Herbie - A comment on life at Notre Dame

‍ I think back to the dog days of February at Notre Dame in 1960 when football was over, basketball was effete, the sky was leaden and trying to decide between rain or snow, the sun was vacationing in Naples and life had lost all meaning. I remember so well an event that nailed life and entertainment at ND in those days and in those years.

It was lunch time, a gray day in February, and the food was institutional. What was missing that day from the chow hall bulletin board was a fork stuck into a piece of animal flesh and then into the bulletin board with the attached title "Mystery Meat". It was a boring day in a boring time and even the faint hope of a chow hall food fight was absent. As I exited from the chow hall, otherwise known as the west campus student cafeteria serving many hundreds of students who had learned through bitter experience that in this food palace volume trumps taste, I spied a hand lettered sign saying "Come and see Herbie". There was an arrow at the bottom of the sign pointing east toward the freshman quadrangle. I looked at my friend and we agreed that this invitation was probably the best we were going to receive today, and for the rest of the month. We made a right turn and walked east.

As we walked, the number of excitement seekers increased as did the frequency of signage, all repeating "Come and see Herbie". There had to be substance to this Herbie viewing. This was clearly not a spur of the moment happening. As we walked along the south side of the main quadrangle, heading toward the freshman dorms, the crowds increased, the chatter increased, the anticipation and questioning of what we were about to see increased: this February dog day began to brighten with the prospect of "seeing Herbie!" As we drew closer, the signage had now added "Admission: 25 cents". Twenty-five cents? - a small price to pay for an as yet mysterious relief from a dark, damp ND February school day.

The line led to a freshman residence hall. I forget which one. At the door were a group of students, freshmen I assumed, collecting 25 cents per person for admission to the building. I assumed they were either business or engineering prospects  - the only groups capable of organizing such a campus wide event. The liberal arts devotees were too busy arguing about how many angels could dance on the head of a pin. Nobody objected to the admission fee. Quarters were jumping out of pockets into the doorkeeper’s cash box, my quarter included.

We entered the residence hall, by this time part of a long single file line. The excitement was high. What was this "Herbie"? Was it a malformed freshman with too many or too few fingers? Was it a roadkill with two heads? Was it a rare student specimen who was maintaining a 4 point average? How about a student who had successfully lured a girl into his room for a brief encounter - and could prove it? The line moved on and soon we were climbing the stairs to the second floor.

The spirit was happy, jovial, people who didn't know each other were talking to each other, everything was upbeat. Engineering majors were finding common ground with the Liberal Arts examiners of what is not  - and the Herbie answer was approaching. We were in sight of a door out of which were exiting people who had seen Herbie! They were joyous, they were laughing, they were satisfied. It was clear that their 25 cents had been well spent. We inched closer. The door that everyone was entering was to the lavatory - the John on the second floor! What was in this room? What could demand all this organization, this attention, this following and my personal 25 cent subsidized desire to see "Herbie"?

I entered the lavatory. Guides moved me toward a stall. As the last observer left the stall, I was helped to the stall. What was it? What in this God forsaken corner of Northwest Indiana in the dead of a miserable and forlorn winter, with football season over, could possibly demand my truly focused attention and that of hundreds of other excitement starved ND students?

I entered the stall. There, with the toilet seat raised, was Herbie. It was truly the biggest, the longest, the brownest turd I had ever seen. Herbie was magnificent, truly Best in Class. I was pleased. This was a quarter well spent. My February at ND was a bit more bearable.

‍ ‍

Man Think

You say “What do I know about how men think?”  I'll share some of my "man think" with you. A man's first level of attraction to a woman is visual - legs, hips, bosom, face - all in proportion and symmetrical, then add in coloring and vigor. Wow! Look at that! I want to get closer to that. At this point notice that I refer to this attractive woman as "that". Maybe that visual object hasn't even spoken yet, hasn't voiced an opinion, and at least is not drooling from the mouth. That woman thing could be dumb as a rock but discovering who she is the next step. All men, not wimps or gender deniers, respond this way. It is nature's clever way to draw a man toward a woman and promote the propagation of the species.

