrutinized endlessly for centuries. So why the ambiguity?

The answer may be in the document that inspired the U.S. Bill of Rights in the first place. The English "Bill of Rights" of 1688. It declared: 

"Protestants may have arms for their defence [sic] suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law." 

If this truly was the inspiration for the 2nd amendment, it is clear that the Right was indeed meant to subject to some laws. The author of the 2nd amendment may have simply assumed the "allowed by law" clause was as unnecessary as the reference to "Protestants".

In any case, the amendment has made the U.S. into a sick Wild West show with innocent civilians and children paying the price.

Citizen militias (not controlled by the State as suggested in the amendment) are arming thousands, carrying guns to protests, and mounting insurrection at the bidding of mentally ill leaders. It's time to clean it up and make it relevant to the modern world. Or the amendment that was supposed to prevent an armed overthrow of democratic government may very well be the cause of it.

JB