The telling comment which should have gotten more play was that it is getting more attention because it is happening on the north and northwest sides. I've been saying that for years. Imaginge the outrage if any kind of what has been happeing in poor wards was happening downtown or on the Gold Coast.
Once again, regarding the Tribune’s bizarre pricing tactics, I received a letter upping my digital subscription to $15 per month. I cancelled the subscription on the website, indicating the price increase was the reason. I was then notified of my special rate of $3 for the entire year. This guys at the Trib, tough negotiators.
That wasn't a joke. It was a plain statement of fact. RBG did us a grave disservice by hanging on as long as she did. She was, in the end, not a team player.
I was always a big Talking Heads fan. David Byrne’s consistently edgy and beautiful creativity just hits home for me. We saw that show live at Poplar Creek, back in the day; one of the best concerts I’d ever seen. Loved the film when it was first released, and loved seeing it again last week—sadly, not at the Music Box because I was sorely tempted to dance in the aisle but stuck to chair dancing instead. Their music never gets old.
Totally enjoyed Jasmine Crockett's take down on Trump on the House floor. I hope other Dems will follow her lead and pile on again and again during these procedures.
Eric, agree with your points on AI. The only other point I would add comes from 60 Minutes.
If a piece of fiction is AI generated, it should be labeled as being AI generated as full disclosure to the reader.
By the way, what scares me most about AI is that I am sure Putin is running millions of military situations on the battlefield. I expect he is running examples using tactical nuclear weapons and getting feedback on acceptable losses.
Given his disregard for his own troops, AI could likely give him an acceptable tactical nuclear weapon solution that he would use. Putin is Trump with guts and this scares me..a lot.
Not sure how we would begin to enforce this idea that you have to disclose AI generated content or if you can articulate WHY you think that's important.
First, do what 60 minutes did when they said their broadcast was done with human beings and not AI.
To enforce, request that all responsible authors indicate whether it is their work and not AI generated. If they do not, you can assume they are using AI. And you can check their work if they indicate no AI when in fact they used it. This would be a hit on their integrity - true some folks will not care but I think the public should know.
I think it is important in the same vein as plagiarism. We should know what the author’s work is and what ideas/ phrases are someone else’s.
One reason I subscribe to your online newspaper is because you are diligent in providing sources and specifying what are your thought/ ideas and what is someone else’s.
It shows integrity, and that is why I would want folks to indicate AI activity in their work.
I moved to Chicago in the early 90's. At the time, I think many people were more afraid of crime and were careful about where they went -- that could be my biased perspective as it was the first time I had lived in a big city. Crime rate was declining and various neighborhoods which had previously had a crime problem were on the upswing (e.g Wicker Park, Bucktown, Andersonville, and Lakeview in the early 90s).
Now crime is lower but has been increasing, which has a different emotional impact.
Only 20% of the Chicago population was over 18 in the 90's. So the experience of most adults is relatively low and declining crime rates, particularly in better neighborhoods. Also, the rapid expansion of the number of lower crime neighborhoods. This is even more true for younger people that have moved into the city from elsewhere. The increase in crime by neighborhood and each individuals' expectations for the future are significant drivers of opinion.
Agreed, many previously rough neighborhoods gentrified, dropping the crime rates. The city lost some population since then, many lower income. I don't get the boundaries on the graph though. Between Lawrence Ave and Peterson Ave? I'd like to see the entire North and Northwest sides.
I had another thought. Back in the day, I had the impression that the police were effective at catching violent criminals, that the police got community support, and I don't recall anyone rationalizing violent crime (especially gang crime) and espousing the right of groups to create mayhem. Now I think the police are ineffective, do not have community support, and political leaders rationalize crime and mayhem. 'Tough on crime' is a political insult. We are told that policing doesn't work and we need to fix social ills (which will take a very long time). So, when crime hits and increases in my neighborhood, I have low expectations for improvement.
Earlier in the year, my wife and were driving eastbound at 8:30 PM in the heart of Lincoln Park (500 W Webster) when we were surrounded by (I kid you not) 30+ CPD Explorers, all with lights and sirens blaring. In my 35+ years in the Chicago area, I had never seen such a police response. After picking our way around the sea of police vehicles, we found out later the reason for such a response: a report that a CPD officer had had their weapon wrested away from them, and was in trouble. What I took away from that experience is that the CPD is willing to respond - for one of their own at least - but apparently aren't quite so motivated to do so for Joe or Susie Regular Chicago Resident who calls for assistance.
I greatly appreciate your sharing the crime statistics. Very informative. I intend to share on Next Door where folks in my area --Roscoe Village/North Center -- are in an apoplectic frenzy about crime on a regular basis.
Regarding Ruth Bader Ginsberg, and the recent excoriation in these pages of the journalistic deployment of “claim”: I remembered that a granddaughter of RBG claimed that on her deathbed, she requested that her replacement not be named until a new president was installed. This claim was reported throughout the press as undisputed fact, but I always considered it suspect for the simple reason that I doubt that anyone faced with their imminent transition into eternal oblivion would be bothered much by the question of whom their successor might be. But what do I know about being an accomplished, norm shattering, successful woman with a sprawling, loving, successful family? Maybe it’s all she thought about.
