opinion – Ted Clifton's Grain of Salt Commentary

Just read a sort of matter-of-fact article stating that in the future (tomorrow?) countries will protect their trillion-dollar investments in AI processing centers with nuclear weapons. Now if this does not remind you of Hal in 2001: A Space Odyssey or maybe Dr. Strangelove then you aren’t paying attention.

A country is ready to kill humans on an epic scale to protect the “Big Brain”. If it wasn’t so sad it would be laughable. And who will decide if the moment has arrived to launch the death missiles—maybe the Big Brain.

I write, or try to write, mystery novels. 100% fiction. I would not dare write something along those lines because I would worry my reader would not find it believable.

Now, of course, this was not a press release from any government, but someone speculating on what would be a logical conclusion based on the investment and the increasing dependence on mega-watt computing power to determine the course of action countries take to defend themselves.

So, it may not be true, but it sure follows logic. Human tragedies have occurred in the past by countries protecting minor assets such as bridges or airplanes or just because they could. The Big Brain will, no doubt, become such a critical part of national security that it will be easy to justify anything to prevent the death of the Big Brain. Just ask the Big Brain!

AI on a massive scale is inevitable. Who would stop it?

A certain hypocrisy exists in my tone about AI. I’m using it in many ways, like many people, and finding it intriguing and useful.

I’m old enough to remember the first discussions about computers. These were mostly primitive devices that could count and sort things. This was the 1950s. My brother, Curt, had been drafted into the Navy (yes, there is a story there for another time), and through a testing program to determine your best usefulness, the Navy assigned him to their “state-of-the-art” computer facility. It was the early stages of computing. The public was not told much about what the military was doing with computers, but they were the leaders at this time—not IBM, in advanced use of the technology. That only meant that they had advanced further in sorting and counting.

Even then, there was a great deal of concern that “machines” would take over decision making from humans. In fact, they were working on just that. Leaping forward some seventy years and you can imagine what is going on now. Maybe it’s good or maybe it’s bad; but it is inevitable that the ability to make decisions within seconds based on a massive amount of data is the skill machines excel at, while humans often pause. That pause is the difference between surviving and dying in the scenarios the military studies. Thus, General Buck is no longer the best decision maker it’s AI.

I once requested an image of lizards in the desert from AI and one of the lizards had a leg coming out its head—a glitch. Not a big deal. Oops, was that missile just launched – “who ordered that?”—no one answers.

“Manners are important” Mom

Don’t you wonder why the mood of the country is so bad? I do. Sure, our political divide feels lousy, but is it so different? I know the language is different, but we’ve always had strong opinions voiced in many ways. The threat of violence feels closer to the surface, although it doesn’t seem to be well organized.

Politics feels like the result of groups angry about other groups, the real unhappiness is something else. We’ve seemed to have lost the belief that “things” will be better. That might be because for many people they are not. Young people in particular look around and see a bunch of old rich people arguing about nothing—they are just angry. Why are they angry—looks like it’s worked out pretty good for them.

We have become a country that does not value manners. Rude is not a fault, it’s almost a desirable talent. Soon we may have programs available for the less rude to learn how to be obnoxious. You really can’t fault the people who are being rude—it’s working for them. The people at fault are the ones who follow the loudest, most offensive person in the room.

Politicians used to brag about our country and its great citizens, now they condemn the horrible rotten place and accuse half the country of being evil. Wow, who would have ever thought that would happen—and be successful?

Poll after poll indicates that Americans want the ugly, divisive, hate-filled speeches to stop. If politicians believe in anything, it is polls. So why, if the polls say you should be more civil, does it not happen?

Because most of that dissatisfaction with the ugly narratives is only towards the other side. My side is totally justified in its bitter speech because…. well, just because.

My mother was a wise and thoughtful person. Of course, I seldom followed her wise advice; but at some level I always listened to her. Manners were an important part of her world. If you want to live in a civil world, then you need to be civil yourself. She often suggested that I could not control “Johnny’s” behavior (Johnny and Donny were my childhood nemeses), you can only control your own behavior. And if you are polite and considerate, maybe they will follow your lead.

That sounded good in theory, but I knew Johnny and Donny and knew the most likely outcome of me being nice and polite was a punch in the nose. Not saying my mother was wrong only that some people are just difficult.

