A CRITIQUE OF LOCAL REPUBLICAN CAMPAIGN ISSUES

Local Washington County Republicans are raising several misleading campaign issues in support of their two candidates for County Commissioner. Several issues are featured in the campaign literature of incumbent commissioner Nick Sherman and his running mate, Electra Janis. Other talking points are displayed on the social media of the Washington County Republican Party.

Each issue in support of the candidates is overblown or factually inaccurate. Below, I will present the Republican positions and set the record straight with some background and verifiable facts.

The State of the Washington County Economy. Both Republican candidates are eager to announce that their goal is to “grow family-sustaining jobs by supporting job creators at every level.” There is no explanation of specific programs to accomplish this objective. Nor is there a detailed narrative that tells how the new Republican commissioner team, if elected, would do anything differently.  This may be because previous county administrations have left the state of the Washington County economy in exemplary condition.

At a recent Chamber of Commerce event attended by the present Board of Commissioners, including Mr. Sherman, it was reported that in 2022 the county attracted 69 new economic development and infrastructure projects. The present strategy has successfully brought economic diversity to the county. This includes energy fracking projects, health care, manufacturing, agriculture, and other industries. Public-private partnerships, always favored by Republicans, have long been encouraged by both political parties in Washington County. This includes the privatization of the county nursing home.

The gambling revenue “local share account program” was uniquely structured in Washington County by former Democratic Commissioner Bracken Burns to make funding decisions locally. This year the program responded to proposals by directing $8 million toward new infrastructure and development projects across the county.

Lastly, the county unemployment rate stands at a low of 3.2%.

If the Republican campaign is promising to continue this stellar record developed by past Democrat and Republican Commissioners, it should say so.  If there is a plan to improve this performance, it should be disclosed.

Voting in Washington County. One would assume that after the more radical MAGA commissioner candidates were defeated in the May primary, all Republican talk of stolen elections and the need for local election reform would disappear. Sadly, the “secure elections” topic remains on the Republican candidates’ platform.

No county commissioner has the authority to alter the manner in which local elections are conducted, including voter ID. The only explanation for keeping secure elections as a campaign issue in Washington County is to attract election-denying MAGA voters in the general election.

The present Board of Commissioners spent weeks in 2022 deflecting pressure to decertify the county’s presidential election results.  There were incessant demands to perform illegal audits of voting machines. The commissioners were forced to listen to the bizarre rants of debunked “election expert” Douglas Frank. Not one case of election fraud was found in Washington County. Only five fraud cases were documented across Pennsylvania, all attributed to President Trump supporters.

The Washington County Elections Office should receive an apology from the local Republican Party for the verbal abuse to its employees, by several members running for office in the primary. Instead, the Election Office is left wondering whether a new Republican administration will fill the office with election deniers in return for MAGA voter support in November.

Comparison with Allegheny County.  The Washington County Republican Party continuously posts articles about events in neighboring Pittsburgh and Allegheny County. The warning, “This is how bad socialist Allegheny County and Pittsburgh have become, Don't let Washington County fall!” follows each post. Sometimes this routine is altered to post warnings about events in Philadelphia or in the office of Governor Shapiro. The message is always the same. Washington County must elect the two Republican candidates and maintain a majority to avoid becoming a “bastion of socialism.”

It is true that Allegheny County, Pittsburgh, and Philadelphia have voted progressive Democrats into office in recent elections. This has been the trend in urban communities across the country. It is also true that this development has added to the divisiveness in American politics. However, there is no evidence that progressive urban agendas have spilled over into conservative suburban or rural populations in Pennsylvania or elsewhere.

Allegheny County is surrounded by counties, including Washington that will continue to hold a clear majority of registered Republicans. The elected  Democrats in these counties most often favor moderate policy positions and are overwhelmingly fiscal conservatives. Such is the case with the two local Democratic candidates for commissioner, Mr. Maggi and Ms. Fisher. If the Washington County Republican party wants to “get real” on issues that are important to voters, it must stop the fear-mongering and present matters of substance.

