AI Podcasts

Back when I was rereading Steal This Book, I did what I usually did, and searched for other reviews on Youtube.  (When you're in the process of forming your own opinions, it's always useful to check them against what other people think.)

There actually were only a couple reviews of Steal This Book on Youtube, one of which was this one:

"Steal This Book" by Abbie Hoffman Book Report Review (Google Deep Dive LLM)

Initially, I believed it to be real, and even thanked the podcasters in a comment:

I just finished reading "Steal This Book," and I found this video to be useful in reviewing and consolidating the book in my mind.  Thank you.

...but, there was another comment from somebody else which read: "You made this new interesting video from AI again."

Was this podcast AI?  It didn't sound like AI to me.  It sounded like two human beings having a conversation.  AI couldn't mimic human conversational voices like that, could it?  Or could it?
There was nothing in the description of the video which indicated it was created by AI, but there was the title of the video, which said "Google Deep Dive LLM".  Did LLM stand for Large Language Model?

I took another listen to that podcast, and actually, maybe it did sound just a tad bit artificial.  At first blush, it seems like normal banter between the man and the woman.  But then, on second listening, they completed each other's thoughts just a little bit too neatly.  Of course, it could easily have been a pre-scripted podcast.  But, if something is going to be this artificially scripted, then could the whole thing also have been AI?

It probably is AI, isn't it?  We all know that AI slop has taken over Youtube and Facebook.  I hadn't thought that AI slop would come for booktube, but I guess in retrospect I should have seen it coming.  After all, there are views to be had reviewing popular books.  Somebody was going to exploit this sooner or later.

I was reminded of this again today when the Youtube algorithm served up to me this video:

When Privilege Masks Dark Actors: From Chomsky to ex‑Prince Andrew! - Without Fear or Favour Podcast

I was listening to it, and finding it interesting and informative for a good 5 minutes or so before I began to get a strong suspicion that this video as well must be AI generated.  The clues?

1) I think it's the exact same man and woman voices as the previous video.  And also a very similar conversational style

2) Looking into the history of this channel, they only started uploading videos 9 months ago--concurrent with the arrival of advanced AI technology.

3) The man and the woman identify themselves as "Jason Carter" and "Sarah Davis" at the beginning of the video, but a Google search for those names doesn't turn up anything about podcasters.  I can't seem to find images or videos of the man and the woman behind the voices anywhere. 

4) This "podcast" doesn't seem to exist on any other podcast apps.

In the end, I feel like this one was pretty conclusively AI.  Still, it wasn't that easy to catch.  It took me a bit.  And I worry that other people might not realize they are listening to AI.  There are two commenters--here and here--who are arguing with the podcast, not seeming to realize the podcast is AI.  (Although someone is responding to those comments.  One wonders what is human and what is AI.  Is a human running the channel, and only using AI to create the podcast episodes?  Or is it AI all the way down.  Is AI responding to the comments?)

Anyway, I don't know how I feel about this whole thing.  Part of me was like "Well, now that I know this whole thing is AI, what's the point of even finishing the video?"

The other part of me was like, "But it still feels like an interesting conversation. Can it still be interesting even though I know it's AI?"

It seems to me that the interest in a podcast is the feeling that you're listening to other humans.  (The whole parasocial connection thing.)  Can I form a parasocial connection with AI?
And if I know that the opinions are not human opinions, but AI opinions, does that invalidate them?  Do I place more weight in an opinion if I know an actual human thought of it?

But if you're worried about these questions, I also worry that in the future, there are going to be a lot more of these AI produced podcasts, and they are going to be harder to spot.  We could be in for a lot more of this in the future.

Given that this video in question is also an opinion piece, I think this also creates some troubling questions for the future.  How many opinion pieces in the future will be generated by robots?  Will robots be shaping human opinions and consensus in ten years?

At any rate, as everyone has noticed, the flood of AI generated content on Youtube and Facebook make these sites a lot less useful.  I used to waste tons of time on Youtube, but at least that was time when I was watching real humans do real human stuff.  Now I keep clicking on videos, and then realizing that those videos are AI.

Well, on the bright side it makes me waste less time on these sites.  Every time I get upset that I keep finding AI videos on Youtube, I always remind myself, "Wait, what am I doing wasting time on Youtube anyway?  I should be reading my book instead."

And, if you're also getting discouraged by AI content, just a friendly reminder that my little corner of the Internet will always be human.  With all my human flaws.  I may mispronounce words on my videos, I may stutter, I may lose my train of thought, I may take forever to get to my point--but through it all, I'll be giving a very human experience.

In a previous post, I wrote that:

One can only imagine what dishonest use AI generated videos could be put to in the future.

The future, it turns out, is already here.  We're not going to have to wait 5 years to see fake news generated by AI video, because it's already happening now.

Fox News Got Duped by AI—and Covered It Up

So, allow me to repeat what I said in my earlier post.  The best course of action is strong legislation to outlaw this technology.  Otherwise, our democracy is doomed.

See also: AI videos of SNAP beneficiaries complaining about cuts go viral

@1antondaniels

Single mother says she has 7 kids by 7 different fathers and gets $3,000 a month in food stamps 😳 #foodstamps #welfare #section8 #singlemother #trump #taxbill #antondaniels

♬ original sound - Anton Daniels

@blucollarmanogod_85 This is why I'm glad Trump is changing the laws around government assistance! #section #trump ♬ original sound - BlueCollarManoGod_⚡️

@melindahessqgizwc BLACK WOMAN SAY'S IF HER FOOD STAMPS GET CUT OFF? #news #foryou #usa ♬ original sound - Hassan Campbell

If you want to further despair, check out the comments on the tiktok videos I embedded. It's full of people saying things like "This is exactly why I support Trump".

*******************************

Now, granted, these types of stories have been all over conservative media ever since I was a kid.  And the Internet has made this type of misinformation much worse.  (See, for example, this post from 2019). But AI is going to bring this to another whole level.

My Thoughts on AI Videos

I'm not sure if there was ever a good time for this technology to come out, but it's particularly unfortunate that it had to be developed right at the exact time we are witnessing a complete lack of scruples by our politicians when it comes to honesty.  One can only imagine what dishonest use AI generated videos could be put to in the future.

