Why I Changed My Mind about Nunberg

Yesterday morning, I watched the entire half-hour video of Sam Nunberg’s interview with Erin Burnett on live television, which may have been a questionable use of my time.

However, I learned a lot — about the effects of being honest and unscripted on live television.
At first, it seemed like totally self-defeating, out of control blather – Nunberg’s repeated assertion that he wasn’t going to sit for 80 hours had me in stitches. He’s going to sit for however many hours they want him to sit for — thinking he was above the legal system, I thought, was really ignorant.

However, in the aftermath, Nunberg clarified to reporters later today that he would spend a couple of days in jail just to sweat everybody, and then produce the material that he’s been asked for.

The more I thought about it, the more Nunberg’s outrage that took over the media cycle resembled my own rant later in the morning to a rep from the extended warranty company that robocalls me every other day — a fierce, sometimes profane protection of one’s productive capabilities and resentment for intrusions that seem labor-intensive and unfair.

“I have work to do,” Nunberg kept saying. “I’m not going to sit for 80 hours.” I feel your pain, fella.
When he talked about the labor-intensive process of going through introducing his past e-mails to the Mueller investigation, he was right about the labor-intensive part of it.

Maybe I’ll just give them my password,” Nunberg said at one point, echoing, perhaps, legions of those audited by the IRS in the past who came up with this kind of passive acquiescence that puts the labor burden on someone else. You want my records? Go get them.

I’ve come to a different perspective about a lot of the rest of it, too.

My first thought on Nunberg admitting blatantly that Donald Trump “probably knew” about the Trump Tower meeting Russians and his assertion that Trump “probably did something” also seemed reckless, erratic and self-defeating. Isn’t Trump going to hit him back? I thought.

In the light of day, though, it seems like maybe he’ll get away with it, and maybe it wasn’t such a bad call after all.

Think about all of these shady personalities who are getting targeted by the federal investigation. One of the commonalities between them is that they’re not talking. Manafort or Kushner or any of those guys wouldn’t come out and start blabbing on live TV about what they think about Donald Trump – and maybe if they did, we would respect them a little more.

They wouldn’t do that partly because any continued defense against the special product prosecutor hinges on taking the fifth in a lot of very specific ways. Of course Trump himself is all about blurting, but even he has some limits and some filters that work in the sense of self-preservation to keep him from spilling his own beans in ways that reporters and law enforcement would jump on.

As I continued to think about what Nunberg read into the public record today, I started seeing the spate of news articles coming out around this problematic daily news cycle — calling Nunberg things like bizarre and erratic and disturbed.

I even saw some journalists politely wringing their hands about the airing of Nunberg’s statements — questions around whether or not he was being exploited or whether there is a sense of decorum that should exist in the press.

This seems particularly disingenuous to me and furthers my interest in promoting the kind of transparency that Nunberg brought to the table.

No, there shouldn’t be decorum, and there shouldn’t be any kind of curtailing of this kind of public testimony. If a person is willing to say those things on the record — you should let them — actually, that’s part of your responsibility to let them, to get those words out there – because that’s really what’s up, not the whitewashed spin coming from White House press flacks. Why do you think everybody read Wolff’s book?

Another thing that the Nunberg case brought to mind is how damnably reticent our print and broadcast media are about reporting anything that’s sensational at all. So much of our news is rigidly curated — drained of all cadence and color, scripted to a T. A quote that makes somebody look bad will be pulled out — because it’s bad for business. Acrimonious exchanges are edited in the interest of not inflaming the readership.

Meanwhile, the civic fabric of our country is in flames. Everybody’s messing with everybody else, and chaos is the order of the day. But you won’t really get that from TV, and you definitely will not get it from most local newspapers. Oh, you’ll get headlines with a two second sound bite – but you won’t get the kinds of backbiting, huckstering and all-out melee that are the hallmark of this administration. They’re usually behind the curtain.

Maybe Nunberg, the political trickster, was onto something. He just doesn’t want to hurt his friend Roger who, as he points out, he’s been through a lot with. He doesn’t feel like being bothered with a bullshit subpoena. He decided to put it all out there – even though it makes him look kind of like a moron. In the jaded halls of Washington, there are worse ways to go.

Just the Tip of the Spear

(Note — with the unanticipated incarceration of our man Ken West in Charlottesville, Leading the Horse has been forced to go further afield in search of prophecy. What we’ve found may surprise you!)

