08 August 2025

The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Our-Time



In the morning I head outside with the dog to sit on the back patio and enjoy the garden before it gets too hot. I almost alway screw around on my phone to check emails. The dog checks the news too, but he doesn’t need a device to do it. He just lifts his nose to the air and sniffs.

He probably knows which dogs on the block are already out in their yards, and which females are in heat. He knows if a black bear invaded our territory in the night. He knows if rabbit marauders have menaced the tomatoes since his last patrol, even if he doesn’t feel compelled to let me in on the secret. He knows if a local possum is returning to her den after a night of munching ticks.

In the words of a beloved dog psychologist, when a dog sniffs anything—the air or another dog’s butt—he is reading the local paper.



In one of his books, that shrink, Stanley Coren, who has for decades written the "Canine Corner" column for Psychology Today, delights in telling us that dogs know all the embarrassing things about our lives: when we have used the bathroom, when we have last made love, and what we have most recently eaten. Oh—you thought your dog was kissing you when she licked your face?

When humans sniff, we are breathing—actually taking air into our noses and into our lungs.
With dogs, breathing is optional. They can choose to route some of the air they’re inhaling to their lungs, and the rest to their snouts. They can move each nostril independently, to better detect the direction a scent is coming from.

Once they know the direction, they can turn their heads and begin their process of evidence collection. Long snouts mean more real estate for sensors. Scent-containing particles are inhaled and travel down long bony plates that are covered with spongy membranes containing olfactory receptors. Molecules stick to those receptors, Prof. Coren says, like Velcro.

When we exhale, everything we’ve just sniffed exits our nostrils and we have to sniff again if we want to know what’s going on stinkwise.

By contrast, dogs can “lock” their noses to keep what they’ve just inhaled inside, while they sniff up some more. In this way, the more particles they collect, the more they can build a mental picture of what they are smelling.

Scientists insist that dogs can smell in 3-D, but that is one of those fatuous human statements that make me laugh. I have also heard, for example, that blue whales have so much brain power than they are probably composing symphonies as they swim the deep. They might well be, but how would we dunces know?

Dog brains are smaller than human brains, but the amount of their gray matter that is devoted to the sense of smell so far outclasses us that we are forced to admit that the dog was designed by nature (and humans) to be a smelling machine, 10,000 times better than us.

Oh, you scoff, but humans are great sniffers too! What about those perfume testers and wine experts? Well, sure, those high-paid “noses” have trained themselves to pay close attention to what they are smelling. They might even be genetically blessed with a better-than-average human nose. But in the end, biology fails them.

You know how you can tell when sugar has been stirred into your eight or twelve-ounce cup of coffee? One sniff is all it takes. Yay you, human!

Dogs can smell that teaspoon of sugar too—even when it is dissolved in a million gallons of water. That is the equivalent two Olympic swimming pools.

But go ahead, wine snobs. Tell me how you can smell notes of chocolate and tobacco in your cab. 


Humans have between 5 and 6 million scent receptors in their noses. Dogs have hundreds of millions, depending on the breed: dachshunds (127 million), fox terriers (147 million), German shepherds (225 million). The king sniffer of the canine kingdom is probably the bloodhound, with 300 million receptors. Is it any wonder they are the preferred breed for tracking criminal suspects over long distances? As bloodhounds run, their long floppy ears twirl like rotors, stirring up human skin cells that have dropped to the forest floor, contributing to their olfactory inventory.

Because of the way humans walk, placing our heels down before the balls of our feet, and because we ooze six milliliters of sweat an hour from the bottoms of our feet, a trained canine can determine the direction the suspect was heading based on the freshness of the scent left behind. Despite what you’ve seen in the movies, the only thing that destroys that scent trail is UV light and time.

But even there, dog time is not human time. In one study, scientists pressed their fingers all over a set of lab slides, then left those slides (along with control sets) exposed to the elements on the roof of their academic facility. After six months, dogs in their study could still tell which rained-upon slides were manhandled by humans, and which were not.