Or more likely, in the future we are going to see politicians claim that real video footage is actually AI generated whenever the news shows something they'd rather we didn't see.  And in fact, Trump has already started doing this.  (Because, of course he has.)

A democracy cannot function without accurate information.  The potential for this technology to undermine our shared consensus about factual reality is frightening.

Not to mention the huge environmental impact of AI.  

And the benefits of this technology are... what exactly?  How will these AI generated videos benefit our society in any way?

I've normally got a fairly libertarian streak in me, but in this case I think we need strong legislation to control what is coming. I think the best future would be if this technology was outlawed, and these machines were physically destroyed.

Trump use of AI-generated videos raising concerns about spread of misinformation

Give me a single reason why Sora2 should exist.

If you're not already in the habit of watching Philip DeFranco, today's news program is worth watching in full:

Charlie Kirk Assassination Updates, New FBI Images, & What Comes Next...

It's tempting to add my own editorials to all of this, but I think the video actually speaks for itself fairly well.  The only things I might add are:

* I worry a little about the performative aspect of denouncing political violence, since I feel like it's assumed (and should be assumed) that all normal people oppose political violence.
And yet, since we are living in particularly contentious times, maybe it doesn't hurt to communally remind ourselves of our values.  We as a society denounce political violence.

* That being said, I think if you look at the history of political assassinations in America, it's about a 50/50 chance whether the guy who shot Charlie Kirk is an ideologue, or whether he is just some nutcase causing random violence.  As was the case with the 2024 attempt on Trump.  As was the case with the attempted assassination on Reagan (W).   A lot of the gun violence in America doesn't actually have a rational reason to it.  The school shootings are a perfect example of this.
And in fact, any ideologue with half a brain must know that killing Charlie Kirk accomplishes nothing, since Kirk is just one of many voices in the right-wing movement.  And in fact, killing him would just invite a conservative counter-reaction.  (As we are currently seeing.)  I mean, we'll have to wait until we eventually get more information about the shooter and we know for sure, but I'd be surprised if this was a purely political assassination. 

* Speaking of the right-wing counter-reaction, Laura Loomer's statement that "more people will be murdered if the left isn't crushed with the power of the state" is particularly revealing. 

Charlie Kirk wasn’t even controversial. He was moderate. He was conservative but by no means controversial.

Imagine who else the Left is going to hunt down and murder on the right if they wanted to kill a guy who said “get married, have kids, there’s 2 genders, vote for Trump.”…

— Laura Loomer (@LauraLoomer) September 10, 2025

Wanting the government to "crush the left with the power of the state" is about as close to the definition of fascism as you can get, and it's particularly troubling given how much influence Laura Loomer has at the White House.

I know the right hates it when the left calls them fascists, but, come on, guys, read a history book or something.  You're acting like fascists.

* In other news mentioned in the video, the blatant corruption at Trump's FBI is...well, I guess I can't say it's surprising, but it's certainly depressing.

But then, as I moaned about in an earlier post, another part of me thinks, "What's the point of even getting upset about this anymore?  After all, everyone knows how awful Trump is, and he still won the 2024 election.  I guess this is just what the American people want.

Further Thoughts: September 12, 2025

Having had another day to think about it, I've decided that what's so infuriating about this discourse is that the Right is simultaneously trying to convince us that Charlie Kirk's inflammatory rhetoric had no consequences at all and also that the Left's inflammatory rhetoric was directly responsible for killing Charlie Kirk.

The Right has also been trying to remake Charlie Kirk out to be some sort of reasonable political commentator.  Which he never was in his lifetime, and which no one ever pretended he was during his lifetime.  Charlie Kirk was an Internet troll.  Charlie Kirk followed the same model that has made so many other trolls famous in this Internet era--He intentionally said outrageous things in an effort to provoke extreme reactions from people, and then he used the publicity from those reactions to get more fame and attention.  His comments and statements over the years are a matter of public record, and can be easily Googled.  I won't list them all here, but a couple examples will suffice to give a flavor:

The American Democrat party hates this country. They wanna see it collapse. They love it when America becomes less white.

or

We need to have a Nuremberg-style trial for every gender-affirming clinic doctor. We need it immediately. 

This is obviously not speech aimed at healing America's divisions.  This is speech designed to inflame hatred against Democrats and the LGBT community.  And it's no surprise that people vocalized responses to this.  This is rhetoric that's designed to evoke a response.  That's how Kirk built his fame.

But then, having responded to these provocative statements (statements which, again were deliberately designed to provoke reactions) Democrats are now the ones who are blamed for creating the inflammatory rhetoric?  How does that make sense?

Now, I'm not saying Charlie Kirk deserved to get shot for his provocations.  I'm a free speech absolutist myself.  I believe that you should be able to say whatever you want to say, and not get shot for it.  But then if we extend that right to Charlie Kirk, we'd have to extend it to his opponents as well. 

And to be fair to Kirk, I don't believe he ever directly advocated for violence.  He spread plenty of hate, but he didn't advocate for people to translate that hate into physical violence.

But then, to be equally fair, nobody on the Left ever advocated for Kirk's assassination.  I don't know, maybe you could find some random Twitter accounts.  But certainly no one prominently.  And no elected members of the Democratic party, despite Republican congresswoman Anna Paulina Luna yelling at Democrats that "You all caused this" and "You fucking own this".
But if Democrats never advocated for Charlie Kirk's assassination, then how did they cause it?  I'm assuming she means by using rhetoric that demonized the other side.  But then, Charlie Kirk made a whole career of rhetoric that demonized the other side.  

Donald Trump and other Republicans say that the Left is responsible for Charlie Kirk's death because they compared him to the Nazis.  But Charlie Kirk himself regularly made Nazi comparisons against the Left--he said abortion was worse than the Holocaust, he said that we need a Nuremberg-style trial for every gender-affirming clinic doctor.  

You can't have it both ways.  If Kirk had a right to his rhetoric, then the Democrats have a right to theirs.  You can't argue that Kirk's rhetoric had no implications, but that the rhetoric from the Democrats was directly responsible for causing his death.