A new report from Jonathan Kleck makes some startling revelations about the supernatural reality of our world.

“Okay, guys, here we go.” Kleck starts, sitting in a living room wearing a knit cap and headset and matching turquoise shirt. “This video is — they have announced the coming of the Antichrist. They announced it publicly three times already — right in front of your face.”

Directly after this startling announcement, Kleck shows a short video of the 2016 Super Bowl performance by Prince, referencing “the Twins,” two “beautiful dancers” who are on stage with the now-departed superstar, and pointing out the hive or hexagonal patterns created by stage lights in the video.
Having dispensed with this bit of knowledge, Kleck moves on to another video by youtube user Dave Shadow showing that what he calls a “tip of the spear” seems to be superimposed over the down markers in the game.

Kleck notes several times that his friend ‘Billy Skywalker,’ who is seen as Billy Montoya on the youtube channel shown on screen, has a tip of the spear on his desk, and apparently served in Okinawa.
The general message, obfuscated by Kleck’s repeated recitation of simple facts and names, seems to be that a mysterious spear has been injected into the televised rout of the New England Patriots this past February by the underdog Philadelphia Eagles.

(see background below)
In his own tip of the spear narrative, Kleck repeats the words “tip of the spear” several dozen times, to rather annoying effect.

“The Lord told me to do separate tip of the spear videos,” Kleck said. “Don’t do them all at once — do repetitive.”

Kleck narrated an incident in which he called Billy, who told him he had not called, even though the number was in red on his phone, and said Billy had a tip of the spear sitting on his desk at the time.
“Let’s just talk — what are the odds?” Kleck asked, noting that as he drove, he saw the words “spear spear spear spear” on a set of political posters.

In an interesting heightening of Kleck’s verbal repetition, the picture shown of a tip of the spear from Okinawa actually has the words “tip of the spear” written on it, engraved in its forged surface.
“Three times — they have announced the arrival of the Antichrist,” Kleck said. “I will prove it — I’ll use absolute empirical, irrefutable data to prove it.”

Telling his audience to ‘sit tight’, Kleck said it’s important not to hurry but to be ‘slow and steady’ in the deliberate revealing of the prophecy.

“To the people who are going hey, why do you keep going over the same material?” Kleck said, “I do it because … has anybody else on planet earth been able to show everybody what Original Sin was?”
He then answers his own question with a muted shake of the head and a soft “no.”
“It’s because the Lord is delivering it,” Kleck continues. “I’m just a conduit…so when you question it … why do you keep sharing it? … well, I guess it’s because the Lord keeps using me to show it … that’s the answer.”

TO BE CONTINUED….

Background — the ‘spear of Longinus’ or ‘spear of destiny’ is a name for the historical spear that was said to end the life of the Messiah Jesus Christ at his crucifixion at Golgotha. Historians believe that the use of the spear by Cassius Gaius, the tenured centurion, angered the authorities in Rome, as it was done without prior authorization. Legend has it that Joseph of Arimathea secreted the spear away, and that it was subsequently used by various world powers, starting with Constantine, to acquire broad territories in battle.
In more recent history, it is claimed that a young Adolf Hitler was much enamored with the spear as it was displayed in the Hofbrau Museum in Austria. During the ‘Anschluss’ or annexation of Austria by the Germans, Hitler allegedly liberated the spear of destiny and brought it to his headquarters, the ‘wolf’s lair.’
It is said that whoever wields the spear of destiny will take over the world.
Hitler didn’t take over the world — but he came pretty damn close.
More of the history of the spear of destiny can be found in an obscure book by Trevor Ravenscroft, which we have acquired.

The Memo

When I finally got to lay eyes on the Nunes memo, one of my first thoughts was “Oh no, these people are going to have to read (or pretend to read) — a lot!”

Disclaimer — this is not a post about the illiteracy of pig farmers in Alabama, although as a dirty libtard, you might think that I would be inclined toward those. This is an honest look at the mental struggle that it will take to present the memo as anything other than a ridiculous and desperate power play. In the immortal words of Alec Baldwin as the Grim Reaper in Glen Garry Glen Ross: “You think I’m f—king with you? — I’m not f–king you. I’m here from downtown and I’m here on a mission of mercy…”

Getting back to the original point — anyone who wants to suggest that the largely Republican leadership of the FBI and DOJ are corrupt or in a tank or anything else like that will have to memorize key words and catch phrases like “Fusion GPS” and “Christopher Steele” and, well hell, “Devin Nunes” – none of those trip easily off the tongue — but beyond that, they’ll have to read a document that, to our amazement, has been entirely de-classified from top secret — but reads more like a Verizon contract than a spy novel. If you like Tom Clancy, you’re still going to hate the memo.