Lower Taxes and Less Government Spending. Commissioner Nick Sherman makes these two claims in his campaign literature with no explanation on how to accomplish either.

Regarding lower taxes, the median property tax in Washington County is well below the average of other counties in Pennsylvania.

Regarding government spending, Commissioner Sherman was the primary cheerleader for the $10 million county purchase of the Crossroads Building. This enormous local government expenditure is widely considered a gross overpayment for a property that was worth far less.

Local voters should insist that the Republican commissioner candidates provide specific answers to real issues. We deserve a campaign based on facts, not alarmism and misrepresentations.

 

 

 

 

  

A RETURN TO THE IVORY TOWER

“When I was young, it seemed that life was so wonderful. A miracle, oh, it was beautiful, magical”

                                                                        Supertramp

My alma mater, Swarthmore is a small liberal arts college along the main line outside of Philadelphia. I graduated in 1973. This past weekend was our milestone 50th class reunion. My spouse and I were returning home from the Delmarva Peninsula and decided to drop in on the celebration. We joined an invigorated group of seventy-somethings catching up after half a century.

Founded in 1864 by Philadelphia Quakers, Swarthmore College was one of the first coeducational colleges in the country. While the religious affiliation was discontinued years ago, the Quaker spirit continues to permeate the college community.

An ivory tower is defined as “a state of privileged seclusion that provides a separation from the facts and practicalities of the real world.” Present-day Swarthmore College is the embodiment of this definition. The seclusion is unmistakable once you leave the congested Baltimore Pike and turn onto the tree-lined village of Swarthmore PA. Crum Creek, its meadowland, and woods surround the college. The campus is a nationally recognized arboretum with a large staff to attend to the diverse natural setting.

 Modern-day Swarthmore College is organized with a singular goal in mind, to provide an environment for academic excellence with no outside interference. Every possible student need is addressed from dormitory room maid service to allowances for all diet/food preferences to free academic books for underprivileged students. Over the course of four years, there is no need to leave the campus. For those that want to escape for a day into the Center City of Philadelphia, train passes are provided.

The College now has 1650 students and a low student-faculty ratio of 8-1. It is an elite academic institution that recruits a diverse student body from around the world.

Each year the admissions staff cobbles together an academically sound, diverse freshman class, regardless of financial need. To accomplish this goal, Swarthmore has one of the largest small college endowments of over $one billion. The college meets 100% of the determined need of all admitted students. Ninety percent of the students attend professional schools after graduation. Swarthmore’s alumni have attained prominence in a broad range of fields, including five Noble prizes.

 Those attending the reunion reminded me that our class had broken the mold of the monastic Swarthmore academic life. When we arrived on campus in September of 1969, some of us were veterans of the turbulent 1968 Democratic convention in Chicago, others of the divisive Vietnam War. A number of freshmen (myself included) had attended the Woodstock music festival the month before classes began. The assassinations of Martin Luther King and Robert Kennedy were fresh in our minds. The civil rights movement and the Vietnam conflict were in full swing. Our thoughts were oriented outward toward a nation in turmoil.

The campus itself was in disarray following the January 1969 takeover of the Swarthmore Admissions Office. Black students were protesting a lack of black faculty and few black history or culture courses.  In the days following the takeover, nine hundred students and faculty gathered to express their support. On the eighth day of the takeover, College President Courtney Smith suffered a massive heart attack and died. No permanent replacement was found during our time as students.

For our first year, the Swarthmore ivory tower did not exist because of the campus and outside disruptions. All classes were pass-fail for the only time in school history. The Kent State shootings occurred in March of 1970. Classes were canceled when the Nixon administration invaded Cambodia in April 1970, which permitted students to participate in the Washington DC anti-war marches.

Domestic issues settled down, and the ivory tower returned for our final three years at Swarthmore. After graduation, many of us did not remain politically active and turned to mundane lifestyles, professional careers, and families. I was curious to see what our four years at Swarthmore had wrought fifty years after the fact. In addition, I was interested in how the college community had changed. I left the reunion with some interesting impressions.