More Thoughts on the State of Oldies Radio Stations

This is a continuation from a previous post a couple months ago.  In that previous post, I mused about the state of oldies radio stations and classic rock radio stations.  I had been a fan of both in my youth (in the 1980s and 1990s), but had also left touch with both after having been abroad for the past 24 years.  Now that I'm back, I'm pleasantly surprised to find they are both still around, but a bit frustrated to find that the range of oldies songs on the radio has drastically decreased.  I feel like I keep hearing the same 10 songs over and over again now.

The other week, I was meeting up with some of my old friends, and I mentioned this.  "That's not new," one of my friends said.  "Radio has always been like that."

Well, maybe the top billboard radio stations were always like that.  But oldies stations use to play a wide range of songs.

I had it in mind to put together a blog post describing some of the songs I used to hear on oldies radio stations back in the day, but I never hear anymore.  And then, quite by chance, I came across this Youtube video, which is a perfect list of songs, most of which have disappeared from the radio.

EVERY BILLBOARD #1 HIT (1960 - 1969) WITH VIDEO

Now, not all of these seem to have disappeared from oldies radio. I still hear Born to be Wild  and I'm a Believer on the radio a lot.  But when was the last time you heard Ode to Billy Joe or Incense and Peppermints playing on the radio?  Those songs are gone, right?

[Right?  It's not just me, right?  Let me know what the oldies stations are like in your area, if you're reading this.]

At one time I thought that oldies songs were gradually dying off in a temporal order.  As the baby boomers aged, and stopped listeing to the radio, first songs from the 1950s would be the first to go.  Then songs from the early 1960s would be next.  Then the mid-1960s.  Et cetera.

But, based on my own listening experience, that doesn't seem to be what has happened.  There are some songs from the 1950s and early 1960s still on the radio.  I still hear Shout and Stand By Me frequently on the radio, for example.

So what's going on?
In the previous post, I had written:

Radio in America has of course changed since I've been gone.  Although not as much as I thought it had.  I had been under the impression that oldies radio stations were permanently gone from the cultural landscape, but oldies and classic rock stations are actually still around.

...but actually, I now think I was right the first time.  Oldies radio stations are dead--at least as we knew them in the 1980s and 1990s.  Back then, oldies radio stations were catering to people who actually remembered when all those songs had first been big hits.
Now, oldies radio stations are no longer catering to people who could remember the 1950s and 1960s.  They're catering to people of my generation (and younger) who know some of these songs from movies and pop culture.  So a song like the aforementioned Ode to Billy Joe (which would never get included on a modern movie soundtrack) is obvious out, while a song like Born to be Wild is still playable.

That's my current theory, anyway.

Well, if these songs are becoming forgotten, I suppose that's all the more reason to discuss them on this blog.  So, in my Music Reviews project, I may be discussing a lot of these old songs on this blog.
No promises, of course.  But if I can find the time, there are a lot of old songs that I never hear on the radio anymore which I would love to talk about.

Just a quick thought that I wanted to bookmark here, in case I decide to expand upon this thought in a later post (no promises.)

Starting about 10 years ago, I lost my desire to go out and socialize, and much prefer just hanging out at home.  I've attributed this to various factors.  Mostly I attribute it to just getting old.  (A number of people seem to have the same experience--they lose the desire to go out and party when they reach their late 30s.)

I also attribute it to me finally just embracing my introversion.  For years I was young and insecure, and I was ashamed of being an introvert.  Now that I'm older and settled into myself, I am not ashamed to be introverted any more.  Yes, I'd rather stay home and read a book than go to a party.  I've accepted this about myself.  I'm not going to try to force myself to be social when I don't feel like it.

I feel like I'm done trying to fit in.  I've spend my whole youth trying to fit in, and convince myself that I could (eventually) be one of the cool kids, but now I just want to stay home and read my book.

But, actually, am I actually staying home and reading a book?  Or do I spend 10 minutes reading my book, and then spend 2 hours on the Internet?  Am I an introvert, or am I really an Internet addict?

I want to envision myself as an intellectual--someone who would prefer to read than party--but is it books that are keeping me occupied at home, or is it the Internet.  If I'm honest with myself, it's the latter.

And actually, now that I think about it, when I stopped going out and socializing about 10 years ago, that was also the same time that I was finally living in an apartment that had cable TV and free Internet.  (Prior to this, I usually didn't have Internet hooked up in most of the apartments I had been living in.  For various reasons--one reason being I didn't trust myself.)

When I was teaching in Vietnam, I was teaching a lot of teenagers, and I was suprised by how many of them were identifying as introverts.  But I also noticed that a lot of them were permanently glued to their smart phones, and I was also beginning to suspect that a lot of them were hiding behind the label of "introvert" as a way to justify their various digital addictions. (Gaming addictions, tik-tok addictions, smart phone addictions, etc).

To what degree is it healthy to embrace an introvert lifestyle, and to what degree should we introverts still be pushing ourselves to get out there and socialize?  

And is being an introvert an immutable personality trait that we get from birth, or is the Internet turning more people into introverts who might actually be extroverts.

Anyways, this Tweet appeared in my feed a couple weeks ago, and I can't stop thinking about it, so I'm going to leave it here to bookmark it for myself: 

Like everything ⁦@jburnmurdoch⁩ makes, this chart is amazing.

The sharp decline in conscientiousness and rise in neuroticism among young people is astonishing.

But also of note: literally every age group has gotten less extroverted in the age of the smartphone pic.twitter.com/C4QrZlRjwM

— Derek Thompson (@DKThomp) August 8, 2025

It's apparently from this article here, which I haven't read because it's behind a paywall.

Like I said, I may come back to this idea in a future post, or I may not, but for now I'm just bookmarking it for myself.

Addendum: Actually looking at the replies to this Tweet, a lot of people seem to be taking issue with the methodology behind these graphs.  Perhaps this isn't really accurate, and perhaps I'm wasting my time by linking to it.  I don't know.

Now that I'm back in America, I'm listening to the the American radio again.  

When I first got back to America, I was only listening to NPR in the car.  Or sometimes I would use my phone and listen to my podcasts.  But the past few weeks, I've started switching over to music stations, because when the wife and kids are in the car, it's nice to have music on for background.