If you really want to get to the bottom of this, listen to Jacob Weisberg and Dahlia Lithwick on Trumpcast as they discuss what all of this really is — Lithwick says the memo reads like a Fox news report — to me, at first reading, it reads like a bunch of what will be incomprehensible legalese to the majority of the Trump base. Unlike the words of our great fearless leader, the memo doesn’t have a lot of simple action verbs and four or five letter words. It’s quite a dense chronicling of a very bureaucratic procedure that’s really not very exciting, and at the heart of it, not very straightforward.

One of the points that I would most like to make is that we’ve spent years talking about how all FISA court orders are rubber-stamped. We’ve spent years talking about how the Patriot Act lets the government spy on us. Even Rand Paul, that perennial Paul Revere of the Republican arena, routinely tells his followers how intrusive government surveillance is wrong — but we don’t go cherry-picking some random FISA warrant to make our case. Instead, we rely upon that stoic cynicism that has always characterized many red-blooded Americans on the right and the left. We just don’t like being spied on, but we know that we’re being spied on, and we know that the bureaucratic spooks are doing their work behind the scenes. We don’t demand to lift the curtain, and certainly the central question is: why the hell would we lift the curtain in this specific individual case? The answer is not because somebody like Andrew McCabe, who is as white bread middle of the road as it gets, is somehow embarking on some Machiavellian conspiracy to deny a good man his due. The answer is because so many of us have bought into the clownish lies of this fool president that we’re willing to go down this garden path with him. At least some people are. I’m not.

Lithwick and Weisberg also talk about what I feel is the textbook example of how this is going to play “in the heartland” — how people like to use simple phrases and names out of context to try to support opinions that are pure bullshit. They intimate how the name ‘Rod Rosenstein’ sounds vaguely Jewish, and how an uninformed base (really the uninformed base par excellance) might try to paint Rosenstein as a Democrat. All of this also gets into the strange fusion of the traditional right and neo-Nazis by someone who, oddly enough, has Jews in his family, which is also part of his cabinet (see Michael Wolff’s book.) But that’s beside the point. The point is that in the heartland, Rod Rosenstein is going to become shorthand for a pointy-headed Jew, and not known for the actual bureaucratic record that the bureaucrat possesses.

And to get back to the process — the process is going to, in this particular instance, be seen as “corrupt,” (gasp) although anybody with two brain cells to rub together knows that the FISA process is always sketchy, and that when it comes to trying to parse the ways that our government surveills us, it goes no further than something our grandpas always said — you can’t fight City Hall.

Mr. Trump went bravely out to fight City Hall, and his team is marching behind him with pitchforks, but they really don’t want to read the memo. Many of them will not read it — they will parrot phrases that their pastors or somebody told them in some kind of warped or declined context, phrases like Fusion GPS and Christopher Steele and Sally Yates and Rod Rosenstein. They will speak these names and events and places as if they were some liturgical sacrum of the medieval age, without knowing what they mean, but with all the passion of a 13th century chorister. I’m getting really tired of this bullshit — how about you?

Two Waterworlds

Ken West is excited about a new idea that he has added to his plan for “the best science fiction movie ever.”
In order to guard his secrets from anyone who has not signed a non-disclosure agreement, West is “being coy” but it has something to do with the moons of Jupiter and Saturn, in which, he says, he has identified “two waterworlds.”

West has also been suggesting that North Korea is due to develop nuclear weapons, and that the United States will attack the peninsula on the morning of Feb. 4 – so if that happens, well, it’s been nice to know y’all.

Someone’s in the Kitchen with Joanie Part II

24 hours after his initial dire report of shady goings-on within his household, Ken West reconnected to provide an update, finding himself “back with his woman” and only a few feet from an “evil humanoid” in the next room.

“He rants and raves,” West said of the interloper, who his girlfriend has been renting to for several weeks. “He is of the dark matter.”