In any case l, I consider the application of “claim” to this story to be a compliment to RBG, for if it is true, it’s kind of pathetic that she would devote her last breaths to demanding something that was both completely within her control, and urged on by her colleagues just a few years before.
Just to provide some feedback from the conservative side, my clear preference for presidential candidate has been Nikki Haley from the beginning. She governed extremely well with relatively high approval ratings in South Carolina, and gained valuable foreign policy experience while Ambassador at the United Nations. She strikes me as very intelligent and articulate, and has a compelling personal story as the daughter of first generation legal immigrants to our country.
But, having said that, if as I fear, Trump is the GOP nominee, I would feel compelled to vote for him against President biden. While your overwhelmingly left leaning readership may excoriate me for that statement, I want to point out that outside the liberal bubble, President Biden is widely viewed as inept, suffering advancing cognitive deficit with failing policies, spectacularly so in border security, and likely involved in corrupt influence peddling through Hunter. His approval rating as President has been decidedly negative for quite some time. Most national polls are showing a pretty much tie race between Trump and Biden, and a Washington Post poll last week even showed Trump with a 9% advantage. So brand me with whatever disparaging label you wish, but the fact is that my statement puts me in tune with half of our country.
I don't buy your hankie-twisting about Biden's cognitive abilities -- Trump says bizarre things all the time, like that Biden might start World War II and that he ran against George H.W. Bush. I would bet on Biden over Trump any day in any test of knowledge or acuity. Or in a footrace. And, my God, corruption and children? Please. Don't get me started on the grifters in the Trump family. Plus, of course, there seems to be NO evidence of corrupt influence peddling by Biden despite all the handwaving and throat clearing on the right.
I don't know what you'd have Biden do about the border, but the flow of migrants and refugees isn't an obviously easy problem to handle nor it is caused by the president. Hoping for Mexico to pay for that wall, are ya?
Still, I get it. Trump will blunder his way into supporting some conservative positions -- on abortion, for instance -- even though he drove up the deficit and shattered the norms of our constitutional republic. I'd vote for Roseanne Barr for president over any Republican I can think of. And I respect your support for Haley over Trump at this stage. Decent Republicans ought to be fighting like hell for the soul of their party, because Trump is, at heart, a fascist dictator. You do understand that, don't you? I'm sure you hope that Congress and courts will keep him in check if God forbid he's elected again, but he is pretty clearly a deeply vile, shallow, vengeful autocrat. If you really think our country would be better off long term with him back in the White House then hold your nose, cross your fingers and pull the lever.
Hey Eric - Thank you for giving me a big 😄 with my ☕️ this morning as I obviously triggered your Trump Derangement Syndrome with my comment! Please do not mistake my comments that I in any way admire Trump personally. And my comments about President Biden are simply stating what half the country thinks of him regardless whether you agree or disagree with that.
You mentioned illegal immigration, and I am very happy to have a debate with you on that. Illegal immigration during the Trump presidency was a fraction of the many millions that have flooded across Biden's open Southern border and released into our country. You deride Trump's policies, but every objective observer agrees that his Remain in Mexico policy was very effective in both diminishing people trying to come here illegally, and not allowing them to simply be set free inside the country where 94% never appear for an immigration hearing. And, here's a shock for you - Bloomberg News and other mainstream news outlets are reporting that Biden is waving 26 federal environmental rules and regulations in order to immediately construct 26 miles of border barrier on the southern Texas border, tying it into Trump's existing border wall. Seems like Biden is admitting that walls do work.
Chicago, New York City and other liberal Northern cities are having conniptions about dealing with a tiny fraction of the illegal immigrants that Texas has had to deal with for years. News reports reflect that many Chicago residents are now not very happy to be a sanctuary city for people who come here illegally and causing a significant drain on resources and in some cases criminal activity in their neighborhoods. Border security is likely to be a huge issue in next year's general election, one which I believe is going to substantially hurt Biden for his unwillingness to secure our border.
I am sincerely sad that our great country will be given the choice of only either Biden or Trump in next year's presidential election. I very much would like it to be someone like Nikki Haley or Tim Scott to present a conservative view and policies against someone like Gavin Newsom or Gretchen Whitmer championing liberal views and policies so that people could make an informed decision on what they want. But unless something changes on either or both sides, I believe that most Americans are going to have to hold their nose when they cast their ballot next year for either one of them.
Permit me to try to clarify things for you Peter. First, absolutely no trolling, just stating my views and I was entertained by Eric's very visceral reaction to them. I do not admire Trump personally. But I will vote for him or any other Republican for the anticipated Republican policies relative to Biden's policies. I fully acknowledge that my views are not popular with the overwhelming majority of PS readers, but the reality is that they do reflect about half of our country as reflected in national polling.
