DEMOCRATS NEED SELF-CORRECTION AND NEW IDEAS

 

There are two different paths for political leadership to take in reviewing their past decision-making, current events, and prospects in upcoming elections. The first is to never admit a mistake and to always blame the opposition for the failure of any policy, or election result. This approach is now the chosen path of President Donald Trump, MAGA, and the Republican Party.

Never admitting bad results has long been a feature of authoritarian governments seeking to limit dissent. This thinking ignores the core principles of accountability, transparency, and the capacity for self-correction. These concepts are the hallmarks of our American democracy. They emphasize that rulers are not infallible and that power rests with the voting public.

Over the past decade, a populist trend has swept through democratic governments, including the United States. Donald Trump and the Republican Party took advantage of this trend to gain control of the government. The national election results in 2024 demonstrated that Democrats have not kept pace with the concerns of a more populist electorate.

This commentary will discuss several progressive policies supported by Democrats that require review and self-correction. My points will require reconciling party values with the pragmatic need to win elections. Moderation on these points can attract more voters without seriously compromising Democrat’s principles.

Where Wokeness Went Wrong. "Woke" refers to “being awake” and aware in order to recognize and take action against social injustices and discrimination. It centers on race, gender, and marginalized identities. In recent years, woke has escalated into a hotly debated range of political views based on identity. Unfortunately, this trend has harmed the election prospects of Democrats.

MAGA has argued that Democrats have adopted a simplistic view of what it means to be a community and ignored freedom of expression. MAGA has gleefully claimed that Democrats are only supporting select minorities (that do have legitimate complaints) rather than our diverse country as a whole. Efforts to articulate and implement “woke” programs for minorities have been interpreted by populist white, middle-class Americans as oppression towards them.

Democrats, as well as others, know that good intentions are behind most efforts to improve the lot of minorities. However, Trump and MAGA have opened a full court onslaught against any policy, opinion, or word that might be considered “woke.” These attacks have resonated with a growing number of populist minded voters.

To win elections, Democrats must carefully choose their talking points. There is no need to denigrate the Western literary classics because the authors were white, and their work contains ‘racism,” “gender stereotypes,” or “toxic relationships.” Every student can benefit from learning about cross- culture diversity and not simply American slavery or imperialism. What good is gender neutral language to a single mother who is struggling to pay her rent? Just because someone is offended by protected speech does not mean that they can claim they are “unsafe.”

Democrats need to concentrate on economic justice rather than psychic justice. They must refine their political messaging on woke.

Adopt More Moderate Views on Poverty and Wealth. When it comes to economic equality, Democrats can improve their election prospects by moderating their positions on poverty and wealth.

Regarding poverty, a comprehensive study by the conservative, but well-respected American Enterprise Institute, concludes that “the pace of poverty reduction was not greater after LBJ’s War on Poverty than before.” From 1939 to 1963 the poverty rate fell by 29 per cent. Over the next 60 years, it only fell by 16 per cent.

This study is cited by the Economist and other non-partisan researchers as evidence that poverty fell by a greater amount because people earned more money than because of welfare programs. In light of our budget deficit crisis, these results require a rethinking of how best to provide economic opportunities and to fight poverty.

Regarding the wealthy, it is not helpful for Democrats to only view them as a punching bag that should pay more taxes and stay out of politics. Democratic capitalism is made possible by the thousands of small businesses founded by individuals who have accumulated wealth.

A majority of wealthy people are not manipulating government for their own interests. Instead, they are independent-minded, public-spirited, and offer an important voice to our national debate. Americans are not prepared to replace self-reliance and ‘the American Dream” with socialism.

Focus on the Future. The upcoming elections cannot only be about Donald Trump and his efforts to dismantle American institutions.

For our first 250 years, dysfunction, injustices, and bad leaders have been inherent in American democratic government. Our system works because elections matter and errors can be corrected. Democracy has outlasted Jacksonian imperialism, the Civil War, and Southern segregationists.  Democrats can win elections. America will survive Trump.

Democrats must help the electorate conclude that the future is open and full of promise. When voters believe that many possibilities still exist, those with different views can productively engage to reach compromises.

Focusing the next election on positive issues—such as economic solutions, and future-oriented goals—rather than only negative, attack-driven narratives against Trump and MAGA, is crucial. For the liberal order to regain the upper hand, the Democrat election platform must recognize the legitimate concerns of the increasingly populist middle class.