West, who has been trying to evict the third party from the house, noted in quiet tones that he is “being coy” to avoid further conflict.

“He’s a door away,” West said. “I’m a few heartbeats away from him – he’s absolutely evil. He killed a man’s bull.”

Last night, West said, an undercover cop showed up at the 7/11 to “parlay” after which West himself retired to a hill above chicken alley, where it subsequently rained.

“All my shit got wet,” West said.

At 2:00 am, he said, he was on the hill behind KFC drinking a beer when his girlfriend, who has a restraining order against him, showed up.

“We connected again,” West said, speaking of a serendipitous happening just after their reunion.

The woman, he said, lost her glasses in the ivy.

“Her glasses fell into my hands out of the sky – as I was praying for her glasses,” West said.

West took the coincidence as a good omen for the plan to oust the “white supremacist” and tauricidal maniac.

“When she does (evict,) we’ll get the Internet back on, and turn this back into a peaceful house.” West said.

Someone’s in the Kitchen with Joanie

Someone is “breaking bad” in Ken West’s house.

Appalachia’s premiere itinerant carpenter is “roughing it” tonight to avoid a legal dragnet or other unpleasant circumstances, as a career criminal and alleged white supremacist mixes up a batch of one of Virginia’s biggest exports, hanging plastic over the windows to mask the smell of the caustic chemicals that produce methamphetamine.

That’s according to the latest third-party word on the street, delivered with a dose of West’s usual savoir-faire.

“It’s pretty twisted,” West said Jan. 27.

Providing a tangential history of the chef’s relationship with an unnamed woman, West seemed to imply that as both paramour and careerist, the man currently practicing enterpreneurial dark arts in the home West previously shared with a woman he used to call “the female Jesus” has leaned toward chaos for many years.

“He killed a bull and spent 20 years in prison for it,” West said, describing the value of this type of livestock relative to its genitalia. “That’s a prize project on the farm – the one that produces more, more, more.”

In somewhat Lebowskian fashion, West assured this reporter that the aggression will not stand.

“I’m having this shit shut down,” West said.

Having delivered this news, West moved back into an appeal to national disarmament of a kind, reminding his audience that in many parts of Europe, as well as Great Britain, police carry batons instead of guns. Citing tasers and pepper spray as non-lethal alternatives, West slammed Americans for clinging to their guns in an age of mass shootings, mass hysteria and ultimate tragedy that is all around us nearly every day. Mixing up news of a single Kentucky homicide of past days with a larger school shooting emerging in today’s national media, West implored the people of America to think more carefully about gun culture, and the possibility of preserving the right to bear traditional shotguns and .22 rifles rather than AR-15s. Cautioning the youth of America on the danger of treating guns like toys, West recalled the sad story of a boy in the neighborhood of his youth known as “Bobbie Beard” who, after improperly testing a pellet gun, suffered some loss of vision and “became a recluse.” West invited the public to look up the incident in “the history of Lexington Virginia.”

Ending his report with a story from his days of being “shang-haied” into the conflict in Vietnam, in which he got no further than basic training stateside, West described a man with indisputably simian features who he chose to call “Neanderthal-man,” who he said acted out of a mysterious hostility towards him during drills where the “platoon” of 48 men were practicing hand to hand combat with sticks, preparing to fight “chinamen, vietnamese or whatever.”

Some of the grunts, West said, were taking bets as he and the Neanderthal-man fought to an eventual draw where both sustained significant injuries.

At “graduation time,” West said, his opponent came at him for a rematch, and was rewarded with a hard right to the face.

West declined to confirm whether his platoon dropped acid or listened to Credence Clearwater Revival in the barracks.

Returning to news of the present day, West refered to himself as a “master snitch,” indicated he has been an informant for many years, and said he has a number of friends in the local police department who know him by his first name. Repeating that he is “very popular with the police” and “very popular in the neighborhood” West said he is always on the lookout for methamphetamine abuse.

“When I see these bad dogs that ruin their teeth,” he said, “I take them out. This dog is going down.”

West said the Jefferson Area Drug Enforcement team is coming on Monday.

One of those individuals in collusion with the lab runners, West said, has a restraining order against him after a religious argument in which he tried unsuccessfully to convince her that Muslims have the same religious rights as Christians.

“I told her specifically: we’re all right with God,” West said, claiming he got a court judgement for his trouble.