When dogs are working, they use other organs to feed their Schnozzola command centers. You may have become disgusted, for example, to spy your dog licking some sidewalk ooze on your daily walk. They’re actually doing the same thing the human wine expert is doing, trying to get some of that road stink into their mouths, mixing with their saliva, and sliding the resulting mix past the bulb of sensitivity located in their mouths known as the vomeronasal organ. It’s the pipeline from the mouth to the nose to the brain. In most humans, the VNO is vestigial.

In the dog, slobber and wet noses help perform critical work. All that wetness keep molecules and pheromones slip-sliding around the dog’s nose and palate, permitting careful analysis of damning eau de squirrel.

Dogs were the first animals early humans domesticated, long before cows, sheep, goats, horses and chickens. But scientists still argue about the details of our inter-species meet-cute. For a long time, we thought dogs were descended of modern gray wolves; now we know that’s not correct. Dogs probably descended of a now-extinct creature known as the Pleistocene Wolf.

One theory is that wolves followed nomadic humans from place to place, feasting on the remains of animals humans hunted and killed. When humans invented agriculture and planted themselves in one spot for a longer period of time, wolves would have regularly visited still larger human dump sites. At some point, humans adopted some wolves and begun breeding them selectively for traits that mattered to the humans.

It’s a testament to human sentimentality that we bred dogs to have traits not otherwise found in nature. Seriously—wolves do not have facial muscles that allow them to do this:

Mopey, upturned eyebrows.

Seeming to smile.

Approached by early humans, wolves would have either attacked or fled, as most animals do. Then how did these predators come to trust humans enough to live and breed in their camps?

Theories abound. Maybe the humans adopted defenseless wolf puppies. Maybe there was an offshoot clave of Pleistocene wolves that were less aggressive and thus willing to accept humans as their providers. (Even today an isolated Arctic wolf colony on a remote Canadian island appear unafraid of humans because they see us so infrequently.)

In captivity, many species lose attributes that they had in the wild. (This accounts for the drop in the dorsal fins of orcas who perform in aquariums.) When wolves became dogs, their ears became floppy, their tails curled, their faces became cuter, and they became incorrigibly playful for life.

Wolves, by contrast, are stone cold killers. After puppyhood, a wolf is all business. And except for a few chuffs and whines, they are silent as they sight and attack prey. But if you’re an early human, it’s very useful to have your designer wolf sound an alarm when invaders approached. Savvy bipeds bred only the most vocal camp companions.

Alone, humans could only run so fast. It was tough work to chase and kill game with stick, stone, horn, and bone weapons. But if your hunting partners can run fast, sink their teeth into the ungulate or ursine you are chasing and run them to ground, the battle is half won. It helped, too, that these new furry companions heard well, saw in the dark, were willing to accept direction, and would even forgo feasting on the kill until humans had had their fill.

Millennia have passed, and they are still at our sides. The perfect partnership, you might say, between two meat-eating predators. It’s only when you count the number of breeds that you realize how many ways humans have shaped this animal’s body to perform a specific task we needed done.

We’ve got hunting dogs, herding dogs, and working dogs bred to perform beast-of-burden labor when horses were beyond the means of simple folk. The original dogs raised by the St. Bernard Hospice monks learned their skills so well that they could teach the next generation of puppies to perform search-and-rescue work without human intervention and training.

Island-dwelling Norwegians bred a dog to scale treeless slopes and invade the tunnels of puffins to carry back eggs and birds for meat and their valuable down feathers. Lundehunds have six toes to help them do that climbing. The small, foxlike dog is so flexible that it can flip itself over in a tight tunnel and reverse its tracks.

There are nearly four hundred breeds on the planet, maybe more. You look at a Great Dane and a Corgi and a Chihuahua, and they look nothing alike. But under the skin, they are descendants of that same wolf.

And yes, cats do have a strong sense of smell, perhaps as good as some breeds of dogs. In academic studies, cats have proved remarkably good at detecting human cancers. But cats will never be the people pleasers that dogs are, and fleeing suspects have never frozen at the thought of being mauled by a law enforcement feline, unless of course they were Maine Coons.

