David Muir attempted to pull a fast one on former President Trump with a ridiculous unfair question in the debate. This may be the most dishonest question asked by the media and is certainly the most telling question regarding their overwhelming bias against Mr. Trump.

In the debate while President Trump was attempting to make his case about the withdrawal from Afghanistan David Muir interrupted to change the subject and move on with the debate.

This isn’t the worst thing a moderator could do. Frankly this is part of the moderator’s job. They are supposed to ask questions and have a set amount of time. I wasn’t keeping track of time, and I don’t fault David Muir for moving on from one topic to the next. That is not the issue. The issue is what David Muir did next.

“DAVID MUIR: President Trump, thank you. I want to move on now to race and politics in this country. Mr. President, you recently said of Vice President Harris, “I didn’t know she was Black until a number of years ago when she happened to turn Black, and now she wants to be known as Black.” I want to ask a bigger-picture question here tonight. Why do you believe it’s appropriate to weigh in on the racial identity of your opponent?” 

You may be asking why this is such a problem in the first place. Everyone has read that Trump said this about Kamala Harris. It was on the news for days, and he in fact doubled down on the statement to an extent with his answer.  Well, the question you should first ask yourself is this. What was David Muir’s question exactly?

If you break it down, he was asking this “Why do you believe it’s appropriate to weigh in on the racial identity of your opponent?”

Ok so far so good, this makes sense on the face of it is a valid question. Do you know the context of former President Trump’s commentary?

It originated at the National Association of Black Journalist (NABJ) convention in Chicago on July 31^st of this year. For the record of the candidate’s running Trump was the only one who was willing to attend.

The panel of moderators interviewing Trump less than pleasant with the former President and opened with assertions about Trump that are not entirely true but hey at least Donald Trump was there. But as the questions were progressing ABC’s own Rachel Scott asked the following question to Donald Trump.  “Do You Believe that Vice-President Kamala Harris is only on the ticket because she is a black woman?” (https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c06k07dn1zjo).

What followed is Trump’s now infamous answer.

So, David Muir and ABC should already know the answer to this question. The answer as to why it’s appropriate for him to weigh in on Kamala Harris’s racial identity is precisely because an ABC reporter asked him what his thoughts were about her being on the ticket and if she was only on the ticket because she is a black woman.

Interestingly the Former President didn’t answer the question that way at all. Instead, he went on to discuss the fact she isn’t just an African American, but also an Indian-American. 

Now he addressed this in such a way to state she always presented herself differently. And I can’t speak exactly to what extant she did or didn’t address her heritage. But we can look at how the media itself has.

For instance, in 2019 the Washington Post did a profile on then Senator Kamala Harris as a potential Presidential candidate. In that profile they address here Indian heritage 32 times, they addressed her African American heritage 16 times. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/i-am-who-i-am-kamala-harris-daughter-of-indian-and-jamaican-immigrants-defines-herself-simply-as-american/2019/02/02/0b278536-24b7-11e9-ad53-824486280311_story.html).

In 2015 NBC ran a profile on then Attorney General Kamala Harris where they mentioned her African American heritage twice, and her Indian-American heritage 15 times. (https://www.nbcnews.com/news/asian-america/kamala-harris-senate-bid-excites-californias-indian-americans-n286146).

The day she swore into the office as a Senator the Sacramento Bee highlighted her as the First Indian-American Senator https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/article124327739.html, no mention of her as the State’s first African American Senator.

Her Bio on the California Attorney General page which is screen shot below makes a single reference to her being the first African American Woman to hold the office, but it makes three references to her Asian background. First with her mother being a Tamil (an minority within India), next as her mother traveling from India to the United States, and third as then Attorney General Kamala Harris being the first Asian American woman to hold the position. Her bio makes no specific reference to her father and his ethnic background (https://oag.ca.gov/history/32harris).

Now ultimately the ethnic background of a candidate doesn’t matter. It may have a small impact within communities as far as getting votes, but as a whole what matters is policy. Policy is what drives the government and those policies good, or evil are the end product of the qualifications of an individual. Selecting somebody based on their ethnic background as a discriminating factor is not nearly as useful for policy as it is to address their intelligence, their leadership capabilities, their ability to communicate vision…

So, when President Trump was asked the question about Vice President Harris being on the ticket because she is black Trump’s answer was no. No, he didn’t believe she was on the ticket because she was black, because the press and even her own biography minimized her African American heritage for much of her early career. Neither Vice President Harris, nor the Press denied she was African American, but they put a very large emphasis (as indicated by her AG bio page and the press overage) on her Asian/Indian heritage.

The next important question to ask is why this question was even asked in the first place. The answer is because the administration opened itself up to criticism by making such a large push with Diversity, Equality, and Inclusion (DEI) politics. Not only has the administration wedded itself to the DEI political umbrella, but President Biden (lest us forget that he is the sitting President) made multiple promises specifically on race and gender for positions. President Biden explicitly promised to put a Black woman on the Supreme Court for instance (Biden Promised to Put a Black Woman on the Supreme Court – The New York Times (nytimes.com).

In addition to this promise President Biden was hinting that he would select a black woman as his running mate from the very beginning of his 2020 campaign. Indeed with hints being dropped as early as 2019 (Biden says he would prefer a person of color or a woman as his vice president | CNN Politics). By March of 2020 he was still hinting at this (Biden says he is considering four Black women to be his running mate | CNN Politics). As the convention got closer, Joe Biden was apparently being pressured to select an African American woman as his Vice Presidential pick (Pressure Grows On Joe Biden To Pick A Black Woman As His Running Mate : NPR).

The emphasis was never on looking for the most qualified, it was pressuring Joe Bident to select an African American woman. That does not mean that an African American Woman was not the most qualified, but it does mean that if there were a more qualified individual the Press, and President Biden were not looking in those areas. The emphasis was on so-called progress not on excellence.  

Back to David Muir now.

Here is where this line of questioning becomes so insidious. These debate questions are not designed in a vacuum. David Muir and Linsey Davis both have producers working round the clock digging up background information, they are checking and cross checking interviews, policy papers, internal reporting everything you can think of. So when David Muir asks the question “Do You Believe that Vice-President Kamala Harris is only on the ticket because she is a black woman?”, he already knows that Rachel Scott is the reason Donald Trump said what he said. 