 But now nature's mandate becomes more complex. Greeting and meeting start to turn this visual object into a real woman - that opposite sex that simmers and even bubbles with friendship, excitement and promise. She can talk, string sentences together, smile and even laugh at the man's childish humor. At this juncture the human species leaves the lower species behind - those lower species who now lure the female object into a DNA sharing event either by force or constant urging.

 The man now tries to impress this new found woman thing who has passed the visual test and doesn't drool, with his array of attributes. This can include strength of arms, clever banter, financial status, athletic prowess, power position, national or local acclaim, an Aston Martin, a string of complements - deserved or not, and clothing that fits and isn't stained. Very little time has been spent on trying to find out who this woman really is. So far it resembles a game with the prize still an unknown.

 True two way communication starts to happen. She hasn't walked away from the man's self-serving list and display of attributes. She hasn't yawned, checked her watch, remained stoned face or dismissed eye contact. Communication is a many faceted gem. It includes speech, eye contact, body language, touching and a wide range of responses. Speech tops the list. Speech - words - define and expose what's going on in our minds and emotions. We exchange words and each exchange lets the other know more and more - and it isn't always good. We modulate our tone, knowingly or not, to speak softly, to pause, to express excitement or ennui. Good speech is like good music that flows in a pleasing cadence and meter, complete with appropriate highs and lows, toys with our emotions and conveys subtle meanings.

 How many times has eye contact flavored a conversation. I think just about always. Constant eye contact says "I'm really interested in what you say." A roving eye just about always signals disinterest or boredom. Sometimes lack of eye contact signals a very shy person or one with low self-esteem. Every now and then deep and penetrating eye contact signals a desire to know more and more, that I am deeply interested in who you are and what you have to say.

 If communication is going well you move a bit closer. If communication becomes trying you move farther apart. If she reaches out and touches your arm or, better yet, your hand you know that warmth has entered the conversation. Every now and then something wonderful happens - talking stops, eyes lock, and you touch each other. If it is a game then all signals point to two winners.

 Surely there are next steps but I leave that to your imagination. I'll stop here having told you some of my thoughts - you who says "What do I know about how men think?"

Diversity and Multiculturalism

Diversity and Multiculturalism – Standard Meaning: The practice or quality of including or involving people from a range of different social and ethnic backgrounds and of different genders, sexual orientations, etc. On its face this appears to be a fair way of doing things. But today a large number of people believe that diversity should be supported for its own sake. Diversity is just a word. It simply implies a difference between one group and another. It shouldn’t be a blind goal. Should we support the inclusion of a group that holds ideas and practices which are destructive to the larger and established group? In the same sense Multiculturalism is just a word. It simply implies acceptance of a different culture. But again, what if this other culture is the antithesis of our own? What if this other culture carries with it the seeds of destruction of our own established culture?

Emotion and Logic are Strange Bedfellows

Why is it that when we drink our emotions break out? Why do we then entertain thoughts and questions which don’t interrupt our sober moments? I know that when I have a few drinks, late at night and alone, so many unresolved things come to mind – flavored by emotion and they dare me to examine them, relive them and come to some sort of conclusion or resolution. This dilemma confounds me. Melancholy music, particularly Irish music, also turns me into a roiling mixture of taunting and haunting emotions.

 We are, I am, in a constant war between intellect and emotion. My mind tells me what is right and good for me based on analysis and reason, and my emotions free me from logic and consequence. Do what you feel. Ignore consequence and follow your heart – or your pride, or your passion, or your self-serving desires. But who can tell me what path to choose or what compromise I can make? Does my religion, my unperfected belief in God, my secular ethic or my inborn sense of what is right and wrong – conscience - guide me?  I’m at a loss.