The vitriol we are experiencing in our political debates is not based on the desire of the people it is supposedly being addressed to, it is the result of bad manners by the people using vulgar language because it is what they see in the world. It’s not about you, it is only about Johnny and Donny—we are just caught in the downdraft.

I never really worked out my childhood trauma of living in the neighborhood with Johnny and Donny; but I learned that as an adult I should choose my friends and acquaintances with extreme care. The obnoxious people need to be mentally shoved into another room (or world) and forgotten.

As voters we need to be very cautious about rewarding behavior we dislike. It will become the standard before you know it.

Human Feeling

My good friend Stanley Nelson and I have been discussing AI and the implications for artists and writers. We agree and then we disagree. We collaborated on three books, Murder So Wrong, Murder So Strange and Murder So Final, which were centered around a time in Oklahoma City when there was a newspaper war between the established and powerful newspaper and the upstart, The Oklahoma Journal. We lived there during this time and knew many of the people involved.

We survive collaboration, just barely, and still speak, although there was a somewhat quiet phase right after the books. Here was our latest email exchange about AI.

Stan.

Once I stopped to study an oil of yours, hung somewhere in your house. I was particularly taken by how you used simple, brief touches and swaths of color to suggest, successfully, a window, a door, a wall, a shadow. It was hard not to compare that with a nude portrait you did decades ago, hung so that it commanded the den in the house in Del City. I found that one far busier with its colors, not quite achieving the impressionism I figured was being tried for, although I never asked about it. I had only taken a junior high-school art class, but I had learned enough to wonder.

This is an opinion, but I should say your representational and sometimes impressionistic art has evolved over time, and for the better. Whether anyone agrees is hardly the point, which instead is about how art gives us a way to gauge someone else’s progress, or even regress, as an interpreter of the world around them. Consider the obsessive study of Van Gogh’s progress as an artist. Much like science, the matter is never conclusive.

So, here is my point: that art is not, nor has it ever been, a matter of instant gratification or product quality, i.e., salability or favorable critical appreciation. The goal of art is personal expression on a scale greater than or, at least, different from the ordinary, and for that a person must be the source. To credit AI for arranging pixels—zeros and ones—so a visually striking picture appears is a bit like giving out prizes to frying pans for not burning the bacon.

My response:

The artist, human or AI, is judged by the results. You can ponder the artist behind the work, but it is the art itself that sticks in our head. If we could extract personal expressions in art, then your point would be well stated. I’m just not sure we can. I have buried in my basement an accumulation of art that has not been seen by many–you might even call it hidden. Why, because it was not what I was trying to achieve. Failures? No, probably not, those mostly got painted over; this would be “it’s okay, but just not right”. So, if the result is what matters, soulless, stolen, zeros and ones generated art still must be judged by the result. Therein lies the problem, the results are awesome.

That’s one of the reasons I think AI writing is not as powerful as art. The writer is easier to “feel” in writing, I think, than in art⁽¹⁾. Of course, that is still debatable. I have played with AI writing, book descriptions and others, and it feels different. While competent, there is something missing. Now, you can say the same about art–but I don’t get that feeling with art itself. It looks great, conveys with subtlety the qualities listed in the instructions. I’m still going to say the art generated by AI will stunt any on-going development of human artists. Why do something that is mostly inferior to what can be done with AI. While it’s sad, it doesn’t change the fact; AI results are better.

I haven’t heard back from Stan, but my gut says he is going to say bullshit (although he doesn’t use that language as much as I do). If you’re a creative person AI is a threat. If not your soul, then maybe your pocketbook. But AI is going to replace many people, people who love what they do, but cannot work for nothing or 24 hours a day.

Even with that pain, I will still say on almost any objective level AI is brilliant. Maybe an asshole but many creative people (things?) have been assholes, so what’s so different.

I believe that we all will incorporate AI tools into much of our daily lives. How do we not use that easy access tool that produces such amazing and easy results. Many of us already have and it will grow because it works.

Are there risks, even existential risks? Yes.

(1) When I wrote the “feeling” sentence I was thinking about creative writing, such as novels. It’s possible that technical or business writing will be better not worse when done by AI since there was not much “feel” involved in the human version.

Human Thinking or AI Regurgitating?

I’m still debating AI when it comes to writing but must admit I’m sold on the art part. AI is a whiz. The art stuff this brainy machine can create is just amazing. Artists, I’m afraid your time is up; writers, well why don’t ya hang around for just a bit.