West also said the female of the group was aggressively pursuing him to use his food stamp card, and that the whole gang wasted a refrigerator of good food because “it wasn’t potato chips.”

In the meantime, West, who likes to cook when he has access to a kitchen, has found a place in what he calls “chicken alley” where a KFC, a Popeye’s and a Bojangles serve adjacent customers, where he can get sustenance. Earlier this evening, he said, he was offered some children’s leftovers, and then received a large meal free of charge from some other patrons. “I ate what I could,” West said. “I wanted to give the rest away.” Eventually, he said, he found a man outside who has hungry, and “paid forward” the good deed.

“I’m so popular in the neighborhood,” West said. “I want to be popular in the world. I want to see the children of the world fed.”

Mr. West Goes to the Movies

Ken West is taking a break from discussing the news of the day to talk about one of his favorite subjects: modern film. During the day Jan. 22, West phoned in two important movie reviews, both of them in the genre of comedy sci-fi.
The first film impressed West so much that he phoned the newsdesk several times to deliver his review, often repeating parts of the plot and describing key characters more than once.

 

“People get on me for repeating things,” West said. “How many times have you heard Mick Jagger sing ‘Brown Sugar?’ You have something important to say – you say it again.”

 
The film, titled “Paul”, was released in 2011. It features the voice of Seth Rogen as a wisecracking, chain smoking extra-terrestrial, and veteran comedy duo Simon Pegg and Nick Frost as two friends.
“They were working stiffs,” West said, describing Pegg and Frost’s characters. “They went on a road trip. A road trip.”
West spoke at length about how the “Paul” character correlates to his perceptions of actual space aliens, describing “highly advanced humanoids with big heads and tiny little bodies.”
West also theorized that entities like Paul could be the “god-planets” from which sections of humanity are descended.
“They’re a billion years more advanced than you.” West said, describing a scene where Paul picks up a dead bird, heals it, then eats it, as a reminder to humans not to eat “dead meat.”
Noting that in real life, Area 51 is “more likely a test range for high-class military installations,” West proceeded to the second movie review, saying he recently viewed “Men in Black” and was favorably impressed.
“There was this cat that had a galaxy around its neck,” West said.
Another of his favorite parts, he said, was the end.
“The guy that was the major man in black – I don’t remember his name, famous actor – he had to jump into the belly of a giant bug from another part of the universe. He went into the gullet – he antagonized it – he said ‘eat me!’ – he comes out with a bang – blows it in half.”
Signing off, West put in a quick plug for his “snap-on,” an affordable sheet that can keep ice off of a car’s windshield.

Your Neighbor, What a Guy

“Modern globalization
Coupled with condemnations
Unnecessary death
Matador corporations
Puppeting your frustrations with a blinded flag
Manufacturing consent is the name of the game
The bottom line is money …
Boom, Boom, Boom,
Every time you drop a bomb
You kill the god your child has born
Boom, boom, boom, boom, boom …BOOM”

– SOAD

***
After a lengthy hiatus in honor of a very special woman, Leading the Horse has returned to chronicle the life and times of Ken West, America’s Premier Itinerant Carpenter, to find our intrepid source preparing to take on the Virginia chill.
“I’m sleeping outside tonight,” West said, while wearing four layers of clothing and wrapping leaves around his legs. “I’ve made arrangements – I got a cardboard house. Cardboard is good – it’s only 32 degrees. It’s only gonna snow 3 inches. I’m gonna get my ass up tomorrow and go do something exceptional.”
Going “back to square one,” West began with the usual screed on North Korea and its legacy of constructing underground tunnels.
“They’ve got all their military underground,” West said before contrasting the Hermit Kingdom with its neighbor to the south.
“South Korea is a christian nation,” West said. “They live in apartment buildings, they all eat the same rice … South Korea is like a super-organism.”
West renewed his often-repeated calls for peace on the Korean peninsula in the form of food aid.
“We don’t need to be starving humanoids,” West said. “They’re militarily prepared to not be threatened anymore – let them be unified – that’s the solution. Rice – we got plenty of it, don’t we? Send them a barge of rice – and olive oil – and some vegetables … they’d probably like to eat roast beef – they wouldn’t be puny people no more.”
West called for disarmament of a radical kind and dismantling the nuclear stockpiles, turning today’s swords to plowshares.
“The only thing the bomb is good for is destroying the flesh,” West said.