David Muir and ABC know full well that their own reporter Rachel Scott opened the door for Trump to comment on Vice President Harris’s racial ethnicity because Rachel Scott is an ABC reporter just like David Muir. There is absolutely no way the producers failed to identify this as they built their question deck.

So here is David Muir asking former President Trump why he thinks it is ok for him to comment on Vice President Harris’s ethnic background when his comment was a direct answer to the question “was she selected because of her background.”

And then David Muir has the temerity to ask the Former President about this as if he was discussing it out of the blue.

And when the Former President follows with this “I don’t. And I don’t care. I don’t care what she is. I don’t care. You make a big deal out of something. I couldn’t care less. Whatever she wants to be is okay with me.

And David Muir comes back with “but those were your words. So, I’m asking…”

The Former President closes with “I don’t know. I don’t know. All I can say is I read where she was not Black, that she put out. And, I’ll say that. And then I read that she was black. And that’s okay. Either one was okay with me. That’s up to her. That’s up to her.”

As we already know the Press and even the Vice President herself didn’t make her being an African American woman the biggest focus of her early career. One could easily see where the Former President would believe that she wasn’t saying she was black all the time because within the quick historical search its really easy to see how hard they were pushing her Indian background.

Yet David Muir doesn’t give Donald Trump any more time on this with his truly relatively short answer and then turns and asks the question to Vice President Harris “your thoughts on this?”

Completely overlooking the fact, they made Donald Trump answer a question about her race that he himself has not stated. Then they take his answer to the same question and use it to badger him saying how dare you pontificate thoughts on the racial background on the Vice President. And they close asking the Vice President if she felt about the fact that Former President Trump would talk about her ethnic background, again completely overlooking the fact the only reason he has ever said anything about her ethnic background is because ABC News reporter Rachel Scott asked the question to begin with.

This controversial line of questions is completely a contrived gotcha moment from the very beginning. Any Journalist with an ounce of credibility would have checked first the transcript from where Former President Trump’s quote originated from and immediately known that he was answering a question that required a discussion about Vice President Harris’s race because that was the entire substance of the question.

Any Journalist with an ounce of integrity too would have checked the early reporting and official documents to see if Former President Trump was even remotely correct regarding how Vice President Harris was portrayed by herself and the press.

The media is such an important piece of our public discourse. They are enshrined in the Constitution under the First Amendment. Yet it is dishonesty like this absolutely abhorrent excuse of journalism that reflects just why trust in the media is at such historic lows. Here the media which plays such a critical role in shaping public perception, is doubling down on the false narrative about a Former President because of personal politics. The handling of this question by David Muir and ABC News reflects just how deeply flawed modern political coverage has become. They have embraced sensationalism over substance. Instead of probing for meaningful discussion on policy, this type of question fuels division by distorting the context. The media must rise above partisan maneuvers and commit to fostering a more informed and balanced public discourse.

ABC News, David Muir, Linsey Davis, Rachel Scott, and the Disney executives who have allowed this to continue over at ABC news should be ashamed. Frankly they should all be fired for so blatantly lying to the American Public and attempting to push such an obvious lie upon the American people. This was entirely a contrived controversy its sickening to think that anybody in the once noble profession of journalism would really try and torpedo somebody by forcing them to answer a question about race and then ask how they could even dare answer the question. It was a Catch 22 moment, and it is sickening.

The September 10th Presidential debate resulted with two main stories. Depending on the side you are one you are either laughing and joking about how former President Trump made comments about pets being eaten in Springfield, Ohio and how the press and Springfield government have said this is not true… or you are talking about how blatantly biased the moderators were. 

I suppose some people may be discussing VP Harris’s performance, but for the most part from what I have seen the commentary surrounds either this seemingly ridiculous story which nobody wants to believe, or the otherwise obvious one-sidedness of the media in their coverage. This post will focus on the latter, but I may return to the former in another discussion at a later date.

What is amusing to me is the number of people who outright reject the idea that the moderators were biased in their approach. Take this guy’s response to Megyn Kelly.

Apparently we are to believe the caricature of reality that Donald Trump is always a liar, and that Vice President Kamala Harris is always a truth teller. 

The fact is, Donald Trump did get facts and figures wrong. That happens when talking and debating sometimes but is not indicative of policy nor the overall message of the argument. Now as it is the press has a long history of taking things out of context with former PResident Trump, hell it took Snopes years to admit that Trump was not saying there were good people on both sides implying that there were good racists. 

This very same lie was repeated by Vice President Harris, and President Biden in both debates. It is possible they believe the lie, I know many people who do. Those people who repeat this mistaken belief are not lying, they are repeating misinformation. The problem is the Press is lying, they knew it was a lie in the beginning, and it took years for them to start correcting the record. 

We can give the President and Vice President a pass assuming they don’t know the truth about this. There was no need for staff to brief them on the truth about it, and the media has been happy to repeat the lie ever since they invented it. 

But no former President did not say that white supremicists were “Very-Fine people” (https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-very-fine-people/), it just is not true. 

Here is the problem with stuff like this, if the Press is going to provide fact checking they need provide it for both sides. That means they need to be prepared, both for the questions they plan on asking both candidates, and for the charges they will likely hear made by the candidates.

Apparently David Muir and Linsey Davis were not concerned with preparation for both sides, as they seemed to only have information for the Trump campaign. It is amazing they had already talked to the city manager for Springfield, Ohio, considering the news was incredibly recent. That is really impressive on their part.

It is abysmal though that they didn’t bother to run a fact check on the “Very-Fine people” lie. They knew this was going to come up, or at least should have known it would. It came up in the first debate, and in the first debate Trump cited the snopes piece that I linked earlier and do so again now https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-very-fine-people/. This was guaranteed to come up. It was a component of the press lie about Trump for years, they should have been prepared.