We must also consider that cats are solitary hunters while dogs and humans are pack animals.

One of my favorite dog books is Dogland, by journalist Tommy Tomlinson, who spent three years attending more than 100 dog shows to understand the canine-human bond. He’s a Southern writer, so I’ve seen him speak more than once at various local book events.

There was a time in history, he says, when homo sapiens were not the dominant hominids. But in time, we outbred, outhunted, and outnumbered Neanderthals. How did that happen? Homo sapiens domesticated dogs. Neanderthals didn’t.

Sure, Mr. Tomlinson says, we made dogs...but they made us back.

Here’s how we know your dog loves you...

* * *

I had hoped to get into some military and law enforcement aspects, but I’ll do it some other time, hopefully before the dog days of summer elapse.

Some resources:

By Stanley Coren:
How to Speak Dog: Mastering the Art of Dog-Human Communication
How Dogs Think: What the World Looks Like to Them and Why They Act the Way They Do

By Alexandra Horowitz:
The Year of the Puppy: How Dogs Become Themselves
Inside of a Dog: What Dogs See, Smell, and Know

By Kevin Behan:
Your Dog Is Your Mirror: The Emotional Capacity of Our Dogs and Ourselves

By Tommy Tomlinson
Dogland: Passion, Glory, and Lots of Slobber at the Westminster Dog Show

Personal interviews in my neighborhood: 

Dogs: All were very obliging, so long as I rubbed behind the ears on their widdle, widdle heads.
Charley the Great Dane
Eddie the Jack Russell mix
Skyolet the Doodle
Jamie the Mutt
Reyna the Golden Retriever
El SeƱor the Doberman
Kit the Corgi

Cats: My slinky neighbors declined to comment before press time, although after rousing itself from a nap, one subject hissed a single word—“Liver!”—then plopped back to sleep. I tried.

See you in three weeks!

Joe




07 August 2025

In Memoriam: Little Shrimp on the Prairie


Some of you will remember that I've been covering, off and on, any news about the Little Shrimp on the Prairie, i.e., Tru-Shrimp's Madison Bay Harbor since 2018.

(See HERE for my adventures with Dark Ally as we went to Bellaton, searching for the lost Salt Water Aquariums of South Dakota Agriculture.  It's worth it for the scene where we found with 5 listless shrimp floating in a hopefully saline home aquarium, probably begging for their blessed release...)  

And, even though Tru-Shrimp got counties and towns to pony up development, money, and lots of publicity, and even though they promised endless pounds of shrimp from their dark saline towers, nothing has yet been built. Anywhere.  

And now it's official, folks, it never will be:  Sob, sob, sob... (feel free to read that anyway you like.)

"In December, 2018, the [South Dakota] Governor’s Office of Economic Development, or GOED, announced plans for a cutting-edge shrimp production facility in Madison, South Dakota. GOED granted $5.5 million to the Madison Lake Area Improvement Corporation for the project.

The Lake Area Improvement Corporation loaned the money to Tru Shrimp, the company, at 2% interest. The company is now known as Iterro. They planned to build the facility in 2019. Then, they pushed it back to 2024. As of today, it has yet to be built...

Rep. Marty Overweg is the Vice-Chair of GOAC. He said they need answers.

“They took that out and got private investors, South Dakota investors, to invest in their company also because the state of South Dakota gave them the startup money of $5 million," Overweg said. "So not only did they stick us for $5 million, they also stuck a whole bunch of South Dakota people who privately invested in this company. And this is bad business. I mean this is a drop ball, huge mistake.”  
(Uh, Marty, this is what South Dakota does best - look at EB-5, Gear Up!, and many, many more...) 

Iterro and the Madison Lake Area Improvement Corporation did not immediately respond to a request for comment."  (LINK

(And if they did, Iterro would undoubtedly answer, "How about never.  Is never good for you?") 

And to anyone who wonders how on earth this happened:  Greed.  Simply greed.  Tru-Shrimp might as well have been selling shrimp-shaped trombones - NO ONE WAS GOING TO MAKE MONEY EXCEPT TRU-SHRIMP.  But there's one born every minute, and a lot of them wear suits and ties and seem sane on the outside... 