The country is weary of Trump’s daily stream of lies, crisis and negativity. Democrats can win back voters by offering a constructive agenda of hope, peace, prosperity, and civility.

 

 

 

 

 

IN TRUMP’S WORLD, I AM PROUD TO BE AN ATTORNEY

 

Lawyers are the brunt of many jokes, often deservedly so. Members of my profession tend to be brash, overconfident, and unemotional. Far too often we give advice and fail to listen. Our legal training focuses on becoming zealous advocates for our clients. Attorneys are not trained to be therapists.

I have kept my legal license but retired from the practice of law. I now introduce myself as a “recovering lawyer” and seek to recapture the more emotive qualities of my college liberal arts education. Unfortunately, my wife would argue that my personality often reverts to being an analytical advocate rather than a philosopher or poet who shares his feelings.

Despite the shortcomings of my profession, I have never been prouder to be an attorney. The judicial branch, comprised entirely of lawyers, makes up one third of our democratic government. It ensures that the laws made by Congress and implemented by the president fall within the parameters of our Constitution and its democratic principles.

Unfortunately, the Trump administration has stressed the checks and balances envisioned by the Constitution to the limit. There has been a significant reduction in the traditional separation of powers. 

First, with Trump’s appointment of members to the Supreme Court, all three branches of the federal government are under the control of a single political party.

Second, at the highest level, rather than act independently, all three branches regularly appear to be coordinating activities in service to the President.

Third, Congress, and often the Supreme Court, have meekly stood by as Trump ignores his presidential oath to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” This includes the President’s adoption of questionable or illegal policies through executive orders. He is also slow to follow legal rulings that stand in the way of his illiberal goals.

With the Supreme Court’s partisan support of administration policies, why am I so proud to be a card-carrying member of the legal profession? To begin with, the sheer number of dedicated lawyers, legal advocacy groups, and federal/state judges who have called the Trump administration to task for violating the Constitution and/or violating recent court orders is astounding.

According to a review conducted by the American Immigration Lawyers Association, “Since October 2025, more than 400 federal judges have ruled at least 4,421 times that ICE is holding people illegally. Forty-four Trump-appointed judges have ruled against the administration in mass-detention cases.” In the Western District of Pennsylvania 254 habeas petitions, challenging the legality of an arrest, have been filed. This is a 2,200% increase from the same time period the prior year. 

POLITICO has reported, “Federal courts have issued increasing warnings that the new ICE policy, doesn’t just subject millions more people to detention while they fight deportation, it also bars them from being released on bond.”

In many cases, the Trump Justice Department has delayed a final resolution by appealing the adverse decisions. Thankfully, there is no reason to believe that the appellate courts will reverse the trial courts’ sound opinions.

The federal courts have also rebuked the administration’s decision to threaten the legal status of thousands of foreign students studying at American schools. This judicial pushback led the administration to reconsider its policy.

Apart from the immigration debacle and before the Iran War, thousands of lawyers have been working overtime to keep up with the onslaught of other questionable or illegal executive orders. Lawsuits have been filed against a multiplicity of Trump orders. These include his efforts to: target colleges and universities, target law firms, strip power from independent regulatory agencies, give DOGE access to government payment systems, freeze federal grant funding, and a patently unconstitutional executive order to end birthright citizenship.

In health care, legal action has been brought to prevent the rollback of health regulations and affordable drug pricing.

In education, actions have been filed against an executive order to dismantle the Department of Education, against cuts to Pell Grants, and against cuts to student loan programs.

Regarding environmental issues, lawyers are fighting the sweeping rollbacks in EPA regulations, and cuts to clean energy and sustainability programs.

Lawyer advocacy groups are also fighting cuts to small business grants which disproportionately impact minorities and women.

There are other examples and a growing list of Trump’s illiberal policies that seek to dismantle our democratic institutions. Lawyers around the nation have volunteered their valuable time to provide a defense. Judges have consistently rejected Trump’s vision of authoritarian rule.

So far, no one in Trump’s administration has asserted that they have the constitutional authority to disobey court orders. However, they have been slow to comply and have often misrepresented facts in filed court documents and when arguing before a judge.

The recent Supreme Court decision finding Trump’s tariff policy illegal gives some hope that there is a red line to preserve the separation of powers, one that the justices will not cross. Now Congress needs to step up and regain its footing as an equal branch of government.