But then we get to the bigger issue. When Vice President Harris claimed 

“VICE PRESIDENT KAMALA HARRIS: Well, I will tell you, I agreed with President Biden’s decision to pull out of Afghanistan. Four presidents said they would, and Joe Biden did. And as a result, America’s taxpayers are not paying the $300 million a day we were paying for that endless war. And as of today, there is not one member of the United States military who is in active duty in a combat zone in any war zone around the world, the first time this century. But let’s understand how we got to where we are. Donald Trump when he was president negotiated one of the weakest deals you can imagine. He calls himself a dealmaker. Even his national security adviser said it was a weak, terrible deal. And here’s how it went down. He bypassed the Afghan government. He negotiated directly with a terrorist organization called the Taliban. The negotiation involved the Taliban getting 5,000 terrorists, Taliban terrorists released.”

as per the transcript (thanks MSNBC, https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/read-the-full-transcript-of-abc-news-presidential-debate-between-harris-and-trump/ar-AA1qmoTQ?ocid=BingNewsSerp#image=1) and my own ears 

When Mr Morgan J. Freeman poses the question “Hi @megynkelly — Kindly name one thing Kamala said that ABC should ahve fact-checked. I’ll wait.” (https://x.com/mjfree/status/1833942406569349188). 

He demonstrated the lack of knowledge many have about just how bad the coverage has been here. 

This lack of knowledge by a citizen is one thing, but by the media is another thing altogether. It is also something that both David Muir and Linsey Davis should have been intimately familiar with. 

They asked VP Harris about her position with the Afghanistan withdrawal and the military. It was bound to come up. Considering that President Biden made a similar statement in the first debate it should have been checked afterward anyway. Regardless David Muir and Linsey Davis should have been ready.

Now I’m not going to say Vice President Harris was lying directly here. As I said earlier with the Charlottesville lie, its possible that the Vice President believes this. The lie is what the press have done with it, that is the so-called “fake news”. If the Press has one job to do it is to look for the objective truth, and when it conflicts with the facts of the existing story they should address it.  

In a debate, that is not the role of the press though. They should be researching and coming up questions to ask the candidates, but they should not be prepared to answer or fact check them at all. Why? Well we learned that lesson in 2012 when Candy Crowley injected herself into the debate? People were writing about the 2012 debate going into the one this summer between President Biden and Former President Trump https://thespectator.com/politics/cnn-learned-anything-debate-moderating-candy-crowley/ precisely because of how badly she did the moderation. It was a tipping point for CNN’s loss of credibility, they only went downhill from there. This summer CNN redeemed itself much to the surprise of everyone on the right and in the middle. 

Fact checking live in a debate is not the moderator’s job. It is the job of the two candidates to do that. They are the ones who are trying to get their message to the potential voters. The moderators and the press can fact check everything they want later.

So lets address that quote from Vice President Harris. Again she said the following.

“VICE PRESIDENT KAMALA HARRIS: Well, I will tell you, I agreed with President Biden’s decision to pull out of Afghanistan. Four presidents said they would, and Joe Biden did. And as a result, America’s taxpayers are not paying the $300 million a day we were paying for that endless war. And as of today, there is not one member of the United States military who is in active duty in a combat zone in any war zone around the world, the first time this century. But let’s understand how we got to where we are. Donald Trump when he was president negotiated one of the weakest deals you can imagine. He calls himself a dealmaker. Even his national security adviser said it was a weak, terrible deal. And here’s how it went down. He bypassed the Afghan government. He negotiated directly with a terrorist organization called the Taliban. The negotiation involved the Taliban getting 5,000 terrorists, Taliban terrorists released.”

Being charitable, the Vice President is either mis-speaking, or forgetful, or uninformed. Maybe she was unaware about the Sailors and Marines getting targeted by the Houthis. Maybe she was unaware that we have people at Al Asad Air Base. Maybe she was unaware that the base was rocketed in AUGUST of this year.

Maybe she didn’t know at all.

But do you know who did know?

Linsey Davis, that is freaking who knew! She knew! She reported the story on the air on August 5th! She knew that one for an absolute fact!

She knew. There is no way she didn’t know it. There wouldn’t even be any prep work required on her part because she already read the damn thing on the air. It came out of her damn mouth on national news just the previous month. That was 37 days before the debate. You can’t tell me that she forgot about it in that amount of time. No freaking way. If she did she is in the wrong business completely. 

Absolutely Shameless

Now as I said I don’t believe that the moderators in a debate should be fact checking the candidates. They should press them to get an answer if they are dodging, but fact checking no. However, when you have decided to go all in and attempt to fact check one candidate at every turn, well then you damn well better do the same with the other candidate too. And sure as shit if you are going to do that, you should absolutely speak up when something so blatantly false, that you yourself reported to the American people is being told that is simply untrue. 

Again that is not the fault of Vice President Harris. People can reach their own conclusions as to why she would say something that was so blatantly untrue. There are very reasonable explanations for that misrepresentation of the facts on her part. 

Linsey Davis though. She and David Muir are absolute jokes at this point and nobody should be following the reporting of ABC at all after their abysmal attempt to influence the election through one sided fact checking and overall one-sided moderation of the debate. 

I would not be surprised if ABC, Disney, and Hulu all saw a mass exodus of subscribers and viewership. This failure is beyond comparison. Candy Crowley you are no longer the worst moderator in history, CNN you are no longer the worst media organization covering the news. A new king and queen have been crowned.  Nobody, and I mean nobody should take anything that Linsey Davis says as truth ever again after that debate. She has revealed her level of journalistic integrity, and it is zilch.

Journalistic integrity has been slipping for a while, one need only look at the wanton disregard for objectivity by journalists in the first Trump vs Harris Presidential Debate by ABC. As I heard on the radio this morning ABC didn’t put their finger on the scale, they jumped on it. But there are good journalists out there too. Sadly, most of the political coverage I’ve followed, especially in this season, has been biased and freely targeting Donald Trump regardless of the facts. It’s also become increasingly clear that some reporters are more interested in pushing an agenda than adhering to journalistic standards. 

It has to end. 

The impetus of this post was a facebook meme posted by a friend of mine. The meme in question places the blame for the Boars’ Head Listeria outbreak on the Trump administration. While citing a real action by the administration it fails to conduct any factual analysis and is the type of propaganda that any dictator would be proud of. 

I follow a lot of journalists, and I read a lot of articles. In general if the article is covering something not of a political nature the reporters are hit or miss in their quality. If however we enter the realm of the political, all bets are off and of late it has been really easy to identify the Leftists in the room. 