 Decisions have consequence. Words, the script of thought, have meaning. Logic and experience tell me so. Emotions follow no rules. Emotions do pull me away from what my mind tells me. Should I risk the consequences that mind tells me will result when emotion pulls me from the “right” path that mind counsels?  But I do so long for the pleasures that emotion’s siren call promises. 

 Is there a reward for doing the “right” thing? But who or what tells me what is the right thing? Is it my conscience that could be the result of indoctrination by well-meaning but flawed people? Is it the Natural Law that could be the unerring foundation of human nature? Is it God speaking to me? Is it simply a charitable desire not to hurt the other? Help!

Biased? Who, Me? Available now on BOOKS page.

Introduction: I am a Conservative. As such, I shine a brilliant, coherent laser light on the political arena and political correctness (PC). I expose the mendacity, ignorance, stupidity, hypocrisy, and power-hungry lust of the Liberal Left. In the reflected glow of this brilliant light, I contrast the time-honored truths of Conservatism with the sophomoric gibberish of ideologic cults. With a sarcastic pen guided by the unerring logic of natural rights and common sense, I chronicle the last fifteen years of insane Leftist goals and the vapid woke social agenda. I examine the utopian claims of a global world order, the unattainable fairness of DEI, and the ridiculous state of identity politics. I am clearly armed with the truth.

But wait. Am I acting just like some of my Liberal friends who don't tolerate any questioning of their beliefs and who dismiss me as a racist imbecilic fool, an enemy of democracy, a source of all that is evil in their terribly flawed country? Why do I quiet my voice in public conversation so that my beliefs and lifestyle remain secret. I hesitate to put a bumper sticker on my car for fear of keying and a broken window. I lie to the polltaker because the walls may have ears. My Facebook and Google comments are scorned and at times deleted. I live in the shadows, my voice stifled, as if I were a gay guy in the '50s. My voice and beliefs, perhaps shared by millions, have effectively been marginalized by a cacophony of media and entertainment voices who rely on the willful ignorance of poorly educated millennials who are grasping for something, anything, to believe in.

Am I biased? Do I overstate my position? In order to answer this question both for myself and for my readers, I've recorded my thoughts, beliefs, prejudices, and opinions over the last fifteen years. Now I present them to you, the reader. You may be a far-right Conservative who applauds me. You may be a far-left Liberal whose hair I set on fire with my ridiculous rants. In either case, I hope to generate discussion-nonbiased, of course.

2+2 = 5 – Feb 20, 2021

I must admit that for all my sentient life I’ve believed that 2 + 2 does in fact equal 4. In the beginning I believed 2 + 2 = 4 because everyone else believed it. Then later I saw that number theory along with my fingers proved that two units of anything plus two more units did add up to four units. Then I went on to see that simple counting, addition, subtraction, multiplication, division, algebra, calculus, geometry, trigonometry, Fourier series, Fibonacci numbers, the Pythagorean theorem, Newton’s laws of gravity and motion, Maxwell’s laws of electromagnetic waves, Einstein’s laws, Quantum mechanics, all of established physics and my ability to type this on my PC and send it to you rely on the objective reality of mathematics. Mathematics is a branch of logic which is a vital branch of philosophy. A bunch of nerdy white racists in Renaissance France didn’t come up with all this. It is the result of thousands of years of analysis and thought going back to China, Arabia, Ancient Greece, and Europe.  But now I am told by Bill Gates that arriving at an objective answer is suspect and is nothing more than an example of white supremacy. How could I have been so stupid?

The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is bankrolling an activist educational group, Pathway, that believes math is racist and that arriving at an objective answer is an example of “white supremacy.”

 A conglomerate of 25 educational organizations called A Pathway to Equitable Math Instruction asserts that asking students to find the correct answer is an “inherently racist practice.”

A guidebook for teachers produced by Pathway called ‘Dismantling Racism in Mathematics Instruction’ ludicrously claims that mathematics “is used to uphold capitalist, imperialist, and racist views.”

Teachers are instructed to place the blame for non-white students getting answers wrong on “white supremacist practices,” which are truly to blame for the “underachievement” of minorities.