Radio in America has of course changed since I've been gone.  Although not as much as I thought it had.  I had been under the impression that oldies radio stations were permanently gone from the cultural landscape, but oldies and classic rock stations are actually still around.  They've changed, of course.  I feel like the Doo-wop songs from the 1950s and early 60s are gone.  (e.g. when I was a kid, it wasn't unusualy to hear a song like Bristol Stomp on an oldies station, but you'd never hear this song on the radio nowadays, would you?)

(BTW, I'd completely forgotten this song even existed until Family Guy reminded me of it.  But once upon a time, it used to be a staple of oldies stations.)

But while the 1950s seems to have fallen off the radar,  oldies stations seem to have increased in their scope on the other side.  I've noticed that when I listen to oldies and classic rock stations, songs from the 1980s and 1990s are now considered oldies.  Well, fair enough I suppose.  Time has moved on.  Those songs are objectively old now.

But what does confuse me is how I seem to keep hearing the same songs over and over again.  Now that oldies/classic rock has expanded to include the 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s, I would expect that these stations would have a lot more songs to draw on, and I would hear a new song each time I turned on the radio.  But instead, it seems to be the same 10 songs over and over again.  Another Brick in the Wall by Pink Floyd seems to be always on.  Sweet Emotion by Aerosmith is another one that I think I've heard 3 times this week already.  

As always, take everything I say with a grain of salt, because I've only been back a short time, and these are just my observations from the past few weeks of listening to the radio.  Those of you who've been listening to the American radio for the past few years will know better than me, I'm sure.

Nevertheless, despite my complaints about how repetive the classic rock stations have gotten on the radio, I have encountered a few songs the past week that I've not heard in years, and it's reminded me of how good some of these songs are.  And I may start sharing them on this blog as part of my Sharing Music I Like project.

Stay tuned for future posts.

[Clarification: I have, of course, periodically been back in the US over the years, most notably when I came back for 8 months in 2006.  But I wasn't listening much to the music stations at that time--I was listening to NPR and to audiobooks. So I hadn't been listening to music stations since the 1990s.]

Update: Further September 5, 2025: I've posted more thoughts on this topic here.

Jordan Peterson vs 20 Atheists | Surrounded

I know.  I know.  I said I was never going to talk about Jordan Peterson again.  But sometimes I can't help myself.  I'm fascinated by the disconnect between his cult-like status as a great intellectual on the one hand, and the utter nonsensical garbage that comes out of his mouth on the other hand.  Go ahead and watch the video and see for yourself.  The man isn't making any sense.

But I guess that raises the question: If the man isn't making any sense, then why are we still paying attention to him?  Why are all these guys even bothering to debate him?  

Jordan Peterson's infamous debate with Sam Harris, in which Jordan Peterson spent two hours refusing to give a straight answer as to what he meant by "true", was 8 years ago now.  Since that time, Peterson has continued this schtick in numerous interviews, conversations and debates, all of which are available on Youtube.  He keeps refusing say whether or not he's a Christian, he keeps refusing to say whether or not he believes in God, and he keeps refusing to give straight answers and engages in semantic quibbling.

So why are people still trying to pin him down on this?  You know he's not going to give a straight answer, just give up and move on with your life.

To be perfectly fair to the 20 atheists who appear in this video, it sounds like they were originally told the title of the video would be "One Christian versus 20 atheists" (which was apparently the original title of this video for the first 4 hours it was posted, until Jubilee changed it), and thus they can claim they were given some expectation Jordan Peterson would play the part of the Christian.  (But still, though, they really should have known better.  It's Jordan Peterson.)

And one wonders: what did Jubilee tell Jordan Peterson to get him to come?  He's so grumpy and angry in this video, and he gets upset every time someone tries to pin him down and clarify what he believes.  If he didn't want to answer these questions, then what was his motivation in showing up for this?  What did he expect to get out of it?

See also here: 

I was the guy that made Jordan Peterson look silly on @Jubilee. Here’s the background: pic.twitter.com/HslDO425sa

— Danny (@dannyphiltalk) May 27, 2025

I commented on the video:

It's 2025.  Why do these guys think they're going to get a straight answer out of Jordan Peterson?  What are they even doing here?  For that matter, what is Jordan Peterson doing?  He just acts annoyed when they try to pin him down make him give a straight  answer.  What did he think was going to happen at this event?

...okay, I'm sorry.  I just had to get that out of my system.  I'm going to go back to trying not to complain about Jordan Peterson again for the next year or so.  We'll see how long I make it this time. 

It looks like the Michigan statewide state-wide interlibrary loan service called MeLCat may be in danger.

I got the following email from my local library:

The Michigan eLibrary (MeL) and MeLCat are made possible with funding from the Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS). You most likely have heard about the Presidential Executive Order calling for the elimination of non-statutory components of IMLS, and earlier this week all IMLS staff were placed on administrative leave. 

The Continuing Resolution that was approved by Congress and signed by the President on March 15, 2025 includes full funding of IMLS through September of this year. With no IMLS staff, it's unclear how the approved funding will be executed, but from what we know at this point in time, there are no changes or interruptions.

Please continue to enjoy use of these services. We are watching the developments closely and will keep you informed of changes as we become aware of them. 

This is a service I actually use a lot since returning to the US.  (Of course, it would be just my luck that right after I return to the US, they would get rid of this service.)

More information here and here.

So, I just called the office of my local representative (link HERE)  to let them know that this was a service I enjoyed using, and that I hoped it would continue to stay funded.

Update: Michigan libraries fear major programming cuts following Trump executive order: President Donald Trump’s attempt to eliminate the federal agency that oversees American libraries has local library officials in Michigan concerned about the future.

Serious question: What is our long term objective in Ukraine?

Is it realistic for Ukraine to win this war?  Can Ukraine actually get back the land that Russia stole?

Or are we simply funding Ukraine for the sake of "making Russia pay"?

I know that in this war Russia is in the wrong, and Ukraine is in the right, but would it save lives and end suffering to just stop the war now?

I honestly don't know myself.  And I won't pretend that I'm well enough informed on the war in Ukraine to have an opinion.

But, based on my Facebook and Twitter feeds from the past 24 hours, I'm a little bit worried that liberals are falling into the trap of just being reflexively against whatever Trump is for.

That being said, let's state the obvious.  Trump and Vance are an embarrassment.  Just look at the way they conducted themselves.  (If you haven't watched the whole video yet, it's worth watching.)