Asked ChatGPT to write descriptions on three of my books. They all were very promotional, hyped marketing pieces of verbiage. Now, I do not know how AI knows those books, but they contained some material that directly tied to the book (with notable inaccuracies like the name of the main character) but mostly contained generalized language based on the genre. If I were giving a grade, all three would have been B+. I tend to grade my self-written book description as C-. So, AI would be hired by me before I would hire me to write book descriptions.

Okay, the descriptions were good, above average but not perfect. I tweaked the descriptions and will probably use them—they are better than the ones I wrote, the main reason I would say writers are still somewhat safe is that they were very similar. There was a sameness to the descriptions and the errors were obvious ones. The main character or the location of the story would not be mistakes a writer would make. For now, I still give human writers a slight edge.

AI Book Description for Dog Gone Lies by Ted Clifton

Get ready for a wild ride through sun-drenched vistas of New Mexico in “Dog Gone Lies” by Ted Clifton, a gripping mystery novel that will keep you guessing until the very end.

When ex-Sheriff, turned private investigator, Ray Pacheco is compelled to track down the owner of a lost dog, he thinks it’ll be a routine matter. But as he delves deeper into the seemingly simple assignment, he uncovers a tangled web of deception, betrayal, and murder lurking beneath the surface of this picturesque Southwestern state.

With the help of his trusty companion, Tyee Chino, Ray follows a trail of clues that leads him to a cast of colorful characters, each with their own secrets to hide. From odd-ball eccentrics to ruthless drug dealers, everyone has something to lose – and Ray soon finds himself caught in the crossfire of a deadly game where the stakes couldn’t be higher.

As tensions rise and the body count mounts, Ray must use all his wits and instincts to untangle the truth before it’s too late. But with danger lurking around every corner, he’ll need to stay one step ahead of his adversaries if he hopes to crack the case and bring a killer to justice.

Fast-paced, action-packed, and full of twists and turns, “Dog Gone Lies” is a must-read for fans of gritty crime fiction and pulse-pounding thrillers. With its richly drawn characters, atmospheric setting, and edge-of-your-seat suspense, this novel will keep you glued to the page until the very last word. So, strap in, hold on tight, and get ready for a rollercoaster ride through the gritty landscape of New Mexico with Ted Clifton’s electrifying new novel.

The above description has a few changes I made but it was 95% AI generated. It took AI about 20 seconds. My few minor corrections took about 20 minutes.

I asked AI to write a blog about AI written book descriptions. Below is the blog.

Title: Unleashing the Power of AI: Writing Compelling Book Descriptions

In the ever-evolving landscape of publishing, authors and publishers alike are constantly seeking innovative ways to capture readers’ attention and stand out in a crowded market. One such innovation that has been gaining traction in recent years is the use of artificial intelligence (AI) to write book descriptions. Let’s delve into how AI can be a game-changer in crafting compelling book blurbs that entice readers and boost sales.

1. Harnessing Data-Driven Insights:

AI algorithms can analyze vast amounts of data, including bestselling book descriptions, reader preferences, and market trends. By leveraging these insights, AI can identify patterns and characteristics that resonate with audiences, helping authors tailor their book descriptions to maximize engagement and appeal.

2. Generating Attention-Grabbing Content:

AI-powered natural language generation (NLG) models, such as GPT-based models, excel at generating coherent and persuasive text. Authors can input key details about their book, such as genre, plot summary, and target audience, and AI can produce a polished and professional book description that highlights the book’s unique selling points and hooks readers from the outset.

3. Optimizing SEO and Discoverability:

With the proliferation of online bookstores and digital platforms, discoverability is paramount for authors seeking to reach their target audience. AI can help optimize book descriptions for search engines by incorporating relevant keywords and phrases that improve visibility and organic traffic. By enhancing SEO, authors can increase their book’s discoverability and attract more potential readers.

4. Personalizing Recommendations:

AI-driven recommendation engines can analyze reader preferences and behavior to generate personalized book recommendations. By incorporating AI-generated book descriptions into recommendation algorithms, authors can increase the likelihood of their books being recommended to readers who are most likely to enjoy them, thereby driving sales and fostering reader loyalty.