 Bill, let me ask you something. I’ve spent fifty years writing computer programs to solve problems. They either work or they don’t work. They either solve the problem or they don’t. This is a classic example of objective reality at work. Am I just a confused White racist who thinks that “being White” made them work? Please, Bill, stick to computers and leave educational theories to the racist left.

Touch and Love

Skin, a vital organ that covers your entire body. It senses temperature, motion, pressure, friction, vibration, stretching, texture and more. It protects you from extremes of heat, cold, pressure and friction. But much more: it allows you to feel another’s touch on your skin and allows you to feel your touch on another’s skin. This is touch’s language of emotion.

How sensitive is a lover’s tender exploration of your face, your brow, your eyes, your lips. How good is it to have a loved one explore your body with tender but firm hands and excite the emotions that follow. How exciting is that first touch, hand to hand, skin to skin, between two who are attracted to each other. To me it is electric – a thrill that seldom comes but must be recognized. 

How electric is it? What is the process that causes our senses, not just touch, to come alive? Is it even worth asking or should we just enjoy that feeling, that innervation? Sometimes simple closeness, proximity, initiates the same feelings. We’ve all felt it. You draw close to an attractive woman, maybe to whisper in her ear, maybe to help with her jacket. The closer you get the more something moves or flows in your body. Your mind and emotions are drawn to the moment. Something is going on. You haven’t yet touched this attractive other but you want to. This is action at a distance. This is a violation of what physicists call “locality”. What is the medium that transfers this emotion laden signal from her to you and hopefully from you to her? You haven’t yet touched but a powerful and demanding signal has crossed the gap.

We know that your brain, simple thinking, generates electromagnetic waves. We know that these very weak waves spread out from your head and diminish as the distance from your head increases – and amplify as the distance from the source decreases. These waves carry information. They carry the content of the thoughts that created the wave. Could it be that perceptive people can receive and interpret these waves? Or could it be that the waves exchanged between two people with an exceptional attraction are so strong that they are immediately recognized?

What about love at first sight? It happens. Two strangers meet and the attraction is immediate. What flows between these two?

Has God, has nature, has evolution devised a signal that will draw these two together and hopefully lead to the propagation of the race? I believe in the strange and beautiful desires and paths of romance. Poets write of it. Voices sing praises of it. Painters picture it. Some people meet and draw closer over time. Love blossoms. Closeness and touch play a vital role in drawing them together. Here romance is also worthy of the poet, the song, and the artist. Again, what is this strange and beautiful dance of closeness and touch?

I am a technical person. I try to quantify and explain this universal attractive presence of closeness and touch. Universal is the wrong word. People do meet, but for some friendship is the only result. Opportunistic sex may happen, but it is transitory and often ends with regrets. That mutual and indefinable flow of feelings, bonds, respect, and love prompted by closeness and touch doesn’t always happen. Why not? A mystery with no solution. Pity those who are only on one side of this flow.

Will the Save Act Disenfranchise Millions?

The other day I saw a Facebook that claimed:

“Yes! Now we have to oppose the SAVE act which will negatively affect our voting rights if passed! Write to your senators! And do not let them nationalize elections. The system works because it is so diffuse that no one entity can totally corrupt it.”

I jumped on that one and commented as follows:

Oh, wait a minute. The presidential, senate and house elections are national. In concert they define what party will control the government - certainly the presidential election. Please tell me what problem you have with the two simple “Save” rules. First, you must be a citizen to vote. Wow, is that off the wall. You mean that any non-citizen who strolls into this country should have the vote? Second, you must prove your citizenship with a photo ID. What a terrible burden that is. Let’s see: what current activities do you need a photo ID for?

Buying a Beer

Picking up a prescription

Renting a car

Boarding a flight

Buying cold medicine

Getting a piercing

Renting a hotel room

Entertainment tickets

Driver’s license

Marriage license

Donating blood

Opening a bank account

Joining the service

Entry to Democratic conventions

Credit cards

Mortgage loan

TSA pass

And more….

