The Man, The Machine ... The Presidency?

Georgie

        SAN FRANCISCO, Nov. 5, 2036, 5 a.m. (Combined News Reports) – The machine won: One that no grizzled politician likely ever imagined taking a campaign by storm.

That’s the result from yesterday’s presidential election that pitted Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, who co-founded the Unity Party with Tesla CEO Elon Musk, against Sam Altman’s AI-created invention and presidential candidate, a Democrat named “Georgie.”

Sam Altman campaigning

 

Just before 2 a.m. Pacific Time, with 98% of the ballots counted in California, and many states having tallied up their voting results, Georgie, with Altman as its vice-presidential candidate, appeared to be on a path to win at least 301 Electoral College votes, 31 more than necessary to win the White House.

 

Sources close to Zuckerberg and his vice-presidential candidate, former California Gov. Gavin Newsom, said the Meta founder is expected to make a statement at 10 a.m. Pacific Time today. They weren’t sure if he would concede the election, demand a recount or ask the U.S. Supreme Court to overrule itself to determine that only a human being, not a man-made machine, is allowed to hold the country’s highest political office.

Mark Zuckerberg online ad

    It wasn’t known, as this story was written, when Altman and Georgie would make a statement. 

 

            Last night, Altman confirmed that, if elected, he and Georgie would take the oath of office at the Capitol in Washington on Jan. 20, 2037, from Chief Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson.

 

            Altman’s AI-created candidate made this election one of the most controversial in the nation’s history, starting in early February, when the U.S. Supreme Court justices unanimously ruled against Zuckerberg and two other presidential aspirants, former Vice President JD Vance and former Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, to allow Georgie to run for the presidency.

 

            The Justices noted there was no language in the Constitution requiring only human beings to be president and that a machine, at 35 years old, the age requirement for the presidency, would, unless continually updated, likely be obsolete.

Voters in New Hampshire

 

            “They just allowed the Wizard of Oz to become the next president,” grumbled DeSantis.

 

            “We avoided a Biden problem,” Altman said, referencing the late president’s mental acuity issues.

 

            “It used to be a scandal or two could cost someone an election. Now we’re seeing a man-made candidate, with apparently no skeletons, with a very good chance of being the next president,” said historian Jon Meacham during an interview last night on CNN.

 

            “No one saw this coming – certainly not the Founding Fathers,” he added.

            

            Altman defended his invention throughout the campaign.

 

            “These times are more challenging than any human being, let alone president, has the brain power to solve. Georgie is smarter than anyone and will be the president to solve problems from food insecurity to schools and employment to relations with China, Russia, North Korea, Ukraine and The Middle East,” he said. “He’ll be more centrist once he gets into office.

 

            “Georgie is so smart I think he could be a three-term president,” he added.

 

            As the election neared, the polls showed voters who were employed preferring Georgie while those out of work wanted Zuckerberg, suggesting the unemployed had been replaced by ChatGPT and other AI-designed devices.

 

            Asked if Georgie would vote in the election, Altman replied, “Sure. Of course. I can’t imagine why he wouldn’t.”

 

            Altman took issue with reporters during the campaign when asked if Georgie was a euphemism for him.

             “Georgie is his own man, or woman or maybe just trans,” Altman said. “But either way, this machine, I mean Georgie, is its own being.”

 

            “Georgie will never get sick, need a day off, be hungry, require sleep, suffer from mental decline or be at risk of assassination,” Altman noted frequently during the campaign.

 

            When asked if power outages could negatively impact Georgie, Altman declined to directly answer the question, saying, “That’s why I’m here.”

Age Limits On The PB&J? Sacrebleu!

Joe Pisani, a new pen pal, and I recently swapped emails about the succulent joys and variabilities of that great American sweet and salty sandwich, the PB&J.

A retired newspaper editor, Joe recently wrote a column bemoaning his wife's arguments against consuming this notable American fare, determining, in her infinite wisdom, that he was too old for it. 

