tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-85122002024-03-16T11:52:37.268-07:00The Gyromantic Informiconwww.gyromantic.com<br><br><i><small></small> A personal commentary</i> • »If you want the present to be different from the past, study the past.« --Spinoza<br>David the Gyromancerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05251493765196671229noreply@blogger.comBlogger2312125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8512200.post-43849998250313090612024-03-16T07:13:00.001-07:002024-03-16T07:13:51.836-07:00Foods we take for granted are "unnatural" hybrids.<div dir="ltr"><div style="font-family:times new roman,serif;font-size:large;color:rgb(39,78,19)" class="gmail_default">I find it interesting that we tend to assume that the foods we eat come from naturally occurring plants. And of course, that's true in the broadest sense, but if you read Michael Pollan's books you know that naturally occurring apples are almost entirely inedible. Oranges and grapefruits are both hybrids of <i>Citrus reticulata </i>(mandarins) with other <i>Citrus </i>species that would never have occurred naturally. And now I learn that our sacred plant, which we worship daily, coffee (<i>Coffea arabica, </i>eschewing the more productive but inferior <i>C. robusta</i>), is itself a highly unlikely hybrid of two of the 125 or so <i>Coffea </i>species that occur naturally in the highlands of Eastern Africa: <i>C. canephora</i> and <i>C. eugenioides. </i>I'm reading where active research is ongoing to develop other, fruitier "coffees" from the hybridization of other species in this genus. Presumably they're also thinking in terms of the effects of climate change, which are likely to make it more difficult to meet the enormous worldwide demand for coffee through growing existing strains. Will wonders never cease? <br></div><div style="font-family:times new roman,serif;font-size:large;color:rgb(39,78,19)" class="gmail_default"><br></div><div style="font-family:times new roman,serif;font-size:large;color:rgb(39,78,19)" class="gmail_default">Extremes of this phenomenon include navel oranges, Cara Cara oranges, and bananas, all of which are single-individual sterile clones reproduced commercially through grafting and vegetative reproduction. None of these artificial strains would survive a single generation without constant human attention, as they are sterile "sports." And yet major economic activities depend on these "unnatural" varieties. <br></div><br></div> David the Gyromancerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05251493765196671229noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8512200.post-66901034562571366152024-03-13T06:59:00.001-07:002024-03-13T06:59:39.744-07:00Critical issues separating Right from Left, and not what most people think about<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:times new roman,serif;font-size:large;color:#274e13">Yesterday I heard some very insightful discussions, the first coming mostly from Senator and Constitutional Scholar Sheldon Whitehouse, and the second from Journalist and financial/legal expert David Cay Johnston. Both illustrated how it's not just or even primarily policy that separates the now cultlike Right Wing party from the "real American" party. Democrats are far from a "left center" party... we are the <i>only </i>party that seeks to preserve the essence of American small-r republican government. <br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:times new roman,serif;font-size:large;color:#274e13"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:times new roman,serif;font-size:large;color:#274e13">Whitehouse talked about how even in the worst times of Supreme Court jurisprudence, the Anglo Saxon common law principle that appellate review, and <i>particularly </i>constitutional review (dating back to <i>Marbury v. Madison</i>) is to be based on adjudicated facts originating in the lower courts. Constitutional and legal principles are to be <i>applied</i> to the facts, but if a court of review finds a deficiency in the factual record, they return the case to the lower court to redetermine the facts. What the ultimate court of review is <i>not to do, and did not do</i>, even in <i>Plessy v. Ferguson </i>and other horrible decisions of the past, such as <i>Santa Clara Co. v. So. Pac. R. R.</i></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:times new roman,serif;font-size:large;color:#274e13"><i><br></i></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:times new roman,serif;font-size:large;color:#274e13">Whitehouse has been vocal about his critique of recent Supreme Court decisions, notably <i>Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission </i>and <i>Shelby County v. Holder, </i>for what he perceives as the Court's reliance on false facts rather than established factual records from lower courts or legislative findings. In these cases, he argues that the Court engaged in inappropriate appellate fact-finding, deviating from its role of relying on trial courts for factual records and on legislatures for the factual bases of laws. This, according to Whitehouse, undermines the legitimacy of the decisions. For instance, the majority opinion in <u><i>Shelby County, </i></u>which invalidated a key provision of the Voting Rights Act, was criticized for relying on an outdated set of facts about voting discrimination, facts which Congress had not used when it almost unanimously extended the Voting Rights Act in 2006 The court chose to improperly substitute falsehoods of its own divining, which is just not the way it's supposed to work. Continuation of this process has become the norm, and has resulted in the Roberts Court being the <i>worst court in history </i>from the point of view of separation of powers and proper constraint of the arbitrary power of the Supreme Court.<p>Whitehouse's concerns extend beyond these cases to a broader critique of the Supreme Court's engagement with "phony front groups" and the impact of dark money in the legal process, which he discusses in his podcast "Making the Case." He and his guests examine how these factors have contributed to what they view as a "captured Court" that favors corporate interests and undermines democratic protections.</p><p>Whitehouse also connects these issues to a broader historical context, tracing the influence of corporate interests on the Court back to decisions and actions taken as far back as the Nixon administration. He emphasizes a continuous effort to establish corporate personhood and the equivalence of money to speech, culminating in decisions like Citizens United. This history showcases an ongoing struggle over the role of money in politics and the influence of corporate and dark money on the judiciary. <br></p><p>These developments, in my opinion, are one of the principal threats to the continuity of small-d democracy in our country. <br></p><p>Another is the fast and loose trashing of financial restrictions on Federal officials practiced by Trump and his administration, as discussed in detail by the brilliant David Cay Johnston. He points out that the founders of the Second American Republic (ours), after the failure of the Articles of Confederation, were particularly concerned about the effect of bribery and monetary influence. The emoluments clause, and provisions in the Constitution prohibiting the administration or Congress from taking money from states, foreign interests, or private companies or individuals due to the inherently corrosive effect of money on democratic processes. Trump immediately discarded any remnant of such principles, refusing to insulate his governance from the influence of money, or even disclose the improper financial arrangements. One could go on and on about this, but the point is the precedent is set, and without reversing <i>Citizens United</i> and significantly toughening the rules for financial incentives, the Founders' attempts to provide the nation with a government free of undue influence will have well and truly, and finally, failed. <br></p><p>It is our job as citizens to make sure this situation is fixed, and it's just as important as economic or foreign policy; probably moreso as it will determine whether the country founded in 1789 really still persists, or does so only in name. <br></p> </div><div><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><font face="times new roman, serif"><br></font><div style="text-align:center"><div style="color:rgb(34,34,34)"><font color="#cc0000" face="times new roman, serif">______________________________</font></div><div><font face="times new roman, serif" color="#0b5394">COMMIT TO PRESERVING DEMOCRACY </font></div><div style="color:rgb(34,34,34)"><span style="color:rgb(204,0,0)"><font face="times new roman, serif">______________________________</font></span><br></div><div style="color:rgb(34,34,34)"><span style="color:rgb(204,0,0)"><font face="times new roman, serif"><br></font></span></div><div><font size="1" color="#274e13"><span style="text-align:left"><i>The equal right of all men to the use of land is as clear as their equal right to breathe the air—it is a right proclaimed by the fact of their existence. For we cannot suppose that some men have a right to be in this world, and others no right.