Are you suggesting that certain identities in our country are incapable of getting a photo ID? How racist. Please tell me how many adults you know who can’t participate in the activities listed above because they have no ID. Could it be that you want millions of illegals to vote because you assume that they will vote Democratic? Now there’s a thought. A classic Left complaint is that a married woman who takes her husband’s surname would become incapable of voting under the “Save” act. Tell me, how has her new surname prevented her from any of the activities mentioned above? Are married women too stupid to figure this out and be condemned to second citizen status?

Being a citizen and having the vote is a sacred trust. New citizens take an oath to support the Constitution and uphold the law. Existing citizens implicitly swear to do the same. Voting is not to be taken lightly and not left to the whim of the local voting district.

Note: 71% of Democrats, 83% of Independents, and 95% of Republicans say photo ID should be required to vote, according to Pew. A parting thought: If there was a stupidity test required for voting, you wouldn’t pass.

Ignorance, the 4th Estate, Education, Greed

On November 4th, 2025, the New York City voters, citizens or not, elected Vohran Mamdani as the mayor of their city. This was their choice in an open and free election. I asked myself, a third-generation citizen, “How could this happen?”. The man is a polished, thirty-three-year-old man with great hair. He is the son of rich parents which has afforded him the luxury of never holding a real job or starting his own company. He is a smooth talker and likeable. He is unfamiliar with the trials and tribulations of the vast majority of working people. So what! Many a citizen with nothing more than these slim cosmetics has been voted into a government office. Why am I concerned?

I am more than concerned. I am worried. Beneath that smooth and likeable façade, I know who he is. I know what he believes. He is a current day Karl Marx. Marxism is a social, political, and economic theory that critiques capitalism by explaining society through class struggle between the capital class (bourgeoisie) and the working class (proletariat). Marxism predicts that the exploitation of the working class will lead to a revolution where the working-class overthrows capitalism to create a classless, communist society where the means of production and distribution are controlled by the state. This guarantees a classless, equitable society where everyone is equal and shrink wrapped in Utopian happiness.

Mamdani claims to be a Democratic Socialist. This is a contradiction in terms. “Democratic” implies rule by the people. “Socialist” implies rule by the state. He denies that he is an antisemite. He clearly favors Hamas as opposed to Israel. His parents are Socialist/Marxist ideologues. He plans to tax the rich in order to provide free benefits to the underclass. He does not understand the roots and success of these United States. This is not hearsay. Public remarks, interviews and podcasts undeniably support these truths. All this begs the question, “Why did hundreds of thousands of New Yorkers vote for him?”. The answer is deceptively simple: It is a deadly combination of ignorance, the 4th estate, education and greed.

Ignorance

Ignorance isn’t bad or a character defect. All it means is that you don’t know something. If you’ve never been exposed to the Pythagorean Theorem you are ignorant about the Pythagorean Theorem. The same applies to your political knowledge and opinions. If you’ve never heard or examined the political views of the “other side”, then you are ignorant of what they offer. If you’ve never examined your own political side, then your beliefs are based on what somebody else tells you to believe and you are ignorant about your own beliefs. If you are ignorant about both sides, then your voting decisions will be based on your parents’ political party, what you heard on the most recent cable news, or what’s in it for me. Many NYC voters are simply ignorant. They didn’t know or care who is this Mamdani.

4th Estate

The term Fourth Estate or Fourth Power refers to the press and news media in the explicit capacity of advocacy, implicit ability to frame political issues, and in factual reporting. Though it is not formally recognized as a part of a political system, it wields significant indirect social influence. The derivation of the term “Fourth Estate” arises from the traditional European concept of the three estates of the realm: the clergy, the nobility and the commoners. The equivalent term “fourth power” is somewhat uncommon in English, but it is used in many European languages referring to the separation of powers in government into a legislature, an executive and a judiciary – and a fourth, the press.