Lawyers and judges are reining in Trump until the American people can exercise true accountability in this year’s midterm elections. Unfortunately, there is not much the minority Democratic Party can do until it regains the House of Representatives and possibly the Senate.

Until then, the legal profession that is often held in low regard, and the lower courts, have saved our democratic republic to fight another day.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

IRAN: A CONFLICT WITHOUT JUSTIFICATION OR STRATEGY

 

My views on war and its place in American foreign policy have changed dramatically over the years. As a child, my family were members of a tiny Quaker congregation (Religious Society of Friends) that met in the Meeting House that defined our small N.J. hamlet, Quakertown.

In the Quaker tradition, several male members of our gathering were pacifists and had gone to prison rather than take up arms in WWII. Pacifists believe that using violence is never legitimate, even in self-defense.   

At Swarthmore College, my thinking on war evolved. The college was founded by Quakers and now houses the Peace Collection. It is the most extensive “non-violence” research library and archive collection in the world, focused solely on movements for peace.

In 1970 the Nixon administration’s Cambodian Campaign fueled a major domestic antiwar movement in the U.S. The Swarthmore campus shut down for a week to permit students time to conduct anti-draft work in Philadelphia and to attend the protest marches in Washington, D.C.

I remained vehemently opposed to the Vietnam War and still feel strongly about peace in international relations. However, I dropped my support for pacifism. In my philosophy studies I came to believe that individuals have a moral right to protect themselves and their families from imminent threats.

 After graduation, my views further developed into not opposing “just wars,” to stop aggression or genocide. Today, I am a realist and believe it is a primary responsibility of the U.S. to provide national security, within the framework of international law.

My hope for international peace has led me to study and understand war. When a major conflict occurs, there are two published books that provide perspective on whether a hostile engagement is justified and/or is being conducted in a rational manner. The first, War: How Conflict Shapes Us, by Margaret Olwen MacMillan, a Canadian historian and emeritus professor at the University of Oxford is an historical study of war as a central force in human history.

MacMillan starts from the premise that “War is an uncomfortable and challenging subject not least because it brings out both the vilest and the noblest aspects of humanity.” By the end of the book and its many examples, the reader has a better understanding of the circumstances under which war was “dreadful and unnecessary” and when it was “required.”

My second reference on conflict is Strategy, A History. It was written by one of the world’s most eminent authorities on war and international politics, British historian Sir Lawerence Freedman. The author tackles the subject of how best to conduct military campaigns after conflict begins.

Freedman reminds us, “A strategic approach is preferable to one that is merely tactical, let alone random. Having a strategy suggests the ability to look up from the short term to view the long term and the essential to address causes rather than symptoms. Without a strategy, facing up to any problem or striving for any objective would be considered negligent.”

Freedman has written extensively on the “fog of war,” a term coined by the Prussian military strategist, Carl von Clausewitz.  It refers to the uncertainty regarding enemy intentions on the battlefield. It forces military strategies to evolve from rigid planning into adaptive, intelligence-driven decision-making. Freedman warns that the promise of technological superiority can create a "misleading perception of risk-free war,” which can lead to unexpected consequences. He must have had the Iran conflict in mind.

After considering the themes of these two books, it is my view that the unprovoked Iran attack, initiated by the Trump administration, initially failed the justification test. It now is badly failing the strategy test due to the administration’s tactical, and often random approach.

There is little confidence when the Trump administration’s justification for starting the war changes as often as the March weather. Many foreign policy experts have concluded Trump is simply “making it up as he goes along.” This is not surprising given the President’s “personalization” of domestic politics and of the global order. In Ukraine, Venezuela, and now in Iran, his individual whims are driving great-power policy. There is no advisor willing to challenge him.

In this 250^th year since our nation’s founding, each of us should reflect on the fact that a personalist, one-man government is contrary to everything our democratic constitutional republic stands for.

Journalist and commentator Thomas Friedman makes an excellent analogy when discussing Trump’s Iran justification and strategy. “Would you invest in a company whose leader, without warning, embarked on a radically new business strategy and then, by the next week, described its goals in five different ways? That is a flashing red light.”

The endgame that now appears to have gained the most traction is to remove the Islamic regime from Tehran. This result should improve prospects for Iran and for Middle East peace. However, there seems to be little thought on how to reach this goal or an explanation of the blood and treasure that must be spent to attain it.