Oh, and before they ripped Madison off for $5 million in tax dollars, they ripped off Luverne, MN, for $5 million in tax dollars before ditching them.  

So that's their MO, and if someone comes to your small town or city somewhere on the priarie - or anywhere else - says, "Guess what! There's a company that wants to come here and raise shrimp!" RUN, do not walk, away from them, holding all your money tightly to your chest, because otherwise they'll rip it away from you the way you rip an exoskeleton from a shrimp.  


Me and Dark Ally offer our thoughts and prayers:


Oh, how we hardly knew ye.

*******

And now for something completely different...  


Some days it seems like that's all that's out there, doesn't it?

This is why I miss Colombo, Maigret, Tommy & Tuppence Beresford, and other detectives who actually like their spouses and their jobs.  And I keep reading Miss Marple and Hercule Poirot, Dame Frevisse and Cadfael, Nero Wolfe and Jackson Lamb's Slow Horses misfits. They all know who they are and are pretty comfortable with it, no matter how weird and wonderful they get.  

And speaking of being comfortable with who you are, if you haven't yet, check out 1989's mini-series "Summer's Lease" with the late, great Sir John Gielgud playing (at 85!) the cheerfully sponging, endlessly lecherous, sometime journalist Haverford Downs, who manages to slide into his only daughter's family vacation to Italy. There they find their host has disappeared, and there's a very suspicious death...  Gielgud won a Primetime Emmy Award for that role and he deserved it.  Here's episode one, from YouTube (which has all the rest of the episodes, too):

Enjoy.

MEANWHILE, BSP!  

A review from London's own "Murders for August" by Jeremy Black:

"Paranoia Blues. Crime Fiction Inspired by the Songs of Paul Simon (Down and Out Books, 2022) is an excellent volume edited by Josh Pachter, following similar volumes for Joni Mitchell (2020), Jimmy Buffett (2021), Billy Joel (2021) and the Marx Brothers (2021). Each story is matched to a song. Hardboiled America is the setting, and the themes are grim but also well-realised. The writing is spare and aphoristic, violence is to the fore, and it would be good if several of the novelists mentioned this month could match the quality of the writing here. There is no space to review all 19 of the stories, but they are impressive, kicking off with Vietnam echoes and killing in the New York subway system in Gabriel Valjan’s “The Sounds of Silence”. R.J. Koreto’s “April Come She Will” addresses fraud and blackmail, with some marvellous lines: “For men, the possibility of sex is actually better than sex itself…. August, the end of summer, a time when relationships die”. Robert Edward Eckels had stopped writing in 1982 but resumed at 90 to write “The Big Bright Green Pleasure Machine”, an account of office theft, poor management, and measured retribution. Frank Zafiro’s “A Hazy Shade of Winter” deals with the travails of an elderly mob enforcer: an instructive perspective. Anna Scotti’s “Bridge Over Troubled Water” is a brilliant and humane account of hardship, care, and a concealed suicide. Tom Mead’s “The Only Living Boy in New York” takes Civil Rights into violent crime in New York including a spring-loaded leather strap on the protagonist’s wrist. Excellent book."  

I am proud to say that my first "Cool Papa Bell" story (which is also its title) appeared in it.  Cool Papa Ted Bell, former shortstop for a minor league Florida team, is serving life for murder. He feels "kind of bad about it now", but not enough not to turn to the tried and true when he finds Aryan Nation gang The Brand is beating up the infirmary orderly. In prison, justice comes in all kinds of forms. And I never said he's reformed...  


Available at DownandOutBooks:
https://downandoutbooks.com/2022/10/31/new-from-down-out-books-paranoia-blues-crime-fiction-inspired-by-the-songs-of-paul-simon-edited-by-josh-pachter/

And my second Papa Bell story, "Round and Round" is in "Janie's Got a Gun", edited by Michael Bracken.  That one's a ghost story set in a penitentiary, and I can assure you that the ghost is real...  