I wondered why anyone would suggest a sandwich, especially one as innocent as peanut butter and jelly, had an age limit for consumption. When does that kick in? 40? 50? 60? I'm not sure. Maybe we need to issue fake IDs – which states we’re younger than we are – so we can continue to eat these things well into our dotage.

After reading his column, I emailed him, saying that if her opposition continues, he should inform her that he's heading out for a Big Mac and fries.

 

"That'll make your PB&J look like health food," I wrote. 

 

And then, I added what I figured could be the coup de grace: "Tell her the PB&J is plant-based."

 

There are studies – from the University of Michigan no less – suggesting the PB&J could lengthen your life by more than 30 minutes. Compare that to the hotdog. It might shorten your life by the same amount of time.

 

Since these two delectables go hand-in-hand with American culture and identity, perhaps we need a follow-up study to determine if consuming both simultaneously negates the nocent effects of the hotdog. 

 

From what I can tell, health authorities aren't advocating for a moratorium on consuming PB&Js – at any age. They suggest, instead, using jelly without added sugar and whole-grain bread. There don't appear to be any guidelines on peanut butter, but those same authorities note it's low in saturated fat, making it a better choice than a hotdog, a hamburger, or that roast beef sandwich you may crave.

 

I always found the PB&J a joy, both in my youth, when I brought one to school daily, and, at times, during my professional career. It offers sanctuary from adult issues and pressing management problems – deadlines, revenue, profits, and occasional personnel problems.

 

My favorite way to make one is to smother one slice of whole-wheat bread with grape jam and another with creamy peanut butter. To add extra spark, I lay down a thick carpeting of butter before swiping the creamy peanut butter over it on the same slice of bread. 

 

Of course, my doctor threw a hissy upon learning about this, so, at his urging, I changed my ways. Now, the sandwich consists only of organic jam and peanut butter made with less salt and sugar – and, of course, organic, whole-grain bread. 

 

This latest version is a far cry from those dicey days when I gambled with fate. But there are times when we’re called to protect ourselves against ourselves.

 

What brings about the sandwich’s popularity?

The military, of course. 

 

The U.S. Army says the PB&J gained a foothold on the American palate starting with the Doughboys fighting in France during World War I; the National Peanut Board says the sandwich became part of the rations for U.S. military personnel during the next world war. And The Saturday Evening Post reports there are estimates suggesting “the average American” will consume about 3,000 PB&Js during their lifetime. 

Like many American sandwiches, and Americans themselves, the PB&J is malleable. Over the years, I've learned some enjoy pickles on theirs while others adorn their PB&Js with freshly sliced fruit. The combinations are likely endless for this great American sandwich.

 

So, make it any way you want. And remember – short of slathering it with butter, ham or some other animal protein, it's plant-based – and might even extend your life by 30 minutes!

 

Good luck, Joe!

The Conundrum & The Cancer: One Man's Story

If you want to talk about confusing, let’s talk prostate cancer.

The statistics show about 313,000 men will join former President Joe Biden as prostate cancer patients this year, reports the National Cancer Institute (NCI). 

 

Around 36,000 men die annually from prostate cancer, says the NCI, representing nearly 6% of all deaths attributed to cancer. Coincidentally, prostate cancer statistics mimic those of breast cancer in women.

What does the prostate gland do in a man? The National Library of Medicine reports its “most important function is the production of a fluid that, together with sperm cells from the testicles and fluids from other glands, makes up semen. The muscles of the prostate also ensure that the semen is forcefully pressed into the urethra and then expelled outwards during ejaculation.”

 

If my experience with prostate cancer is indicative of what the former President experienced, the Sturm und Drang over what the doctors knew about his health – and when they knew it! – plus a report in The Wall Street Journal saying he was last screened for prostate cancer in 2014, could be channeled into more meaningful conversations and better science.

 

Is there a way to improve prostate health? How can a man reduce his chances of becoming the next man hobbled with prostate cancer? That’s a sampling of some of my questions.