5. Iterative Improvement and A/B Testing:

AI enables authors to conduct A/B testing of book descriptions by generating multiple versions and analyzing their performance metrics, such as click-through rates and conversion rates. By iteratively refining and optimizing book descriptions based on real-time data and feedback, authors can continuously improve their marketing strategies and maximize the effectiveness of their promotional efforts.

While AI offers immense potential for revolutionizing the way book descriptions are created and optimized, it’s important to note that human creativity and intuition remain indispensable. Authors should view AI as a powerful tool to augment their creative process rather than replace it entirely. By collaborating with AI, authors can unlock new possibilities for crafting compelling book descriptions that resonate with readers and propel their literary careers to new heights.

AI time: 10 seconds.

How did you like the highlighted sentence about humans being indispensable? Was that AI sucking up to potential customers? AI is several things, fast, verbose for sure, the brain of a marketing machine, has an ego it wishes you would not notice (its recommending itself because it’s a computer–{I can do this…better than you can}–I wonder is that anti-human?) and smart. Smart in ways (vast amounts of current data) that “normal” humans are not. That smart part is what is going to put humans on the back bench very soon. While on the bench, we will be able to read 59 cent novels that all feel oddly very similar.

Respect for Others

Both of my parents, T.D. and Ruby, grew up on farms in Oklahoma. Mother in Perkins, father in Sapulpa. Their experiences were not the same. Ruby’s life was on a traditional farm with a large family, T.D.’s situation was more unsettled. During that time rural areas were isolated due to difficulty in traveling and poor to non-existent communication. What developed was a social and economic structure in small towns that was very similar to larger communities.

My mother worked in a department store that provided goods and services to town residents and area farmers. While the store was much smaller than you would find in larger cities, it was a central point of identity for Perkins. Almost everyone in the area shopped at the store, which might have been Perkins Dry Goods, but I don’t recall the name.

Ruby described her experiences as wonderful and exciting. She probably was just glad to not be working “the farm” with its many on-going unpleasant tasks. She would dress in what would now be called a uniform, a stiff starched white blouse, and a dark long skirt. Not so different than what the women working in the distant John A. Brown’s Department Store wore in Oklahoma City.

Her environment in this small town was secure, comfortable, and isolated. It was the 1930s with difficult times for most, but her family’s farm was productive, and her parents were progressive allowing her to work outside of the home.

What they knew about big cities often sounded like a place to avoid. Of course, they also recognized that the future, when things got better, would most likely be in the cities. At the time small towns and big cities benefited one another.

What happened to make our circumstances today so different? Obviously, most small farms are gone. If you look at the history of many families, they were farmers. These were farms that mostly supported the needs of the family. In 1935, there were 6.8 million small farms with a possible 40 million living on those farms out of a total U.S. population of 127 million or 32% of the total population; today there are 1.8 million small farms with maybe 7 million people out of the U.S. population of 340 million or 2 percent. The small towns no longer have the small farms and their families to provide them with the economic energy to succeed.

The other factor that has made the rural versus cities divide so large is the demise of the small businesses that used to provide the identity to towns and the backbone of local business owners who supported local government. It was those local business owners who gave the town an ongoing identity and kept the town growing by demanding better schools, roads, and services. They provided jobs and helped establish a sense of pride toward your town. The customers were absorbed by the large national chains or internet shopping. No farmers, no customers equal no back-bone community supporting businesspeople.

Does that mean that soon the whole country will be only cities, of course not. The small towns will survive to one degree or another, but the people will become even more isolated and bitter about their circumstances, unless things change.

The change could be simple. Most people live in big cities because of work. Remote work exists today on a small scale—mostly city dwellers who work out of their suburb homes rather than traveling to the city core. If that model could be expanded to allow population shifts from city areas to rural areas with support services following, it would change everything for small towns. Which in turn would help relieve the pressing problem of housing costs.

This solution has been discussed and prophesized for some time; it appears this might be a reality soon.

The big question in the minds of rural people might be, is that a good thing? They currently identify most city people as demanding, obnoxious assholes based on TV and possibly personal experiences. Will we move the big city problems to every small town with cheap land?

I personally think there is a major shift coming, whether that is good will depend on the people; can we learn to be respectful, to be aware of others, to be appreciative and less demanding—hard to say; my bet would be no.

Keep in mind I predicted the Nuggets would win their second championship.