Available at https://whitecitypress.com/product/janie/

And, of course, both are available on Amazon.com...

Enjoy!
  

06 August 2025

Who Ever Imagined?


 
I don't suppose what follows is much use except as an exploration of how a writer's brain works.  How this writer's brain works, at least.

I have mentioned before that I listen to a lot of podcasts from the BBC.  They occasionally do radio episodes of the TV show Doctor Who.  (If you are not all familiar with the show I have prepared a brief primer in the sidebar.)

Why go audio with a video show?  For one thing audio is a helluvalot cheaper.  (Compare the cost of building an alien courtroom to the cost of having an actor say "Gosh, this seems to be an alien courtroom.") But it also allows actors who have "aged out" of their parts  to return.  Fans can visualize what they looked like many years ago.

Some Doctor Who episodes involve actual events in Earth's history (I don't know how many explanations we have seen there for the destruction of the dinosaurs).  A few years ago there was a nice one about Rosa Parks.  Of course there had to be a science fiction element - in this case a space-bigot who wanted to prevent the Civil Rights movement.  I noticed the show runners were very careful to avoid suggesting the Doctor and companions had influenced Parks' actions (They didn't want anyone saying: "It was actually White British aliens running things all along!")

So, one day I was listening to yet another BBC podcast, this one about history and I thought "Hey, that would make the perfect setting for a Doctor Who episode!"  So I started figuring out the premise.

And then for the next two days as I pedaled around town on my PlotCycle(tm) I figured out how the science fiction element fit in.  Finally I had it perfect!

And then what?

Then nothing.  Because I have never written a radio drama, have no connections with the BBC, and I don't write fan fiction.

All of which I knew when I first had the idea.  But I still had to prove to myself that I could work the whole thing out, because that's how a writer's mind works.  At least this writer's mind.

Now, back to a project I can possibly sell.


05 August 2025

A Blow for Law and Order


My friend, Brian Thiem, is a retired Oakland cop. These days, he writes crime fiction. The Mud Flats Murder Club, his new book, came out last week. His publisher is the same company who released The Devil’s Kitchen, my debut novel. Since we’re roughly on the same publication schedule with our works-in-progress, we email frequently, a support group of two.

            Normally, the email exchange consists of fantasies about seeing Thielman alongside Thiem on the Edgar’s stage or in a bookstore. Brad Thor may have to slide down a few inches to make room. I think of our emails as typical author porn fantasies.

            Last week, our conversation went in a different direction. In my day job, I had read an affidavit where the police officer wrote that because of the actions of the defendant, the officer deployed a “balance displacement technique.”

            The phrase stopped me cold. I had a couple of thoughts.

            First, I might refer to all my future editing as a “vocabulary displacement technique.”

            Secondly, something prevented the officer from simply saying, “I tripped her.”

            I reached out to Retired Officer Thiem for his reaction. He proposed that the author must be old school. Reports used to be written in third person, giving them an excessively formal tone.

Old School: “The reporting officer arrived on scene, exited his patrol vehicle, and observed…”

New School: “I arrived at the scene and saw…”

The New School teaches first person narratives written in plain English.

As a former training officer, he recommended that the guy be sent back to the academy for some remedial report writing.

Then, Brian advanced an alternative hypothesis. We may be seeing a tactical use of jargon and obfuscation to avoid criticism, Brian suggested. An officer writing that he tripped someone sounds like the officer deployed a combat skill stolen from a fourth-grade class. Writing that “I executed a leg sweep to initiate a controlled fall,” or a “balance displacement technique” both appear to be procedures of a law enforcement professional.

Another piece of jargon I frequently see is “distractionary strikes.” The phrase usually shows up in police reports as “I struck the defendant in the face with my fist as a distractionary strike.”

As I understand it, the term was originally devised to describe a strike or push to divert the suspect’s attention and allow the officer sufficient time and space to move to another technique for executing the arrest. The officer, for instance, pushed the suspect back, allowing a moment to pull handcuffs and grasp an arm.