Dave, check back on your comments. You mention being delighted with Eric’s reaction. Then you say you will vote for Trump but oh I do not admire him? That is trolling.
Trump’s platform right now is raising money for his legal defense, working to stay out of jail and plotting revenge. Can you enlighten me on what you think his real platform is?
Peter - I did just now review my earlier comments, and I do not find anywhere that I said I was "delighted" at Eric's reaction. I said I got a laugh from his very visceral reaction to my statements. I do not admire Trump personally but I do not need to admire him to vote for him as the lesser of two evils. As far as his policies, I anticipate they will be very similar to the Trump policies during his first term of office which I believe were very good for our country and everyone in it. I completely understand that you and most all of the PS readers do not agree with my views, but they are my views and I believe polls reflect that they are shared by about half the country.
"Illegal immigration during the Trump presidency was a fraction of the many millions that have flooded across Biden's open Southern border amd released into our country." Where are you getting these numbers? What fraction? You implied that millions are crossing now and maybe only thousands during Trump's presidency. Can you point to where you are getting these numbers?
My statement is well documented and backed up by the numbers. Presuming that you will accept official reports from the US Border Patrol, immigrant encounters at the southern Border in fiscal year 2020, the last year of the Trump presidency were about 400,000. In fiscal year 2021, the first year of the Biden presidency, that number quadrupled to 1.4 million immigrant encounters. Thus far in 2023, that number is a staggering 2.3 million encounters. Were you truly not aware of this massive invasion of illegal immigrants since Biden assumed the presidency?
Here's exactly what presidential candidate Joe Biden said publicly to Univision journalist Jorge Ramos in 2019, "I would in fact make sure that there is, that
we immediately surge to the border - all those people are seeking asylum. They deserve to
be heard," Biden said.
"That's who we are.
We're a nation that says,
If you want to flee and
you're fleeing oppression, you should come."
And sure enough, millions of people accepted that invitation and showed up. And, absent Trump's very effective Remain in Mexico policy which Biden revoked upon assuming the presidency, people show up, they are given a immigration court hearing date which they overwhelmingly ignore, and then are released to go wherever they wish in our country. So yes, illegal immigration under Trump was a fraction of what it is under Biden.
I don't respect support for Haley or any other Republican still swearing fealty to Trump. She will not only vote for him in 2024. she'd accept his offer of VP in a heartbeat, even if he's convicted at trial.
Your observation that your support of Trump puts you in tune with half our country (as if that justifies your position) reminds me of two things. (1) When we used to tell our Mom, “But Mom, everyone else is allowed to do that,” she would respond, “If everyone else jumped off a cliff, would you?” and (2) the old joke that was told about George Bush after the election in 2000: “What is the difference between George Bush and Hitler?” Answer: “Hitler was elected.”
Dave, work with me here. I decided to take your post seriously and not just a “let’s troll the liberals and have some fun.”
First you have to agree that the Republicans in the House are a hot mess. They have no discipline and do not follow the rules they create. Right now they cannot govern.
Now let us go to the Republican Party, they make up rules and folks, particularly Trump, decide not to follow them.
So let us suppose the party ( your party?) gets some guts and says, if you do not show up and debate, you will not be the Republican Presidential nominee.
I think Trump would not show up, Chris Christie is right that Trump is a coward and can not defend his platform. By the way I think Trump is running for President to finance his lawsuits, avoid jail and take revenge on all his many enemies.
So Trump is out, suddenly Nikki Haley has a legit chance at winning the nomination…and let us say she does. Now we have Nikki as the Republican nominee, Trump probably either trying to run as a third party candidate (or running to Saudi) and Biden. I think you could find polls giving Nikki a good chance of winning.
So why so subservient to Trump, if Nikki is your choice why not fight for her and push the Republican Party to enforce rules rather than having Trump dictate his rules.
Last, you lambast Biden, but you seem to have no positives on Trump. You kind of back Nikki, but if Trump bullies his way to the nomination you seem to kowtow to him with no reason as to what positive things he could do for the country.
Finally, candidates that were President but then lose a second term tend to be dropped as a future candidate. See Jimmy Carter or Bush the first…what makes you think Trump is any different?
Peter, I assure you that all my remarks are offered earnestly, and I will attempt to respond to the many points you raised.
First, I readily agree that SOME Republicans in the house are a hot mess. Matt Gaetz is a total joke and I dearly wish he would be primaried out next year. But you have to keep in mind that there were only eight GOP members voting to remove McCarthy, which means that 96% of Republicans in Congress voted against the motion to vacate. The huge majority of votes to vacate came from the Democrat side. And I agree that we have people in Congress that are a total embarrassment like Marjorie Taylor Greene and Lauren Boebert, but I would also quickly add Cori Bush and AOC to this category on the other side of the aisle. The hard ideologues on the far right and far left do not serve us well at all.
Second, I am not a Republican but a conservative who most often votes Republican because their candidates are most always more conservative. I agree that it is wrong for Trump to skip the GOP debates and I am very happy that the Republican Party requires all candidates participating in the debate to sign a pledge to support whoever may be the eventual party nominee.