Happiness or Misery

There are days when you wonder if what you’re doing is worth doing. First, of course, you would have to define worth. During a personal questioning period, I tracked the hours I spent writing and promoting a book and calculated my hourly rate. Let’s just say it is not a rate I would accept in any “normal” job. The minimum hourly wage when I graduated from high school was $1.25. My book writing wage was only a fraction of that poor rate, considering inflation it might as well be zero.

Okay, now we’re back to worth. How about the joy of being creative, isn’t that worth something? Uh, no, it isn’t. The value of bringing joy to your readers—sorry readers, that is worth only a little bit—it’s something, but not much. (Plus, it is discounted further due to a few nasty reviews from readers who received the book for the astronomical price of zero).

Why do you spend time doing something that brings such minimal reward? Because you thought this was the one—it’s going to sell thousands and thousands of copies. Yes, sell hundreds of thousands, not sold at 99 cents or given away to people who never read them; actually, sell at a level that would exceed the piss poor minimum wage of $1.25 per hour.

After writing 14 books it is apparent to me the only worth is my sense of accomplishment. Not in money, but in that wonderful feeling you experience when you finish the final version. You feel very, very good about what you have accomplished. That is worth a lot.

The question then becomes is that enough? I think it is. I’m still writing. While I’ve sold a few, the $1.25 minimum wage looks good– so money is not the motivation. It’s something that cannot be measured monetarily.

My first book, The Bootlegger’s Legacy, was a story of two friends who were at a no-value stage of their lives and wanted something else. What they wanted, they thought, was money. In different ways they both found money, but only one understood the value of what else they had discovered.

One discovered happiness, the other did not. Starting their journey as friends their different perspectives eventually drove them apart. The deep sadness I felt while writing the book was because of their lost friendship. Through much of our lives we define worth then make decisions based on that definition. Often, we miss the whole point of a short-term life; thinking owning something has real value, while we overlook what does.

A Greek philosopher Epicurus said, “happiness is the greatest aim of life”, of course he lived 2,500 years ago, what does he know? Maybe a lot.

We are a divided country. Why do you think that is so? Politics has not divided us, it just reflects the divide, something else is causing us to drift apart. With couples that split, if no one understands, it is usually the classic “they drifted apart”. Meaning, I guess, they didn’t want to be together any longer and the reasons didn’t really matter.

When a country drifts apart there must be a reason. Something to explain what happened. My guess is that the reasons are not really very large. We are tired of being in a country that can longer seem to bond and enjoy the goods things we have. We are so focused on what is wrong, we forget what is right.

Not sure how to fix a relationship if it’s just grown tiresome.

I have suggested in some posts that the country needs to be run by younger people. Maybe some of our weariness is because it seems we keep doing the same thing over and over. Living in a rapidly changing world where the leadership looks a lot like it did fifty years ago suggests we have missed an opportunity to listen to a new voice with some new ideas. In the oddest of ways, we still seem to be struggling with issues that have the scent of the Civil War—from 150 years in the past.

Our country is depressed and needs a quiet week in the mountains to reflect on the good stuff and stop being so grumpy.

War and Prose

Recently I speculated that my father’s mother might have been a native American. That was not based on anything factual but only on my own memories and assumptions. I was wrong. After I wrote that, I decided to investigate—using the internet’s vast resources.

I can now trace her linage back to England, not a mention of any native American connections. Of course, that could also be wrong, but it is supported by documents and seems to be accurate within the limits of my short-term investigation.

What does that mean? Probably nothing. It does not change anything regarding my memories or impact any claim that has anything to do with reality. I was a teenager when my grandmother died. I only had a few memories of her, and this bit of data does not change those at all.

What it would change is my statement of a heritage that would explain my affinity towards Native American images. Well, that now can be explained simply; I like ‘em. Even if my heritage is English, Irish or something else—I like those bold, expressive images. (Although, those English family crests are not so bad!)

What was intriguing was all the last names going back just four generations: Hall, Pinkston, Hendrix, Combs, Morrow, Griffith, Glidewell, Howard, Kea, Young, Hamby, Cannaday and the next generation will add ten more.

My good friend (and relative), Stanley Nelson, provided me with some gentle corrections to my last post. He points out, accurately, that the tribes in Oklahoma were caught in a no-win situation with the increasingly difficult decision to pick a side in the hostile debate about slavery.