</i></span><br></font></div><div><span style="text-align:left"><font size="1" color="#274e13">—Henry George</font></span></div></div></div></div></div></div> David the Gyromancerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05251493765196671229noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8512200.post-72631383395399186092024-03-10T09:58:00.001-07:002024-03-10T09:58:47.304-07:00Ashamed for Chubb<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:times new roman,serif;font-size:large;color:#274e13">As a retiree of over 20 years' employment with over 150-year old insurer Chubb & Son, now taken over by a Swiss company and with right wing ogre Evan Greenberg as CEO, I am deeply ashamed that they saw fit to hand Trump a gift in the form of an undercollateralized bond on the E. Jean Carroll verdict. Chubb was originally a very good and reputable company, that promoted from within, understood that its most important asset was its people, and maintained a sterling reputation for service. These crooks have ruined the company, and this fiasco is just a further black mark on an already besmirched reputation.</div></div> David the Gyromancerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05251493765196671229noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8512200.post-55828421023014134502024-03-08T12:53:00.001-08:002024-03-08T12:53:46.527-08:00Lincoln Project "Last Election" ad<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:times new roman,serif;font-size:large;color:#274e13">Reminds me of the shown-only-once on TV nuclear armageddon/little girl with daisy ad from 1964. </div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:times new roman,serif;font-size:large;color:#274e13"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:times new roman,serif;font-size:large;color:#274e13"><a href="https://action.lincolnproject.us/last_election_ad">https://action.lincolnproject.us/last_election_ad</a>? <br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:times new roman,serif;font-size:large;color:#274e13"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:times new roman,serif;font-size:large;color:#274e13">These guys do know how to do effective video communication. </div><div><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><font face="times new roman, serif"><br></font><div style="text-align:center"><div style="color:rgb(34,34,34)"><font color="#cc0000" face="times new roman, serif">______________________________</font></div><div><font face="times new roman, serif" color="#0b5394">COMMIT TO PRESERVING DEMOCRACY </font></div><div style="color:rgb(34,34,34)"><span style="color:rgb(204,0,0)"><font face="times new roman, serif">______________________________</font></span><br></div><div style="color:rgb(34,34,34)"><img src="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fa/Newcomer_Koreisha_Badge.svg/180px-Newcomer_Koreisha_Badge.svg.png"><span style="color:rgb(204,0,0)"><font face="times new roman, serif"><br></font></span></div><div><font size="1" color="#274e13"><span style="text-align:left"><i>The equal right of all men to the use of land is as clear as their equal right to breathe the air—it is a right proclaimed by the fact of their existence. For we cannot suppose that some men have a right to be in this world, and others no right.</i></span><br></font></div><div><span style="text-align:left"><font size="1" color="#274e13">—Henry George</font></span></div></div></div></div></div></div> David the Gyromancerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05251493765196671229noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8512200.post-43906812177202975402024-03-08T06:57:00.001-08:002024-03-08T06:57:54.946-08:00Great Line from Biden's speech<div dir="ltr"><div style="font-family:times new roman,serif;color:rgb(39,78,19)" class="gmail_default"><font size="4" style="font-family:times new roman,serif">Joe Biden is an old guy with a speech impediment. But regardless, I believe his State of the Union was pretty darn great, and will help to dispel a lot of the nonsense about him. I especially liked this line, which clearly differentiates him and our party from Republicans, namely that he actually believes in the essential idea of America, and by and large <i>they do not, especially not their cult leader. <br></i></font></div><div style="color:rgb(39,78,19)" class="gmail_default"><font size="4" style="font-family:times new roman,serif"><i><br></i></font></div><blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex" class="gmail_default gmail_quote"><font size="4" style="font-family:times new roman,serif"><i>«</i> <span>Our <em>North Star</em>. The very idea of America, that we are <em>all created equal</em> and deserve to be treated <em>equally</em> throughout our lives. We've never fully lived up to that ideal, but <i>we've never walked away from it either. »</i></span></font> </blockquote><div style="color:rgb(39,78,19)" class="gmail_default"><font size="4" style="font-family:times new roman,serif"></font></div><font size="4" style="font-family:times new roman,serif"><span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:times new roman,serif;font-size:large;color:rgb(39,78,19)">Because, friends, the Republicans, a party controlled by that cult leader, has already walked away, and will never, ever come back. Their way leads to perdition and the end of the American ideal forever. If you don't get that, you are either delusional or just not paying enough attention to what is happening in our country. </span><br></font></div> David the Gyromancerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05251493765196671229noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8512200.post-34093049234472052942024-03-07T18:26:00.000-08:002024-03-07T18:27:07.946-08:00Katie Porter in contrast to Andy Kim .... keeping a Democratic Senate is vital<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:times new roman,serif;font-size:large;color:#274e13">I have admired, and continue to admire, Katie Porter, progressive Congresswoman from Orange County, California, who was a candidate in California's senate primary. <b>But</b>, she should immediately accept the fact that she lost the primary. With California's jungle primary, the put-up job Republican candidate Steve Garvey came in second, and thus it will be Schiff, Democrat, vs. Garvey, Republican, in November. I might've preferred Porter to Schiff, but Schiff won, and it is absolutely vital that we Democrats keep this seat. So, Katie, accept that this is not your time, endorse Schiff, and get on with helping to unify the party. <br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:times new roman,serif;font-size:large;color:#274e13"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:times new roman,serif;font-size:large;color:#274e13">Now, the upcoming primary in New Jersey in June is another story. The "first lady" of New Jersey, Tammy Murphy, is being pushed on the people when a better, more experienced Democrat, Andy Kim, is leading in polls. There, the party should get behind the more qualified <i>and popular</i> candidate-- not the more connected. Unity and victory, indeed, but that doesn't mean forcing machine politics down our throats. <br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:times new roman,serif;font-size:large;color:#274e13"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:times new roman,serif;font-size:large;color:#274e13">Stay tuned. And by the way, if better qualified Kim is shoved aside by less-qualified but better machine-connected Murphy, I would still support Murphy, although I think that would make it much more likely that we will lose the Senate. So the unity candidate is Kim at this point. <br clear="all"></div><div><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><font face="times new roman, serif"><br></font><div style="text-align:center"><div style="color:rgb(34,34,34)"><font color="#cc0000" face="times new roman, serif">______________________________</font></div><div><font face="times new roman, serif" color="#0b5394">COMMIT TO PRESERVING DEMOCRACY </font></div><div style="color:rgb(34,34,34)"><span style="color:rgb(204,0,0)"><font face="times new roman, serif">______________________________</font></span><br></div><div style="color:rgb(34,34,34)"><img src="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fa/Newcomer_Koreisha_Badge.svg/180px-Newcomer_Koreisha_Badge.svg.png"><span style="color:rgb(204,0,0)"><font face="times new roman, serif"><br></font></span></div><div><font size="1" color="#274e13"><span style="text-align:left"><i>The equal right of all men to the use of land is as clear as their equal right to breathe the air—it is a right proclaimed by the fact of their existence. For we cannot suppose that some men have a right to be in this world, and others no right.</i></span><br></font></div><div><span style="text-align:left"><font size="1" color="#274e13">—Henry George</font></span></div></div></div></div></div></div> David the Gyromancerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05251493765196671229noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8512200.post-19846906889933565602024-03-06T12:57:00.001-08:002024-03-06T12:57:48.522-08:00Corrupt Menendez must resign<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:times new roman,serif;font-size:large;color:#274e13">Robert Menendez must resign <i>soonest</i>. Schumer, and if necessary, Biden himself, must call for this. We cannot afford this stink of actual corruption in our party, when so much is at stake this year. </div></div> David the Gyromancerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05251493765196671229noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8512200.post-58793981130208470122024-03-06T08:00:00.000-08:002024-03-06T08:01:53.939-08:00Community Music Workshop • Thursday March 7, 1o:30 AM • PROGRAM ATTACHED<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:times new roman,serif;font-size:large;color:#274e13">Again, reminding everyone of the Community Music Workshop, this Thursday at 10:30 AM at the Community Music Center, 3350 SE Francis St., Portland. All are welcome; admission is free. Donations accepted to defray costs, most funds are donated to the Community Music Center. <br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:times new roman,serif;font-size:large;color:#274e13"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:times new roman,serif;font-size:large;color:#274e13">We have a terrific program this month. Program attached, subject to minor corrections (hopefully not more than that!)