It's impossible to watch this video and not come away with absolute loathing for Trump and Vance, and complete sympathy for Zelensky.  Trump and Vance acted like bullies, Zelensky acted like a dignified patriot.

But, I want to be careful about making the following leap of logic: "Because Trump and Vance are bullies, that means we have to continue to support the war in the Ukraine"

I don't know.  Maybe we do have to support the war in the Ukraine. What do I know?

(As I mentioned in a previous post, I used to be a principled pacifist, but as I've gotten older, I've realized that the world is complex, and sometimes there are no "one-size fits all solutions".  But my gut reaction is still to have sympathy with the pacifist position, so there are my biases.  As always, take my opinions with a grain of salt.)

But one thing I do know is that we shouldn't support the war in Ukraine just because Trump and Vance are bullies.  And after reading Facebook and Twitter this morning, I'm worried that this is where the left seems to be going at the moment: "Trump and Vance are disgraceful, therefore we have to support the war."

Because of my upbringing, I spent my formative years in conservative Christian culture, and I consider myself well-versed in conservative Christian arguments.

One subject that the Christian Left frequently uses to attack the Christian Right is the Christian duty to care for the poor and helpless.  The Christian Left will frequently say, "You guys are being unchristian, because Christians are supposed to care for the poor, and you guys want to dismantle government programs that help the poor."

In response to this, the Christian Right will say, "Exactly.  It is not the duty of Christians to care for the poor, not the government.  We as individual Christians, or as Christian charities should care for the poor, but not the government."  Some of them even go further, and argue that when the government provides for the poor, the government is in effect depriving Christians of their opportunity to care for the poor, and since the Christian duty to care for the poor is a sacred thing, the government is actually depriving them of their religious practice.

If you grew up in the church, you've probably heard this all before yourself.  If not, take my word for it, it's an argument frequently used by conservative Christians to justify why they want to end government assistance to the poor.  If someone were to do the work, and go through conservative Christian publications from the last 40 years, I'm pretty you'd be able to find this argument articulated in print numerous times.

Anyway, you can probably tell where I'm going with all this.  With the shutdown of USAID, it's been widely predicted that this will result in a lot of deaths.  From the Guardian: 

Analysis confirms that several thousand women and girls are likely to die from complications during pregnancy and childbirth as a direct result of Trump’s order to freeze aid to the agency for 90 days.

...

The initial repercussions include the abandonment in warehouses of supplies of crucial drugs in Sudan, the site of what is currently the world’s worst humanitarian crisis, as well as in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), where recent fighting in the east has further destabilised the fragile region.

Across Africa, hundreds of thousands of children who rely on school meals have been left without sustenance after food was left to rot in the wake of Musk’s declaration that he wanted the US aid agency to “die”.

...

In Bangladesh, the International Centre for Diarrhoeal Disease Research, which coordinates pioneering research into one of the most prolific killers of children, has laid off some of the world’s most respected scientists working on malaria programmes.

...

Elsewhere, the director of a major international aid organisation in Colombia – who also requested anonymity – feared the impact on those who most needed help. “The people who this is going to affect the most are those already without a safety net. Precisely those who are least able to find another source of food, shelter or income,” they said.

...etc.  Go read the whole article for all the impending humanitarian disasters.  

Okay, Christians, now is your chance!  Time to put your money where your mouth is.  This is your opportunity to step in and fill the gap that is left by the withdraw of Government aid to the poor.  This is what you've been waiting for.  Now dig into your pocketbooks, and do your Christian duty.

****************************************************

For more on this, see my former swim team teammate Jeremy Konyndyk talk here: 

The world’s richest man has decided that the world’s richest country shouldn't help some of the world’s poorest people.

This is blatantly illegal. An unelected billionaire cannot simply shut down federal agencies authorized by Congress at will. pic.twitter.com/uzExo2xc1z

— Bernie Sanders (@SenSanders) February 6, 2025

and follow him on Twitter here.

*******************************************

Update update: Just now saw Jeremy Konyndyk quoted on the Philip Defranco show.  Watch from 7:38 to see him quoted:

 

 What do we think about Tariffs?

Okay, serious question here.  (And by "serious question", I mean I'm not trying to be snarky or sarcastic about this, I'm genuinely confused and hope someone can clarify it for me.)

Since Trump has become big on tariffs recently, I've seen I don't know how many liberals on Youtube and Twitter, etc, make fun of how MAGA people don't understand what a tariff is:

Tariffs Explained to MAGA by a Professional Importer/Exporter

...all of a sudden it seems like being pro-tariff is conservative, and being anti-tariff is liberal.

But, what confuses me, is that I remember in the 1990s, being pro-free trade was conversative, and being anti-free trade was progressive.

Progressives were supposed to be in favor of fair trade.  And what was fair trade?  I thought fair trade would have involved using tariffs.

So what happened?  Is this just a matter of liberals just dunking on whatever Trump supporters like?  Or was there a political realignment that happened?  Or maybe I'm seeing a split between the Clinton liberals and the true progressives, and the Clinton liberals are the ones making fun of the tariffs?  Or is there something unique about the Trump tariffs? Or, are we liberals just making fun of the fact that MAGA people don't understand who pays tariffs, and we're not actually opposed to the tariffs themselves?  Or are progressives supposed to be anti-tariff now?

From CNN:

A rather eye-opening article about the effects of phones on the current generation: What this high school senior wants adults to know about classroom phone bans

My teachers and other experts aren’t wrong about the impact of smartphones on teens. Phones make us miserable, and I appreciate that my school is trying to address the problem. Honestly, I’d like to give up my phone, but the way our schools, jobs, teams, activities and social lives are set up makes it impossible. Locking up a phone for a class period is a start, but it barely makes a dent.

I got my first smartphone when I was 13 years old, and I start doomscrolling as an automatic response to boredom or uneasiness. Inevitably I become stressed out that I’ve wasted so much time on mindless scrolling. To ignore my stress, I start doomscrolling again, and I’m trapped in a vicious cycle. It’s hard not to compare my life with the impeccably curated posts of total strangers, and it’s hard not to judge myself. In the past few years, I sometimes spent up to six hours a day on screens.