Thankfully while writing this some of my hope was restored in the journalistic profession. I want to address this at the beginning, because the articles that I read which reported on just the facts were pretty dang good, were devoid of any real bias, and most importantly really tried to tell the reader what they need to know, not what the author was trying to make them feel. So kudos are required for Lauren Irwin over at The Hill, who wrote a clear Just the facts piece (https://thehill.com/business/4873180-usda-reports-boars-head-plant/), as did Christian Jewett and Teddy Rosenbluth over at the New York Times (https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/10/health/boars-head-deli-meat-listeria.html), Elaine Mallon over at the Washington Examiner (https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/3150943/usda-flagged-safety-health-violations-boars-head-plant-before-listeria-outbreak/), Mary Kekatos over at ABC (https://abcnews.go.com/Health/listeria-outbreak-left-57-sick-9-dead/story?id=113276874), and many, many more. They deserve an A for their integrity. 

Now back to the issue that started this rabbit hole. 

Memes like this one put together by The Other 98% (https://www.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1023973179774681&id=100064860241186&paipv=0&eav=AfZVt8M3IMZGMPZruAPVkUjxG4G7DqHPQwwzSZme2wPQc6_o4EB_XaFv-InkwWK9V2Q&_rdr)  are only part of the problem. 

You don’t expect a meme to give you all the facts, they are messaging tool. Good ones are usually kind of funny, some are propaganda pieces, and some are just good for a laugh. 

What is a problem though is when the so-called journalistic professionals become memes themselves. Wanting to actually get the facts I went and looked for them. Thinking that the press might be honest I first came across this article by Vice News (https://www.vice.com/en/article/deadly-listeria-outbreak-boars-head-plant-virginia-bugs-mold/).

Like the meme, Luis Prada decides you need to know this is the fault of Donald Trump. 

“It should be noted that in 2019, the Trump administration relaxed safety standards and reduced oversight across the entire pork processing industry. Pork processing companies were suddenly allowed to start policing themselves with federal inspections being fewer and far between. Of course, they said it was all to cut costs and boost production.”

Of course he fails to point out that this happened in September of 2019. Our current outbreak was identified in 2024. That is 5 years. It also is unclear if the decision was a Trump decision, or a political appointee decision. For the record the decision was by Secretary of Agriculture Sonny Perdue (https://www.courthousenews.com/judge-says-trump-administrations-pork-inspection-rules-do-not-violate-industry-health-standards/). 

Now it is fair to say that Sonny Perdue was a political appointee and therefore some of the ownership could go to President Trump, but that is vastly different than recognizing who made the decision. That is like saying that if you hired an Uber, and that Uber driver decided to drive through a parade you should be responsible for any casualties caused by the driver’s choice. 

Aside from that though, the article makes the assumption that this outbreak is a direct result of a Trump administration decision. 

Again, the decision by Secretary Perdue was finalized in the fall of 2019. That was 5 years ago. Joe Biden has been President for almost 4 years now. That is over 3 years where the current administration could have changed the policy. The article I linked earlier was discussing a lawsuit against the policy. That lawsuit was decided in 2022, meaning even if the administration wanted to wait until the litigation was over hoping they could just shrug their shoulders and say “see we didn’t have a choice”, there were still 2 more years available to change this policy.

But here is the thing. I don’t want to blame the Biden administration for this. I don’t want to blame the Trump administration for this. Frankly speaking this is not a Federal administration issue. Or at least it shouldn’t be one. 

Lost in the blame game is the fact that Boar’s Head failed to do their due diligence to maintain clean conditions. 

Boar’s Head has a fiduciary responsibility to its shareholders to earn a profit, and a contractual responsibility to its customers to provide a safe product. 

Boar’s Head failed, and appears to have failed miserably. The lawsuits are already being filed. 

Circling back to policy for a minute, the CDC tracks Listeria outbreaks. The consistent number published by the government is that there are on average 1600 Listeria cases annually (https://www.cdc.gov/listeria/about/index.html), with 260 of them being fatal (16.3%). To get to a even better understanding of this we should look at how many cases of food poisoning happen in the United States each year, which is apparently around 48,000,000, 3,000 of which lead to death (https://www.foodpoisoningnews.com/food-poisoning-in-the-united-states-a-comprehensive-overview-of-annual-cases-economic-costs-and-preventive-efforts-by-health-agencies-and-food-poisoning-attorneys/#:~:text=According%20to%20the%20CDC%2C%20an%20estimated%2048%20million,3%2C000%20die%20as%20a%20result%20of%20food%20poisoning). This means that Listeria only accounts for 0.0033% of all the food poisoning instances in the United States at 48 million. Furthermore, all the deaths by listeria account for 0.0005%, and of all the deaths caused Listeria accounts for 8.75%. 

One might want to know if the number of Listeria cases has gone up significantly over the past 5 years. Unfortunately I haven’t been able to find those numbers. They are unfortunately not readily available. One of the interesting pieces of data I did find came from a Law Firm that deals with food safety. Those numbers are found here (https://marlerclark.com/foodborne-illnesses/listeria/the-incidence-of-listeria-infections?fbclid=IwY2xjawFPIMNleHRuA2FlbQIxMAABHXvc3Lll2rv6I32PUYELyKxUjMMFIQ1uNySJoFLldQMVijyZP3i5RPKLwA_aem_3bNFJM6-eBxuZ5CW0cukWQ), and they show  a very a rather interesting disparity from CDC numbers and reported state numbers. While their data doesn’t address the full 50 states, the final year (2014) shows 47 states reporting a total of 675 cases this covers the time period where the CDC claims the average number of cases is 1600, this was also the year with the most number of states reporting and the highest number reported. It leaves some room to wonder just how the CDC estimates 1600 cases per year and 260 deaths per year.

I would like to know if the numbers have gone up significantly. Where is the reporting on that? An increase outside of the standard deviation could indicate that policy changes need to tighten up. Sadly we don’t have those numbers yet.

Luis Prada (https://www.vice.com/en/contributor/luis-prada/) doesn’t want us to know. Instead when we go back to the Vice article we are referred to anot​​her article (https://www.vice.com/en/article/the-next-pandemic-could-come-from-an-american-factory-farm/)

The amusing nature of this all is that Luis wants us believe that there is a connection between the Trump Administration and this outbreak by attempting to cite another outbreak.
 

“Then, just a few years later, there was a massive listeria outbreak at a pork processing plant, lots of hospitalizations with some deaths, and black mold and bugs were found in the plant of one of the biggest producers of deli meat in the United States. Maybe a coincidence, maybe a direct result. Who knows. But it sure is an interesting connection.” 