</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:times new roman,serif;font-size:large;color:#274e13"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:times new roman,serif;font-size:large;color:#274e13">If you are interested in playing or have already reserved for April, please send details and/or contact me. David Studhalter at <a href="mailto:ds@gyromantic.com">ds@gyromantic.com</a> or 971 328-1750, text preferred. <br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:times new roman,serif;font-size:large;color:#274e13"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:times new roman,serif;font-size:large;color:#274e13">Thanks everyone for making this work. <br></div></div> David the Gyromancerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05251493765196671229noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8512200.post-42897387125501308182024-03-05T19:59:00.000-08:002024-03-05T20:00:33.916-08:00Phil Mandel concert link<div dir="ltr"><div style="font-family:times new roman,serif;font-size:large;color:rgb(39,78,19)" class="gmail_default">Phil Mandel has asked me to let everyone know about the live link to his 70th birthday concert at the Reser Auditorium last September. <br></div><div style="font-family:times new roman,serif;font-size:large;color:rgb(39,78,19)" class="gmail_default"><a href="https://youtu.be/DnJD62wOiFc" target="_blank">https://youtu.be/DnJD62wOiFc</a> <br></div></div> David the Gyromancerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05251493765196671229noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8512200.post-65153171802016914312024-03-05T08:45:00.001-08:002024-03-05T08:45:47.738-08:00False Equivalency<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:times new roman,serif;font-size:large;color:#274e13">I despise the false equivalencies of political culture in our country. Democrats confront Republican obstructionism and the media, perhaps best represented by NPR, reports that "neither side could come to agreement." Biden shows what respected clinical psychiatrists describe as normal signs of ageing, whereas Trump displays cascading and accelerating phonemic aphasia, in a syndrome which can <i>only </i>be caused by neurological cognitive dementia that will certainly... and pretty rapidly... get worse over time, and the media reports that the public has a choice between two old guys who sometimes slur their words. Democrats mostly, and to a fault, play by the institutional rules, whereas the MAGA movement, which has now completely taken over the Republican party, is, as a matter of objective fact, embarked on a program to completly undermine the checks and balances of representative government outlined in our Constitution, in a brazen attempt to destroy that system and replace it with the kind of authoritarianism that marked most of human history. Turning the clock back. We used to say to "before the New Deal" but it's now to "before the 18th century Enlightenment." And what does the media report? The horserace, as if the two parties were facets of an essentially unified whole, as they perhaps were for a time during the 20th century. </div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:times new roman,serif;font-size:large;color:#274e13"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:times new roman,serif;font-size:large;color:#274e13">I'm not having it. Wake up, folks. We are in an existential fight for the survival of democratic governance. It has never lived up to its ideals, <i>of course</i>. But if we lose, and it is gone, gone, gone, we will rue the day. Believe me. I am not exaggerating, even a little. </div><div><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><font face="times new roman, serif"><br></font><div style="text-align:center"><div style="color:rgb(34,34,34)"><font color="#cc0000" face="times new roman, serif">______________________________</font></div><div><font face="times new roman, serif" color="#0b5394">COMMIT TO PRESERVING DEMOCRACY </font></div><div style="color:rgb(34,34,34)"><span style="color:rgb(204,0,0)"><font face="times new roman, serif">______________________________</font></span><br></div><div style="color:rgb(34,34,34)"><img src="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fa/Newcomer_Koreisha_Badge.svg/180px-Newcomer_Koreisha_Badge.svg.png"><span style="color:rgb(204,0,0)"><font face="times new roman, serif"><br></font></span></div><div><font size="1" color="#274e13"><span style="text-align:left"><i>The equal right of all men to the use of land is as clear as their equal right to breathe the air—it is a right proclaimed by the fact of their existence. For we cannot suppose that some men have a right to be in this world, and others no right.</i></span><br></font></div><div><span style="text-align:left"><font size="1" color="#274e13">—Henry George</font></span></div></div></div></div></div></div> David the Gyromancerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05251493765196671229noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8512200.post-21515386296457367332024-03-04T11:02:00.000-08:002024-03-04T11:03:17.408-08:00BRIDGETOWN BAROQUE free concert Saturday March 23 • 1:30 PM<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:times new roman,serif;font-size:large;color:#274e13">Want to hear Telemann, Loeillet, Vivaldi, and CPE Bach played by a Baroque chamber ensemble? Free by invitation. If you would like to come, please RSVP so we can get an idea how many will be showing up. See flier for details. </div></div> David the Gyromancerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05251493765196671229noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8512200.post-44326210644899532342024-03-04T06:43:00.000-08:002024-03-04T06:44:32.683-08:00Community Music Workshop this Thursday 10:30 AM at the Community Music Center<div dir="ltr"><div style="font-family:times new roman,serif;font-size:large;color:rgb(39,78,19)" class="gmail_default">The first Thursday of the month is upon us, so this coming Thursday <b>March 7 </b>at 10:30 is the <b>Community Music Workshop<i>,</i></b> at the Community Music Center, 3350 SE Francis St., Portland ("the old Firehouse"). We have an <i>excellent </i>program for March, including a major piano work by Max Reger played by notable local pianist and teacher Nick Fontana, and various pieces by Biber, Schumann, and several 20th century American composers (among others) played by Jules Elias and Dave Knaub, Chris Schindler, and Chris Swanson. It promises to be an exciting and varied program. Watch your e mail for the program, and please come and invite your friends and family to attend. <br></div><br></div> David the Gyromancerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05251493765196671229noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8512200.post-1896786739813550992024-03-01T07:16:00.000-08:002024-03-01T07:17:35.111-08:00Will the Turtle endorse the mad hyena?<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:times new roman,serif;font-size:large;color:#274e13">It seemed pretty widely expected that McConnell would endorse Trump, but I'm wondering if his announcement that he's stepping down in November may signal just the opposite. He may do what Romney did and not endorse anyone but say he won't vote for Trump, but more likely he will just not endorse at all. This is giving him too much credit, unfortunately: I'd say the <b>most </b>likely thing is he will eventually endorse Trump. Because... and this is really my point: the fact that Republicans believe only in <i>their power </i> and not <i>democratic governance </i> is nothing new. And old Turtleface is a career-long exemplar. </div></div> David the Gyromancerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05251493765196671229noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8512200.post-23276938465789135282024-02-29T06:58:00.001-08:002024-02-29T06:58:49.379-08:00Supreme Court's game is so obvious<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:times new roman,serif;font-size:large;color:#274e13">This seems so obvious to me it hardly bears saying. There must be at least four members of the Supreme Court who insisted on granting certiorari to the ridiculous Trump immunity appeal. One can surmise that at least one more, and probably not Roberts, insisted on slow rolling the hearing just a bit, and will probably also force a delay of the publication of the decision until just before the Summer recess. The reason for this is obvious. They are tilting the scale just a bit in favor of Insurrectionist/Adjudicated rapist Donald Trump, for <i>purely political </i>reasons. They seek to, and will probably succeed at, preventing the DC election interference case from going to trial before the election. </div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:times new roman,serif;font-size:large;color:#274e13"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:times new roman,serif;font-size:large;color:#274e13">The credibility of the Supreme Court as an independent branch of government whose purpose is to enforce and support the rule of law is now in tatters, possibly irreparably so. </div></div> David the Gyromancerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05251493765196671229noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8512200.post-44963050740708040852024-02-27T18:12:00.001-08:002024-02-27T18:12:40.834-08:00A