 

In 2018, the results from my annual physical, which included a blood test and an examination of my prostate, were solid. Other than a nagging cholesterol issue, I was fine.

 

I exercised regularly – and still do – and consumed a lot of broccoli and avocados, which, if nothing else, helped reduce the chances of becoming a cancer patient. Rarely did I eat red meat due to reading studies suggesting a possible connection between its consumption and prostate cancer. 

 

Sometimes my diet was a source of contention. At Five Guys, my sons often scorned my order while eating hamburgers, cheeseburgers, and drinking milkshakes. I’d order the veggie sandwich and water, instead. French fries were (and remain) my guilty pleasure.

 

So, as I entered my doctor’s office for my annual physical a year later, there wasn’t any reason to believe I had prostate cancer. All went well, and the physical examination of my prostate suggested everything was fine when she announced, “I can’t feel anything.” 

Life changed two weeks later.

The blood test showed an increased PSA (prostate-specific antigen) number, 4.4, which meant it was likely cancer cells infected my prostate. Within weeks, I had an appointment with a local urologist. 

 

Like my primary care physician, he, too, conducted a physical examination on my prostate with the same result. The blood test, however, showed an increased PSA reading, just over 5. During a follow-up phone call, he recommended a biopsy, saying it would show what was happening.

 

“While technically you’re a cancer patient,” he said, discussing the biopsy's results, “the good news is that you’ve got the kind of cancer that should remain confined to your prostate.” 

 

I was a Gleason 6. According to the documents, the cancer cells were benign.

 

After COVID-19 struck, there was another PSA test followed by a visit with the urologist. My PSA continued its trajectory, but there was no reason to take action. So, I continued doing what I always did: Exercised and ate broccoli and avocados copiously, sometimes with a side of blueberries.

 

In January 2022, I visited my urologist after a second biopsy. The results were different. I was a Gleason 7 because the cancer cells had spread.

 

“There’s a 2% chance they’ll leave your prostate and kill you,” he said, adding that my prostate needed to be removed.

 

That’s where he lost me. 

 

Even my restricted math skills knew there was 98% chance nothing was going to happen. 

 

Media Power

 

A week later, while listening to Bloomberg radio, I heard an ad for New York University promoting their urology practice, saying there was more than one way to fight prostate cancer.

 

In time, I arranged an appointment and had my records transferred, too.

 

The first thing I noticed about Herb Lepor, chair of NYU’s urology department, was his optimism and smile. He entered the room cheerful, saying that while my condition was something that needed to be dealt with, it was far from a death sentence.

 

He also offered some riveting statistics:

 

n  If a cancer-infected prostate is surgically removed, there’s a 43% chance cancer will return.

 

n  Through cryoablation, something he developed for prostate care, 80% of his patients were cancer-free two years after the procedure.

 

n  Radiation therapy was another option. While it’s effective at killing cancer cells within a prostate, it also risks bringing about cancer in the rectum. 

 

“But first, we need to do an MRI, so we know exactly what we’re dealing with,” Dr. Lepor insisted. “In fact, it’s standard operating procedure.”

 

After the MRI and running through the options once more, I decided on cryoablation, which freezes and destroys the cancer cells. 

Everything went extraordinarily well, and I thank my lucky stars, and the Good Lord Himself, for leading me to Dr. Lepor.

Today, based on follow-up MRIs and blood tests, I’m happy to report I’m cancer-free. 

 

This disease is never a one-and-done fight. I remain vigilant over my diet, continue to exercise often, and pray for good health. 

Each day, I recall three gentlemen who died from prostate cancer. One was a scholar; one was a former assistant secretary of housing in the Obama Administration; and one was a Navy Seal during the Vietnam War and, later, an executive with United Press International. Cancer doesn’t care who you are or what you do. It has one mission – kill.

 

I wish Joe Biden well in his fight against cancer. I hope he makes a full recovery, not only for his sake but also for his family.