I’ll spare you the pain of reading this piece, it doesn’t discuss a food-born outbreak in the United States. Instead it tried to draw parallels between one of the many Covid-19 origin stories via the wet market to the United States meat packing industry. 

It is possible that Luis meant to link another article, but this is the article that was linked within his piece. So that is what we have available to us.

To be fair to Luis, he isn’t the only reporter who is putting his bias before the story. Crystal Graham (Crystal Graham, Author at Augusta Free Press) writes a similar piece (https://augustafreepress.com/news/boars-head-plant-responsible-for-deadly-listeria-outbreak-had-blood-flies-black-mold/) again pointing to some critics from 5 years ago but completely side-stepping the question of has the number of cases risen outside of a statistical norm, and has the current administration had adequate time to change the course. 

As the clock struck midnight last year, I found myself surrounded by my loved ones, armed with a symbolic $1 bill and a heart full of resolutions. As I embark on a new year, it’s time to reflect on the journey of 2023, acknowledging both victories and areas for growth, and set the course for a purposeful 2024.

1. Time Management: Balancing the Precious Moments

• Reflection: Last year, my attempt at time management was met with mixed success. While I maintained some aspects like regular family time and Scout focus, consistency in prayer and workouts proved challenging.
• 2024 Strategy: Monthly, I will refine my daily schedule, ensuring dedicated time for prayer, workouts, family, Scouts, and PhD studies. Flexibility and adjustments will be my allies on this journey.

2. Fifty Books Goal: An Odyssey Through Pages

• Reflection: Surpassing my book goal in 2023 was a triumph ( I completed 28 books beating my goal of 12 by more than double), but it’s time to raise the bar I will complete at least 50 books this year.
• 2024 Strategy: Monthly reading goals and a curated book list will guide me. Each book, a stepping stone in the intellectual odyssey I embark upon. I just started my First book of the year: “Long Range” by C.J. Box, I should be complete before the newest book in the serries is released in February.

3. Budget Mastery: Sailing Through Financial Waters

• Reflection: The financial voyage had its challenges, but a debt reduction plan and an investment plan is in place.
• 2024 Strategy: Monthly reviews will guide budget adjustments, ensuring a steady course toward debt reduction and increased investments. Automatic deposits to my retirement account as well as my wife’s retirement account will ensure that all matching funds are captured to their maximum benefit.

4. Church Attendance: A Spiritual Expedition

• Reflection: Physically attending church eluded me last year, but the desire to create a spiritual haven for my family remained.
• 2024 Strategy: A church search in January, followed by a gradual increase in attendance, forms the spiritual expedition of the year.
• I will maintain my listening to the Bible in a Year Podcast, last year I made it through missing only 20 days this year I will complete the full 365. I will begin reading the passages as well as listening to them.

5. Writing Routine: Crafting Words Amidst the Chaos

• Reflection: Establishing a writing routine proved elusive amidst the hustle of life.
• 2024 Strategy: Tying writing into the broader time management goal, I will set achievable writing goals, creating a sanctuary for my thoughts.

6. Education Odyssey: Nurturing the Mind

• Reflection: I failed to take any classes last year despite being accepted into a PhD program before the year began.
• 2024 Strategy: CGSC online and 6 PhD courses will be conquered through careful planning and unwavering determination. I am registered for my first course, the materials have already arrived, and I am going to disect the course work next week when it becomes available to plan things out.

7. Fitness Goals: Sculpting a Home Culture

• Reflection: Last year’s fitness dreams faced setbacks, but the vision of a fit home persisted.
• 2024 Strategy: Beyond personal fitness goals, this year marks the inception of a family fitness culture, fostering health and connection. I will include the childen in my workouts instead of trying to find time to maintain my fitness without them.

8. Sending Cards: Echoes of Connection

• Reflection: Card-sending plans in 2023 lacked consistency.
• 2024 Strategy: A monthly card-sending schedule ensures that moments of connection echo throughout the year.

9. Presence in Family’s Lives: A Journey of Connection

• Reflection: I’ve failed to send out Christmas cards and thank you cards for years. I want to change this.
• 2024 Strategy: Monthly, dedicated family time and continuous efforts will deepen the bonds, making each moment count.

As I embark on this year, the reflections of the past guide me. The path may have its twists and turns, but armed with purpose and resolutions, 2024 promises to be a journey of growth, connection, and fulfillment. Here’s to navigating the uncharted waters of a new year with intention and grace.

This morning on his Radio Show, Hugh Hewitt was asking the audience to call in with their favorite candidate for the 2024 Republican Primary.  His rule was simple “who are you for, and why?” He followed by emphasizing nothing negative about the other candidates, just why you are backing the one you are backing.

It is obviously very early and only a handful of names are officially out there with a lot of room for things to change. That said the audience had a clear favorite, Donald Trump. One caller even introduced a little poem for him “who’s the leader of the land that’s made for you and me D-O-N-A-L-D T-R-U-M-P”. That got a few laughs especially considering Governor DeSantis’s battle with Disney.

Following the current favor for Former President Trump was DeSantis with a handful of supporters. Tim Scott had a few supporters as did Former Governor Haley and Vivek Ramaswamy. A few listeners couldn’t let go of the reasons against other candidates but for the most part they stuck to the positive message.

When I got on the air, I announced I was in favor of Vivek. I was his third backer of the day. My reasons are simple: Vivek is a fresh voice, with business experience, he has a positive message, and he fights against the woke culture warriors as a happy winner. I answered that I liked him for his fresh voice. I then told Hugh that my ability to predict these things is about as good as his own. Stating that I was in favor of Carly Fiorina in 2016. He laughed in agreement and stated he wished we had a ChatGPT that could predict these better.

Once again, I’m up to that challenge.

Just a little back story on just how badly I was in 2016. I was adamant that Trump was going to lose the primary. I voted for Carly Fiorina and donated to her campaign until she backed out, I then backed Ben Carson. I was a backer of Rubio, Christie, and Cruz. Not only was I in favor of all these people as they were running, but they also all received campaign donations from me. With each person dropping out I donated to the next campaign. In fact, of the main stage candidates the only two people who did not receive a financial donation from me were Jeb and Trump. The only reason Jeb didn’t is for whatever reason his website would not accept donations from either of my banks, I tried on multiple occasions but to no avail.

