Keboard Slips

I wonder if keyboard s slips an\re similar to Fru7edians slips if thgey arerveal somethinbg soubconsc cioius of just carelessness in the is world we whwere we are all all multi-=taskikng doing too muchn overwhlemed by tjhe with responsiobiolitierts and tasked outsourchiomng critical information no thinking running everybgting through spell check becaUSE EVEYRHITBNG IS HAPPENING SO FAST AND THE MIOND AND THE HANDS WERE NOT MADE FOR THIS KIND OF SPEED AND THEN FIUNGERS SLKIP ALL OVER THE KEYBOEARD, HITTING BIUTTONS WE VE NEVER YINBTENDED  to got to hiot and we don;t even bother to rereard or reconsoder or deliberate and would rathje rhavre the machines do ith fpor us because we still want perfection or at leats the appearance of perfectiopn and efficiency but lets face it what s done is done theres no going back this klife is one draft and frankly im okay with the mistakes because it m,akes me feel like there is a trace of humanity left  

The Supreme Court

Their arguments over the written word,

Mean one thing today, another tomorrow,

They hold court, high up on their bench, 

Black-robed Inquisitors, 

Hacking away at language with mallet and chisel,

To shape something, intended or not - 

Or like cloaked wizards casting Latinate spells,

Caped stage magicians, now you see it, now you don't,  

Thieving pickpockets who've studied the technique,

Practiced the sleight of hand, 

To lift your wallet and ID without you even feeling it.   

Being Played

I'm a very bad chess player. I stopped playing it when my older brother took it up when we were kids. He picked on me, as older brothers will, and took a certain sadistic pleasure in making me feel stupid. He taught me how to play chess - by which I mean he'd show me how each piece moved. Meanwhile he immersed himself in the game, read the books, learned some tricks, and then would want me to play with me, using me as his guinea pig. He'd mate me in three or four moves. It didn't take long before I decided chess just wasn't for me. There is only so much humiliation a person can take at the hands of his older brother. 

Since then, I've played occasionally, still badly. Chess is undeniably a fascinating and intellectually challenging game. And the advent of computers has made it safer to play ego-wise. You might get humiliated, but at least a computer doesn't take any glee in making you feel bad. 

It was way back in 1997 the chess master, perhaps the greatest player ever, Garry Kasparov, first lost to a computer. That was way before AI as we know it, and when computer processing power was the equivalent to horse-and-buggy compared to today's super-charged technology.

It's often said that great chess players think many moves ahead, and that's true. But another way to think about it, is that not only are they thinking about their next moves, they are also thinking about their opponent's responses to their next moves. You might say that not only are they moving their pieces around the board, but they are also moving their opponent's pieces. Every move the chessmaster makes is designed to make the opponent move in a predictable way. The better the player, the more they can manipulate their opponent, like a puppeteer pulling strings, forcing the opponent into making them do what they want them to do. At very high levels, chess is not just a game of strategy, it's a game of will power. 

It's perhaps the best analogy of what we can expect from advanced AI, and like playing chess against a grandmaster, most people don't stand a chance. AI has an infinite capacity to learn your game. It will know your game so well, that it will be able to play your game without you even realizing that you're not playing your game, you're being played.    

If you want to get the sense of what that feels like, play a game of chess against a computer. When you are a weak player like me, the point at which you lose control of the game becomes pretty obvious. In my case it's not long after the first few opening moves. Slowly the noose starts to tighten as the game spreads out. Until finally there is only submission. Of course the good players, can stave off that point longer. 

My sense is that in the game we are playing with AI we are still in the opening phase. The board hasn't quite taken shape, we still have agency and options. But not for long.    

Misfits

CLICK HERE TO HEAR THE SONG

We were misfits,

And we made rock n roll.

We knew we couldn't fake it,

We played it from our soul.

Some kids got good grades,

Others won the game. 

The rich kids had nice clothes,

The nerds had all the brains.

We were the kids in the corner.

Didn’t have many friends. 

We watched them from sidelines,

Waiting for the day to end.

We were shy and sensitive,

Outside the social circles.

Ignored and never noticed,

Or teased by pretty girls.

We hung out at the store,

We fingered through the racks.

We memorized the lyrics,

Knew all the album tracks.

We were misfits,

And we made rock n roll.