safe bet, I'd say<div dir="ltr"><div style="font-family:times new roman,serif;font-size:large;color:rgb(39,78,19)" class="gmail_default">Like lots of folks, I don't bet, or at least not more than $1. But I'd bet that, for sure, that Tr**p has <i>already </i>begged Elon Musk to lend him the money to post a supersedeas bond in New York for ½ billion bucks. But here's my prediction: Musk has already said no and there may be rumors but nothing overt will be said. <br></div><br></div> David the Gyromancerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05251493765196671229noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8512200.post-45789979865262726962024-02-27T17:49:00.000-08:002024-02-27T17:50:24.378-08:00Work more, worry less<div dir="ltr"><div style="font-family:times new roman,serif;font-size:large;color:rgb(39,78,19)" class="gmail_default"><span style="font-family:garamond,times new roman,serif">No sane person is unconcerned about the possible election (again) of the adjudicated sexual assaulter and would-be authoritarian dictator (Tr**p; expletive deleted). But watch <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3CYmq7lju0E" target="_blank">this</a>. This isn't even <i>Hopium Chronicles</i>' Simon Rosenberg. It's respected financial reporter and Trump debunker David Cay Johnston. Listen to what he says (early in video) about the South Carolina Primary. Summary: 40% of American likely voters are Republican. In a very conservative state, he got 60% of the Republican vote. That's 24% of the electorate. That, and give him a realistic margin of Independents, and you've got a <b>base </b>for him of somewhere between 1/4 and 1/3 of the voters. <br></span></div><div style="font-size:large;color:rgb(39,78,19)" class="gmail_default"><span style="font-family:garamond,times new roman,serif"><i><br></i></span></div><div style="font-size:large;color:rgb(39,78,19)" class="gmail_default"><span style="font-family:garamond,times new roman,serif"><i>You do not win elections with 33%. </i>And think about it. Are there really 17% of voters left who are likely to move to him between now and November? Or even 13%, which is probably the amount of voters, in exactly the right places, that could led to a Trump victory even with loss of the popular vote by 10%. That's possible, but only barely, and would require an extremely unlikely demographic anomaly. <br></span></div><div style="font-size:large;color:rgb(39,78,19)" class="gmail_default"><span style="font-family:garamond,times new roman,serif"><i><br></i></span></div><div style="font-family:times new roman,serif;font-size:large;color:rgb(39,78,19)" class="gmail_default"><i style="font-family:garamond,times new roman,serif"><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3CYmq7lju0E" target="_blank">Watch here</a></i></div><br></div> David the Gyromancerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05251493765196671229noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8512200.post-80369363969604528112024-02-23T08:51:00.001-08:002024-02-23T08:51:29.619-08:00The Choice<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:large;color:rgb(39,78,19)"><font face="georgia, serif">I'm almost 71 years old, and I've been reasonably attentive to American politics since I was about 15. I actually was present (with my mother) in Chicago during the Convention Demonstrations in 1968. So I have a pretty good personal recall of the grand sweep of the last couple of generations of politics in our country.* Here's my point: not a single candidate for president of either major party, and probably not even Ross Perot or George Wallace, would have continued a run for president, nor would it have possible for them to do so, having anything close to the disqualifications, factual and legal, that currently hang over America's worst president by far ever, Donald Trump, in his manic effort to be elected again. This is not just an anomaly... it is the equivalent for the body politic of a potentially fatal disease. We will know by the end of this year whether the disease that <i>is </i>Donald Trump is, in fact, fatal to democracy in America, or whether we have a chance to shake it off, and recover, to whatever degree possible. </font></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:large;color:rgb(39,78,19)"><font face="georgia, serif"><br></font></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:large;color:rgb(39,78,19)"><font face="georgia, serif">Analogies like this are always a bit strained, but the gravity of it is <i>not exaggerated</i>. I'm with Simon Rosenberg: work more (for democracy), worry less. But don't buy into self-reinforcing media nonsense either. The choice could not be clearer, and there is every reason to believe that when the ballot is right in front of them, a significant majority of American voters <i>will </i>end up making the right choice. <br></font></div><div class="gmail_default" style="color:rgb(39,78,19)"><font face="georgia, serif"><br></font></div><div class="gmail_default" style="color:rgb(39,78,19)"><font face="georgia, serif">*I voted in every congressional election and presidential election, and almost every off-year and special election since I turned 18. Except one time, for an insurance commissioner who promised reforms but turned out to be a crook, and had to resign, I never voted for a Republican for anything and I feel vindicated in those choices 100%. <span style="font-size:large"> </span></font></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:large;color:rgb(39,78,19)"><font face="georgia, serif"><br></font></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:times new roman,serif;font-size:large;color:#274e13"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:times new roman,serif;font-size:large;color:#274e13">How do you spell "democracy"? B-I-D-E-N. <br></div><div><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><font face="times new roman, serif"><br></font><div style="text-align:center"><div style="color:rgb(34,34,34)"><font color="#cc0000" face="times new roman, serif">______________________________</font></div><div><font face="times new roman, serif" color="#0b5394">COMMIT TO PRESERVING DEMOCRACY </font></div><div style="color:rgb(34,34,34)"><span style="color:rgb(204,0,0)"><font face="times new roman, serif">______________________________</font></span><br></div><div style="color:rgb(34,34,34)"><img src="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fa/Newcomer_Koreisha_Badge.svg/180px-Newcomer_Koreisha_Badge.svg.png"><span style="color:rgb(204,0,0)"><font face="times new roman, serif"><br></font></span></div><div><font size="1" color="#274e13"><span style="text-align:left"><i>The equal right of all men to the use of land is as clear as their equal right to breathe the air—it is a right proclaimed by the fact of their existence. For we cannot suppose that some men have a right to be in this world, and others no right.</i></span><br></font></div><div><span style="text-align:left"><font size="1" color="#274e13">—Henry George</font></span></div></div></div></div></div></div> David the Gyromancerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05251493765196671229noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8512200.post-4580933195974585292024-02-22T17:35:00.000-08:002024-02-22T17:36:04.404-08:00George Conway on House Republicans<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:times new roman,serif;font-size:large;color:#274e13">Tell us what you really think, George... <a href="https://youtu.be/bDUL9ip7o6M">https://youtu.be/bDUL9ip7o6M</a> <br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:times new roman,serif;font-size:large;color:#274e13"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:times new roman,serif;font-size:large;color:#274e13">"The House Republicans are scum. They're liars. It's insulting to scum to say they're scum. It's insulting to liars to say they're liars." <br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:times new roman,serif;font-size:large;color:#274e13"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:times new roman,serif;font-size:large;color:#274e13">This from one of the lawyers who engineered <i>Bush v. Gore. </i><br clear="all"></div><div><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><font face="times new roman, serif"><br></font><div style="text-align:center"><div style="color:rgb(34,34,34)"><font color="#cc0000" face="times new roman, serif">______________________________</font></div><div><font face="times new roman, serif" color="#0b5394">COMMIT TO PRESERVING DEMOCRACY </font></div><div style="color:rgb(34,34,34)"><span style="color:rgb(204,0,0)"><font face="times new roman, serif">______________________________</font></span><br></div><div style="color:rgb(34,34,34)"><img src="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fa/Newcomer_Koreisha_Badge.svg/180px-Newcomer_Koreisha_Badge.svg.png"><span style="color:rgb(204,0,0)"><font face="times new roman, serif"><br></font></span></div><div><font size="1" color="#274e13"><span style="text-align:left"><i>The equal right of all men to the use of land is as clear as their equal right to breathe the air—it is a right proclaimed by the fact of their existence. For we cannot suppose that some men have a right to be in this world, and others no right.