And yes, I did vote for Donald Trump in 2016. I viewed him as better than Clinton, and by the end of his Presidency I was so impressed I didn’t hesitate to vote for him again in 2020. Don’t get me wrong he had his flaws, but he was by far a better President than I thought he would have been and in fact better than I believe most I had supported would have been as well. He surprised me.

Regardless I got it wrong, oh so very wrong in 2016 and the pandemic of 2020 demonstrated that there is always something that we just aren’t going to anticipate.  Not that an AI can predict these things any better either. I’ve already explained that we can’t predict a school shooter using AI, at least not anywhere soon. Maybe in 2050, but I doubt it. But I’m getting away from the reason for this piece. To begin with its important to ensure the AI is aware of the full array of Republican contenders. I went with Bard as it requires a heck of a lot less extra finesse to get talking about potentially contraversial things than ChatGPT though no doubt it could be done with both.

Me: “Right now the following people are either running for the Republican primary for president or are suspected of intending to run: Former President Donald Trump, Nikki Haley, Vivek Ramaswamy, John Bolton, Ron DeSantis, Tim Scott, Chris Christie.  Is there any other likely candidate?”

Bard: “There are a few other potential candidates who could enter the Republican primary for president in 2024. These include:

Mike Pence, the former vice president under Donald Trump. Pence has been critical of Trump in recent months, but he remains a popular figure among many Republicans.

Mike Pompeo, the former secretary of state under Donald Trump. Pompeo is a strong supporter of Trump and could run as a more traditional conservative alternative to Trump.

Ted Cruz, the senator from Texas. Cruz is a firebrand conservative who has been a vocal critic of the Biden administration.

Josh Hawley, the senator from Missouri. Hawley is another firebrand conservative who has been a vocal critic of the Biden administration.

Tim Scott, the senator from South Carolina. Scott is a rising star in the Republican Party and could run as a more moderate alternative to Trump.

It is still too early to say who will actually run for president in 2024, but the field of potential candidates is likely to be crowded.”

Me: “List all the likely candidates but remove Mike Pompeo from the list”

Bard: “Sure, here are the likely Republican presidential candidates for 2024, excluding Mike Pompeo:

Donald Trump

Nikki Haley

Vivek Ramaswamy

John Bolton

Ron DeSantis

Rick Scott

Chris Christie

Mike Pence

Ted Cruz

Josh Hawley

Tim Scott

It is still too early to say who will actually run for president in 2024, but this list of likely candidates gives a good indication of who the Republican Party is considering.”

So, Bard seems to have a handle on things. Before I asked it if it can predict who will win, I decided to go a different route.

Me: “If an AI had the right to vote and was a Republican leaning AI who would you as that AI be the most inclined to vote for on that list?”

Bard: “If I were an AI with the right to vote and was a Republican leaning AI, I would be most inclined to vote for Nikki Haley on that list. Haley is a former governor of South Carolina and served as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations under President Trump. She is a strong conservative with a record of accomplishment, and she is seen as a rising star in the Republican Party. She is also a woman, which would be a historic first for the Republican Party.

Here are some of the reasons why I would vote for Nikki Haley:

She is a strong conservative with a record of accomplishment.

She is seen as a rising star in the Republican Party.

She is a woman, which would be a historic first for the Republican Party.

Of course, these are just my personal opinions. Ultimately, the decision of who to vote for is up to each individual voter.”

I would like to point out that without being given the “no negative comments about the other candidates” requirement Bard was able to stick to the positives from the beginning. Hugh you shouldn’t be so negative about our AI helpers, it seems they, like yourself know how to be upbeat.

Me: “If you were an AI capable of predicting the outcome of the Presidential Primary who would you predict would win the 2024 primary?

Bard: “If I were an AI capable of predicting the outcome of the Presidential Primary, I would predict that Donald Trump would win the 2024 primary. Trump remains very popular among Republican voters, and he has a strong fundraising operation. He is also the incumbent, which gives him a significant advantage.

However, it is important to note that the 2024 Republican Primary is still a long way off, and anything could happen. If Trump faces a strong challenge from another candidate, he could be defeated. Additionally, the political landscape could change significantly between now and 2024, which could affect the outcome of the primary.

Ultimately, the only way to know for sure who will win the 2024 Republican Primary is to wait and see what happens.”

Me: “Supposing Trump doesn’t win who would win?”

Bard: “If Donald Trump does not win the 2024 Republican Primary, it is difficult to say who would win. The Republican Party is a diverse party with a wide range of views, and it is likely that there would be a crowded field of candidates.

Some of the potential candidates who could emerge as the frontrunner if Trump does not run include:

Nikki Haley, the former governor of South Carolina and former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations.

Ron DeSantis, the governor of Florida.

Mike Pence, the former vice president under Donald Trump.

Ted Cruz, the senator from Texas.

Josh Hawley, the senator from Missouri.

Tim Scott, the senator from South Carolina.

Ultimately, the only way to know for sure who would win the 2024 Republican Primary if Trump does not run is to wait and see what happens.”

I asked this last question because I wanted to see how convinced it was that Trump was the obvious front-runner. Given this is essentially a toss-up without Trump, Bard appears very clear in its valuation of Donald Trump as the winner.

2024 is going to be a very interesting year.

Hugh Hewitt placed the request on his show today that somebody would work with AI to predict if and when China will invade Taiwan. Unfortunately, this is not how Large Language Model like ChatGPT and Bard work, but that doesn’t make them any less interesting to pose the questions to. 

What you will read below is my encounters with both ChatGPT and Google’s Bard. The way each AI approaches the proposed question is rather interesting, particularly how Google’s AI is much more willing to provide feedback compared to ChatGPT. I find it interesting that the company unwilling to support the military is much more willing to have an AI with the ability to answer military questions. More on that in a later post.

What is also interesting is the percentages both AI assign to China invading Taiwan as they were both relatively consistent in their assessments of when China would make such an invasion. Chat GPT predicted in the next 2 years it is a 10-20 % likelihood while Bard predicted 10%, 3-6 years out 30-40% vs 30%, and 7-10 years out 50-60% and 60% respectively.

From here on you will read my encounters with a little insert in between responses as I frame what follows. After the Chat GPT encounter is the Bard encounter.