Third, I have indeed been an active supporter of Nikki Haley from the beginning as we have contributed to her campaign and I have posted many comments favorable to her on various media. If there were some way that she would overtake Trump for the GOP nomination, the very real fear is that his runaway ego would not permit him to endorse her, which in itself would probably doom her candidacy with his rabid followers. But now with RFK Jr and others exploring third party candidacies, this is a crazy political environment that is near impossible to handicap.
Finally, I am not in any way kowtowing to Trump but simply regard him as they lesser of two evils to vote for if matched up against Biden. As stated previously, it is my fond hope neither of them is the eventual nominee of the respective parties, but at this point it looks likely that they will be.
The reality is that polls consistently reflect that a majority of the American people, and even I believe a majority of Democrats, would prefer the Biden would not run again. Similarly, there are indeed many of us on the conservative side who regard Trump as a problem whom we wish would go away and actively support alternative candidates. But unfortunately, at present it looks like we are going to be stuck with them both and that is sad.
Projection is a common psychological phenomenon where someone attributes their unacceptable traits onto another person. The Republicans seem to be doing this en masses these days.
This is the second poll Zorn offered (waiting your turn at the airline gate) without a way to take part in the poll and yet he has the results! I am a paid participant and I receive both Tuesday and Thursday newsletters. Something is not right in the Picayune!
I founf the defense of AI inane at best. The general idea seems to be that anything man invents is a good thing and this idea should never be stemmed. The problem is not AI. The problem is humans that most definitely will find a way to take advantage of their fellow human beings. I was listening to a news story the other day about a Tom Hanks commercial lauding dental health insurance. The problem is that Hanks claims he had absolutely nothing to do with it. It was AI generated, both his voice and likeness. I suppose, since it is legal, we will need to put up with it. What will the protections be? A good deal of the time the average person won't even know a crime is being committed. Imagine, for example, your trusted insurance agent calling you in a video call to convince you to buy new products or pay more for a higher level of insurance. Except that your agent might have nothing to do with it. AI is bad because it is still clunky? Come on, to the person who said it, you can do better than that. The problem is not that it's clunky, but that it isn't. I compare this with the discovery of atomic energy. There was no thought of banning atoms, which make up everything in existence. Atomic energy was going to produce a huge amount of new power without the environmental hazards. Ask the Japanese what they think of atomic bombs.
The AI commentary is another example of the misuse of words and superficial analysis to create an inane and absurd argument.
AI is not 'trained' and does not 'learn'. It has zero understanding of anything. The AI scans, parses and records. It is not gaining 'knowledge'. It has zero understanding of either the inputs or the outputs. AI is not capable of being 'inspired'. AI has none of the human attributes of curiosity, emotion, knowledge, or even problem recognition (i.e. it has no opinion on any moral issue, it will accept whatever it is programmed to accept). It merely performs an assembly of fragments of writing based on directions from the user, the coded rules for assembly, and rote copying of existing phrases, sentences, and paragraphs.
Machines are not humans and have zero rights of any kind. The concept that machines have rights is absurd and pernicious. If there is any risk to the rights of people, it is the idea that machines are their equivalent and that machines have rights.
AI is a sophisticated plagiarism engine. It scans, copies, and assembles. Fair Use has four parts: 1) is the use commercial; 2) the nature of the original work; 3) the amount or substantiality of the original work used; 4) the effect of the use on the commercial value of the original work. AI currently copies everything, reuses it without limitation, does not provide attribution or compensation, and the output is not transformative. Software companies have won many court battles protecting their code under copywrite law. The proof that AI is not fair use would be to ask the owners of ChatGPT if they would allow the scanning of their code by another AI. Not likely.
AI will certainly continue to improve to convincingly imitate thought, particularly in areas where humans have mental limitations (e.g. no one has read every novel and can be entertained by a clever knock off of an author/authors they don't know.). It will find many socially positive uses. But that is no excuse for shrugging off the responsibility to at least attempt to properly constrain the use of the technology.
Or our children can just surrender to their machine overlords (and their owners).
EZ,
For maybe the first time, I agree with everything you wrote all the way down to Land of Linkin!
I think your theories about Chicago robberies are responsible for alarmism in a broad range of today's news topics.
The telling comment which should have gotten more play was that it is getting more attention because it is happening on the north and northwest sides. I've been saying that for years. Imaginge the outrage if any kind of what has been happeing in poor wards was happening downtown or on the Gold Coast.
Once again, regarding the Tribune’s bizarre pricing tactics, I received a letter upping my digital subscription to $15 per month. I cancelled the subscription on the website, indicating the price increase was the reason. I was then notified of my special rate of $3 for the entire year. This guys at the Trib, tough negotiators.
I saw Stop Making Sense back in 1984 and while my 17 year old brain didn’t quite get David Byrne I sure loved and lived the music then and now.
Thought the RBG joke was bad taste. But that might just be me.
Regarding washing bananas, I don’t even wash my grapes. So what do I know?