Just hours later, in a follow up interview, West reported from the interior of a Best Buy, while watching the seven wonders of the world displayed on many large screens.
“Do they know that there are so many souls buried under that wall?” West said, describing a scene depicting the Great Wall of China. “You died while you were building that wall – they put your bones under the wall – you became part of the wall.”
While explaining to a salesman on the floor that he was contemplating a purchase, West made several disjointed analogies between the Chinese wall and the new border wall promoted by former WWF personality turned president Donald Trump.
West then turned his thoughts toward home, reporting on “the latest from Charlottesville” and quoting an unnamed former Virginia governor.
“He said that Charlottesville made a bad boo-boo,” West said. “Everybody’s busting on Charlottesville right now. They busted on me. They broke my teeth out.”
West described his plans for reparations.
“I’ve started the process,” he said. “I’ve got names and numbers.”

In addition, West plans to market a “snap on” product for car windshields, and a set of instructional videos for DIY house painters.
Before signing off, West mentioned his need to confide “a peculiar thing” to the people of the world, describing a theoretical spiritual process.
“What if Jesus asked the Creator to do it all again?” West said. “But not to die – just to experience life in this crazy world we live in?”

After several asides, West ended with another stab at autobiography.
“Who am I? I used to skateboard in Hollywood … Guess who I am? I will not brag. I’ll just be.”

Want to Compete and Innovate in Business? Hire a Receptionist

With major recent advances in all sorts of analytical and cognitive technologies, business seems to be moving decisively in the direction of automation. However, this list to starboard, which has been happening for a number of years, leaves businesses in a profound state of disconnect with their audiences. It may be that the only solution to this problem is to return to a more human-centered approach to business communications.

Nearly anyone who contacts a business has a problem. Or, to state it another way, the customers need help. They want to engage and rationalize on a human level — on a social level and in the context of social human relationships. However, increasingly, what they hear and experience in first-tier communication is a bewildering and unwieldy interface — an aggravating series of menu options. Machines that talk much more slowly than a human would in a social scenario. Unclear directories and unclear choices. Some of the worst systems also have poor comprehension, so that they restate problem messages multiple times.

All of this is decisively negative to the customer experience. There is a reason that executives and others have been pounding the drums about customer experience, suggesting that automation will soon innovate at a level beyond what is currently offered. It’s because customer experience is key to business, and a lot of people seem to understand that.

What some don’t understand is that even though artificial intelligence and machine learning are progressing rapidly, these technologies are still more or less in their infancy and have specific limitations related to their capabilities. These specific limitations can be applied in different ways to self-driving vehicles, generative and discriminative engines in machine learning, chat bots and other artificial intelligence entities, and last but not least — interactive voice response systems.

Ask a human receptionist why their IVR is so bad, and you’re not likely to be understood. They may not know the acronym or even the term — or they might play dumb. Part of the irony inherent in these business systems is that the humans at the very end of this automation chain don’t understand how aggravating that automation chain is for the customers. This compounds the problem.

Take the example of mental health services. In corporate mental health services systems, providers will often put their scheduling and appointment setting functionality into an automated IVR system. The problem is that when a customer needs assistance from a mental health provider, he or she is unlikely to be in the frame of mind to navigate one of these aggravating and unwieldy systems. In other words, the automation does not serve the customer.

This is particularly salient in the example of mental health services, because what should be a human-based communications model for a humane service setup has been largely replaced by a corporate and automated model that is inherently incapable of handling the demands placed on it. But it’s not necessary to restrict this problem to the field of mental health services — it can be as broadly applied as the customer who has purchased a sweater with holes in it, the individual whose vehicle has broken down the freeway, or even a business buyer who needs marketing services. In any of these cases, the likelihood is that the customer experience is going to be degraded and poorly served by today’s automated technologies.

Again, this is not a reflection on the rapid progress of the technologies themselves. Deep Blue can beat Kasparov, and Watson can beat human Jeopardy contestants, and different technologies can pass the Turing test with flying colors, but none of this solves the customer’s problem — that he or she needs to be served in the context of the social interaction.

This brings us to a somewhat more technical analysis of the major shortcomings in current machine learning and artificial intelligence models.