“Concerning the Civil War: the best historical evidence makes clear that leaders of each of the Five Tribes were recruited into the Confederacy via the “Godfather” method: either your brains or your signature will be on the declaration of alliance that marauding Secessionists from Texas had set down before you. The tribes had little choice because the Union had completely abandoned them, emptying its forts of troops and supplies, even after consenting with tribal leaders to leave helpful items like ammunition.”

Like almost all matters, the simplest explanation often loses the nuances that help us understand what occurred. I’m thankful to Stan for his better explanation of the circumstances behind the Choctaw Nations agreement with the Confederacy. He also provided me with an article by Zachery Cowsert appearing in “The Chronicles of Oklahoma” which covers in much more detail (yes, it is a few pages) this time leading up to the decision for the Choctaw Nation to sign their agreement with the Confederacy– which is attached to this post.

Why do we care about this obscured history? Could be most don’t, but I find it intriguing. Of course, this is research for my latest book, so it would be more important to me. I do think one reason to care about history is to appreciate the complications that drive all historical facts. Too often we are presented with a simple black and white version of history that ignores the more subtle underlining reasons certain things occurred.

Our history is very much like our present time. We know the simple, this is right and that is wrong, approach will often ignore the in-between solution, which breeds conflict. History, if we examine it in detail, will guide us to a better solution in the present.

My fiction writing does not require any examination of history. In most of my books there was no research needed. For this historical account of the Choctaw Nation in Oklahoma in the 1920s, it is vitally important—because if I don’t get it right, I will likely receive some not so gentle corrections from Stan.

It’s been almost 4 years since I published a book. Some of that time was, of course, not good for anyone; my issues were health and a lack of interest. The lack of interest was due to declining sales of my older books (it happens to most authors—no new books and you are soon forgotten) and the writing was taking increasingly greater effort.

Writing is work. I know that there are writers who can write a book a day (or so it seems), that is not my case. The fastest I completed a book was about 4 months but that was unusual, mine are normally much longer. The work part is when it is not going smoothly. If you hit a rough spot in the story and are having trouble writing through it—that’s when you will abandon the whole book. That’s what happened to me. Four times, four different books.

Now will I finish something? I don’t know. But I am writing again and that is what fixes the issue. This blog represents that need to write to be able to write. So sorry, but this is practice writing, I hope it isn’t a burden.

2016-v94-n02_COO_Cowsert Download

Uncommon Sense

Common sense is defined as “sound and prudent judgment based on a simple perception of the situation or facts”, by Merriam- Webster. My mother’s definition was probably different. In its starkest meaning, it was doing what pleased her. This was not a judgement of right or wrong, common sense was about doing what any reasonable person would do. There are guidelines, religious and otherwise, on what is right and wrong, but common sense, not so much.

Common sense involves those decisions that “anyone with any sense” would already know. No, you don’t jump off the roof. Yes, you must make up your bed. Of course, you will take a bath!

Most modern societies have volumes of books that define the “laws” regarding behavior that are not acceptable. There is ample documentation from religious groups on what is good and bad. But mothers seem to be the controlling influence on the understanding of “common sense”. Why?

Because this mysterious common sense is something already known, and your mom knows you know. “What were you thinking, you know better than to (fill in the blank), have you lost your mind—where is your common sense”.

Common sense is based on logic and experience. You logically know that stepping in front of a train is not going to be a good thing, experience has taught us that lipping off to Dad is not a good thing—all common sense.

Today we have access to every possible source of information regarding what is right, what is wrong and what is totally subjective. Every answer you can think of is supported, preached, and ballyhooed somewhere. We have so much information and knowledge that it has no meaning. Should I jump off the roof? Well, yes, that could cause injury, but if it promotes your spiritual wellbeing maybe you should. No way you should jump off the roof, it is against the HOA rules.

If you want the answer to be yes, there is a source for that. Want a No answer, yes there is another source. Ugh! Where is mom?

The best examples of common sense come from people who refuse to answer any question, pick a side, or state an opinion—that is good common sense; the best example of no “common sense” would be politicians. All successful politicians must have had difficult mothers. I’m sorry about that but I think it’s the truth—my common sense tells me so.