That wasn't a joke. It was a plain statement of fact. RBG did us a grave disservice by hanging on as long as she did. She was, in the end, not a team player.
I was always a big Talking Heads fan. David Byrne’s consistently edgy and beautiful creativity just hits home for me. We saw that show live at Poplar Creek, back in the day; one of the best concerts I’d ever seen. Loved the film when it was first released, and loved seeing it again last week—sadly, not at the Music Box because I was sorely tempted to dance in the aisle but stuck to chair dancing instead. Their music never gets old.
Totally enjoyed Jasmine Crockett's take down on Trump on the House floor. I hope other Dems will follow her lead and pile on again and again during these procedures.
Eric, agree with your points on AI. The only other point I would add comes from 60 Minutes.
If a piece of fiction is AI generated, it should be labeled as being AI generated as full disclosure to the reader.
By the way, what scares me most about AI is that I am sure Putin is running millions of military situations on the battlefield. I expect he is running examples using tactical nuclear weapons and getting feedback on acceptable losses.
Given his disregard for his own troops, AI could likely give him an acceptable tactical nuclear weapon solution that he would use. Putin is Trump with guts and this scares me..a lot.
Not sure how we would begin to enforce this idea that you have to disclose AI generated content or if you can articulate WHY you think that's important.
First, do what 60 minutes did when they said their broadcast was done with human beings and not AI.
To enforce, request that all responsible authors indicate whether it is their work and not AI generated. If they do not, you can assume they are using AI. And you can check their work if they indicate no AI when in fact they used it. This would be a hit on their integrity - true some folks will not care but I think the public should know.
I think it is important in the same vein as plagiarism. We should know what the author’s work is and what ideas/ phrases are someone else’s.
One reason I subscribe to your online newspaper is because you are diligent in providing sources and specifying what are your thought/ ideas and what is someone else’s.
It shows integrity, and that is why I would want folks to indicate AI activity in their work.
I moved to Chicago in the early 90's. At the time, I think many people were more afraid of crime and were careful about where they went -- that could be my biased perspective as it was the first time I had lived in a big city. Crime rate was declining and various neighborhoods which had previously had a crime problem were on the upswing (e.g Wicker Park, Bucktown, Andersonville, and Lakeview in the early 90s).
Now crime is lower but has been increasing, which has a different emotional impact.
Only 20% of the Chicago population was over 18 in the 90's. So the experience of most adults is relatively low and declining crime rates, particularly in better neighborhoods. Also, the rapid expansion of the number of lower crime neighborhoods. This is even more true for younger people that have moved into the city from elsewhere. The increase in crime by neighborhood and each individuals' expectations for the future are significant drivers of opinion.
Agreed, many previously rough neighborhoods gentrified, dropping the crime rates. The city lost some population since then, many lower income. I don't get the boundaries on the graph though. Between Lawrence Ave and Peterson Ave? I'd like to see the entire North and Northwest sides.
I had another thought. Back in the day, I had the impression that the police were effective at catching violent criminals, that the police got community support, and I don't recall anyone rationalizing violent crime (especially gang crime) and espousing the right of groups to create mayhem. Now I think the police are ineffective, do not have community support, and political leaders rationalize crime and mayhem. 'Tough on crime' is a political insult. We are told that policing doesn't work and we need to fix social ills (which will take a very long time). So, when crime hits and increases in my neighborhood, I have low expectations for improvement.
Earlier in the year, my wife and were driving eastbound at 8:30 PM in the heart of Lincoln Park (500 W Webster) when we were surrounded by (I kid you not) 30+ CPD Explorers, all with lights and sirens blaring. In my 35+ years in the Chicago area, I had never seen such a police response. After picking our way around the sea of police vehicles, we found out later the reason for such a response: a report that a CPD officer had had their weapon wrested away from them, and was in trouble. What I took away from that experience is that the CPD is willing to respond - for one of their own at least - but apparently aren't quite so motivated to do so for Joe or Susie Regular Chicago Resident who calls for assistance.
Also there seems to be much more support for antigentrification measures now.
Very good.
I greatly appreciate your sharing the crime statistics. Very informative. I intend to share on Next Door where folks in my area --Roscoe Village/North Center -- are in an apoplectic frenzy about crime on a regular basis.
Regarding Ruth Bader Ginsberg, and the recent excoriation in these pages of the journalistic deployment of “claim”: I remembered that a granddaughter of RBG claimed that on her deathbed, she requested that her replacement not be named until a new president was installed. This claim was reported throughout the press as undisputed fact, but I always considered it suspect for the simple reason that I doubt that anyone faced with their imminent transition into eternal oblivion would be bothered much by the question of whom their successor might be. But what do I know about being an accomplished, norm shattering, successful woman with a sprawling, loving, successful family? Maybe it’s all she thought about.
In any case l, I consider the application of “claim” to this story to be a compliment to RBG, for if it is true, it’s kind of pathetic that she would devote her last breaths to demanding something that was both completely within her control, and urged on by her colleagues just a few years before.