Lastly, no rational, flexible military strategy has been articulated. Each morning the Secretary of War, Pete Hegseth, stands before the press corps and emphasizes “the destruction of enemy capabilities,” “fighting to win” and “acting on the President’s timeline.”

Hegseth’s boastful words offer little assurance that this unprovoked “small excursion” will not become a larger war. A war offering few strategic advantages to America.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE DATA CENTER DILEMMA

My thoughts on data centers coming to the region are complicated.  If I am wearing my stock market hat, where I am invested in corporations on the cutting edge of artificial intelligence, my thoughts are positive. On the other hand, if I consider the possibility of a large data center operating a short distance from home, my thoughts are “build them in Texas.”

This creates the contradictory opinion of “create as many data centers as you need, but not in my backyard.”

The Investor’s (Macro) Case.  Artificial Intelligence (AI) is now a major factor in the resurgence of the United States economy. AI cannot realize its full potential without massive data centers. Yahoo Finance estimates that in 2026, AI-related investments, supported by data centers, account for roughly 30%-40% of US GDP growth. These entities comprise about one-third of total stock market value.  

 

While there are different types of data centers, they are basically facilities built to house and distribute huge amounts of data collected from numerous sources. The centers contain networking infrastructure, cooling systems, and server racks.

 

To illustrate the relationship between AI and data centers, consider a pizza shop. AI chips, manufactured by companies like Nvidia, are the raw pizza dough. The chips are specialized circuits designed to speed up machine learning. Data centers are the pizza ovens. Without them, the newest chips cannot be processed into immense datasets – used to create the next generation of AI.

In recent years, the race to build data centers has accelerated. According to ABI Research, there will be 8,821 in operation worldwide in 2026. This number is expected to reach 12,048 by 2035.

Amazon Web Services (AWS), Microsoft Azure, Meta, and Google are the largest owners of U.S. data centers. These companies often build massive, hyperscale facilities for their own AI projects. Meta’s Hyperion center in Louisiana has a larger footprint than Manhattan.

AWS has the most data center sites worldwide among all cloud hyper-scalers, with 105 in the United States. This translates into 2.3 gigawatts of energy usage (enough to power 2 million homes simultaneously). By 2035, Deloitte Research estimates that the power demand from AI data centers in the United States could grow more than thirtyfold, reaching 123 gigawatts. 

 

As an investor, I want to financially benefit from the transformative economic benefits of AI technology made possible through data centers. Sustained gains in labor productivity and capital efficiency could add trillions to the world economy.

 

The Local (Micro) Case. The paradox is that no investor in AI technology would be pleased to wake up in the morning to see a data center being constructed across the street. While AI technology may add value to a portfolio, homeowners are very concerned about quality of life and property values. Many have decided that the negative factors that a data center brings to their community far outweigh the benefits.

At least 50 new data centers are being considered for Pennsylvania. Southwestern Pennsylvania is the focus of many would-be developers. Our region has numerous industrial sites with access to natural gas for power and rivers to supply water. Many of the brightest AI scientists work at local universities.

These proposed projects are facing strong opposition from a connected network of community groups. It appears that public outcry will outpace objections to past extractive industries like coal and natural gas.

The grievances are backed by solid science and include negative reports from established data centers. Massive energy consumption leads to higher energy costs, high water usage causes damage to water tables, and noise/light pollution degrades quality of life. Moreover, like many new technologies, the long -term environmental effects of data centers are unknown.

In my own neighborhood of South Strabane, the potential for building a data center on 1,400 acres of land owned by CNX Resources has created a firestorm. There is no formal agreement, and the only activity is the drafting of a local ordinance to address data centers. Nevertheless, concerned residents attend every township meeting in droves.

I have been monitoring these meetings on Zoom. The residents who speak are well-informed and persuasive. They propose revisions and restrictions to the ordinance that would make it difficult for the developer to proceed.

South Strabane’s public negativity is not encouraging for a data center. A traditional warehouse or other less intrusive development for the 1,400-acre property makes more sense.

New data centers are going to get built. However, the desirability of new centers will continue to be debated in communities across the region.

 

THE STATUS OF MIDTERM ELECTION CONTESTS

The November midterm elections will see voters coming out to decide hundreds of federal, state, and county level positions. Across the nation, Democrat officials are predicting a “Blue Wave” of heavy turnout supporting their candidates.

This election is historically a referendum on the president. There is a strong relationship between presidential approval nationwide and midterm outcomes. According to a recent Reuters poll, 38 percent of voters approve of Trump’s performance while 60 percent disapprove. 