In modern use the term Fourth Estate is applied to the press with the earliest use in this sense described by Thomas Carlyle in his book On Heroes and Hero Worship: Burke said that there were Three Estates in Parliament; but, in the Reporters’ Gallery yonder, there sat a Fourth Estate more important far than they all.”

In a democracy, or in any society where differing opinions can be publicly expressed, the Fourth Estate plays a vital and often determining role. In the modern day the news media – print, electronic and periodical – serves to report on political and socially related matters and thereby to inform the voting public. In the great majority of cases the news media, this Fourth Estate, is the only source of information that informs the voting public and therefore has a major influence on the public’s opinion and vote.

In a perfect journalistic world, the news media reporting would be clearly delineated between factual reporting and opinion. The world, including journalism, is not perfect. Many times what should be and appears to be factual reporting is flavored with bias and opinion – sometimes blatantly. On both sides of the political spectrum, Democrat and Republican, the reporter’s, or network’s bias creeps in. In visual news reporting we too often see the reporter’s “role of the eye”, a smirk, a condescending presentation, a gushing laudatory or a comment such as “If you can believe this!”. A particular and often overlooked source of bias is reflected in the reporter’s non-reporting of information favorable to the other side. This is an error of omission – it is a lie.

In current day reporting, bias is apparent. Around 95% of the mainstream media elite are Democrats. This is verifiable by voter registrations and by recorded political contributions. The bias is also verifiable by organizations which report on the percentage of reporting either favorable or unfavorable to the President and his administration. Across news organizations such as CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NPR, the NYT and WAPO the overwhelming reportage, in the high 90 percentile, is unfavorable to Trump. This in spite of the many successes of the Trump administration which go unreported.

But why would the media try to trash Trumpian ideas and control elections? The first answer is as mentioned above. They are overwhelmingly Democrats and carry the water for the Democratic party. The second reason is not as obvious. They’ve been educated in the secular and progressive schools on the East and West coasts. They live, believe and opine in a closed bubble where outside opinions and beliefs are dismissed as archaic and irrelevant. The time-honored beliefs about American superiority, Christian/Judeo values and honor have no purchase. We are fatally flawed, racist, and plagued by an inbred and illicit white superiority. The current USA structure and history is flawed and must be replaced by a progressive structure that guarantees equity for all. The third reason is closer to home. There is a swamp in Washington and in the elite media. Trolling around in this swamp may be a bit dirty but its monetary rewards exceed the occasional smell. Trump policies just don’t understand. A Republican is an outsider. Republicans will try to change the way things have always been. That just won’t float in the swamp. The media has no particular love for Mamdani, but he runs as a Democrat in the most influential city in the country. He was opposed by an Independent and a Republican. Enough said. The ignorant vote is formed by the media.

Education

If you are ignorant, if you aren’t swayed by the media, then what informs your opinions? It is education in all its forms. We all know that in the last 10,20,30 40 years the amount of public money spent on public grammar and high school education has increased dramatically. In lock step the tuition in state and private colleges and universities has kept pace and even outdistanced the 12k schools. What has been the payback? On an objective cost/benefit analysis, what are the results? They are dismal.

This country, the most advanced, the richest, the “most enlightened” of Western democracies, is falling behind not only other Western countries but even some third world countries. Our children are losing pace with a good portion of the rest of the world. How can this be? Our per student expenditure grows each year. Our teacher salaries now exceed, on average, private sector comparable salaries. We have a glut of school “Administrators” whose job it is, I assume, to promote quality education and control costs.  It is abundantly clear, beyond argument, without challenge, that money beyond subsistence levels and even in abundance does little if anything to improve education results.

Not only has education lost ground as regards basic learning, it has also been polluted by DEI at the high school and graduate levels. No longer is the wonderful and classic Judeo/Christian history of this country a center of focus. No longer are the truths of the Declaration of Independence and the value of our Constitution stressed. No longer are the miserable failures of Socialism and Communism highlighted. Our younger voters have no living memory of, and have not been taught the wonderful history of our country. Little wonder that they are prey to the sophomoric and Utopian promises of a Marxist Mamdani.