Although engineers have learned to simulate the human brain to an amazing extent, deficiencies still exist related to the specific classes of functions that make up human behavior and activity. Specifically, although these technologies can use probabilistic inputs to provide complex results, they are not extremely adept at the sorts of contextual transactions that make up our everyday lives. As a concrete example, a machine learning program may be good at predicting whether or not a human actor will take a step, direct eye movement in a specific way, move a hand or choose a specific button from an array of controls. What the technology is not good at is understanding why someone may make these or other actions.

Another limitation has to do with what some experts might call the “politeness principle” based on a disequilibrium in rational actors’ choices. Going back to the example of a classic Nash equilibrium, we realize that in game theory, most social games have an applicable Nash equilibrium that can be modeled fairly easily. However, some games are structured so that a Nash equilibrium is not practical – or, more specifically, where a Nash equilibrium is only applicable in a fixed set of game scenarios.

 

In a lecture on game theory, Professor Padraic Bartlett explains this in terms of a “social game” of two individuals walking down a hallway toward each other (given a hallway with only two binary path options) –  identifying (left, left) and (right,right) as the two acceptable Nash equilibria, and stating:

“These are the only two equilibria: if we were in either of the mixed states, both players would want to switch, (thus leading to yet another conflict, and the resulting awkwardness).”

Here we see the challenges of applying a Nash equilibrium based on complex social factors. The rational actors have “de facto” choices – and when those choices are made clearly enough, the equilibrium results. Each player knows what is best. But when certain outlier events create uncertainty (maybe one person steps hesitantly, or the other approaching individual misreads a visual cue) the rule fails and the resulting social program is thrown into a infinite loop.

It’s easy to confuse these kinds of “glitches” with scenarios that dispute an equilibrium, such as the “prisoner’s dilemma” where two players must avoid cooperation for the best outcome, but in reality, as we can see, with the politeness principle, a Nash equilibrium does exist and can be implemented. It’s only in the glitchy application of the rule that the equilibrium proves insufficient. (In the established lexicon, this is “trembling hand” equilibrium challenge.)

In other words, we see that if two rational actors choose complementary binary choices (or “uncomplementary” binary choices as it were), they are likely to experience the kinds of recursive decision-making problems that will throw the programs into an infinite loop without exterior human guidance. Unlike two individuals walking toward each other in the hallway, these newly sentient technologies do not have the social ability to make a choice, and to a great extent will not be successful in navigating the problem itself. Here the politeness is a learned skill that is largely unquantifiable and presents machine learning with a significant modeling problem.

Yet another specific limitation relates to the use of highly fitted or possibly overfitted engines that actually approach some of the human qualities that produce indecision. In other words, machines that adopt some of our behaviors may be presented with difficulties related to some of our other behaviors. An article in KD Nuggets posted earlier last year speaks about the use of deep stubborn networks and how they have been engineered with greater complexity. A generative and discriminative engine work at odds with each other to produce collaborative results. This starts to approach some of the higher-level activity in the human mind that is not able to be modeled through linear programming. As the writer describes, what happens is that the competition between the generative and discriminative engines produces some quality that can almost be described as social — a malaise or conflict or, as the author puts it, “anxiety” that is an essential part of the human experience.

Applying words like “anxiety” and “doubt” to machine learning models is inherently a bit of a contradiction. It shows how much progress we have made in constructing machines that can think like us — but it also shows why those machines are not fully or even remotely functional in social roles. They cannot deal with the indecision and anxiety that are produced by their mechanics — and so they cannot serve customers who need this higher-level functionality. This is easy to understand in an elementary sense — we know that although IVR systems can tell people what hours the shop is open, or give people directions to the location, they can’t help customers with a broken toilet or guide them through how to negotiate a better rate on services. However, we don’t know exactly why this is unless we scratch the surface of these cognitive models and start learning about what machine learning can and can’t do.

Faced with an ultimate choice, many companies will stubbornly continue to focus on the possibilities of automation. They will rely on the prestige of new technologies and their abilities to dazzle the general public. They will throw their eggs into the basket of trying to increase the spectrum of what IVR can do. (Many of them led by profit-seeking vendors). Other companies, debatably smarter companies, will simply employ humans to direct business communications in ways that will actually really enhance the customer experience.