First, members of our class utilized their liberal arts education in unique ways. Dance and drama students applied these talents to become better lawyers. English majors started successful nonprofits. Science majors became entrepreneurs in the dot-com era. A political science major joined the Jimmie Carter White House before he was 25.

Second, many in our class of 1973 are now in retirement mode trying to wind down from rigorous professional careers. The liberal arts education Swarthmore provided has become an excellent segue into new pastimes in the arts, history, philosophy, and literature.

Third, the college seems more self-centered than I remember and overly smug about “doing the best right thing.” Just because Princeton University has installed an expensive geothermal energy system does not mean that Swarthmore needed to follow suit by digging up much of its campus to install a carbon-neutral heating structure.  Less invasive technologies will soon be available.

Finally, the college’s President Valerie Smith honored our class with a luncheon address. She is Swarthmore’s second female and first African American President. She is also a distinguished scholar of African American literature. Without question, the last half century has produced important social progress since a former President, also named Smith, suffered that fatal heart attack while negotiating with Black students.

THE NBA PLAYOFFS ARE THE BEST GAME IN TOWN

This commentary is dedicated to my nephew, Krishen Clemente, who died unexpectedly on Friday, May 26. He was an avid NBA fan and will be sorely missed by all who knew him.

My friends think it is a bit daft when I stay up until 1 am to watch two back-to-back NBA playoff games. After all, we have no local skin in the game.  Professional basketball is not a sport that garners much attention in southwestern Pennsylvania.

I am not as dedicated as my NJ family who all season long follow the New York Knicks with great passion. However, when the NBA playoffs roll around, all the games are must-see entertainment. For two months, political talk shows, streaming my favorite programs, and reading novels take a back seat to professional basketball.

Three events in the spring and summer of 2020 made me a permanent fan of the NBA playoffs. First, the pandemic interrupted other sporting events normally on the broadcast schedule. The NBA finished its regular season and the playoffs by creating a bio-secure bubble at a live-in facility near Walt Disney World. Nearly $190 million was invested to set up a secure environment where players and their families could stay until their team was eliminated.

The league produced a rulebook of more than 100 pages to protect its players in an attempt to salvage the remainder of the season. Strict directives included isolation protocols, testing requirements, and the potential for financial penalties. Isolated players had to forego participating in the games until they were medically cleared.

The experiment was a great success. Sports fans like me who rarely watched the NBA were stuck at home with little to do.  Many of us became enamored with the sport and quickly learned that 2 ½ hours of NBA playoff basketball offered ten times the excitement of a major league baseball game.

The second event took place on August 26, 2020, when the NBA Milwaukee Bucks canceled an in-the-bubble playoff game against the Orlando Magic. This action was taken in response to the shooting of an unarmed Black man, not far from the Buck’s Milwaukee home court. The bubble-confined players realized that basketball was not the priority until the NBA could collectively agree on how to respond to police shootings of unarmed Black men.

Within hours, the NBA was effectively shut down for several days giving the players, coaches, and owners time to reflect on racism in America.  In solidarity, games in other professional sporting events were also canceled. Many professional and college football teams suspended summer practices to show their support.  White players, without hesitation, backed their Black teammates.

For two days, I divided my attention between the NBA channel, ESPN, and the radio sports talk shows. The discussions were profound, emotional, and cathartic. One after another, strong, proud, normally stoic athletes bared their souls and explained what it is like to grow up Black in America. I came to appreciate Black athletes for more than their athletic abilities and to admire their advocacy for social justice.

The third event was my introduction to “Inside the NBA” on the TNT cable channel where many of the playoff games are broadcast.  It did not take long for me to agree with the critics that this professional basketball program is among the best sports analysis shows on television. Inside the NBA has won seventeen Sports Emmy Awards since its inception. No other sports show has the level of knowledge, experience, and humor. It caters to both casual observers like my spouse and to die-hard fans.