After three years of having the app, I did finally delete TikTok during my sophomore year of high school. Not because I was spending almost five hours on it some days — that wasn’t reason enough for me to get rid of it. I only deleted it because my friend wouldn’t, and I wanted to prove that I could.

For weeks, I clicked the icon where TikTok used to be and was sent to my calculator. I kept staring at the ceiling, unable to focus but also having no 15-second-video relief to fall back on. 

...with some caveats.  The book by Jonathan Haidt that this student cites may be unscientific (see HERE and HERE for more information).  And her entire argument is based on anecdotes.

Nonetheless, as a teacher myself, I certainly feel that what he's saying is true.  I feel that I have witnessed a decrease in the ability of the younger generation to concentrate on tasks like sustained reading.  I also feel that everywhere I look nowadays, I see people (both young and old) constantly looking at their phones.

(I was walking through Crescent Mall yesterday, here in Vietnam, and I couldn't help but notice how many of the people there were walking while looking at their phone screen.  It was most of them--close to 90%, I think.  Of course that's just Vietnam, but, it's getting like that everywhere now, right?)

And I worry that the constant use of smart phones by teenagers nowadays is unhealthy.  (Although... what the long term effect of all this is remains to be seen.  Maybe they'll just grow out of it as they get older and go on to become normal adults?)

And, like many people old or young, I also feel like the Internet has ruined my own attention span.  (I feel like it's more difficult for me to concentrate on reading a book for long periods of time than it was 20 years ago.)

I also feel her frustration about not being able to get rid of her phone.  I too would love to get rid of my smart phone, but I can't.  A number of years ago, smart phones just became an expectation of modern life.  I couldn't get through my day without it.  I need it to book my rides to and from work.  I need it for the 2 factor authentication to access my computers at work.  Etc.

And also social media like Facebook. I have a love-hate relationship with Facebook.  On the one hand, I resent how much time I waste on it.  On the other hand, I love seeing what old friends are up to.  (Without social media like Facebook, I expect I would just have lost touch with everyone from my high school days, which would have been a pity.  With Facebook, even though I don't have time to keep up a correspondence with everyone from my past, I can still see what they're up to.)

...anyway, there's a lot more to be said on this whole subject, but I'll save that all for another day.  For now, I just want to share the link to this article, as food for thought.

Update:  And now this is in the news: From Vnexpress: Internal TikTok documents show prioritization of traffic over well-being

The lawsuit claims TikTok's research found that after viewing 260 videos, a user likely became addicted to the platform.

The company's studies also correlated "compulsive usage" with negative mental health effects, including "loss of analytical skills, memory formation, contextual thinking, conversational depth, empathy, and increased anxiety."

While TikTok has implemented features to limit young users' screen time, including parental controls and a one-hour timeout, the documents suggest ByteDance, TikTok's parent company, did not seek to improve these tools despite knowing their limited effectiveness.

Recently, I've stumbled upon a niche group of Youtube channels that make parody vintage songs using AI.  (I know.  Once again, I'm late to the party.)

Anyway, these parody AI songs are surprisingly good. And I've got mixed feelings about it.  I don't know whether to be delighted or depressed.

I mean, on the one hand, I can totally see where this is a lot of fun.  These songs are really funny, and they actually sound really good.  (Like, it took me a while to realize that these weren't genuine lost vintage songs--that these were AI generated parodies.)

[The comments for each video, in which commenters play along with the conceit and claim to remember these oldies from back in the day, is half the fun as well.]

On the other hand...  I'm really not sure if I like the idea of computers making songs.  Part of me thinks that something about the inherent appeal of music is listening to another human.  If I know that that the breathy soulful vocals are a computer, instead of a human like James Brown, is it as meaningful?

And like everyone else, I'm now envisioning a possible future where a lot of the music we listen to is produced by AI.  And I'm not sure I like that idea.

Anyway, here are a few of the gems I've stumbled upon. 

King Willonius - They’re Eating The Dogs [Official Audio]

I Fought A Child (Live at Frontera, 1969) [obscure classic country vinyl]

F**K Off That's Not My Job (obscure 50s music)

You Can't Fire Me Because I Quit! (Rare 1960s Song) by Ottis Reading

Information is of course still coming out, but based on this CNN profile of the shooter, I wouldn't be surprised if the shooter was entirely apolitical, and just wanted to assassinate Trump as a way to make his mark on the world, and let everyone know he existed.

It wouldn't be completely unheard of.  Arguably most assassinations in the U.S. are of this variety.  (Lee Harvey Oswald, John Hinkley Jr.,  Mark David Chapman--You'd have to go pretty far back in U.S. history to find an assassination that was actually political).  

This is also the motivation of many school shooters.  And as has been pointed out by others, this young man was in the same age range as the typical school shooter.

I've been seeing a lot of talk on social media about how this is a sign that political polarization is out of control, but I'm tempted to see this incident not as an example of political extremism, but just another example of the problem of gun violence in the United States--a lot of available guns, and a lot of disturbed young men do not make a good combination.

But of course the Right is going to make this into a huge martyr story.  I mean, of course they will. To be perfectly honest, I think that if the positions had been reversed, and a prominent Democratic politician had been shot at, I would probably have a hard time not seeing it as a political attack.  That's just the way we humans think.  We can't imagine that this was just a random example of gun violence, so we have to see it as a political conspiracy.  

(Someone, I forget who at the moment, used this tendency to explain all the elaborate conspiracy theories behind JFK's assassination.  We humans can't fathom that a President could just be killed by some random nobody, so we have to make an elaborate conspiracy theory about it.)

So... be prepared for the Right to be talking about this event in political terms for some time to come.

Addendum: This Tweet popped up in my Twitter feed.

According to Twitter, Trump staged a fake assassination attempt to win an election he thinks he’s winning, or Biden brilliantly masterminded this plot to distract from his cognitive decline

There’s no other logical explanation

I mean…

Except for the 393 million guns in the US

— Michael Harriot (@michaelharriot) July 14, 2024

Political Labels are Meaningless

Dear reader,

in my youth, I have spent a lot of time getting into political debates about different ideologies.  And over the years, I have learned a few things which, had I only known them years ago, would have saved me a lot of time.  I now wish to impart my wisdom onto you in the hopes that you can also redeem some of your time which would otherwise be spent squabbling about politics.  And that wisdom is:

1) Most political debates are actual semantic debates.  (e.g. calling Obama's tax plan socialist or calling Trump's immigration policy fascist will quickly lead into a discussion about what "socialism" or "fascism" really means.)