Greed

This word, greed, has an unmistakable meaning. It implies that you “Should not covet thy neighbor’s goods.” You shouldn’t seek money, goods and services that don’t belong to you. But what about those who think that they have a right to another’s goods, that equity is the prime government value, that the rich class is undeserving of their gains? These people have no problem accepting Mamdani’s promises of free this, that, and other things. Merit be damned. I deserve this free stuff.

Look no further for the answer to Mamdani’s election. It is a deadly combination of ignorance, the 4th estate, education and greed.

‍ ‍

Is AI Biased?

Consider the question “In the modern-day USA which is the better social standard – equity or equality?”. The current day popular wisdom would come up with different answers depending on who you asked. But what would AI, in the form of ChatGPT, come up with? And could you trust the answer?

AI is based on an all-inclusive database which contains a digitized record of any and all books, articles, opinions, lectures, pronouncements, and ideas since the beginning of recorded history.  There is no value judgment, nor should there be, on the inclusion of any of the above in the database. If it is extant and can be digitized, it will be included in an ever expanding and huge AI database. Note that this includes pictures and graphic presentations. The AI engine, a series of algorithms similar to our brain’s neural network, examines the database in an attempt to answer an inquiry. These algorithms do not and should not make any value judgements. The answer is based entirely on the past. It is based entirely on past and digitized human thought. It includes Newton’s, Maxwell’s and Einstein’s theories. It includes our Constitution and works on all the “isms” – Socialism, Communism, Fascism, and more. It includes the philosophical ideas of the distant past and present. It includes thoughts about love, hate, lust, and charity. Think of this data base as an immense and technically unlimited human brain that has read and stored every idea since sentient thought began.

The contents of this database can be split into two types. One type of information reflects physical, objective reality – the immutable laws of nature, molecular biology, the structure of a cell, the fact that 2 + 2 = 4. The other type of information picks up where objective reality leaves off. Here reside thoughts about emotion, fear, love, hate, good, evil, racism, consciousness, truth, falsity, government, power, greed, lust, and God. There is no firm ground here.  This information is the stuff of life.

Now let’s talk of bias in the database. If I ask a question involving objective, physical reality there should be no bias in the answer. Here AI should include only data that is true and verifiably accurate. If I ask “Does water expand as it freezes?”, there is only one answer, “Yes, it does expand.” If I ask what is the best defense against a newly discovered pathogen, I expect a non-biased answer I can trust because our AI data base should contain factual information on DNA and molecular biology.

But once I stray from inquiries involving objective reality, I no longer stand on firm ground. If I ask, “In the modern-day USA, which is the better social standard – equity or equality?”, I can expect an answer based on opinion. But whose opinion?  And since AI should not make value judgements, what do I make of the answer? Here bias enters the game. Since AI depends entirely on its data base of past thoughts and events, I can expect the AI answer to reflect the preponderance of content that favors, supports, or mentions either “equity” or “equality”.  This bias is similar to a human being (HI = Human Intelligence) answering the same question. This human will respond based on the preponderance of information he has observed in the media – TV, newspapers, journals, entertainment, …… If most of what he has observed favors or mentions “equity”, then his answer will favor “equity”. Conversely, if most of what he has observed favors or mentions “equality”, then his answer will favor “equality”. Note that if we are following AI rules, then our human observer cannot make a value judgment. He is limited primarily or even strictly to the amount of information he observes. If he has observed 100 favorable mentions of “equity” and only 60 of “equality”, then his answer wiIl be “Equity is the better social standard. “ It boils down to a numbers game. In this very real analogy, the AI data base is biased towards “equity”.

‍ ‍Now let’s assume that our human has asked AI to answer the question and AI says “Equity is the better social standard.” Now our human writes a paper which reflects this answer. The AI data base captures this paper and adds it to the number of instances mentioning or favoring “equity”. Now AI becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. The more it sees of “equity”, the more it projects its numerical dominance. AI has become even more biased.

‍ ‍