</i></span><br></font></div><div><span style="text-align:left"><font size="1" color="#274e13">—Henry George</font></span></div></div></div></div></div></div> David the Gyromancerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05251493765196671229noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8512200.post-1403025615858943962024-02-21T06:42:00.001-08:002024-02-21T06:42:46.264-08:00Trump compares himself to murdered opposition leader Navalny<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:times new roman,serif;font-size:large;color:#274e13">Look, folks, I'm pretty weary of even talking about the former guy. Like Simon Rosenberg, I endorse the concept of "work more, worry less," which includes <i>carp less</i>. But this comparison by this utterly narcissistic toad of himself to murdered opposition leader in Russia Aleksei Navalny is a new low. What a total POS. Sorry, but had to say it. </div></div> David the Gyromancerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05251493765196671229noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8512200.post-45993578739731321362024-02-20T07:45:00.001-08:002024-02-20T07:45:46.341-08:00Favorite fonts, both "As" from an "A" country, an obscure rant<div dir="ltr"><div style="font-family:times new roman,serif;font-size:large;color:rgb(39,78,19)" class="gmail_default">Some few of my farflung correspondents may share my interest in typefaces (commonly nowadays called "fonts," although the technical term is typeface). I have a deep and abiding loathing for both <i>Times New Roman </i>and <i>Arial</i>, probably the two most common computer "printer fonts" (except on Apple, where real <i>Helvetica</i>, rather than knockoff <i>Arial</i>, is standard). I regard both as lifeless and ugly, each in its own uniquely awful way (<i>Helvetica </i>is only slightly better, associated as it is with the 1960s brutalist esthetic). I would dearly love to see all three consigned to the scrap heap of typographic history. <i>TNR </i>was literally designed to make more text fit in a newspaper column, and it sacrifices all proportion and even legibility for that end. The less said about the deliberately minimal and ugly <i>Arial </i>the better. <br></div><div style="font-family:times new roman,serif;font-size:large;color:rgb(39,78,19)" class="gmail_default"><br></div><div style="font-family:times new roman,serif;font-size:large;color:rgb(39,78,19)" class="gmail_default">So here's something I'm pretty sure is not a coincidence. Among the newer font families I've come across, there are two, one a classic serif and the other a unique "baroque humanist" semi-serif, that I really like and use whenever I can, in their respective milieus. These are classic serif <i>Alegreya, </i>designed by Juan Pablo del Peral, and <i>Asul</i>, designed by Mariela Monsalve, after unnamed typefaces used in the 1920s. Both were designed in the early 2010s in Argentina. <i>Alegreya </i>is a sort of modernized and more legible version of <i>Garamond</i>, or possibly <i>Bembo</i>; whereas <i>Asul </i>is really unique; combining the best of the virtues of sans serif fonts like <i>Humanist </i>and <i>Trebuchet </i>with real proportion and a hint of serif. It's beautiful and very legible. <br></div><div style="font-family:times new roman,serif;font-size:large;color:rgb(39,78,19)" class="gmail_default"><br></div><div style="font-family:times new roman,serif;font-size:large;color:rgb(39,78,19)" class="gmail_default">To see and read a bit about each: <br></div><div style="font-family:times new roman,serif;font-size:large;color:rgb(39,78,19)" class="gmail_default"><i>Alegreya</i>: <a href="https://typogram.co/font-discovery/how-to-use-alegreya-font">https://typogram.co/font-discovery/how-to-use-alegreya-font</a></div><div style="font-family:times new roman,serif;font-size:large;color:rgb(39,78,19)" class="gmail_default"><i>Asul</i>: <a href="https://pimpmytype.com/font/asul/">https://pimpmytype.com/font/asul/</a> <br></div><div style="font-family:times new roman,serif;font-size:large;color:rgb(39,78,19)" class="gmail_default"><br></div><div style="font-family:times new roman,serif;font-size:large;color:rgb(39,78,19)" class="gmail_default"><i>Asul </i>is free from Google fonts. <i>Alegreya </i>is also readily available free, but you have to look for it. Just google the name if you're interested. There are standard, medium, real italic (not just algorithmically slanted italics, which are a travesty and should never be used in anything where graphic beauty is important), and also bold and extra bold standard and italic versions. In a world where beauty is often shortchanged, I would take a little but genuine pleasure if <i>Alegreya </i>were to supplant <i>Times New Roman</i> as the standard serif font and <i>Asul </i>were to replace <i>Arial</i>... there really is no justification or need for purely sans serif fonts anywhere. We are not robots, why should we use robotic typefaces?<br></div><div style="font-family:times new roman,serif;font-size:large;color:rgb(39,78,19)" class="gmail_default"><br></div><div style="font-family:times new roman,serif;font-size:large;color:rgb(39,78,19)" class="gmail_default">I say all this in the full realization that most people almost literally could not care less. <br></div><div style="font-family:times new roman,serif;font-size:large;color:rgb(39,78,19)" class="gmail_default"><br></div><div style="font-family:times new roman,serif;font-size:large;color:rgb(39,78,19)" class="gmail_default">Cheers. <br></div><br></div> David the Gyromancerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05251493765196671229noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8512200.post-37596442481343149612024-02-16T07:17:00.000-08:002024-02-16T07:18:12.771-08:00Navalny murdered. Not in America!<div dir="ltr"><div style="font-family:times new roman,serif;font-size:large;color:rgb(39,78,19)" class="gmail_default">So it is now nearly certain that the brutal dictator Vladimir Putin had his only real political opponent, Alexei Navalny, murdered in prison. My reaction is that if anyone believes that if Trump is given the Oval Office again, his enemies won't start being imprisoned, then some even killed, then you don't understand the narcissistic dictator personality, because it could not be clearer that that's the direction he would go. We simply cannot let that happen <i>in our country. <br></i></div><div style="font-family:times new roman,serif;font-size:large;color:rgb(39,78,19)" class="gmail_default"><i><br></i></div><div style="font-family:times new roman,serif;font-size:large;color:rgb(39,78,19)" class="gmail_default"><i>Just watch. </i>In the next day or two, Trump will do a "tell." Something. He'll show that he admires Putin, <i>including </i>having Navalny murdered. Because that is <i>exactly </i>what he wants to be able to do to his enemies. And, folks, if you're reading this, chances are you are one of his enemies. Probably not high profile enough to be a victim of a purge, but if you're saying to yourself, <i>How bad could it get? How could it affect me, really? </i>... you are just not understanding how this works. Don't you think middle class Germans in 1933 said the same thing? Even some Jews, believing that civilization had gone beyond the Pogroms, probably said that to themselves. And they did not escape the horrible consequences of allowing a brutal dictator to take power, not even the non-Jews. We are warned. <br></div><div style="font-family:times new roman,serif;font-size:large;color:rgb(39,78,19)" class="gmail_default"><br></div><div style="font-family:times new roman,serif;font-size:large;color:rgb(39,78,19)" class="gmail_default">I have one or two friends who so distrust the "deep state" (or whatever the F*k) that they trust Putin more than our own government. But I have lost all patience. The die is cast. We fight and defeat the would be autocrat or we face the consequences, and no friendship, no comfortable middle class isolation, no going along to get along will protect us. <br></div><br></div> David the Gyromancerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05251493765196671229noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8512200.post-47130012482077599752024-02-15T19:09:00.001-08:002024-02-15T19:09:42.266-08:00Elaborate Football Analogy for MAGA<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:times new roman,serif;font-size:large;color:#274e13"><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hvJJwNzfT88">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hvJJwNzfT88</a><br clear="all"></div><div><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><font face="times new roman, serif"><br></font><div style="text-align:center"><div style="color:rgb(34,34,34)"><font color="#cc0000" face="times new roman, serif">______________________________</font></div><div><font face="times new roman, serif" color="#0b5394">COMMIT TO PRESERVING DEMOCRACY </font></div><div style="color:rgb(34,34,34)"><span style="color:rgb(204,0,0)"><font face="times new roman, serif">______________________________</font></span><br></div><div style="color:rgb(34,34,34)"><img src="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fa/Newcomer_Koreisha_Badge.svg/180px-Newcomer_Koreisha_Badge.svg.png"><span style="color:rgb(204,0,0)"><font face="times new roman, serif"><br></font></span></div><div><font size="1" color="#274e13"><span style="text-align:left"><i>The equal right of all men to the use of land is as clear as their equal right to breathe the air—it is a right proclaimed by the fact of their existence. For we cannot suppose that some men have a right to be in this world, and others no right.</i></span><br></font></div><div><span style="text-align:left"><font size="1" color="#274e13">—Henry George</font></span></div></div></div></div></div></div> David the Gyromancerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05251493765196671229noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8512200.post-75694204174611563852024-02-15T18:45:00.001-08:002024-02-15T18:45:50.838-08:00GPT "remembers" Mackinder's Heartland theory for me (I'd forgotten his name)<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:times new roman,serif;font-size:large;color:#274e13"> <span style="display:inline-block;border:1px solid rgb(227,227,227);padding:0.02in"><font color="#e3e3e3"></font></span><span style="display:inline-block;border:1px solid rgb(227,227,227);padding:0.02in">Another in a series of conversations with LLMs Gemini and/or GPT.