The chemistry on the set of Inside the NBA provides the right mix of wisdom and wit. The ringmaster is longtime mainstay Ernie Johnson, the son of a major league pitcher, who is a statistical genius, and the perfect straight man. Kenny Smith, the smooth New York City point guard, provides real-time analysis. Charles Barkley, “the round mound,” often disagrees with the consensus and drops explosive observations. Lastly, Shaquille O’Neal plays the quiet agitator, an unexpected role given his large 7-foot frame. No matter how one-sided the actual basketball game, Inside the NBA, always provides a pre-game and halftime performance that has listeners talking the next day.

I belong to the camp of sports fans who believe that the regular NBA season is too long and mostly irrelevant. Sixteen teams make the playoffs. Each team plays 82 regular season games to determine seeding and home-court advantage. During the regular season, the best players are often withheld from competition to avoid injury. Many regular season games are one-sided lackluster affairs.

Once the playoffs begin, all bets are off, and the intensity of play is ratcheted up. Players are diving for balls, taking brutal “charges” and “going to the rim” through a defensive gauntlet of arms and body blows. To keep up the adrenaline, playoff games are usually won or lost in the final minutes of play.

With the help of the announcers from Inside the NFL, the complex strategy for each game comes into focus. Coaches strive to dictate the pace of the game. The speed and athleticism of younger teams are up against the fundamentals and defense of more veteran players.

Similar to the NCAA March Madness Tournament, I enjoy watching the playoffs with little regard for the teams that are playing. There is always a storyline to make each game exciting. When the playoffs are over in June, I can console myself with the fact that there are only three months to the beginning of football season.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

IN CELEBRATION OF HUMANISM

“What interests me is being a man.” Albert Camus, The Plague

Modern America pays little attention to humanists' contributions to Western culture and the advancement of world civilization. Throughout history, humanism has explored the potential value and goodness of human beings and sought rational ways of solving human problems.  In today’s society, sports stars and popular music/movie icons get more formal recognition than important humanists do.

Imagine that someone had the foresight to formally organize a humanist hall of fame. For the sake of this discussion, presume that notable humanists like Petrarch, Seneca, Epicurious, Lorenzo Medici, Leonardo Di Vinci, Nietzsche, Thomas Jefferson, and Charles Darwin were previously enshrined.

What follows are my three nominees for the class of 2023. Please feel free to come up with your own slate of candidates to celebrate humanism.

Lorenzo Valla

Few have heard of Lorenzo Valla (c. 1406–1457) an important philosopher and humanist of the Renaissance. Trained as a priest and equipped with a sharp mind and pen he made enemies of church leaders. Valla used his knowledge of Latin and the classical world to attack a wide range of established theological theories and practices.  He was the first to compare St. Jerome’s translation of the Bible with the Greek text of the New Testament, thereby laying the foundations of critical biblical study.  Many scholars would follow his path to spread the spirit of the Enlightenment.

This important resume alone, would not have been enough to support Valla’s induction into the Hall of Fame. His crowning achievement was debunking the most notorious forged document of the Middle Ages, the “Donation of Constantine.” Without his efforts, under the threat of heresy and death, the history of Western Europe may have taken a very different turn.

The “Donation of Constantine” was claimed by the Vatican to record the written wishes of Constantine the Great after he adopted Christianity for the Roman Empire. The church alleged that this document bestowed dominion over Western Europe on Pope Sylvester I (314-335) and his papal successors. If this document were genuine, it would provide the church with vast territory and unlimited spiritual and temporal power. The document conveyed the notion that the pope had the right to appoint secular rulers in the West.

Valla pointed out that despite the document’s obvious value to the papacy no mention was made of it until Leo IX (1049–54) cited it as an authority. Moreover, Valla carefully demonstrated that the Latin wording used in the document was not that of the fourth century. Historians consider his refutation of the instrument the most important exposure of a literary fraud in history.