This year, there is only a narrow path for Democrats to retake control of the Senate. But recent polling shows a strong chance to capture the House of Representatives.

This commentary will focus on the political landscape in Pennsylvania and in Washington County. According to POLITICO, “Few places epitomize Democrats’ recent challenges — and hopes for 2026 — as well as Pennsylvania. Trump flipped the state back in 2024. Democrats lost a Senate seat and every statewide row office — and failed to make inroads in the state legislature.”

However, Commonwealth Democrats were encouraged by the results of the 2025 election. SPOTLIGHT PA reported, “In November, the party retained three state Supreme Court justices by more than 20 points. Down ballot, gains were made in Republican Bucks County, where the first district attorney running as a Democrat was elected since the 19^th century. In Erie County, a Democratic unseated the Republican incumbent county executive by a margin of 25 points.”

SPOTLIGHT interviewed an encouraged Democratic State Party Chair Eugene DePasquale. “We are focused on bread-and-butter economic issues. People are struggling in their daily lives. The Trump administration is just throwing more gas on the fire.”

Pennsylvania Republican leaders argue that the real affordability crisis in America takes place in Democratic strongholds like New York, Illinois, and California. These states have higher taxes and housing costs. Republican officials claim that only by electing their candidates can Pennsylvania avoid higher expenses.

Statewide, the real issue for Republicans in these mid-term elections is getting their supporters to the polls. When Trump is not on the ballot, participation by casual voters who support him often disappears. For the upcoming election, the momentum lies with Democrats.

In Pennsylvania, Democratic Governor Josh Shapiro, with presidential aspirations, is running against Republican State Treasurer, Stacy Garrity, a strong ally of president Trump. While Garrity, a combat veteran and business leader, has won state elections, she is not expected to unseat Shapiro. In early polling, Shapiro is running 15-17 percentage points ahead of his rival.

For years, in Washington County and across the country, there has been an alarming lack of knowledge regarding local politics compared to national campaigns. Much of the voting public does not get energized by local news. Typically, unless there is a catalyst (like attempts to bring a data center to South Strabane Twp.), social media is not engaged with local politics.   

Local Democratic leaders hope that this year will be different, even though no county offices are on the ballot. They believe that the widespread dissatisfaction with the president and his anti-democratic policies will produce an increased interest in Democrat candidates who represent Washington County.

Our Republican Congressman, Guy Reschenthaler, is running for a fifth term. He is a strong supporter of President Trump and has worked his way up the national party leadership to chief deputy whip in the House.

Reschenthaler has come under repeated criticism for spending most of his time in Washington DC and being a “no-show” in the district. He does not hold in-person townhall meetings for his constituents.

The Democratic candidate to oppose Reschenthaler in the 14^th District is a new face, Alan Bradstock. A native of Donora and a graduate of Ringgold High School, Bradstock went on to graduate from Washington & Jefferson College with high honors.  He served in the U.S. Army as a helicopter pilot, and following his military career worked for the FBI. More recently, Bradstock worked as an auditor for the large financial advisor, KPMG.

Bradstock has proven to be the ideal hardworking, well-qualified, moderate candidate needed to unseat Reschenthaler. However, political observers point out his uphill battle in our heavily Republican 14th District. Reschenthaler defeated Chris Dziados by more than 30 points in 2024.

There is no announced Democrat to oppose State Senator Camera Bartolotta in the 46^th Senate District. To date, the only political kerfuffle has been between the local and state Republican parties.

In January, the Washington County Republican Party executive committee issued a 21-3 vote of no confidence for Bartolotta. The local party was upset with her marriage to the former Democratic Speaker of the House, Bill DeWeese. They also disagreed with her support for Haitian immigrants in Charleroi.

The State Republican Party supports Bartolotta and declared the local vote null and void. Local Republicans rejected the state decision. Bartolotta will face a primary challenge from Al Buchta, who lives in Canonsburg. Neutral observers of this Republican dog fight believe Bartolotta’s position in the primary is secure.

This race will not affect party control of the Pennsylvania Senate. However, it highlights the fractured Republican party on issues like aggressive immigration crackdowns, economic policy, and support for all things Trump.

While Democrats are hopeful for large gains in the midterms, they must keep a close eye on Trump’s plan to nationalize elections. On February 3, nine months from the midterms, the president announced, “We should take over the voting in at least 15 places.”