Mom, Bill Maher, Larry David and Thomas Jefferson: The Lessons They Teach

Thomas Jefferson

My late, great mother, Barbara Page, likely wouldn’t approve of comedian Bill Maher’s words -- his language is too "colorful" for her -- but she’d smile at his actions, seeing them as far more powerful than meets the eye.

 

If you think today’s American politics are terrible, to me they seem similar to 1980, when the electorate found itself in a surly mood, having watched helicopters evacuate the country’s last diplomats, Marines, and members of the former South Vietnamese government five years earlier to U.S. Navy aircraft carriers in the South China Sea just prior to the country collapsing to the Communist North’s military forces. 

 

Adding to the fractious temper was the newest international imbroglio: More than 50 of the country’s employees – diplomats and military personnel from our embassy in Tehran – were Iranian government hostages – and their release didn’t appear to be assured.

 

The country's inflation rate wasn't doing Americans any favors either. At nearly 15%, it was the highest it had been since 1947. And, then, there were the gas lines of 1979, with drivers lined up for hours, perhaps even miles in some cases, waiting to fill up their cars. I was one of them.

 

As the Congressional Budget Office saw the U.S. economy in July 1979, “inflation has been considerably higher than projected … largely because of an unexpectedly sharp rise in food and fuel prices.”

 

Sound familiar? 

 

The country’s unemployment rate was also challenged, increasing from 5.9% in January 1979 to a peak of 7.8% in July 1980, and only just dipping to 7.5% by the November presidential election.

 

Those two benchmarks provided politicians with a relatively new talking point, the "Misery Index," which gauged the daily hardships Americans faced. Calculated by the adding the inflation rate (about 15% in 1980) to the unemployment rate (7.5% in 1980), it was over 20%.

 

These issues put people into one of two camps – either thinking the United States could return to greatness, make its power felt around the globe, including among its adversaries, or see the country as a has-been superpower, hobbled by a crippled economy, lacking the determination, tenacity and, potentially even the ability, to fight off a third-rate country in Iran let alone its only competing peer, the Soviet Union, which invaded Afghanistan days after Christmas in 1979 -- and was met by a U.S. response that didn't force an immediate withdrawal of Soviet forces.

 

As the days, weeks and months ticked closer to the presidential election, the country was vexed by its two choices: Either vote for change with former California Gov. Ronald Reagan as the next president or stick with what it knew, the incumbent, Jimmy Carter, who, despite his efforts, gave every appearance of being unable to control or improve events, international or domestic, especially the economy.

 

Making the presidential campaign intriguing – because he could be a spoiler for either Reagan or Carter – was a third choice, U.S. Rep. John Anderson (R-Ill.), for those deciding Carter didn’t earn a second term or that Reagan was too old or too extreme.

 

1980 was the first time I saw adults divided over the country's leaders, candidates and its future.

 

Perhaps the only thing separating them from today's adults was that they smoked and drank together – despite their differences. All too often what I witnessed, when my parents hosted these cocktail parties, was that, despite their opposing views, they agreed on the problems and their solutions were closely aligned, too. Better yet, their discussions were friendly. That alone might be the reason to bring back the cocktail parties of yore. 

 Cocktail Party -- 21st-century version

Long after these parties were over, I often asked my mother about the exchanges of differing views. 

 

“If we’d just learn to listen, we could learn something from one another,” she replied. “And we’ll also discover we’re not that far apart.”

 

That might be considered brilliant by today’s standards.

Barbara Page 

But today it’s too easy to isolate ourselves behind a phone, a laptop, tablet, or desktop to dish out insults to friends, frenemies, family and those we don’t know and never will, especially when it comes to politics.

Bill Maher

That was Bill Maher’s point when he had dinner with President Trump a few weeks ago in the White House. 

 

A self-described centrist, possibly a registered Democrat, Maher didn’t suddenly go MAGA. He and his friend, Kid Rock, share “a belief that there’s got to be something better than hurling insults from 3,000 miles away,” he said.