Denis Diderot

The second candidate is an appropriate choice as we enter the new

information age of artificial intelligence. Diderot (1713-1784) was a French humanist who spent decades bringing an earlier accumulation of knowledge into the world, the first comprehensive Encyclopedia. He believed that the false truths of his day, perpetuated by authoritarians and religion, had to be challenged and corrected for society to advance. Diderot’s project advocated for secularizing learning and expanding knowledge beyond the Jesuits who performed this task for a thousand years.

At the heart of his Encyclopedia are tens of thousands of articles on emerging fields of inquiry such as anatomy, architecture, astronomy, clock making, medicine, music, painting, physics, and surgery.  The twenty-eight volumes took more than twenty years to complete. Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Voltaire contributed articles on political theory, literature, history, and philosophy.

Similar to the cultural wars of today, Diderot attacked the oppression of monarchy, the justification for the slave trade, and the accepted norms of human sexuality. He was thrown into prison for his beliefs but always emerged eager to continue his battle for truth.

One of history's most interesting face-to-face debates took place between Diderot and Catherine the Great of Russia. While the free thinker and the enlightened despot admired each other, Diderot was unable to convince Catherine to bring needed reforms to her vast empire.

TONY JUDT

The last candidate is a modern humanist who influenced my intellectual development, the historian and advocate for democratic socialism, Tony Judt. I was first introduced to Judt’s essays in the New York Review of Books in the 1980s. I went on to read many of his books and essays. His analysis of the aftermath of WWII, Postwar: A History of Europe Since 1945 was a runner-up for the Pulitzer. Many of his later writings examined the ideological forces that shaped the twentieth century.

Judt’s own intellectual journey through the deadliest century in history moved from communism to Zionism to democratic socialism, all the while exposing the dark side of fascism. His writing made it clear to me how a few ideologues' thoughts controlled many lives. The result was unrelenting violence and the death of millions.  

Judt was diagnosed in his early 60s with ALS. Notwithstanding his paralysis from the neck down, he continued to give long talks to rapt audiences. After Judt's death, Time Magazine called him "a historian of the very first order, a public intellectual of an old-fashioned kind and—in more ways than one—a very brave man."

My hope is that we can all take the time to celebrate humanism and those who inspire us to make choices on principles of freethinking, intellectual inquiry, and optimism.

 

WE NEED GRADUAL POLICY CHANGE AND MORE NUDGING

Interaction between national elected officials is regularly characterized by demeaning attacks against political adversaries. There is little attempt to engage in meaningful discussion over options that might lead to well-reasoned, incremental solutions to improve our daily living.

When policy decisions do take place, they are often forced on the nation by an impending catastrophe (the budget impasse, the border crisis) rather than through thoughtful debate. The result produces a radical shock to society because it is too late to “soften the blow” with proactive sensible measures. The negative effect of crisis-driven policy decisions becomes the new ammunition to fuel another round of attacks by the political party out of power. This commentary will explore two strategies that could help break this damaging volcanic cycle of “do nothing” dormancy followed by inevitable and dangerous eruptions.

Gradually Change Opinions and Build New Structures

President John F. Kennedy uttered the above phrase in a speech on how to seek peace, given during the cold war.  Today, our nation’s political differences are nothing if not a national cold war with deeply entrenched ideologies on both sides of the divide. We endure constant animosity with no discussion followed by emergency crisis resolution. Thankfully, there exists a rational way for conservatives and progressives to move in tandem toward solutions.

Many deadlocked issues like abortion, immigration, gun control, and the national debt are best addressed by taking a gradual but persistent legislative approach.  Within each contentious item are seeds of ideas to slowly change opinions and build new compromise structures. An all-or-nothing result that would satisfy one political extreme or the other is rarely achievable. Waiting for a crisis before taking action produces societal stress and more political finger-pointing. In our pluralistic democratic republic, only agreed-on incremental change produces long-lasting, solid results at a minimal cost.