 

 

   

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE REQUIRES OUR FULL ATTENTION

 

For my fellow traditionalists who love print newspapers, writing notes in cursive, and reading books made of paper, I have a warning and some thoughts. Artificial Intelligence (AI) is taking over the world. Now is not the time to complain about its disruptions or to ignore its presence. That reaction is exactly what the AI developers, venture capitalists, and certain government officials with an authoritarian bent hope you will do.

Each of us should study AI’s potential and its dangers. We should be knowledgeable enough to take a firm position on its further development and deployment.

For those who think AI is an unnecessary intrusion into our sedate, predictable lives, consider the 1811 Luddite movement of British textile workers. As part of this protest against industrialization, machinery was destroyed and riots ensued. Within five years, the Luddites were a distant memory and the industrial revolution took over the western world.  The United States was transformed from an agrarian society into an urban, industrialized one.

Skipping forward to the development of the internet, in 1992 a unique means of communication utilized by a few researchers was transformed into the “Information Superhighway.” Under a program championed by then Senator, Al Gore, seed money was provided to link computer networks in universities, governments, and industries around the world.

At first, the messy joint effort to develop the internet was encouraging. It was spearheaded by an early idealism that the new technology would empower individuals and unleash a wave of creativity for the benefit of mankind. The infant internet was praised for being decentralized and democratic. It was called a television station without producers and a newspaper without editors.

However, the internet took a dark turn that few saw coming. The erosion of privacy and the inability to protect personal data is now pervasive. The emergence of giant corporations (Google, Meta, Amazon), larger than nation states, has created a new class of oligarchs in America. The collapse of “old media” (newspapers, magazines, non-partisan news shows) has produced a society based on fake news and conspiracy theories rather than hard facts. The growth of tribal politics and the loss of a consensus reality is encouraged by social media.

The book to read on the downward spiral of the internet is Enshittification: Why Everything Suddenly Got Worse and What to Do About It by journalist Corey Doctorow. Doctorow believes that “The once-glorious internet has degenerated into “platforms” that rose to dominance because they delivered convenient and delightful services efficiently and reliably. But once we were locked in to those services, the tech bosses turned on us, relying on our dependency to keep us using the services.”

In spite of this sad state of affairs, Doctorow believes that there is a way to take the internet back from the tech giants. Each of us must learn about the algorithms that lock us into platforms and how to avoid their “siren call.” Governments must have the fortitude to use antitrust laws and regulations to break the monopolies, prevent fraud, and protect privacy.

While we deal with the internet’s failures, now is not the time to ignore AI or hand the keys over to the developers and financers without controls. AI poses more serious consequences to society and deserves our full attention.

The lightning speed with which AI has developed was not predicted by those who study its transformation. Early neural networks (the kind that underpin ChatGPT and Google’s Gemini) for decades did not work as well as more mainstream machine-learning techniques. It turned out to be a question of scale.

Building bigger neural networks was not easy, and no one knew whether it would work. Once these networks were fed an abundance of computer capacity to perform large numbers of computations, everything changed.

In 2012 a program running on only two Nvidia graphics chips in a developer’s bedroom left all of the conventional models in the dust. Fourfold annual growth led to sixteen-fold over two years, 64-fold over three years. This is how we progressed from a promising bedroom experiment to data centers the size of Manhattan. The models’ predictions continued to get better as their scale increased.

Bigger is expensive. Citigroup estimates that total AI investment globally will be at least $7.8 trillion between 2025 and 2030. No one knows when the rate of improvement will diminish or disappear. The ultimate result could be to reach “superintelligence,” a hypothetical form of AI that surpasses human intelligence across all fields, including scientific creativity, general wisdom, and social skills.

The dangers of superintelligence have been the subject of many science fiction novels. The developers lose control over the technology leading AI to pursue goals harmful to humanity. To prevent such an outcome international regulation must be developed to ensure that AI improvements are gradual and safe.

AI is not the internet. The internet shares information. The little understood AI technology independently interprets and acts on the information. We cannot afford to let AI develop without oversight.

The best solution may be the one advanced by the Economist in a recent Special Report, “Stop Panicking and Start Preparing.” Use AI to improve all aspects of your life. Stay on top of the latest developments and support controls and regulations. The Economist concludes that each of us needs to be “a cynical optimist,” as the world changes before our eyes.