Just to provide some feedback from the conservative side, my clear preference for presidential candidate has been Nikki Haley from the beginning. She governed extremely well with relatively high approval ratings in South Carolina, and gained valuable foreign policy experience while Ambassador at the United Nations. She strikes me as very intelligent and articulate, and has a compelling personal story as the daughter of first generation legal immigrants to our country.
But, having said that, if as I fear, Trump is the GOP nominee, I would feel compelled to vote for him against President biden. While your overwhelmingly left leaning readership may excoriate me for that statement, I want to point out that outside the liberal bubble, President Biden is widely viewed as inept, suffering advancing cognitive deficit with failing policies, spectacularly so in border security, and likely involved in corrupt influence peddling through Hunter. His approval rating as President has been decidedly negative for quite some time. Most national polls are showing a pretty much tie race between Trump and Biden, and a Washington Post poll last week even showed Trump with a 9% advantage. So brand me with whatever disparaging label you wish, but the fact is that my statement puts me in tune with half of our country.
I don't buy your hankie-twisting about Biden's cognitive abilities -- Trump says bizarre things all the time, like that Biden might start World War II and that he ran against George H.W. Bush. I would bet on Biden over Trump any day in any test of knowledge or acuity. Or in a footrace. And, my God, corruption and children? Please. Don't get me started on the grifters in the Trump family. Plus, of course, there seems to be NO evidence of corrupt influence peddling by Biden despite all the handwaving and throat clearing on the right.
I don't know what you'd have Biden do about the border, but the flow of migrants and refugees isn't an obviously easy problem to handle nor it is caused by the president. Hoping for Mexico to pay for that wall, are ya?
Still, I get it. Trump will blunder his way into supporting some conservative positions -- on abortion, for instance -- even though he drove up the deficit and shattered the norms of our constitutional republic. I'd vote for Roseanne Barr for president over any Republican I can think of. And I respect your support for Haley over Trump at this stage. Decent Republicans ought to be fighting like hell for the soul of their party, because Trump is, at heart, a fascist dictator. You do understand that, don't you? I'm sure you hope that Congress and courts will keep him in check if God forbid he's elected again, but he is pretty clearly a deeply vile, shallow, vengeful autocrat. If you really think our country would be better off long term with him back in the White House then hold your nose, cross your fingers and pull the lever.
Hey Eric - Thank you for giving me a big 😄 with my ☕️ this morning as I obviously triggered your Trump Derangement Syndrome with my comment! Please do not mistake my comments that I in any way admire Trump personally. And my comments about President Biden are simply stating what half the country thinks of him regardless whether you agree or disagree with that.
You mentioned illegal immigration, and I am very happy to have a debate with you on that. Illegal immigration during the Trump presidency was a fraction of the many millions that have flooded across Biden's open Southern border and released into our country. You deride Trump's policies, but every objective observer agrees that his Remain in Mexico policy was very effective in both diminishing people trying to come here illegally, and not allowing them to simply be set free inside the country where 94% never appear for an immigration hearing. And, here's a shock for you - Bloomberg News and other mainstream news outlets are reporting that Biden is waving 26 federal environmental rules and regulations in order to immediately construct 26 miles of border barrier on the southern Texas border, tying it into Trump's existing border wall. Seems like Biden is admitting that walls do work.
Chicago, New York City and other liberal Northern cities are having conniptions about dealing with a tiny fraction of the illegal immigrants that Texas has had to deal with for years. News reports reflect that many Chicago residents are now not very happy to be a sanctuary city for people who come here illegally and causing a significant drain on resources and in some cases criminal activity in their neighborhoods. Border security is likely to be a huge issue in next year's general election, one which I believe is going to substantially hurt Biden for his unwillingness to secure our border.
I am sincerely sad that our great country will be given the choice of only either Biden or Trump in next year's presidential election. I very much would like it to be someone like Nikki Haley or Tim Scott to present a conservative view and policies against someone like Gavin Newsom or Gretchen Whitmer championing liberal views and policies so that people could make an informed decision on what they want. But unless something changes on either or both sides, I believe that most Americans are going to have to hold their nose when they cast their ballot next year for either one of them.
So Dave you were just trolling liberals like Eric. Hope you got your jollies.
I love your “I don’t admire Trump” YET, you seem ready to vote for him.
And now you seem sad that folks will either have Biden or Trump as a choice.
We seem to be jumping around on who you support or what you really believe.
Permit me to try to clarify things for you Peter. First, absolutely no trolling, just stating my views and I was entertained by Eric's very visceral reaction to them. I do not admire Trump personally. But I will vote for him or any other Republican for the anticipated Republican policies relative to Biden's policies. I fully acknowledge that my views are not popular with the overwhelming majority of PS readers, but the reality is that they do reflect about half of our country as reflected in national polling.
Dave, check back on your comments. You mention being delighted with Eric’s reaction. Then you say you will vote for Trump but oh I do not admire him? That is trolling.
Trump’s platform right now is raising money for his legal defense, working to stay out of jail and plotting revenge. Can you enlighten me on what you think his real platform is?