 

What was the point of the dinner? To exchange views civilly.

 

“I've had so many conversations with prominent people who are much less connected, people who don't look you in the eye,” Maher said, describing his meeting with Trump during a recent show. “People don't really listen, because they just want to get to their next thing. 

 

“None of that was him, and he mostly steered the conversation to, ‘What do you think about this?’ I know your mind is blown, so is mine,” Maher added.

 

“There were … moments when I hit him with a joke, or contradicted something and no problem,” Maher said. 

 

“At dinner,” Maher said, “he was asking me about the nuclear situation in Iran in a very genuine, ‘Hey, I think you're a smart guy. I want your opinion,’ sort of way. And I said, ‘Well, obviously you're privy to things about it I'm not, but for what it's worth, I thought the Obama deal was worth letting play out because we made Iran destroy 98% of the uranium and they were 15 years away from a bomb.’ 

 

“And then I said to him, ‘But we got rid of that. You got rid of that.’ He didn't get mad or call me a left-wing lunatic. He took it in. I told him I thought parts of his plan for Gaza were wacky, but that I … supported the idea that Gaza could be Dubai instead of hell,” Maher added.

I suspect Maher has many thoughts and observations about Trump, maybe even a few fears, too. 

But as he suggested on a recent show, if you want influence, it's imperative you converse not only with the people who agree with you but also with those with whom you disagree. Otherwise, you're curtailing your power and your leverage.

 

What Maher did at the White House involved more than just a nice talk with the president. It was a reflection of those who wrote the Constitution, especially the Preamble.

 

If We the People of the United States of America want better communities, a better country, one that solves its problems, one that's a shining example to the world of how democracy, tolerance, freedom, and rule of law work, and one that continues well into the future, we need more people like Bill Maher. He’s an outstanding example of a man who will meet, speak and dine with someone whose views are contrary to his, which is something Larry David might keep in mind. (Although, all told, I found his op-ed in The New York Times funny.)

Larry David

 

We have a choice: We can be the people our preferred political party and politicians want us to be – divided, ruthlessly insulting and demonizing those with whom we disagree and dehumanizing them, too, in the name of a scorched-earth victory that pulverizes any chance of reconciling with those who vote differently. 

Or we can be better: People engaging respectfully with one other – and listening too – whether the subject is politics, faith, sexual preferences, healthcare, the government’s role in society, taxes, economics, business, civil rights, China, Russia, and Iran, etc. The list is endless.

 

With the conservatives, I always feel like a liberal; with the liberals, I always feel like a conservative. In other words, I’m always in the middle, right where my mother was, hopefully always engaging with both sides respectfully and amiably. 

 

I’ve traveled through 47 states and met people on both sides of the political divide. After meeting men and women in those many states, big cities, small towns, and remote locales, this is what I've noticed: We have a great country.

 

It’s due to our people, our fellow Americans, no matter their creed, ethnicity, gender, identity, political views, so forth and so on. 

 

It’s found in Bill Maher, someone who can talk with Donald Trump, and many others with whom he disagrees, perhaps passionately so, and still be civil.

 

Maher's wisdom is rooted in Thomas Jefferson, who wrote:

 

I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. during the whole of the last war, which was trying enough, I never deserted a friend because he had taken an opposite side; and those of my own state who joined the British government can attest my unremitting zeal in saving their property and can point out the laws in our statute books which I drew and carried through in their favor. however, I have seen during the late political paroxysm here, numbers whom I had highly esteemed draw off from me, insomuch as to cross the street to avoid meeting me. the fever is abating, & doubtless some of them will correct the momentary wanderings of their heart & return again. if they do, they will meet the constancy of my esteem, & the same oblivion of this as of any other delirium which might happen to them.

 

~ Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to William Hamilton, April 22, 1800

 

Can you be more like Bill Maher and Thomas Jefferson?

 

I think you can. I think we better.