Caitlyn Jenner's campaign ad — complete with images of Bruce Jenner winning the Decathlon and the ancient voice-over "He wants the world record."

Here's how I ran into the ad:

Whoever created this stunning breakout campaign commercial just made Caitlyn Jenner a viable candidate for governor of California. I don’t care if you’re a Democrat or a Republican, it’s hard to disagree with a single sentiment in this video: https://t.co/nzYKT5YjE1 via @YouTube

— James Woods (@RealJamesWoods) May 4, 2021

Here's a screen shot I made:

That's not a fleeting glimpse of the past. There are repeated images from the stellar 1976 Olympic performance and of Caitlyn today looking feelingly at the gold medal. 

We hear Jenner's voice: California needs "new leaders... who are unafraid to challenge"  —  pause — "and to change" — pause — "the status quo." At that first pause, right before "and to change" — we see 2 magazine covers, side by side, one with Bruce Jenner celebrating winning the gold and one showing Caitlyn Jenner. That is, Jenner is "unafraid to challenge and to change the status quo," as demonstrated by breaking the world record in the Decathlon and then — in a second bodily achievement — coming out as transgender. 

I wonder how hard it was to decide whether to elevate or obscure the Jenner of the 1970s.

"Now, a robot has been trained to speak aloud its inner decision-making process, giving us a view of how it prioritises competing demands...."

"The researchers asked Pepper to set a dinner table according to etiquette rules they had encoded into the robot... When instructed to place a napkin on a fork with inner speech enabled, Pepper asked itself what the etiquette required and concluded that this request went against the rules it had been given. It then asked the researchers if putting the napkin on the fork was the correct action. When told it was, Pepper said, 'OK, I prefer to follow your desire,' and explained how it was going to place the napkin on the fork. When asked to do the same task without voicing the inner speech, Pepper knew this contradicted the etiquette rules so didn’t perform the task or explain why.... With the potential for robots to become more common in the future, this type of programming could help the public understand their abilities and limitations, says Sarah Sebo at the University of Chicago. 'It maintains people’s trust and enables seamless collaborations and interactions between humans and robots,' she says."

New Scientist reports. 

First, I wondered if people would become too trusting, and maybe the robots will take over. Then, I thought, the robots could help us sort out our rules and preferences. And maybe we'll become better at thinking through our own decisionmaking, as robots demonstrate how to make rational decisions and show us, transparently, what they are taking into account.

FROM THE EMAIL: Tim writes: 

"A new Reuters/Ipsos poll finds that 55% of Republicans falsely believe Joe Biden's victory in the 2020 presidential election was the result of illegal voting or rigging."

"Additionally, 60% of Republicans incorrectly agree that the election was stolen from Republican Donald Trump." 

CNN reports, aggressively inserting the view that the people who were polled are wrong. I believe that's a very unusual way to report an opinion poll, with insistence that the opinion is wrong and apart from any factual reporting that makes it perfectly obvious that the opinion is mistaken. 

This displays a desperate fear of the opinion, and I don't think it does much good. The urge to stamp the opinion out will tend to make those who hold it grip more tightly: What are they afraid of? Are they trying to get me to move on, telling me there's nothing to see here?

CNN continues:

What is perfectly clear, however, is that Republicans' lack of faith in our current election infrastructure is a direct result of Trump's historic efforts to undermine the legitimacy of the 2020 results.

It's "perfectly clear" why people have this opinion? This is a news article, reporting a poll, and it's making an absolute assertion about why human beings believe what they do. That doesn't inspire confidence. It makes people suspicious, perhaps paranoid. 

FROM THE EMAIL: Cheryl writes: 

“Election infrastructure...” 

Seems like that word is being softened up to mean anything they want it to mean. Wonder why. 

Good catch. I'll boldface the word in the quoted text above. Cheryl's right. There's been a lot of talk lately from Democrats around the word "infrastructure." I was just saying: "It's a propaganda word to the core."

AND: Temujin emails:

"Like everyone else, introverts are excited about seeing family and close friends in person, dining in restaurants, traveling and all the other pleasures of a good life."

"But most are not interested in facing the forced small talk, the big parties, the noisy open offices and all the demands of extroverts who think more is more and introverts should try harder.... Many people believe introverts are cold, shy or socially anxious — but those stereotypes are misleading. They love people, but in small doses.... There’s some brain science to explain the behavior: Extroverts are less sensitive to dopamine, the 'feel-good' chemical that affects the brain’s pleasure center, and require more stimulation to be happy and energized. For introverts, a little dopamine goes a long way, and too much of anything can be exhausting. When restrictions were imposed last year, 'I had extrovert friends who were just losing their minds'.... But introverts were finally getting the uninterrupted time they craved.... Many professionals are questioning the value of returning to the 9-to-5 office — introverts because they prefer to work alone, extroverts because their lives would be simpler. Is getting dressed, enduring a commute and sitting at a desk really necessary?... Now introverts have colleagues — including plenty of extroverts — advocating to work from home part or full time. What happens next might depend on who’s in power. Extroverted bosses like the hustle and bustle of a traditional office. Introverted bosses may be more open to a hybrid workplace...."

From "Meet the introverts who are dreading a return to normal" (WaPo). 

Here's a perfect little TikTok I happened upon yesterday. It expresses some of what you see in that article:

“I don't think that you need to rehash ending comments any further, but I just thought of this. There is a Grateful Dead documentary on Prime..."

"... and the last episode, when the Dead were carrying on the show for the fans, the fans who were becoming increasingly rowdy, BTW. The show was killing Jerry, and did kill him. The Deadheads wouldn't even buy tickets for the show, but just would show up 'for the party.' The band was getting kind of sick of it an had no way to control it. Anyway, there was a lot about that final episode that reminded me of your blog. Like I said, you have stated your reasons clearly enough, so I am not asking you to use this in any way, but just credit it to 'Tim' if you should choose to do so."

That's (obviously) from the email. Here's the Amazon Prime series, "A Long Strange Trip." I've watched some of it, but not the last episode. Now, I will watch it. I have thought about my problem with the comments with an analogy to having a party at my own house.

The earthquake knocked the crosses off the National Cathedral.

Is God telling us something about the need for the separation of church and state?

IN THE COMMENTS: Jerub-Baal said:

Except for the fact that the finials are not crosses, but a variation of the ballflower. In fact, the ones on the National Cathedral are even less like crosses than a typical French cathedral, where one could possibly be forgiven for thinking they are such

He links to some photographs, proving his point. I said:

The WSJ article says "The earthquake knocked off the cross-shaped finial stones on three of the four pinnacles that jut out from the top of the tower."

A cross is only a shape. If something is cross-shaped, it's a cross.

So... the WSJ is wrong, based on the photos, and the message from God is, once again, obscure.