Ken’s Blog

I keep trying to figure out how to look with compassion at people who are in favor of Trump and Kavanaugh. Yet the naked ugliness of the Trumpian agenda is so startling in its intensity, in its sneering contempt, that I am left scratching my head.

I am trying to understand what is going on with the millions of Americans who still support these people. What allows them think it ok that an out of control and nakedly partisan character like Kavanaugh is ascending to our Nation’s highest court?

Because I think we really need compassion here. We are talking about people who love their children, who help their communities, who I am sure still see America as something worthwhile.

So what is happening? Is this what it felt like in other countries, in other eras, as a society began to slide into authoritarianism? Were people so hungry for a “strong hand” that they allowed leaders who clearly lacked any moral center to start taking over all the reins of power?

I am wondering whether we can stem this seeming slide into the familiar pattern of a democracy sliding into Authoritarianism, if we manage to appeal to people through compassion. But things have gotten so extreme at this point that I am not sure where to begin.

I have friends here in Paris who had been planning on moving back to the U.S., but now they are scared of returning. They are worried about the thought of their children growing up in a country that seems to be becoming unrecognizably coarse and cruel.

OK, I get it. There are people out there who actually believe that Dr. Blasey deliberately set out to destroy her own life, open herself up to death threats, and turn her very existence into a living hell, just because it was, you know, um, fun.

According to this narrative, Brett Kavanaugh didn’t actually do anything awkward or socially unacceptable while he was blacked out drunk. You see, nothing bad happened, it was all a terrible misunderstanding.

But I don’t believe any of that, because over the course of this past week I’ve learned the meaning of the terms “booging” and “devil’s triangle”. It has been an eye opening education, let me tell you.

I don’t have the faintest idea how a guy who can lie about such disgusting things ends up being a shoe-in for the U.S. Supreme Court. What I can tell you is that I am utterly offended by the shallow pretense that he is some sort of innocent lamb.

Let’s get down to it. If you are American and are repulsed by the shenanigans of these people, you need to get yourself to the polls and vote on November 6. If you don’t, what happens next will be your fault.

Today, as external examiner for the once-every-four-years INRIA self-assessment in France, I watched 16 research presentations. The presentations represented, collectively, the scientific advances of a very large and diverse scientific research community funded by the French government.

The total yearly budget for this endeavor, as I understand it, is about 480 million euros. Thousands of scientists participate, there are major research collaborations with leading scientists around the world, and the entire enterprise is completely awesome in its sheer ambition and scale.

Needless to say, I was overwhelmed and delighted by many of the things I learned, new technologies that will improve education, health care, research and much more. The concept of a government of a major Western country believing in science, and in its ability to help make the world a better place, was a beautiful thing to behold.

In the U.S. we used to think that way. Sigh.

Today I am attending a conference near Paris together with a number of fellow researchers from many different countries. It’s fascinating to engage in dinner table conversation with them.

Everyone, no matter where they are from, seems to identity completely with the recent reaction at the U.N. when you-know-who claimed that he was leading one of the greatest American administrations of all time. That reaction, as you probably kmnow was a spontaneous explosion of laughter by a large number of delegates.

This pretty much describes the way my colleagues around the world think of our nation’s current situation. Although of course they are also worried. After all, if the U.S. goes completely nuts, it will not bode well for the world’s economy.

My colleague from Italy, at least, had an appropriate sense of humility. She acknowledged that the political leaders in her own country are as crazy as ours.

I’m not sure that counts as reassuring.

I’ve been running around so much recently, flying here and there, racing for deadlines, that I had forgotten what it was like just to have a pleasant day not doing much of anything. Today I went to the market with my friends in Paris, took the Metro, wandered around a bit, and simply enjoyed the sheer beauty of the City of Lights in Autumn.

This evening we enjoyed a wonderful dinner at 42 degrés in the 9e arrondissement, one of my favorite restaurants in the world. The food and the wine, like the company, were simply perfect.

With so much constant running around, frantically trying to get things done, sometimes I forget to simply stop and enjoy the day. Today I remembered.

Today in a talk in Paris about the future of technology I quoted Melvin Kranzberg. That quote may have been the most important part of my talk.

Kranzberg’s first law of technology states: “Technology is neither good nor bad; nor is it neutral.” I think this statement is key to any sensible policy that aims to deal with the effects of advancements in technology.

In a way, it is the same statement that William Shakespeare makes in Julius Caesar when he has Cassius say: “”The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, But in ourselves.”

Simply put, we don’t get to palm off responsibility onto our creations. It is Dr. Frankenstein, not his poor creature, who bears responsibility for the consequences of invention without ethical insight.

Similarly, when Skynet goes rogue, Miles Bennett Dyson and his team don’t just get to say “oops”. And Dr. Jekyll can’t simply undrink the potion.

Those of us who create new technologies have a particular responsibility to be aware of what we are doing. Rather than shy away from this responsibility, or to pretend that it is someone else’s problem, we should embrace it.

Either way, history will surely judge us. When that day of reckoning comes, we can only hope that our good judgement, the decisions we made which led to a more ethical future, will be deemed to be an even greater contribution than whatever it is we happened to invent.

First night in Paris
Taxi headlights shining through
The fog of jet lag

Over the last few days I’ve been mulling over in my mind Brett Kavanaugh’s fiery and emotional expression of innocence. In reality, his story and Dr. Blasey’s story are actually in total agreement.

The sort of behavior she describes is perfectly consistent with that of a young man who is black-out drunk — and at this point, based on the evidence, I don’t think anybody seriously doubts that Mr. Kavanaugh drank to that level of excess in his youth. So in fact he is being completely honest and sincere when he says he has no recollection of the event in question.

But what struck me was the tone of his declaration of innocence. He was loudly combative, openly hostile and dismissive in response to reasonable questions of fact — particularly if the Senator asking the question was female. He was also prone to angrily shouting about accusations of political witch hunts, and at points becoming emotional to the point of crying.

Imagine if a woman had put on such a show. Of course you cannot. No woman would dare enact such a public display of unbridled emotion unless she were insane.

If a woman were foolish enough to attempt such a thing, the court of public opinion would immediately hang her from the highest tree. You can probably already hear the invective in your head: Shrill, shrewish, pushy, hysterical, “too bad she’s on her period”. Or just plain Bitch (as well as other words that are considerably less polite).

But it’s ok if a guy does it.

So what Brett Kavanaugh was really communicating, whether he intended to or not, was that male privilege is alive and well in the USA. Sure, it’s all well and good to pay lip service to equality between the sexes. But when it comes right down to it, in case there was any doubt, the U.S. Republican party is very much about maintaining the power of the patriarchy.

It is a world view in which only men are allowed to throw their weight around, because only men really count. In this world view, a woman simply isn’t important — other than as a meek and ever loyal supporter of her man.

It’s amazing to me that any woman at all continues to vote for these people.

Watching Maniac,
No idea what’s going on
I give it ten stars

Yesterday I said that I felt that Oculus Connect didn’t really speak to me and the things I care about. It turns out that I missed an interesting part of Mark Zuckerberg’s opening talk yesterday morning.

Because I had arrived a few minutes late, I didn’t see his very first visual. Fortunately a friend sent it to me. You can see it for yourself below.

At the very start of his keynote, Mark apparently gave a shout out to the future of education and other topics that are dear to my heart. And looming behind him on his very first slide was a familiar face, drawing in the air, giving a math lecture in the future.

I stand corrected.