</span></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:times new roman,serif;font-size:large;color:#274e13"><span style="display:inline-block;border:1px solid rgb(227,227,227);padding:0.02in"><br></span></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:times new roman,serif;font-size:large;color:#274e13"><span style="display:inline-block;border:1px solid rgb(227,227,227);padding:0.02in">Me:<br></span> <p style="line-height:100%;margin-bottom:0in;background:transparent"><span style="display:inline-block;border:1px solid rgb(227,227,227);padding:0.02in">There was, I believe, a British historian (not Toynbee), who conceived of the crucial importance of "central place" geographically in the power politics of national supremacy. In this theory, the British, and subsequently the US, utilized an alternative strategy of "containment" through (primarily) naval power, to overcome the inherent disadvantage of peripheral location, and to exercise dominance over more favorably situated "powers," such as, in turn or concurrently, Germany, Russia and/or China. 1. Please infer who it was I am talking about and describe his principal works (I genuinely can't recall; this isn't a test); and 2. Please comment on how technological advance since the early 20th century has to some extent falsified this concept, and made geographical positioning less critical (if that is, in fact, the case according to current geopolitical thinking). </span> </p> <p style="line-height:100%;margin-bottom:0in;background:transparent"><span style="display:inline-block;border:1px solid rgb(227,227,227);padding:0.02in;color:rgb(102,0,0)">ChatGPT:</span></p> <p style="line-height:100%;margin-bottom:0.2in;background:transparent"><span style="display:inline-block;border:1px solid rgb(227,227,227);padding:0.02in;color:rgb(102,0,0)"> </span></p> <p style="border:1px solid rgb(227,227,227);padding:0.02in;line-height:115%;margin-bottom:0.1in;background:transparent"><span style="display:inline-block;border:1px solid rgb(227,227,227);padding:0.02in;color:rgb(102,0,0)">The historian you're referring to sounds like Halford Mackinder and his Heartland Theory. Mackinder was a British geographer and one of the founding figures of both geopolitics and geostrategy. His ideas have had a profound influence on the strategic thinking of nations throughout the 20th century and beyond.</span></p> <h3 class="gmail-western" style="border:1px solid rgb(227,227,227);padding:0.02in;font-family:"Liberation Serif",serif;font-size:14pt;font-weight:bold;margin-top:0.1in;margin-bottom:0.08in;background:transparent;break-after:avoid"> <span style="display:inline-block;border:1px solid rgb(227,227,227);padding:0.02in;color:rgb(102,0,0)">Halford Mackinder and His Principal Works</span></h3> <p style="border:1px solid rgb(227,227,227);padding:0.02in;line-height:115%;margin-bottom:0.1in;background:transparent"><span style="display:inline-block;border:1px solid rgb(227,227,227);padding:0.02in;color:rgb(102,0,0)">Halford Mackinder proposed the Heartland Theory in a paper presented to the Royal Geographical Society in 1904 titled "The Geographical Pivot of History." This theory was later expanded in his book "Democratic Ideals and Reality: A Study in the Politics of Reconstruction," published in 1919. Mackinder's theory posits that the control of Eastern Europe (the "Heartland") was key to global domination. He argued that the Heartland was naturally impregnable due to its inaccessibility and could be the base from which to project power globally.</span></p> <p style="border:1px solid rgb(227,227,227);padding:0.02in;line-height:115%;margin-bottom:0.1in;background:transparent"><span style="display:inline-block;border:1px solid rgb(227,227,227);padding:0.02in;color:rgb(102,0,0)">His famous dictum, "Who rules East Europe commands the Heartland; who rules the Heartland commands the World-Island; who rules the World-Island commands the world," encapsulates the essence of his theory. Mackinder's model was a challenge to the then-prevailing British naval hegemony, suggesting that terrestrial power could eventually overmatch sea power, especially if a single power managed to dominate the Heartland.</span></p> <h3 class="gmail-western" style="border:1px solid rgb(227,227,227);padding:0.02in;font-family:"Liberation Serif",serif;font-size:14pt;font-weight:bold;margin-top:0.1in;margin-bottom:0.08in;background:transparent;break-after:avoid"> <span style="display:inline-block;border:1px solid rgb(227,227,227);padding:0.02in;color:rgb(102,0,0)">The Impact of Technological Advances on Geopolitical Strategy</span></h3> <p style="border:1px solid rgb(227,227,227);padding:0.02in;line-height:115%;margin-bottom:0.1in;background:transparent"><span style="display:inline-block;border:1px solid rgb(227,227,227);padding:0.02in;color:rgb(102,0,0)">Since the early 20th century, technological advances have indeed altered the strategic importance of geographical positioning, though not entirely negating Mackinder's insights. Several developments illustrate this evolution:</span></p> <ol><li><p style="border:1px solid rgb(227,227,227);padding:0.02in;line-height:115%;margin-bottom:0.1in;background:transparent"><span style="display:inline-block;border:1px solid rgb(227,227,227);padding:0.02in;color:rgb(102,0,0)"><strong style="font-weight:bold">Nuclear Weapons</strong>: The advent of nuclear weapons has made sheer territorial control less decisive in global power terms, as even geographically peripheral or smaller nations can wield outsized strategic threats.</span></p> </li><li><p style="border:1px solid rgb(227,227,227);padding:0.02in;line-height:115%;margin-bottom:0.1in;background:transparent"><span style="display:inline-block;border:1px solid rgb(227,227,227);padding:0.02in;color:rgb(102,0,0)"><strong style="font-weight:bold">Air Power and Missiles</strong>: The development of long-range air power and missile technology, including ICBMs and cruise missiles, has reduced the security provided by geographical barriers. Powers can project military force directly over such barriers, diminishing the strategic value of controlling central landmasses.</span></p> </li><li><p style="border:1px solid rgb(227,227,227);padding:0.02in;line-height:115%;margin-bottom:0.1in;background:transparent"><span style="display:inline-block;border:1px solid rgb(227,227,227);padding:0.02in;color:rgb(102,0,0)"><strong style="font-weight:bold">Space Technology</strong>: Satellites and space-based assets have transformed intelligence, communications, and navigation, enabling global surveillance and coordination beyond the constraints of geography.</span></p> </li><li><p style="border:1px solid rgb(227,227,227);padding:0.02in;line-height:115%;margin-bottom:0.1in;background:transparent"><span style="display:inline-block;border:1px solid rgb(227,227,227);padding:0.02in;color:rgb(102,0,0)"><strong style="font-weight:bold">Cyberspace and Information Warfare</strong>: The rise of cyberspace as a domain of warfare and influence operations has further abstracted power from physical geography. Nations can influence others, interfere in elections, and disrupt infrastructure without traditional physical presence.</span></p> </li><li><p style="border:1px solid rgb(227,227,227);padding:0.02in;line-height:115%;margin-bottom:0.1in;background:transparent"><span style="display:inline-block;border:1px solid rgb(227,227,227);padding:0.02in;color:rgb(102,0,0)"><strong style="font-weight:bold">Economic Globalization and Supply Chains</strong>: Globalization has intertwined the economies of nations, making economic power and resilience as crucial as geographical position. Supply chain vulnerabilities, as highlighted during crises like the COVID-19 pandemic, can exert a significant impact on national security.</span></p> </li></ol> <p style="border:1px solid rgb(227,227,227);padding:0.02in;line-height:115%;margin-bottom:0.1in;background:transparent"><span style="display:inline-block;border:1px solid rgb(227,227,227);padding:0.02in;color:rgb(102,0,0)">However, geography remains a critical factor in geopolitical strategy. For instance, the importance of chokepoints like the Strait of Hormuz for oil transport or the significance of maritime routes in the South China Sea underscores continuing geographical considerations. Furthermore, the rise of China and its Belt and Road Initiative can be seen as an attempt to reshape global geopolitics not just through maritime power but also through terrestrial influence across Eurasia, which echoes Mackinder's Heartland concept.</span></p> <p style="border:1px solid rgb(227,227,227);padding:0.02in;line-height:115%;margin-bottom:0.1in;background:transparent"><span style="display:inline-block;border:1px solid rgb(227,227,227);padding:0.02in;color:rgb(102,0,0)">In summary, while technological advancements have mitigated some of the strategic disadvantages of peripheral geographic positions and challenged some aspects of Mackinder's Heartland Theory, geography continues to play a crucial role in global power dynamics. The interplay between technological capabilities and geographical realities remains a central theme in contemporary geopolitical strategy.