Over time, small, incremental reforms can add up to something truly transformative. The problem with understanding a big problem is how little radical reformers actually know about their proposed solutions. Apart from the political dimension, weighty problem-solving needs time to be tested, evaluated and to gain acceptance.

There are many examples of successful incremental decision-making. The social security system and Medicare took decades to develop before all Americans embraced them. A thousand small, debated decisions led to lowering the NYC crime rate in the 1990s. In past decades, immigrant families were gradually integrated into our society based on an agreed-on, enforceable plan. Many countries have resolved the abortion dilemma through debate and compromise on national legislation rather than on controversial and disruptive court decisions. Incremental changes in gun control can gradually change opinions and build a new consensus on the meaning of the Second Amendment.

Much Ado about “Nudging”

In addition to gradual change, the concept of “nudging” is an underutilized tool in the legislative toolbox.  A nudge is defined as a behavioral technique that makes it more likely that an individual will make a particular choice or behave in a particular way. Policymakers alter the environment so that cognitive processes are triggered to favor the desired outcome. Stated another way, nudge techniques aim to get people to act in their best interest.

In 2008, behavioral economist, Richard Thaler, and legal scholar, Cass Sunstein, published a revolutionary book: Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness. While they were not the first to consider nudge theory, the book brought the concept into the mainstream.  The implications of nudging were put into practice throughout modern society.

Where has nudge theory worked, where has it failed, and can nudging be used by the government to improve our lives going forward? The most radical elected officials from both political parties can agree that nudges to reduce violations of the law are more desirable than criminal penalties. Think of campaigns depicting the sanctions for drunk driving or police seminars in schools to educate students. Conservatives and progressives support widespread nudge campaigns against smoking and for youth vaccinations, and cancer prevention.

When government efforts cross the line into mandates rather than psychological attempts to shape behavior, conservatives are often against the effort on libertarian grounds. For example, Republican Governors did not support mandatory lockdowns during the height of the pandemic.

The national nudge campaign during the Pandemic to wear a mask when in crowded environments was an unsuccessful attempt to modify behavior. Many Americans, because of inconsistent governmental advice, did not accept that masks were helpful. Now, a year later, scientific studies still do not agree on the effectiveness of mask-wearing. During the pandemic, policymakers were more concerned with saving lives than gathering statistics. We will need rock-solid mask-wearing nudges when faced with the next viral outbreak. Research must be done and an irrefutable consensus reached on when, where, and how to employ masks.

Nudge techniques can be implemented in other situations where there is no political disagreement. No elected official wants a woman to die because of a state’s unclear abortion policy. In a state that bans abortion, a nudge campaign in the media and in the schools can explain what action to take when there is a gynecological emergency.

All elected officials could agree on nudge programs to save energy, spot abnormal behavior prior to gun violence, and report spousal, child, or elder abuse. Other possibilities for nudging citizens to make positive decisions are endless. Each effort is a gradual step toward a more comprehensive solution.

 

 

 

 

“LITTLE WASHINGTON” DESERVES A BETTER RATING

I am not a fan of “best of” lists. At one time, the most famous efforts were the Fortune 500 magazine list of top national companies and the U.S. News & World Report list of best colleges and universities.  In today’s saturated media market, what was once a small smattering of serious lists has morphed into a “best of” feeding frenzy.

Everything is subject to being rated. There are lists for everything from movies, books, music, cars, beaches, restaurants, and the world’s happiest countries, to men’s underwear. The credentials of these list makers are dubious.  Their rating criteria are subjective with preconceived biases of who should win.

This brings me to the subject of my commentary.  Recently, articles have overrun my inbox discussing the top-rated small towns in Pennsylvania. Washington has not appeared on any of these lists. Our community has not received so much as an honorable mention.

I could not think of a better opportunity to explore my theory that best-of lists are generally arbitrary and mostly useless. At the same time, I could provide solid facts about why Washington is an excellent place to live or spend some time.  