Hmmm

This morning I had an epiphany.
Much has been made of the far right’s destructive power in national politics — for example Thomas Frank’s “The Wrecking Crew” and other tomes, pamphlets and essays that remind us of how a party out of control has taken a monkey wrench to the levers of power in American politics.
There’s a simple solution that many of us have been overlooking — people who don’t like politics, and don’t like politicians, and don’t really believe in civic micromanagement, maybe shouldn’t be involved in evaluating politics at all.
The Republican Party at this point is like a child who’s been asked to come to the board and do a math problem, and he does it badly, because he doesn’t want to.
Johnny and Susie went up to the board to figure out 2+2. Susie went primly up to the board and neatly wrote a well-contoured “four” under the chalk line. Johnny swaggered up, ripped a loud fart, and angrily scrawled a five.
The tragedy of the situation is that enough students voted for Johnny’s “2+2=5” mostly to spite the teacher, who in this metaphor is either Lady iberty or the individual holds the scales of justice. Sorry folks – Susie’s a suck-up.
The evidence is all around us — incompetent and mean-spirited individuals being promoted to posts which they have in the past wanted to eliminate entirely; the rampant defunding and mismanagement of various federal agencies, etc.
There is a very easy fix to this — people who don’t like the job of providing for others and finding a way to steer the ship of democracy in the right direction should simply go do something else instead of voting and giving money to candidates and all that stuff.
In other words, as a country we been trying to desperately meld the values of the far right with the idea of civic good. The problem is that these two things are not inherently mixable — an ideology that alienates millions of people and up to half of the entire electorate isn’t going to be oriented towards working toward that civic good. It’s going to be inherently oriented towards a divisive and radically disruptive goal that has nothing to do with the civic good, and is extremely toxic to its intentions. This has been played out instructively in the “states rights” civil rights battles of the last century. The federal government’s job was to protect all citizens – and the state houses didn’t like it.
To put it yet another way — many of the individual constituents of the far right base do have values and ways of life that are worth preserving. They are abundantly steeped in the ways of traditional America — which is probably not a bad thing in many, many ways, but again, may be somewhat toxic to the job of federal statesmanship.
Many of these individuals take pride in being hard-working people of the land and people who do not choose to spend their time scribbling in pages or squinting at a computer screen, or dealing with the inherent bureaucracy of the federal system. Let these individuals do what they do best, whether it’s farming or ranching or blacksmithing or whatever gets their hands dirty and provides needed services for a population. Do not force them to, like recalcitrant students, go up to the chalkboard and try to participate in the evaluation of civic and public administration.
Many of them have no interest, and frankly very little aptitude, and have not practiced the inherent skills needed to do this in any meaningful way. Let’s be very clear that this is not to state that these individuals are inferior in any way, or that they lack the intellectual stamina in general to govern — instead, my view is that they lack the will and the sensitivity and the general disciplines needed to participate in these civic exercises – simply because they have not invested in them. Aas exhibit one, look at the marginalization of any realistic voices in the Republican party – the marginalization of “mavericks” like McCain and deficit hawks like Ron and Rand Paul. The base has chosen “apolitical” operatives whose platforms don’t make sense – partly because they dislike government so much that they don’t care if it makes sense or not.
As a result, they can simply give to God what is God’s, and to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and cease to try to steer the ship directly into the iceberg. We will be left with a set of technocrats and statespeople who will calmly and cleverly run the American ship as it has run for many years, largely as a system acquiescent to big business, but which has at least a veneer of normalcy.
Will they be the best people? No. They may not be entirely responsive to the needs of the population, but they will at least apply that responsiveness or unresponsiveness fairly broadly and universally, because having been trained in the sensibilities of civic administration, they understand how not to alienate. They understand how not to divide.
This doesn’t suggest, again, that they have in general superior moral or ethical premises when it comes to wealth redistribution, family values or anything else — although the case can be made that their social sensibilities fit better with the needs of today’s electorate.
The point is that they can bring a basic level of organization and brinksmanship to the job — which they will need, because the efforts of the right can be again focused on simply hating the federal government and everything that it stands for. The only remaining job will be to keep the peace between the federal government and the states, as we have done these many years since 1865.
The above is one of those ideas that might yet have its day — it seems simple, but stated out loud, just scratches the surface of the roiling morass of political turmoil that has now seeped into every aspect of our lives. We owe it to ourselves to explore these ideas, and to try to explore them, not with the bias inherent to each of us in this polarized society, but instead more conceptually, as individual scholars and again — those of us who don’t want to do this can simply leave the whole dirty issue of politics alone, instead of trying to struggle with something they hate.