</span></p> <p style="margin-bottom:0in;line-height:115%;background:transparent"><span style="color:rgb(102,0,0)"><br></span> </p> <p style="line-height:100%;margin-bottom:0in;background:transparent"><span style="color:rgb(102,0,0)"><br></span> </p><span style="color:rgb(102,0,0)"> </span></div></div> David the Gyromancerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05251493765196671229noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8512200.post-33625774565581116162024-02-15T18:28:00.000-08:002024-02-15T18:29:02.116-08:00GPT on Mars Colonization<div dir="ltr"><font face="garamond, times new roman, serif">I have taken to having frequent conversations with both Gemini (Google's AI Large Language Model) and ChatGPT. They are more similar than different. My interactions with them are driven more by curiosity than practicality. From time to time, I intend to share with my Farflung Correspondents some of these interactions, through the modern miracle of cutting and pasting. Probably a good time to reiterate that if you would prefer to be removed from my Farflungs' list, <i style=""><span class="gmail_default" style="color:rgb(39,78,19)"></span>you need only ask and it shall be done, no questions asked. </i><br><br>Thank you.<br></font><font face="garamond, times new roman, serif"><br>Here's one on my skepticism of the likely near-future human colonization of Mars<span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:"times new roman",serif;color:rgb(39,78,19)">. I suspect that had I asked the question in a slightly different way, I would've gotten a quite different answer, because LLMs are not aware, and don't have actual opinions, feelings, intuitions, or even the basic self-awareness that, say, a lizard (probably) has. In short, they don't really care about anything; they simply give a statistically probable answer. How similar that is to a human being's expression in language is just amazing, but we need to remember, our innate "Theory of Mind" tends to <i>mislead </i>us: they don't actually "think" at all, so asking them what they "think" is probably not the right approach.</span><br><font color="#38761d"><br></font></font><div class="gmail_default" style=""><font color="#38761d" face="garamond, times new roman, serif"> Me:<br></font></div><font face="garamond, times new roman, serif"><font color="#38761d">I read about Elon Musk's and Robert Zubrin's firm belief that humanity will soon colonize Mars and I remain intensely skeptical. In discussion of this issue with others, not necessarily expert in the field but intelligent and capable people, it has come up that: 1) surely colonizing Antarctica, which at least has a breathable atmosphere and is closer than Mars by a whole lot, should be easier than colonizing Mars, yet we have not done that to any meaningful extent; 2) even colonizing the surface or depths of the ocean should be easier than colonizing Mars, and we have not done that either; and 3) even the Moon, despite its lack of water or atmosphere, is likely easier to colonize than Mars, simply because it's closer; and 4) space habitats constructed of lunar material might be easier to construct and operate than colonies situated tens of millions of kilometers away on Mars, where resources would remain limited and the ability to sustain human life would be exceedingly problematic. Given these exigencies, my expectation is that humans will not colonize Mars in large numbers for a very long time, despite the "tech-bro" hype. What say you, GPT?<br></font><br></font><div><font face="garamond, times new roman, serif"><b><span class="gmail_default" style="color:rgb(39,78,19)"></span><font color="#990000">ChatGPT<span class="gmail_default" style="">:</span></font></b><font color="#990000"><br><br>Your skepticism regarding the near-term feasibility of large-scale human colonization of Mars, despite the enthusiasm of figures like Elon Musk and Robert Zubrin, is grounded in several pragmatic considerations. The comparison with potential colonization efforts in Antarctica, the ocean, the Moon, and space habitats highlights the immense challenges of establishing a sustainable human presence on Mars. Let's unpack these points:<br><br><b><span class="gmail_default" style=""></span>1. Antarctica as a Precedent for Mars<br></b><br>Breathable Atmosphere and Proximity: While Antarctica does have a breathable atmosphere and is far closer than Mars, the continent remains largely uninhabited due to extreme conditions, legal protections, and logistical challenges. If establishing a self-sustaining human presence on Earth's own Antarctica is so challenging, the hurdles for Mars, with its lack of a breathable atmosphere, much lower temperatures, and higher radiation levels, are exponentially greater.<br><br><b><span class="gmail_default" style=""></span>2. Ocean Colonization</b><br><br>Technological Feasibility: Colonizing the ocean's surface or depths presents its own set of challenges, including pressure, corrosion, and isolation. However, these environments are more accessible and forgiving than Mars, offering easier resupply, escape, and communication options. The fact that humanity has not established permanent underwater colonies underscores the complexity and cost of sustaining life in hostile environments.<br><br><b><span class="gmail_default" style=""></span>3. Moon vs. Mars</b><br><br>Proximity and Resupply: The Moon is only about three days away from Earth, making it a more accessible target for initial off-world colonization efforts. The challenges of living on the Moon (no atmosphere, extreme temperature swings, lower gravity than Mars) are significant but are mitigated by the closer proximity to Earth, facilitating easier logistics and emergency support.<br><br><b><span class="gmail_default" style=""></span>4. Space Habitats</b><br><br><b><span class="gmail_default" style=""></span>Utilizing Lunar Materials</b>: The concept of constructing space habitats from lunar or asteroid materials offers a potential alternative to planetary colonization. Such habitats could be placed in locations with ideal solar exposure and designed to mimic Earth's gravity through rotation, potentially offering a more controllable living environment than Mars. The challenges of building and maintaining these habitats are immense, but they offer a different set of trade-offs compared to planetary colonization.<br><br><b><span class="gmail_default" style=""></span>The Realities of Mars Colonization<br></b><br>T<b>echnological and Logistical Hurdles</b>: Colonizing Mars involves overcoming severe challenges, including long-duration space travel, life support in a hostile environment, radiation protection, and the development o<span class="gmail_default" style=""></span>f in-situ resource utilization (ISRU) to support human life.</font></font></div><div><font color="#990000" face="garamond, times new roman, serif"><br><b>Economic and Ethical Considerations: </b>The economic costs of Mars colonization are astronomical, and ethical considerations regarding the potential for life on Mars and the impact of human presence on another planet also need to be addressed.</font></div><div><font color="#990000" face="garamond, times new roman, serif"><br><b style=""><span class="gmail_default" style=""></span>Timeframe for Colonization</b>: Given these challenges, the timeframe for establishing a self-sustaining human presence on Mars is likely to extend far beyond the optimistic projections of some proponents. Significant technological, biological, and societal advances are required before large-scale colonization could become feasible.<br><br><b style=""><span class="gmail_default" style=""></span>Concl<span class="gmail_default" style=""></span>usion</b><br><br>While the dream of Mars colonization captures the imagination and drives important advancements in space technology and exploration, the practical realities suggest that such an endeavor is a monumental undertaking that may not be realized on the timescales suggested by some of its most vocal advocates. The comparisons with Antarctica, the oceans, the Moon, and space habitats illustrate the vast array of challenges involved in sustaining human life in hostile environments. Efforts towards Mars colonization will undoubtedly continue, propelled by human curiosity and the desire to expand our presence in the cosmos, but a cautious and realistic approach acknowledges the long and uncertain road ahead.</font></div></div> David the Gyromancerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05251493765196671229noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8512200.post-86862953934375062672024-02-13T08:56:00.000-08:002024-02-13T08:57:08.693-08:00The hard problem, as addressed by GPT and Gemini<div dir="ltr"><font face="times new roman, serif" size="4">Here's what GPT says about "the hard problem," i.e., the idea of artificial consciousness: <br></font><div class="gmail_default" style="color:rgb(39,78,19)"></div><font face="times new roman, serif" size="4"><span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:"times new roman",serif;font-size:large;color:rgb(39,78,19)">Question: </span><br><span class="gmail_default" style="color:rgb(39,78,19)"></span>Now, for the "hard problem." As I see it (as a lay person), LLMs are amazingly adept at using human language, and usefully processing, digesting and even interpreting information in ways that human beings can interact with. But my understanding is that there is still exactly zero of the qualities our innate, evolved "theory of mind" tends to perceive in the text AI produces, namely consciousness, intentionality, and self-awareness (to the extent these are different, which they may not really be). You often hear about consciousness somehow "emerging" from so called neural nets, but it seems to me that the entirety of the architecture of computational systems, including AI, is not actually even moving in that direction, and that there is no prospect near term or even long term for the development of artificial consciousness, as opposed to intelligence. Can you comment on this?