Peter - I did just now review my earlier comments, and I do not find anywhere that I said I was "delighted" at Eric's reaction. I said I got a laugh from his very visceral reaction to my statements. I do not admire Trump personally but I do not need to admire him to vote for him as the lesser of two evils. As far as his policies, I anticipate they will be very similar to the Trump policies during his first term of office which I believe were very good for our country and everyone in it. I completely understand that you and most all of the PS readers do not agree with my views, but they are my views and I believe polls reflect that they are shared by about half the country.
"Illegal immigration during the Trump presidency was a fraction of the many millions that have flooded across Biden's open Southern border amd released into our country." Where are you getting these numbers? What fraction? You implied that millions are crossing now and maybe only thousands during Trump's presidency. Can you point to where you are getting these numbers?
My statement is well documented and backed up by the numbers. Presuming that you will accept official reports from the US Border Patrol, immigrant encounters at the southern Border in fiscal year 2020, the last year of the Trump presidency were about 400,000. In fiscal year 2021, the first year of the Biden presidency, that number quadrupled to 1.4 million immigrant encounters. Thus far in 2023, that number is a staggering 2.3 million encounters. Were you truly not aware of this massive invasion of illegal immigrants since Biden assumed the presidency?
Here's exactly what presidential candidate Joe Biden said publicly to Univision journalist Jorge Ramos in 2019, "I would in fact make sure that there is, that
we immediately surge to the border - all those people are seeking asylum. They deserve to
be heard," Biden said.
"That's who we are.
We're a nation that says,
If you want to flee and
you're fleeing oppression, you should come."
And sure enough, millions of people accepted that invitation and showed up. And, absent Trump's very effective Remain in Mexico policy which Biden revoked upon assuming the presidency, people show up, they are given a immigration court hearing date which they overwhelmingly ignore, and then are released to go wherever they wish in our country. So yes, illegal immigration under Trump was a fraction of what it is under Biden.
Maybe we should use Trump’s border policy.: seperate children and parents permanently. Funny how word gets around
I don't respect support for Haley or any other Republican still swearing fealty to Trump. She will not only vote for him in 2024. she'd accept his offer of VP in a heartbeat, even if he's convicted at trial.
Your observation that your support of Trump puts you in tune with half our country (as if that justifies your position) reminds me of two things. (1) When we used to tell our Mom, “But Mom, everyone else is allowed to do that,” she would respond, “If everyone else jumped off a cliff, would you?” and (2) the old joke that was told about George Bush after the election in 2000: “What is the difference between George Bush and Hitler?” Answer: “Hitler was elected.”
Sorry, I forget...what did trump do during his four years in office?
Dave, work with me here. I decided to take your post seriously and not just a “let’s troll the liberals and have some fun.”
First you have to agree that the Republicans in the House are a hot mess. They have no discipline and do not follow the rules they create. Right now they cannot govern.
Now let us go to the Republican Party, they make up rules and folks, particularly Trump, decide not to follow them.
So let us suppose the party ( your party?) gets some guts and says, if you do not show up and debate, you will not be the Republican Presidential nominee.
I think Trump would not show up, Chris Christie is right that Trump is a coward and can not defend his platform. By the way I think Trump is running for President to finance his lawsuits, avoid jail and take revenge on all his many enemies.
So Trump is out, suddenly Nikki Haley has a legit chance at winning the nomination…and let us say she does. Now we have Nikki as the Republican nominee, Trump probably either trying to run as a third party candidate (or running to Saudi) and Biden. I think you could find polls giving Nikki a good chance of winning.
So why so subservient to Trump, if Nikki is your choice why not fight for her and push the Republican Party to enforce rules rather than having Trump dictate his rules.
Last, you lambast Biden, but you seem to have no positives on Trump. You kind of back Nikki, but if Trump bullies his way to the nomination you seem to kowtow to him with no reason as to what positive things he could do for the country.
Finally, candidates that were President but then lose a second term tend to be dropped as a future candidate. See Jimmy Carter or Bush the first…what makes you think Trump is any different?
Peter, I assure you that all my remarks are offered earnestly, and I will attempt to respond to the many points you raised.
First, I readily agree that SOME Republicans in the house are a hot mess. Matt Gaetz is a total joke and I dearly wish he would be primaried out next year. But you have to keep in mind that there were only eight GOP members voting to remove McCarthy, which means that 96% of Republicans in Congress voted against the motion to vacate. The huge majority of votes to vacate came from the Democrat side. And I agree that we have people in Congress that are a total embarrassment like Marjorie Taylor Greene and Lauren Boebert, but I would also quickly add Cori Bush and AOC to this category on the other side of the aisle. The hard ideologues on the far right and far left do not serve us well at all.
Second, I am not a Republican but a conservative who most often votes Republican because their candidates are most always more conservative. I agree that it is wrong for Trump to skip the GOP debates and I am very happy that the Republican Party requires all candidates participating in the debate to sign a pledge to support whoever may be the eventual party nominee.