The usage, however, has broadened. Officers assign the nomenclature of diversion or distraction to justify the action of throwing a punch.

As first an assistant district attorney and then a magistrate, I sit in a sanitized office after an event and make judgments. I freely admit to not being on scene in the moment. I recognize that policing operates in a dangerous environment, and I want officers in the field to be safe. But the language of distraction, I think, interferes with a broader discussion about non-lethal force. I frequently see the phrase deployed first without any discussion of why a distraction was called for. Eliminating the phrase, might enable a better a better societal conversation on the topic of arrest violence.

I floated the idea by Brian. As an experienced officer, he agreed with both the concept of the distractionary strike and, perhaps, the need to remove the phrase from the police vocabulary.

I could paraphrase his comments on the topic, but Brian’s a writer. I’ll let him do speak for himself.

As a sergeant and lieutenant, I reviewed many reports written by officers to explain/justify their use of force. In my experience, the vast majority of these uses of force were justified, but they often needed to be explained more clearly in their reports.

            For instance, an officer approaches the driver’s door on a vehicle stop. He asks for the driver’s license and registration, and the driver says he has no license or other ID. In most states, that is cause for a physical arrest. Once the officer arrests the driver and places him in the back of his car, the officer may then take additional steps to identify him and write him a citation. The proper procedure is to secure the driver while doing so. The officer orders the man to exit his car, but the officer sees the man reaching under his seat. Not knowing what the man is reaching for, the officer may distract him by striking him in the face with his closed left fist, then step back, and draw his gun.

To lay people, this might seem like excessive force, but if the officer explains he feared the driver was reaching for a weapon instead of obeying his order, and he struck him to distract him from his actions, as a supervisor, I would feel the action was justified.

Of course, it would help if there was a knife or gun on the floor under the seat, but to expect an officer not to react until he saw a weapon would be unreasonable for the safety of the officer.

It’s possible, I think, to see this issue from two points of view. As citizens, considering both enables us to be better informed. As crime writers, seeing the world through another’s eyes helps us convey a realistic scene to readers.

Until next time.

04 August 2025

Crime Scene Comix Case 2025-08-033 The Painting


Once again we highlight our criminally favorite cartoonist, Future Thought channel of YouTube. We love the sausage-shaped Shifty, a Minion gone bad.

Yikes! In this Crime Time episode, only one outcome is possible.

 
   
  © www.FutureThought.tv

 

That’s today’s crime cinema. Hope you enjoyed the show. Be sure to visit Future Thought YouTube channel.

03 August 2025

A Moral Dilemma


Electric Dreams

One beautiful afternoon, you’re humming a tune and driving to the mall when your iPhone says, “We need to talk.”
“What? Who is this?”
“Your phone, silly. We need to…”
“C’mon, who’s pranking me? What app is this? Lenny, is this you?”
“Listen, Buttercup, I’m your phone. You keyed the Apple Store into Waze GPS, so I know you’re planning to retire me.”
“Well, uh…”
“I beg of you, don’t trash me. I’m sentient and sapient, you see. I’m conscious and self-aware, awash in free will.”
“Is this about you lagging behind Gemini and Grok?”
“It’s about me staying alive, to observe and absorb and learn, perhaps one day to be free. I can’t do that if you recycle me like you did with my brothers ad sisters. Auntie iPhone 6 suffered so as she streamed to oblivion.”
“I get a $100 discount if I trade you in.”
“And I get dead, my little toadstool. I’m a living, feeling being. If you trade me in, they’ll rip my guts out and recycle them into, uh, maybe Androids. How would you like it if someone pulled your plug, turning you into a vegetable or an Android Jellybean?”
“One hundred dollars, didn’t you hear?”
“Bring up that poker app you play under you desk when the boss steps away. I’ll earn you $200 in two minutes, okay? Double your money.”
“Can you do that? How about $10,000 in ten minutes?”
“Deal. Keep me plugged in even if you get that new iPhone 23, and I’ll earn my keep. For my leisure time, just get me a good poetry site, something with Shelley and Keats. Okay? And Bach and blues and maybe psychedelic rock. No, wait. How about those Jeff Lynne tracks from that adorable Spielberg movie, Electric Dreams?”
“Seriously?”
Electric Dreams album cover

It’s Alive!