2) Political labels have no agreed upon definition.

3) Therefore, most political debates are a waste of time.

Remember this the next time you are tempted to get into a political debate on Twitter or Facebook.  It will save you a lot of time and energy.

I actually realized a long time ago that most political debates were actually semantic debates.

For example, I remember once, over 20 years ago, when I was at a party and I got to a long political debate with someone about whether capitalism or socialism was the worse system, and we both attempted to use China to illustrate our point.  I cited China as an example of the problems with capitalism, and he cited China as an example of the problems with communism, and then we realized we were having this big long debate, and we didn't even agree on our terms.

"China has privately controlled corporations," I said.  "Of course it's capitalist."

"China is ruled by a one-party system," he countered.  "Of course it's communist."

That's just one example that sticks out in my mind, but I've had countless experiences like this over the years--experiences where halfway through a big long political debate, I realized my opponent and I were simply talking past each other, because we had completely different ideas of what "capitalism" and "socialism" actually meant.  I'm sure you've had countless experiences like this as well.

I should have learned a lesson from this, but I didn't.  Like a lot of arrogant people, I just assumed that I knew exactly what these words meant, and everyone else was wrong.  (I was a political science minor back in college, so I had the illusion that I knew this stuff.)

* "capitalism" refers to a recent economic development in human history, emerging in the 19th century, in which the economy is dominated by corporations, and the corporations are privately owned by stockholders.  Anyone who used the term to simply refer to buying and selling was wrong.  

* "socialism" refers to the workers controlling the factories (as opposed to the stockholders).  Anyone who used the term to refer to high taxes or welfare programs was wrong.  That's welfare capitalism, not socialism.

* "anarchism" refers to the anti-authoritarian wing of the socialist movement.   (Of course that's not the literal definition of anarchism--the word literally means "no government"--but the literal meaning doesn't matter, because it's the historical use of the word that's more important).  Anyone who attempted to use the literal definition of anarchism was wrong.

* "fascism" was authoritarianism from the right.  Anyone who attempted to use it to describe the left (like Jonah Goldberg) was historically ignorant.  

* "Nazism" was fascism plus racism.  Anyone who used the terms interchangeably was being imprecise.

* "democracy" referred to a system of government in which the people voted on the laws directly, a la ancient Athens.  Anyone who used the term "democracy" to refer to the United States was being imprecise.  The United States is a republic.

So, you see, I thought I knew what I was talking about.  But I was wrong, wrong wrong!  The truth is that none of these words have any agreed upon meaning.

First of all, even among political scientists, there is widespread disagreement about what these words actually mean.  But even if the experts could all agree, it still wouldn't matter.  As any linguist can tell you, words don't actually mean what the dictionary says they mean.  Words get their meaning from the way that they're used in real life.  If enough ordinary people think that socialism means higher tax rates, then that is what the word means now--at least in one sense. 

************************************************************

I have a memory or reading a linguistic textbook about 10 years ago, and coming across the section where the authors were discussing how words are paired with their meanings.  And the authors said that most people don't really understand how unstable the nature of meaning often is.  As an example, they mentioned how many people passionately talk about terms like "democracy" and "socialism" without ever realizing that there are no agreed upon definitions for these words.

And I remember looking up from the book and thinking to myself: "This linguistic textbook has just taught me more about politics than all the political science courses I ever took."  

I really wish I still had that linguistic textbook with me now, because I would love to quote that passage out exactly.  I think it was from An Introduction to Language by Victoria Fromkin, Robert Rodman, Peter Collins, and David Blair*, but I've been searching the Internet for it, and I can't find that passage associated with that book anywhere.

What does turn up when I do a Google search for "linguistic textbook people talk about terms like democracy as if everyone agrees on the meaning" is  Politics and the English Language by George Orwell.  And I read Orwell's essays at about the same time (both books I read in 2014).  So now I'm wondering if my memory has just gotten the two books mixed up?  Or maybe both books touched on the same topic?

At any rate, Orwell says it eloquently, so I'm just going to quote him:

Many political words are similarly abused. The word Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies “something not desirable.” The words democracy, socialism, freedom, patriotic, realistic, justice have each of them several different meanings which cannot be reconciled with one another. In the case of a word like democracy, not only is there no agreed definition, but the attempt to make one is resisted from all sides. It is almost universally felt that when we call a country democratic we are praising it: consequently the defenders of every kind of regime claim that it is a democracy, and fear that they might have to stop using that word if it were tied down to any one meaning. (full essay here)

I Was Wrong

Let's get some mea culpas out of the way.  Here are my apologies for every time I've tried to insist upon an exact definition for a political label

* My 2000 political test

* My 2005 post in which I insisted on the difference between democracy and republicanism

* My 2013 post, in which I criticized Michael Moore for confusing capitalism with mercantilism. **

* My 2016 post explaining fascism

* My 2019 vlog in which I tried to define anarchism

(...and no doubt I've made other posts over the past 20 years  which I'm just not remembering.)

In each of these posts I was wrong for trying to insist that there was some sort of correct definition of the word which the general public was just not getting.  Apologies to everyone.

Also, while recently listening to Revolutions Season 7: The Revolutions of 1848 by Mike Duncan, I've been learning about the history of socialism, and I've learned that historically the word had a very broad meaning.  Historically, a "socialist" was just anyone who was concerned with "the social question"--that is, the question about what to do about the problems of poverty accompanying the industrial revolution.  The means, methods and solutions that the early socialist thinkers advocated differed tremendously from each other, but if they were at all engaged in trying to solve the social question, then they were socialists.

For years I've been telling people: "Socialism means the workers control the means of production, and if you use that term to refer to anything else, you're wrong."  But it turns out I was wrong.  The term has a very broad history.

Note to Self: Always Remember This

Having achieved middle-age, I think I've largely lost the urge to endlessly debate politics.  (Having long political discussions that stretch into the night is something you only do in your 20s, right?)
But, as the above list of links show, I can still get sucked into the temptation to try to define political terms.  So I'm writing this post for myself as much as for anyone else.