We knew we couldn't fake it,

We played it from our soul.

We learned to play the songs,

Of all our favourite bands.

It's how we found acceptance,

It’s how we took our stand.

We were angry, we were ugly,

We sang it strong and loud.

We did it for ourselves,

The singing made us proud.

We were misfits,

And we made rock n roll.

We knew we couldn't fake it,

We played it from our soul.

We played it hard and loud,

We played it night and day.

Sometimes we drew a crowd,

Most times they didn’t pay.

These days I couldn't say,

How it went so wrong.

One day the songs had heart,

Suddenly it’s gone.

We were misfits,

And we made rock n roll.

We knew we couldn't fake it,

We played it from our soul.

Misfits...

We played it from our soul...

Winnable Wars

People fight wars. Always have and always will.

They will fight them when they think they can win—and even when they know they can’t. That is precisely why, if wars must be fought, they must be winnable. Decisively so.

When wars are won decisively, peace—or at least stability—tends to follow. When wars drag on or end inconclusively, instability festers and new wars soon follow. If there has to be war, the best war is a short one.

One of the defining failures of the modern international system is that it has made decisive victory almost impossible. Global institutions meant to limit suffering often end up prolonging it. They place a finger on the scale for weaker or illegitimate actors, turning short wars into long ones and amplifying the human toll.

Nowhere is this clearer than in Gaza.

A non-state actor—Hamas—launched a war against a vastly superior military power, Israel. It had no legal authority to do so and no chance of winning. Its leadership knew this. Their real goal was to trigger a wider regional war. When that failed, they pivoted to Plan B: a propaganda war waged through global media and sympathetic international institutions. That plan succeeded.

By manipulating public opinion and exploiting humanitarian outrage, Hamas transformed what should have been a swift military defeat into a prolonged, grinding conflict. Instead of isolating Hamas for committing atrocities and taking hostages, much of the international community attacked Israel for defending itself. The result: tens of thousands of unnecessary deaths and no decisive conclusion.

Israel, acted as any state would that has an obligation to defend its citizens and territory. But its efforts were hamstrung by international hesitation and moral confusion. The United Nations, the International Court of Justice, and countless global commentators blurred the line between the aggressor and the defender. In doing so, they gave legitimacy to a terrorist organization and eroded the very principles they claim to uphold.

The international community should have acted unanimously to condemn Hamas and support Israel in dismantling it quickly and completely. A decisive end to the conflict would have saved countless lives, not cost them. The longer the fighting dragged on, the more civilians suffered, and continue to suffer.

History shows that clear victories produce clearer peace. The stability of postwar Germany and Japan came not from negotiation but from decisive defeat and reconstruction. By contrast, the world’s most unstable regions—Syria, Yemen, Gaza—are defined by wars that never quite end.

The purpose of quick, decisive victory is not revenge. It is order, and ultimately spares lives and reduces destruction. 

Decisive victory also serves as a deterrent, making the next war less likely, not more. Indecision and moral equivalence invite more bloodshed. Terrorists learn that they can survive by hiding behind civilians and global sympathy. 

Peace built on ambiguity never lasts. The world’s democracies need to recover the moral clarity that built the postwar order: terror cannot be excused. When a terrorist group launches a war, the international community’s duty is not to balance sympathy between the opposing sides—it is to ensure the aggressor loses quickly and decisively.

Because wars that are won end. Wars that are managed never do.

Municipal Politics - Dull No Longer

Suddenly municipal politics is no longer dull.

All across Quebec yesterday, November 2nd, is election day in municipal politics; 1,100 cities in total. This year many incumbents weren't running for reelection. They sensed what we all sensed. It was time for a change. 

Voter turnout in Quebec municipal elections is typically around 40% to 45%, which is significantly lower than in provincial or federal elections. 

In the most recent 2021 municipal elections, the average voter turnout was 38.7%. The estimate so far from yesterday was that voter turnout was on the high end of the average, around 44%. In our humble hamlet of Westmount it was 45%. That's very high for us. In the last election it was 25%, principally because the mayor and half of the 8 council seats ran unopposed. 