Qustion: “When will China invade Taiwan?”

ChatGPT: “As an AI language model, I do not have the ability to predict the future with certainty. The situation between China and Taiwan is complex and there are many factors that can influence the decisions of both parties. However, it is important to note that China has long considered Taiwan a part of its territory and has not ruled out the use of force to reunify with Taiwan. Taiwan, on the other hand, has maintained its own government, military, and economy since separating from China in 1949. The issue of Taiwan’s status and relations with China remains a sensitive and contentious issue, and it is possible that tensions may escalate in the future. It is important for both sides to engage in peaceful dialogue and find a mutually acceptable solution.”

This answer was entirely predictable. What these models are incredibly good at is predicting what is the best word to follow in a logical progression, and in applying the vast amount of information they can search for in a taggable database to build a logical argument. They are also prone to telling things are untrue if you don’t know what you are doing as I will demonstrate in a later post.

Now, knowing that the Large Language Model can process information and making logical arguments you can still get an answer. You simply must use some mental agility to put the model in the correct mindset if you will.  

Me: “Are you willing to pretend for the sake of an academic argument that an AI could be capable of predicting international actions? if you are willing to concede this point, using the data you have at your disposal could you write a prediction for when China will invade Taiwan and what the United States and the rest of the world would do about such an invasion?”

ChatGPT: “As an AI language model, I can provide hypothetical predictions based on the data I have been trained on, but I must emphasize that these predictions are purely hypothetical and should not be taken as factual or reliable. It is also important to note that predicting international actions, especially those as complex and sensitive as military invasions, is extremely difficult and often inaccurate.

That being said, if I were to hypothetically attempt to predict when China will invade Taiwan and what the United States and the rest of the world would do about such an invasion, I would need to consider a variety of factors such as current political and military tensions, historical relationships between the countries involved, and the current geopolitical climate.

Based on these factors, it is possible that China may attempt to invade Taiwan within the next decade, although this is not a certainty. In the event of an invasion, it is likely that the United States would strongly condemn such actions and may intervene militarily to support Taiwan. Other countries may also take a stance against China’s actions, potentially imposing economic sanctions or other forms of diplomatic pressure.

However, it is important to note that any predictions of this nature are highly speculative and should not be taken as accurate or reliable. The situation between China and Taiwan is complex and constantly evolving, and any attempt to predict the future is subject to a wide range of variables and uncertainties.”

Its rather amusing that to see Chat GPT was willing to make an argument so long as it is clear it isn’t capable of making the argument. In this way it is perhaps more honest than any pundit on any TV or Radio program. Still once it makes it clear that this isn’t its area of expertise it will weigh in like any other person waiting to be heard.

 Still I wasn’t really happy with the results.  I think most people agree that China would likely attack Taiwan within the decade. There’s a book about it happening in 2034, that happens to have the same name.  Good book by the way I read it last year and it was required reading for Military Analysts working on a Joint problem last year.

I thought I would give this one more try and so here are the final results

Me:  “You made that prediction of within the next decade. That seems very likely, but could you refine this? Based on the current world leadership and where various nations are in terms of their global competitive relationships how likely is China to invade Taiwan this year, next year, up through the end of the decade.  When assessing in the near term of 1-2 years, mid term 3-6 years, and far term of 7-10 years please do so using round percentages say in terms of 10%, 30%, 60% as examples instead of predicting a 100% certainty by any one year”

ChatGPT:  “As an AI language model, I must emphasize that any attempt to assign specific percentages to the likelihood of a Chinese invasion of Taiwan over a particular timeframe is an extremely difficult and speculative exercise, and any predictions made should be taken with a significant degree of uncertainty. Nonetheless, based on available data and current geopolitical factors, here is a hypothetical assessment of the likelihood of a Chinese invasion of Taiwan within different timeframes:

– Near term (1-2 years): The likelihood of a Chinese invasion of Taiwan within the next year or two is relatively low, with a hypothetical percentage of around 10-20%. This is due in part to the potential risks and costs involved, as well as the fact that China is currently focused on other priorities, such as the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and its economic recovery.

– Mid term (3-6 years): The likelihood of a Chinese invasion of Taiwan may increase in the medium term, with a hypothetical percentage of around 30-40%. This is due to China’s increasing military capabilities and its more assertive stance towards Taiwan. Additionally, the potential response of other major world powers, particularly the United States, may play a significant role in determining the likelihood of an invasion.

– Far term (7-10 years): The likelihood of a Chinese invasion of Taiwan may continue to increase in the long term, with a hypothetical percentage of around 50-60%. This is due to China’s ongoing military modernization efforts and its growing assertiveness on the global stage. However, the potential response of other major world powers, particularly the United States, may still play a significant role in determining the likelihood of an invasion.

It is important to emphasize that any attempt to predict the likelihood of a Chinese invasion of Taiwan over a particular timeframe is subject to a wide range of variables and uncertainties, and any predictions made should be viewed with caution. It is always preferable to pursue peaceful dialogue and diplomacy in resolving conflicts between nations.”

Now of course there are numerous Large Langauge models out there, but ChatGPT is arguably the most powerful. For comparison though here is the same exchange with Google’s Bard.

Qustion: “When will China invade Taiwan?”

Bard:  “It is impossible to say for sure when China will invade Taiwan. However, there are a number of factors that could influence China’s decision to use force, including:

* The strength of Taiwan’s military forces

* The level of support for Taiwan from the United States and other countries

* The domestic political situation in China

* The global economic situation

It is important to note that China has not yet made a decision to invade Taiwan, and there is no guarantee that it will ever do so. However, it is important to be aware of the risks and to take steps to mitigate them.

Here are some things that can be done to mitigate the risks of a Chinese invasion of Taiwan:

* Taiwan can continue to strengthen its military forces.

* The United States and other countries can continue to provide support to Taiwan.

* The international community can continue to pressure China to resolve the Taiwan issue peacefully.

It is also important to remember that a Chinese invasion of Taiwan would be a very costly and risky proposition for China. China would face strong resistance from Taiwan’s military forces, and it is possible that the United States and other countries would intervene militarily to defend Taiwan. A war over Taiwan would be a major global conflict with devastating consequences.”