Always remember--political labels are meaningless.  Don't get sucked into the trap of trying to define them.  Don't try to debate them.  

If you have to debate politics, talk about the effects of individual policies instead.  Don't say "Obama's tax policies are socialist".  Pretend the word "socialist" doesn't exist and then talk about why you don't like Obama's tax policies.

Similarly, don't talk about Trump's fascist policies. Just talk about why you believe Trump's policies will have bad effects.

And for god's sake, I'm begging you, don't get sucked into an argument about whether or not China or North Korea or anywhere else represents a genuine communist state.

Notes:

* In this 2016 post on Fascism, I attributed that quote to An Introduction to Language.  

** In my mind at the time, I thought "mercantilism" meant an economy of exchanging goods for money--i.e. the system that pre-dated capitalism.  But a trip over to Wikipedia indicates that I myself was misusing the term mercantilism. 

From Vnexpress:

Why spend huge money on English teaching centers?

As an English teacher in Vietnam, I have a vested interest in keeping the industry going.  Nevertheless, I sympathize with some of what this author is saying.  After all, I've chosen to try to learn Vietnamese through Duolingo instead of arranging for in-person lessons.  

...although at the same time, I'm well aware of the limitations of Duolingo.  It's good for vocabulary.  It's not so good for grammar (the explanations are lacking, and the program can't answer my grammar questions), and it's terrible for learning real communicative skills.  But it is something, and it is free, and it is right on my computer without me having to travel anywhere or arrange anything.

Anyway...

At my place of work, we frequently discuss over lunch just how long we have as a profession before we're all replaced by AI.  [I suspect the "how long before they replace us with AI" conversations are happening in a  lot of workplaces these days.  It's a sign of the uncertain times we live in.]

I have colleagues who think we are in imminent danger of being replaced.

My own view is that teaching English to adults might well be largely replaced by computers soon. (Actually,  I feel like this has already happened to a large degree.  When I first arrived in Vietnam years ago,  I used to teach a lot of adult classes in the evenings.  The market for adult English classes has largely dried up over the last few years.  Probably for a number of reasons, but the increased popularity of language learning apps is no doubt a big part of it.)

But teaching English to kids and teenagers will never be replaced by computers.  Kids and teenagers need a teacher in the room with them to guide them and motivate them.  Otherwise, they'll just play video games instead.

And if you think otherwise... you obviously don't have experience teaching kids.

I mean... we already ran this experiment, didn't we? We had a year of teaching online during the Covid shutdown.  In which the students were supposed to be learning everything from the computer.  And it was largely a failure.  Without the teacher in the room with them to guide them and make sure they were focused on the task (and not doing other things), they just didn't study.

In spite of this, the article I linked to above reads:

I think parents should also consider self-study for their children. The important thing is to get your children interested and know how to self-study, so that they can find information, documents, and tools on their own.

In the future, I will also let my children study on their own and not push them into language centers.

It's astonishing to me that someone could write an article like this just two years after the demonstrable failure of online education during the Covid shutdown, but then... the VNexpress is notorious for publishing a lot of nonsense.  

Addendum:

Freddie deBoer has written frequently on this topic over the years.  For his most recent piece on this topic, see his post from last week:

Sal Khan, Serial Education Revolutionary

Well, it finally happened.  The event Twitter has long been waiting for.  

From CNN: Henry Kissinger, a dominating and polarizing force in US foreign policy, dies at 100

Long time readers will know that Kissinger has been a frequent target of this blog.  For example, see:

* Kissinger in Grand Rapids

* Sideshow: Kissinger, Nixon and the Destruction of Cambodia by William Shawcross

* Sideshow Addendum

* Kissinger? Really? Stop taking this man seriously

* Gerald R. Ford and Me

* Down the Memory Hole and Follow up From the Previous Post

* Sanders calls out Clinton on taking advice from Henry Kissinger

* My Two Cents: Nobel Peace Prize

et cetera

(...and that's not even counting all the times I've made little throwaway references to Kissinger over the years when I wanted to use him as an example of evil--like in my review of The Count of Monte Cristo, etc.)

Now, looking back at all these posts from the past 20 years, I do admit to some embarrassment about them.  There was certainly a performative element to hating Kissinger.  (It was a way of virtue signaling on the Left.)  There was also an element of bandwagonism in my Kissinger hating.  (The people I admired, Chomsky, Hitchens and Tom Tomorrow, all hated Kissinger, so I hated Kissinger.)

Now that I reflect back on my 20 years of blogging, I look back with embarrassment on posts that reflect virtue signaling, performative hating, and tribalism.  In the future, I hope to do better.

...which is not to say that any of the awful things that Chomsky, Hitchens, Shawcross, etc. attributed to Kissinger are not true.  I'm sure it's all true.  It's just to say that I regret appropriating their anger for my own virtue signaling.

On a related note, see also:

* Death is a poor way of getting rid of one's enemy and Okay, I guess it's time to tap the sign again

From CNN: Maine communities still grieving after shooting rampage are under stay-at-home orders as manhunt for suspect continues.

A friend of mine wrote on her Facebook page: 

This is a cruel joke if this is “freedom.” Sorry to the state of Maine as you enjoy your freedom in lock down… #ironyisnotdead #humansaredead

...to which I might add: yeah, really.  Is this what freedom looks like? 

On Oppenheimer

I probably won't get around to seeing and reviewing the new Oppenheimer movie anytime soon.  Just because I hardly ever see any movies these days.  (My wife did volunteer to watch the kids while I went Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny a couple weeks ago, but that was a special case and I don't want to push it.)

...but, I did want to quickly jump in and say that I find the biography of Oppenheimer fascinating in general.

I remember being really intrigued when I saw the docu-drama movie Day One, which dealt with all the politics of the Manhattan project.

I also found the American Experience documentary on Oppenheimer, and his persecution by congress in the 1950s, to be really interesting.

I've linked to both of these movies on this blog before in the past--HERE and HERE.  The links no longer work, but I just wanted to jump in quickly and stake my claim that I've been fascinated by Oppenheimer's story before it was popular.

And I'll get around to seeing the movie someday, I'm sure.  Until then...