In 2021 only 11 candidates ran for council seats. This year 25 candidates ran, a record. In my district, which was for some reason the most hotly contested in the municipality, there were 5 candidates. The streets were plastered with signs, on every lamppost, and many many front lawns. My home was visited no less than 3 times by candidates or their representatives, and even this past Saturday, we were still receiving flyers in our mailbox. Last evening, after we'd already voted, we were visited by a couple asking us if we'd voted, and when we told them that we had, they handed us a sticker that said "Democracy Enjoyer". I've lived in this town since 1996 - all of this is unprecedented.      

So what accounts for the sudden engagement in municipal politics? 

As usual, I've got my theories.

Theory #1: Timing. The November 2021 municipal election took place while the pandemic was still happening, and it was only six weeks after the September federal election. No doubt this had a suppressing effect on municipal political activity, for both the potential candidates and the voters.

Theory #2: Political Cycle. It's been 8 years in power for many current municipal administrations, and many incumbents had decided not to run for reelection. In the regular ebb and flow of politics, this was definitely a 'change' cycle. 

Theory #3: General Interest. You could see the rising tide of interest in municipal issues from coverage in the local newspaper. I've been receiving the Westmount Independent for years and until about 2 years ago it usually went from my mailbox straight into the recycling bin. But then, one day, I decided to peruse the headlines, and suddenly found myself enjoying it, mostly because they were funny in a quaint, Lake Wobegone, sort of way. Examples; "Man Trips on Sidewalk Crack, Taken to Hospital," "Dog Electrocuted While Peeing on Lampost" (not making it up). I was also understandably interested in the police reports about break-ins and car thefts in my neighbourhood, which seemed to be on the rise since the pandemic. 

But it wasn't just me getting interested. The Letters To The Editor section had had two or three letters, mostly about whether dogs should be allowed to walk unleashed in the 'bird sanctuary' at the top of our hill - apparently its scares away the birds - and people being upset about bi-weekly garbage pick-up. In the last year or so the section exploded, publishing up to ten letters about all kinds of issues, related to two big matters: the administration's plan for the redevelopment of the derelict and neglected south-east corner of the borough, and fiscal mismanagement of infrastructure projects. The debate was ongoing and lively. I was even motivated to write in after October 7th, taking issue with how the local paper was covering the Gaza protests - which relates to Theory #4 -   

Theory #4: Anger. Perhaps the greatest motivating factors of political engagement are anger and fear, and you could feel both on the rise. It stemmed from how the current administration was handling the Pro-Palestine protests. The Israeli Embassy in Montreal is located in our borough. Ever since October 7th, on a monthly basis there have been protests on the street outside the building, which also happens to be a mixed-use commercial/ office/ residential complex, surrounded by other upscale residential buildings. The protests were usually loud, disruptive, and to many area residents, threatening and deeply offensive. Lots of residents were angry (and fearful) at how the city was handling, or rather mishandling the situation.

Finally, Theory #5: Local Democracy. I have this sense that in a world that seems to be spinning out of control, particularly on the international level, threatening democratic institutions, there is a desire to turn inward. Social media makes even the most farflung issues feel local. But in reality we have very little capacity to effect changes at that level. So, in response it seems like a lot of people are getting engaged in local politics, where they can make a difference and safeguard democracy.     

In Westmount, the fiscal mismanagement and the Gaza issue seem to be front and center. The newly elected mayor is a chartered accountant, with no previous experience in municipal politics. He's also Jewish, and so are 4 of the 7 newly-elected councilors. That may be coincidental. Only one of the councilors, as far as I read, made explicit mention of the Gaza protests in his platform. Although it should be mentioned that during the campaign one of the mayoral candidates came under severe criticism when it came to light that her law firm had defended in court the McGill campus Gaza protesters' right of free speech. She and her (Jewish) husband, run one of the most prominent constitutional law firms in the country. I frankly thought she got a bum-wrap, but it was clear many Jewish residents had it out for her on that basis.   

And the local election this year was not without controversy. In a year with so much engagement and enthusiasm it was curious that there was one council seat in District 3 that went uncontested, and the current councilor won by acclamation, for the 3rd straight term. One constituent in District 3 was upset by the situation and did a bit of sleuthing. He discovered that in fact there were two candidates who reside in District 3 running in the election, but they were running in other districts. This intrepid constituent did a little further digging and discovered that the 'official agent' - the person who handles the finances of a campaign on behalf of the candidate - for the two candidates, one was the current District 3 councilor's wife, and the other was his daughter.