I am familiar with many of the small-town “winners” across Pennsylvania that appear on the lists. I grew up in New Jersey, on the Delaware River near eastern Pennsylvania. My employment often took me to Harrisburg and the middle of the state. For 15 years, I spent every weekend during the summer months at Conneaut Lake in Crawford County. My spouse’s sister lives in Confluence, Somerset County where we often visit. Lastly, as a newer Washington homeowner, I am not subject to the “grass is greener elsewhere” syndrome that often plagues long-time residents.

New Hope, along the Delaware River and 30 minutes from my NJ birthplace, is often given the title of the best small town in Pennsylvania.  New Hope is a walkable river town with plenty of local history, shopping, and attractions. You would never want to live there. The invading tourists, traffic, steep home prices, and expensive restaurants are all over the moon. Spring flooding along the Delaware River can be disastrous.

At the other extreme on many of the Pennsylvania, best-of lists are small towns so remote that the main problem is “getting there” and where the main attraction is solitude. Ridgway, along the Clarion River, has an annual chainsaw-carving contest. Ohiopyle, in Somerset County, has Fallingwater which many locals have never visited. Honesdale, in Wayne County, has an annual Roots and Rhythm Arts Festival. Milford, in Pike County, has canoe or kayak rentals. There are similar other winning entries like Wellsboro, Stroudsburg, Jim Thorpe, and Milford. These towns are best treated as places to pass through and soon forget.

Johnstown comes in at the top five of many lists.  Apparently, the museum and memorial dedicated to the three major floods that destroyed the town make it attractive.  There is also the steepest inclined plane (funicular) in the world to occupy the children on the weekends.

Lancaster is another town that scores well in the surveys. It is best known for its association with the Pennsylvania Dutch Country. Horse-drawn buggies are fun to observe until you are stuck behind one on the way to an appointment. Picturesque fields and farms (not unlike the ones found in Washington County) surround the town.

In short, many of the best small towns that appear on the published lists are overrated. What surprised me the most was how Washington could be so easily ignored. 

There is no problem finding Washington located at the intersection of two major interstates. One can travel east-west on Interstate 70 for 2,153 miles or north-south on Interstate 79 from Erie, PA to Charleston, WV without a stoplight. Pittsburgh, a major metropolitan city lies 30 minutes to the north, and the wilds of West Virginia are 40 minutes to the south. An international airport with flights across the country, and non-stops to London is even closer.

This unique combination of urban amenities in Allegheny County with Appalachian country culture gives residents in Washington the best of both worlds. On one weekend, one can attend a professional sporting event, a top-notch theater, or a musical performance and in no time be fishing on a deserted trout stream.

Critics often forget that Washington is home to a vibrant college community. At Washington & Jefferson, 1,400 students are located on a 60-acre campus in the middle of town. Many college activities are open to the public. Much larger academic institutions are located nearby in Pittsburgh and Morgantown, WV, along with two of the best medical complexes in the country.

Washington is a gambling mecca with its own racetrack and casino. It is a shopping destination, with Tanger outlets and every notable big-box retailer. It is a haven for history buffs,  located on Route 40, the National Pike at the epicenter of the Whiskey Rebellion.

There is a thriving local symphony and community theater. There are unique restaurants and craft breweries. It is the hub of a thriving economic boom anchored by the oil/gas fracking industry.

I am sure that every small town in Pennsylvania could make a case for inclusion on a best-of list. Livability is subjective and comes with many intangibles. For my money, nothing can replace sitting in the whirlpool at the Cameron Wellness Center and watching the seasons change.

 

 

 

 

 

THE UNCERTAIN FUTURE OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE

Disclosure: Except for Microsoft spellcheck, the following commentary was written with 100% human input

It is difficult to keep up with the news concerning the warp-speed rollout of machine-generated artificial intelligence (AI). This new technology refers to the simulation of human intelligence by machines that are programmed to think like humans.  By the time this commentary is published, my impressions will probably be as stale as last week’s bread.