Third, I have indeed been an active supporter of Nikki Haley from the beginning as we have contributed to her campaign and I have posted many comments favorable to her on various media. If there were some way that she would overtake Trump for the GOP nomination, the very real fear is that his runaway ego would not permit him to endorse her, which in itself would probably doom her candidacy with his rabid followers. But now with RFK Jr and others exploring third party candidacies, this is a crazy political environment that is near impossible to handicap.
Finally, I am not in any way kowtowing to Trump but simply regard him as they lesser of two evils to vote for if matched up against Biden. As stated previously, it is my fond hope neither of them is the eventual nominee of the respective parties, but at this point it looks likely that they will be.
The reality is that polls consistently reflect that a majority of the American people, and even I believe a majority of Democrats, would prefer the Biden would not run again. Similarly, there are indeed many of us on the conservative side who regard Trump as a problem whom we wish would go away and actively support alternative candidates. But unfortunately, at present it looks like we are going to be stuck with them both and that is sad.
How is it that all the slings and arrows trump casts at others more aptly describe him? Maybe he hates himself as much as most of us?
Projection is a common psychological phenomenon where someone attributes their unacceptable traits onto another person. The Republicans seem to be doing this en masses these days.
This is the second poll Zorn offered (waiting your turn at the airline gate) without a way to take part in the poll and yet he has the results! I am a paid participant and I receive both Tuesday and Thursday newsletters. Something is not right in the Picayune!
That shouldn't be happening! Apologies. I will look into it.
I just voted today, I'm a subscriber too but don't always get to the newspaper right away
I read somewhere (might have even been here!) that the Trib was being sued for those surprise extra additions. Here's hoping the suit is succcessful.
https://www.classaction.org/news/tribune-publishing-charges-newspaper-subscribers-extra-for-items-already-included-in-subscription-class-action-says#:~:text=Arnold%20v.,Tribune%20Publishing%20Company%2C%20LLC&text=A%20class%20action%20alleges%20Tribune,already%20included%20in%20their%20subscriptions.
You may have read about that in your Picayune Sentinel!
https://ericzorn.substack.com/p/book-em-but-dont-post-their-photos#§the-tribunes-dodgy-inclusion-of-premium-issues-in-subscription-prices-is-now-the-subject-of-a-lawsuit
I founf the defense of AI inane at best. The general idea seems to be that anything man invents is a good thing and this idea should never be stemmed. The problem is not AI. The problem is humans that most definitely will find a way to take advantage of their fellow human beings. I was listening to a news story the other day about a Tom Hanks commercial lauding dental health insurance. The problem is that Hanks claims he had absolutely nothing to do with it. It was AI generated, both his voice and likeness. I suppose, since it is legal, we will need to put up with it. What will the protections be? A good deal of the time the average person won't even know a crime is being committed. Imagine, for example, your trusted insurance agent calling you in a video call to convince you to buy new products or pay more for a higher level of insurance. Except that your agent might have nothing to do with it. AI is bad because it is still clunky? Come on, to the person who said it, you can do better than that. The problem is not that it's clunky, but that it isn't. I compare this with the discovery of atomic energy. There was no thought of banning atoms, which make up everything in existence. Atomic energy was going to produce a huge amount of new power without the environmental hazards. Ask the Japanese what they think of atomic bombs.
The AI commentary is another example of the misuse of words and superficial analysis to create an inane and absurd argument.
AI is not 'trained' and does not 'learn'. It has zero understanding of anything. The AI scans, parses and records. It is not gaining 'knowledge'. It has zero understanding of either the inputs or the outputs. AI is not capable of being 'inspired'. AI has none of the human attributes of curiosity, emotion, knowledge, or even problem recognition (i.e. it has no opinion on any moral issue, it will accept whatever it is programmed to accept). It merely performs an assembly of fragments of writing based on directions from the user, the coded rules for assembly, and rote copying of existing phrases, sentences, and paragraphs.
Machines are not humans and have zero rights of any kind. The concept that machines have rights is absurd and pernicious. If there is any risk to the rights of people, it is the idea that machines are their equivalent and that machines have rights.
AI is a sophisticated plagiarism engine. It scans, copies, and assembles. Fair Use has four parts: 1) is the use commercial; 2) the nature of the original work; 3) the amount or substantiality of the original work used; 4) the effect of the use on the commercial value of the original work. AI currently copies everything, reuses it without limitation, does not provide attribution or compensation, and the output is not transformative. Software companies have won many court battles protecting their code under copywrite law. The proof that AI is not fair use would be to ask the owners of ChatGPT if they would allow the scanning of their code by another AI. Not likely.
AI will certainly continue to improve to convincingly imitate thought, particularly in areas where humans have mental limitations (e.g. no one has read every novel and can be entertained by a clever knock off of an author/authors they don't know.). It will find many socially positive uses. But that is no excuse for shrugging off the responsibility to at least attempt to properly constrain the use of the technology.
Or our children can just surrender to their machine overlords (and their owners).
Your comment about ChatGPT creators protecting their code is spot on.