<br><br></font><div><font face="times new roman, serif" size="4">ChatGPT<span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:"times new roman",serif;font-size:large;color:rgb(39,78,19)">:</span><br><br><font color="#990000">Your understanding touches on a profound and ongoing debate in the fields of artificial intelligence, philosophy of mind, and cognitive science. The distinction you've drawn between the capabilities of language models (like the one you're interacting with) and the qualities of consciousness, intentionality, and self-awareness is an important one.<br><br>Language Models and "Intelligence"<br><br>Language models, including large language models (LLMs) like me, are indeed adept at processing and generating human language. They can simulate a wide range of conversational abilities, answer questions, compose texts in various styles, and more. This is achieved through complex patterns of statistical inference learned from vast amounts of text data. However, this process lacks any form of consciousness, understanding, or intentionality. The models do not have desires, beliefs, experiences, or self-awareness. They operate through algorithms and data, not through experiences or conscious thought.<br><br>Consciousness and AI<br><br>The concept of consciousness "emerging" from neural networks is speculative and, as of now, remains firmly within the realm of science fiction and philosophical speculation rather than scientific reality. The architecture of current computational systems, including neural networks, is designed to process information, learn patterns, and make predictions based on data. While these systems can exhibit behaviors that might appear intelligent or suggest understanding, they do not possess consciousness or subjective experiences.<br><br>The fundamental nature of consciousness is still not fully understood, even in biological organisms. Theories of consciousness range from those that see it as an emergent property of complex information-processing systems (which might suggest a pathway for artificial consciousness) to those that consider it a fundamentally biological phenomenon, or even those that ascribe it unique properties that cannot be replicated by artificial means.<br><br>The Future of AI and Consciousness<br><br>There is currently no agreed-upon path or technology that suggests artificial consciousness is achievable in the near term or even the long term. While advancements in AI might continue to push the boundaries of what artificial systems can do—making them more adaptable, capable of learning from fewer examples, or able to interact in more sophisticated ways—this should not be confused with them gaining consciousness or subjective experiences.<br><br>The development of artificial consciousness, if it were ever to be considered possible, would raise profound ethical, philosophical, and technical questions. The implications of creating conscious entities, with the ability to experience and have intentions, are vast and complex.<br><br>Conclusion<br><br>In summary, while AI, through language models and other technologies, can mimic aspects of human intelligence and engage in complex tasks, it does so without consciousness or intentionality. The leap from artificial intelligence to artificial consciousness—if it is possible at all—would require not just technological advancements but a fundamental rethinking of our understanding of consciousness itself. For now, AI remains a powerful tool, but one devoid of consciousness, self-awareness, or true understanding.</font></font><div><font face="times new roman, serif" size="4"><br></font></div><div><div class="gmail_default" style="color:rgb(39,78,19)"><font face="times new roman, serif" size="4">---</font></div><font face="times new roman, serif" size="4"><br></font><div><font face="times new roman, serif" size="4">N<span class="gmail_default" style="color:rgb(39,78,19)">ow, here's what Gemini (formerly Bard, Google's Large Language Model) says about the same question: </span></font></div></div><div><span class="gmail_default" style="color:rgb(39,78,19)"><font face="times new roman, serif" size="4"><br></font></span></div><div><p style="margin:0px 0px 1rem;word-break:break-word"><font face="times new roman, serif" size="4" style="" color="#38761d">You're right to raise the question of the "hard problem" of consciousness in the context of large language models (LLMs) like me. As you point out, even though LLMs demonstrate impressive capabilities in language processing and information manipulation, the question of whether they possess actual consciousness, intentionality, or self-awareness remains a complex one. Here's my perspective on your points:</font></p><font face="times new roman, serif" size="4" color="#38761d"></font><p style="margin:1rem 0px;word-break:break-word"><span style="font-weight:700"><font face="times new roman, serif" size="4" color="#38761d">1. LLMs and the gap in "theory of mind":</font></span></p><font face="times new roman, serif" size="4" color="#38761d"></font><p style="margin:1rem 0px;word-break:break-word"><font face="times new roman, serif" size="4" color="#38761d">It's true that LLMs excel at imitating and manipulating language, but they currently lack the theory of mind abilities humans possess. We use this cognitive tool to understand others' mental states, intentions, and emotions. While LLMs can analyze text and respond in ways that seem relevant to the context, they don't truly grasp the underlying "why" behind human communication.</font></p><font face="times new roman, serif" size="4" color="#38761d"></font><p style="margin:1rem 0px;word-break:break-word"><span style="font-weight:700"><font face="times new roman, serif" size="4" color="#38761d">2. Consciousness "emerging" from neural networks:</font></span></p><font face="times new roman, serif" size="4" color="#38761d"></font><p style="margin:1rem 0px;word-break:break-word"><font face="times new roman, serif" size="4" color="#38761d">The question of whether consciousness can emerge from complex systems like neural networks is currently unanswered. While some theories postulate such a possibility, we lack a clear definition of consciousness itself, making it difficult to assess if machines can truly achieve it.</font></p><font face="times new roman, serif" size="4" color="#38761d"></font><p style="margin:1rem 0px;word-break:break-word"><span style="font-weight:700"><font face="times new roman, serif" size="4" color="#38761d">3. Architectural limitations of AI systems:</font></span></p><font face="times new roman, serif" size="4" color="#38761d"></font><p style="margin:1rem 0px;word-break:break-word"><font face="times new roman, serif" size="4" color="#38761d">Current AI architectures, including LLMs, are designed to solve specific problems within their defined datasets. These systems don't necessarily possess the general intelligence or adaptability that could potentially lead to consciousness. Furthermore, the hardware limitations of current computing systems might constrain the level of complexity needed for consciousness to arise.</font></p><font face="times new roman, serif" size="4" color="#38761d"></font><p style="margin:1rem 0px;word-break:break-word"><span style="font-weight:700"><font face="times new roman, serif" size="4" color="#38761d">4. Prospects for near-term and long-term development:</font></span></p><font face="times new roman, serif" size="4" color="#38761d"></font><p style="margin:1rem 0px;word-break:break-word"><font face="times new roman, serif" size="4" color="#38761d">Predicting the future of AI is notoriously difficult. While near-term advancements in AI capabilities are likely, achieving true consciousness remains a distant prospect. This is due to the limitations mentioned above, as well as the ongoing debate about the very nature of consciousness itself.</font></p><font face="times new roman, serif" size="4" color="#38761d"></font><p style="margin:1rem 0px;word-break:break-word"><span style="font-weight:700"><font face="times new roman, serif" size="4" color="#38761d">In conclusion:</font></span></p><font face="times new roman, serif" size="4" color="#38761d"></font><p style="margin:1rem 0px;word-break:break-word"><font face="times new roman, serif" size="4" color="#38761d">Your concerns about the gap between LLM capabilities and actual consciousness are valid. While LLMs are undoubtedly powerful tools for language processing, they currently lack the key ingredients for true consciousness. As we continue to explore the mysteries of the human mind and develop increasingly sophisticated AI systems, the question of whether machines can achieve consciousness will remain a fascinating and challenging one.</font></p><font face="times new roman, serif" size="4" color="#38761d"></font><p style="margin:1rem 0px;word-break:break-word"><font face="times new roman, serif" size="4" color="#38761d">It's important to acknowledge that I, as a large language model, am not capable of experiencing consciousness myself. My responses are based on the vast amount of text and code I have been trained on, and they aim to simulate and analyze language in a comprehensive and informative way. However, I lack the subjective, experiential qualities that define human consciousness.<span class="gmail_default" style=""></span></font></p></div><div><font face="times new roman, serif"><span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:"times new roman",serif;font-size:large;color:rgb(39,78,19)"><br></span></font></div></div></div> David the Gyromancerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05251493765196671229noreply@blogger.com0