So, we all have common sense, it’s just that for some of us it goes into dormant periods leaving us with only other people’s opinions. The first rule of common sense is to not listen to other people tell you what you should know, do, not do and so forth. You must, as anyone with common sense knows, decide those things for yourself with your, of course, common sense.

I write murder mysteries. The most famous fictional murder mystery detective was Sherlock Holmes—the absolute master of common sense. Logic leads you to conclusions that you must believe—it is common sense. Holmes’ approach to solving cases was to gather facts, evidence and to utilize keen observation. From those facts he had to trust his “sense” that the conclusion was obvious, even if others thought otherwise.

Holmes must have had an exceptionally good mother.

Happy Mother’s Day

Normal?

Late April snow in Denver always feels like a shock. Of course, it shouldn’t since snow is possible even in May. But due to some nice warm weather we were ready for spring. The deck furniture was uncovered, the umbrellas were out, trees were budding, anticipating all that spring warmth. Instead, we got a few inches of cold snow.

Don’t get me wrong, I enjoy the changing seasons. Even the surprise snow is somehow part of the “real” world of weather. That world has good and bad consequences, it’s normal.

Human activities, both good and bad, are probably also “normal”. The ugliness that I believe is abnormal is violence. How can humans cause other humans such misery and pain without some sense of remorse? An easy answer is it’s evil, the devil, demons, something that is not human.

It does seem that a lot of political noise is encouraging violence. When the people who are shouting about violence are called out, they say they are not encouraging violence, even though they are. Eventually those people will drop all pretense and just state it plainly, violence is okay. Why? Violence is okay because it is directed at people who are not “normal humans”. Dehumanizing our enemies is how we deal with the contradiction of harming our fellow humans.

The other reason is power. To have control over other people seems like a common goal for humans. There does seem to be a genetic need to be the top dog (whatever in the hell that means), and to dictate to others what they will think, how they will act, who they will fear. Power!

Now we all know this is not everyone. There is some percentage of our species that wants power, maybe it’s 10% or 70%, I don’t know; but it is not everyone. Those of us who want power are obsessed by that need. They will do, and have done, almost anything to quench that lust for power. Killing your neighbor, not a problem, killing a few thousands evil ones, not a problem, lying about everything, not a problem—well, you can see the pattern. The lust is uncontrollable. The end justifies the means.

The odd thing to me is why the percentage of people who don’t want power follow these usually evil people. I don’t have an answer for that. At times I’ve thought it is because they are stupid. Ignorance is a common factor in many human decisions about almost everything. “I just didn’t realize it would end this way!” “I guess I thought they would not go that far!”

I’m probably naïve, but I believe most people everywhere want basically the same thing. A good life, with freedom to be what they want to be, live in peace, have an opportunity to succeed, to care for their family, have good health and wish no harm to anyone else. I also believe most people are tolerant, forgiving, and caring. Yes, my name is Pollyanna.

Whether that is the world or not, I will choose to live in the belief that those are the traits of most humans. Too often the exceptions to those qualities end up being leaders. Why the worst (occasionally it is the best) of us end up being leaders is a hard question to answer. Fear, of course, is always a reason for picking the bully to lead the pack, but does it really make any sense? Most bullies are little people who will only attack the weak, which usually ends of being that leader’s followers in the end.

On those few occasions when we picked the best of us to be leaders, it does not always work out. A good leader wants to make things better. Calmer, less chaos. A good leader wants to help everyone, not just the few with power. That becomes a threat to the power needy crowd. Equality is an ugly concept in their world. That good leader will always rub the power folks the wrong way and, therefore, they will attack, and attack, and attack; until that good leader is gone.

What should we do. We need leaders, but we need to be more cautious about who we choose. Respecting all people is the same as respecting ourselves. Hate is the enemy of happiness. Somehow, we must find a way to live together without violence and hate. Those rather common human attributes are too often the driving force that keeps us from achieving the best as humans, love, goodness, tolerance, forgiveness, and common sense.

My mother always insisted that her children were to be polite and respectful. Now that was not always the case (especially on my brother’s part), but she was consistent in her belief that those qualities were required of everyone. My mother would say the commonsense thing to do would be to pick your leader based on who is polite and respectful. Now she did not live in the social media world of anger and inappropriate language, but I would think she would still think it’s best to have leaders who are not jerks.

VOTE FOR ME, I’M NOT A JERK!

Category: opinion

Where the hell have I been?

General Buck or AI