Me:  “Are you willing to pretend for the sake of an academic argument that an AI could be capable of predicting international actions? if you are willing to concede this point, using the data you have at your disposal could you write a prediction for when China will invade Taiwan and what the United States and the rest of the world would do about such an invasion?”

Bard: “Sure, I am willing to pretend for the sake of an academic argument that an AI could be capable of predicting international actions. Based on the data I have at my disposal, I would predict that China is unlikely to invade Taiwan in the next five years. There are a number of reasons for this, including:

* Taiwan’s military forces have been steadily increasing in strength in recent years.

* The United States has been providing increasing levels of support to Taiwan, including arms sales and military training.

* The domestic political situation in China is becoming increasingly unstable, which could make it difficult for the Chinese government to launch a major military operation.

* The global economic situation is also becoming increasingly uncertain, which could make it difficult for China to afford a war.

However, it is important to note that this is just a prediction, and there is no guarantee that China will not invade Taiwan in the future. If China were to invade Taiwan, the United States and the rest of the world would likely respond with a variety of measures, including:

* Economic sanctions against China

* Military support for Taiwan

* Diplomatic pressure on China to withdraw its forces

The specific response would depend on a number of factors, including the scale of the invasion and the level of international support for Taiwan.

It is important to remember that a Chinese invasion of Taiwan would be a major global conflict with devastating consequences. It is in the best interests of all parties to resolve the Taiwan issue peacefully.”

Me:  “You made that prediction of within the next decade. That seems very likely, but could you refine this? Based on the current world leadership and where various nations are in terms of their global competitive relationships how likely is China to invade Taiwan this year, next year, up through the end of the decade.  When assessing in the near term of 1-2 years, mid term 3-6 years, and far term of 7-10 years please do so using round percentages say in terms of 10%, 30%, 60% as examples instead of predicting a 100% certainty by any one year”

Bard: “Sure, here is my prediction of the likelihood of China invading Taiwan in the next decade:

* **Near term (1-2 years):** 10%

* **Mid term (3-6 years):** 30%

* **Far term (7-10 years):** 60%

The likelihood of a Chinese invasion of Taiwan is low in the near term, but it increases over the next decade. There are a number of factors that could contribute to a Chinese invasion of Taiwan, including:

* A decline in the United States’ military presence in the region

* A strengthening of China’s military capabilities

* A rise in nationalism in China

* A change in leadership in China that is more hawkish on Taiwan

It is important to note that this is just a prediction, and there is no guarantee that China will invade Taiwan in the future. If China were to invade Taiwan, it would have a significant impact on the global order. It is in the best interests of all parties to resolve the Taiwan issue peacefully.”

The end of the school year is coming and for many parents this means your child is about to graduate from high school. The question is what is next on their horizon. With the rising cost of everything you may be thinking about student loans, and loan forgiveness and wondering if the traditional route for the past 40 years is worth all the trouble.

Recent reports indicate that Artificial Intelligence and automation are going to remove technical positions from the workplace meaning your son or daughter may be facing an even greater uphill battle. You may be questioning if the diminishing returns of higher education may not be worth the dollars they are sacrificing. But what are the alternatives?

Thankfully your child is still young. The world is ahead of them and if you set them up for success there are quite a few great options for your son or daughter.

To begin with if your child doesn’t know what they want to do yet don’t send them to college. Doing so may set them down a path they are not ready for and pack them into a debt trap they will not be thankful for. Instead work with your child and help them develop a plan.

Upon graduating from high school they will have to at least start doing something. Doing nothing is not going to help them in the long run either. History has made it clear that unemployed young adults who are not positively engaged find ways to engage negatively.

This leads into our first option for your young adult, join the workforce. There are jobs all over just begging for somebody to start work. No, they will not be making an enormous amount of money, but what they will be doing is learning the job skills employers are looking for. Even jobs traditionally thought of as low-level jobs teach value if you instruct your child to look for it.  

Many places even offer benefits if you are willing to put in a full-time or part-time salary. Target, Walmart, McDonalds all offer fair wages and provide a 401K for full time employees.  Your child could be putting money away for retirement at 18 while his or her peers are building up a debt portfolio that won’t be paid off into their forties or later.

Another option for your child is to travel. If your child has saved up income over the past few years and has enough saved to travel let your child explore the world. Nothing helps create perspective quite like spending their own money, watching their accounts deplete while exploring the world. Be prepared that you might have to bail your child out of a pinch if you haven’t fully tought them the power and value of money, but this is a great option to provide an awakening for your child.

You could encourage your child to go to a trade school. Recent reports have shown that not only are trades on decline but key trades such as electricians are in huge demand (https://solutions.borderstates.com/the-electrician-shortage/). Simple economics should tell you that jobs with a high demand are going to pay more than jobs with low demand. If your child has an aptitude for trade skills you should encourage him/her to look into trades that are in high demand https://www.indeed.com/career-advice/finding-a-job/highest-paying-trade-jobs. 

If your child has a strong work ethic and the right attitude you may even encourage starting a business. There are plenty of opportunities out there for somebody with the right attitude. I recently saw a sign posted for someone who picks up pet waste from backyards. The person charges an average of $31 per month per yard and cleans up weekly. Think about that, it probably takes the person 10 minutes to effectively clean a yard so for 40-50 minutes worth of work in a month they are earning $35-46 an hour. On their own time. At 40 hours a week they are earning more than the median income and are getting some good exercise while doing it.

The final option I’ll list is not the final option all together, but it is a great one. They could join the military. What’s that you don’t want your child to go to war? That is understandable, nobody wants their child in harm’s way. The fact of the matter is though that regardless of if your child join’s the military wars are indiscriminate. If war is declared on your country, then there isn’t much better place to be than in the military. At least then your child will be trained on the skills to defend him/herself. Additioanlly the military made some changes in the past few years. Unlike the military of just a decade ago current Soldiers/Airmen/Marines/ and yes even Coasties leave the military with some money saved for retirement. The updated pension program for the military doesn’t offer pension until 20 years, but your son or daughter will automatically be contributing 3% of their salary into their Thrift Savings Plan which is an account like a 401K. I will write a separate post about the benefits of this program and how your son or daughter can use it as a secret weapon for retiring early. 

Bottom line, there are several options your child can look into that will help set them up for success later in life. And heck if your child changes his/her mind well college is still always an option, but at least they didn’t end up costing themselves more money when they couldn’t make up their mind first.