In early March, technology stocks involved in new AI research caught the eye of investors and underwent a significant rally. This was followed by one headline report after another proclaiming AI either as a miracle discovery that will advance human thought or as the advent of a dark dystopian future. 

Recently, one of the newest machine-learning “Chabot” programs was asked to explain how humankind could safely utilize AI. The program responded: “It is not necessarily desirable or ethical to slow down the progress of AI as a field, as it has the potential to bring about many positive advancements for society.” This upbeat, machine-generated answer did little to calm the detractors of AI. The response sounds like the prologue of a science fiction movie where events could go terribly wrong.

Inside the insular world of AI experts, one group, which includes Elon Musk, is certain that unmanaged AI could kill us all.  These individuals are calling for a six-month pause on creating new machine-learning projects. The fear is that without proper controls on research, AI may soon begin to disobey its programmer’s instructions and operate independently with malicious intent.

On the other hand, many investors look forward to AI’s unimpeded introduction as they try to stay ahead of the competition. They argue that the upside is greater than any potential threat. Indeed, there are immediate applications in medicine for precise diagnoses and surgical procedures, AI-generated research and writing, and advanced learning methods in education. Many other fields will be enhanced by machine-generated accumulated knowledge.

For unschooled observers like me, it was difficult to understand how the smartest thinkers in the world could take such opposing positions. The answer, I learned, is that no one knows how AI works. The complexity of AI models has been doubling every few months. Remarkably, the process by which learning machines store, distill and retrieve knowledge is unknown. This element of mystery is exciting for some insiders and a troubling risk for others.

In my lifetime, similar questions of technology outdistancing human capacity to absorb it have happened on at least two occasions. In the 1950s, the issue was nuclear energy. There were efforts to pause and draw ethical boundaries to prevent nuclear war while expanding positive applications of nuclear power.

The second more recent catastrophic risk was gene splicing/genetic engineering. Again, the international community got together and developed guidelines to permit positive applications while attempting to prohibit the bioengineering of dangerous pathogens. The unknown origins of COVID-19 question whether these efforts were successful.

Apart from whether AI will be our salvation or our destruction is the more benign inquiry of how AI will alter human learning. Philosophers and social scientists have weighed in on this topic. Historians point out that with the discovery of the printing press, curious thinkers throughout the known world could finally communicate discoveries and replicate findings. They turned hypotheses into facts through the scientific method. The Age of Enlightenment challenged the medieval interpretation of a world based on religious faith and gave us knowledge that was built on proven facts.

With AI, the process works in reverse. The most sophisticated AI models cost more than $1 billion each to become productive, utilizing thousands of computers.  Instead of scientific certainties, we end up with new knowledge with no discernable foundation. AI advances human insight without providing us with any understanding of how the knowledge was uncovered. Advocates for pushing AI forward argue that this lack of comprehension is not a deal breaker because new discoveries generated by AI will improve society when coupled with human reason.

In addition to the dystopian concern that scientists could lose control, another negative factor has surfaced. ChatGPT, a form of generative AI, is the most common type of machine learning in general circulation. It is a tool that lets users enter prompts to search much of the world’s internet data. ChatGPT provides detailed answers to these inquiries.

Unfortunately, the technology occasionally makes up facts that sound real to provide a very believable response.  Moreover, malicious actors are well-versed in injecting false information into the internet making it difficult for AI to discern fact from fiction. To address these problems researchers are already working on a model capable of questioning the veracity of a ChatGPT answer.

The “high priests” of technological progress have mixed feelings about the effects of AI on society. It is important for concerned citizens and elected officials to ask the difficult questions involving the deployment of AI. Leaving the future of AI to the scientific community and to venture capitalists out to make a fortune, with no respect for controls, would be a dangerous miscalculation.

One reasonable solution would be to continue research in AI while withholding rollouts to the public until more is understood about how AI works and processes data. The world may be dysfunctional but we must not make the mistake of surrendering our future to thinking machines in an effort to improve society.