 

 

 

MINNEAPOLIS/ST. PAUL STAYS STRONG UNDER SIEGE

 

Some emotional national stories are captured by news cycles/social media, and keep growing. I am referring to scenarios that pull at the heart strings. These stories are more likely to bring Americans closer together as we share our common humanity rather than to increase our political and social divide.

Examples include Lindsay Vonn attempting to compete in the Olympics with a torn ACL. This story touched us all as an act of personal courage. Another is the kidnapping of Nancy Guthrie, the mother of Savannah Guthrie. These unthinkable circumstances lead us to consider such a horrible event in our own lives.

Also in focus, is the crisis in the twin cities, Minneapolis/St. Paul (MSP). The unprecedented “Operation Metro Surge.” conducted by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) brought normal activity to a halt. This situation compels us to contemplate such an overwhelming disruption in our lives.

This largest operation in ICE history began in January. At its peak, roughly 2,400 federal agents from ICE and other agencies were deployed. (For comparison, 300 agents were activated in much larger Chicago.) The terrifying effect on MSP has included the killing of two American citizens, the use of military tactics against protesters by untrained officers, and the violation of the basic civil rights of immigrants.

This commentary will focus on what the ICE operation looks like where citizens live and work. The impressions I am relating come from the journalists on site (There were probably as many reporters from every major news source as there were ICE agents.) and from a close relative, with Washington connections, who now lives in MSP. My intent is not to present a formal legal analysis. What follows is a description of ordinary people, reacting to a situation that is as close to a modern domestic war zone as our nation has experienced.

We all like to talk about the weather. After the ICE operation began conditions in MSP were extremely cold with temperatures and wind chills well below zero. Hypothermia was a real concern, making it unsafe for prolonged exposure. Nonetheless, as the ICE operation progressed, many thousands of local citizens turned out each day to help those under duress and to demonstrate against the brutal crackdown.

Originally inhabited by the Dakota and Ojibwe, MSP was settled in the 19th century largely by Scandinavians and Germans. Today, it is a hub for large Somali, Mexican, and Hmong communities. 

According to a reporter from New York Magazine, “It is the misfortune of ICE to have invaded the state with the second-highest level of social trust.” The citizens of MSP know how to organize and take care of each other. Local elected officials, local news agencies, small business and corporations, churches and charities all made drastic changes to their schedules to help those under siege. Average citizens reported that between their regular responsibilities and volunteering they often worked 18-20 hours each day.

Thousands of concerned citizens buy groceries and walk dogs for potential ICE targets. The church, Iglesia Dios Habla Hoy, dropped off more than 12,000 boxes of essentials in six weeks. Volunteer shuttles drive sick immigrants to doctor appointments. Volunteer tow trucks return vehicles to their owners who fled on foot from ICE officers seeking to arrest them.

In every residential community, average citizens use whistles as a nonviolent signaling device to immediately alert their neighbors who might be the subject of a raid. The whistles draw support to the scene for community protests. Ordinary people juggle daily life to look out for each other, however they can.

All over MSP, a common sight was three SUVs moving in tandem with 12 agents, suddenly ducking into a side street and surrounding a house. To counter this activity, a sophisticated tracking system was developed to pinpoint the location of ICE vehicles as they departed the federal building.

N., our relative in MSP, had some interesting facts and observations to share. He carries a whistle on his key chain and a designated phone number in his mobile to warn of ICE activity. His young child asks questions about why the ICE personnel look so threatening compared to the local police she has come to know and respect.

N. believes that ICE is in his community in such large, intimidating numbers to “stoke fear and lower the voting rates in the mid-term elections.” He reports that since the shootings “Trump/MAGA supporters are few.” N. points out that one underreported fact is that “The community has organized a volunteer network to watch over the memorials for the two killed protesters, Renee Good and Alex Pretti. Anyone is able to come mourn, reflect, and embrace their community without judgment.”

A major takeaway for N. is that you do not need to be protesting to make a difference. “There are ways of showing your support like making grocery runs for our neighbors.” He believes the impact of local businesses was under-reported. “Local shops are donating their profits, cooking meals for free, closing for a day of solidarity.”

N.’s final thought is that “This is not about left vs. right or about criminals. It’s about fear. Our devotion and hope are stronger.”

On February 12, the massive ICE surge began winding down. Mayor Jacop Frey proclaimed: “They thought they could break us, but a love for our neighbors and a resolve to endure can outlast an occupation.”

 

.