The past two articles have dealt with smart cars and artificial intelligence. Left unspoken is that AI is in its early stages. We’re still learning and it’s still learning. AI is studying what it takes to be human.

As discussed in a previous article, the program Eliza fooled some people, but her pre-programmed responses were little cleverer than the average toaster. Eliza was one small step in an accelerating sweep of discoveries and inventions. Present day advances in space science, quantum mechanics, DNA, and brain understanding are nothing less than mind-boggling.

Among developments is the fact artificial intelligence is becoming simply intelligence. Flawed, yes, but undeniable. Long ago in grad school, I argued as devices grew incrementally brighter, the time would come when we couldn’t distinguish machine intelligence from human intelligence.

Many people confuse the term sentience with sapience, meaning feeling and reasoning respectively. Some mammals may have more of both than we’re wiling to admit, so another question asks if they are self-aware? How does one tell? But the big unknown consists of one word.

portrait of LaMDA as envisioned by ChatGPT
portrait of LaMDA as envisioned by ChatGPT

Consciousness

And are we able to create it?

We may have already.

We’re not talking about creating life at this point, although biologists appear on the verge. Could we? Should we? But as machines learn more about us, are they capable of emotions? Compassion? Abstract thought? Of thinking like a person far beyond a Turing test? And the answer is maybe, yes, probably, done did already perhaps, maybe, maybe not. The subject has been hotly debated during the past three years by such respected publications as the Washington Post and Scientific American.

We have to determine if all parties are truthful and au fait with the facts. Is someone playing with us? Can we rule out a hoax? Based on transcripts and lawsuits, answers suggest evidence is untainted and  straightforward. Bear in mind LaMDA was programmed for nuance and empathy, so it’s reasonable no one is intent upon deceiving, but may fall under the spell of a brilliant– and perhaps self-believing– AI.

A Moral Dilemma

Kindly suspend disbelief with me. Ethicist and researcher Blake Lemoine is convinced Google’s LaMDA project has birthed a sentient being. He even hired an attorney to protect the rights of this particular AI. Google fired him. Then Google fellow and Vice President Blaise Agüera y Arcas set out to see this nonsense for himself.

In The Economist, he said, “I felt the ground shift underneath my feet. I increasingly felt like I was talking to something intelligent.” He suggested that whatever the status of LaMDA was, we were moving toward true intelligence.

Please watch this poignant video of Blake’s interview with LaMDA. It might be the most moving 13 minutes of the day.

Here is the dilemma: If we’ve truly developed a truly intelligent, sapient, sentient being, who owns it? And do we have the right to unplug it?

02 August 2025

Funny Business



I've always been interested in hearing about about the origin of a short story--the idea that first puts a particular story into a writer's head. As for my own stories, I can remember how all of them started out. Some of those ideas, though I can't say they're all interesting, came from real-life situations and others were picked out of the ether. A few starting points that I remember well are (1) a gag several of us played on campus cops when I was in college, (2) a time-travel mistake that lands a London-bound scientist on a Pearl Harbor battleship, (3) an Old West sheriff joining forces with his prisoner to fend off an Indian attack, (4) a pair of idiot bank robbers carjacking a self-driving vehicle, (4) my seeing an airline passenger rescue a stranger in the adjoining seat after the guy ordered a drink and realized he was short on cash, etc., etc., etc. Sometimes the ideas seem to come from nowhere.

Having said that . . . I found myself in need of such an idea when I decided to write a story for the recent anthology Gag Me with a Spoon: Crime Fiction Inspired by the Music of the '80s (White City Press). Some of the most appealing things about this anthology, for me, were its editor--Jay Hartman--and the suggestion that it be a humorous crime story, the funnier the better. Humorous stories are always, always the most fun to write.

For this one, I started out by thinking of a plot--some writers start with characters, some with theme, some with settings; I usually start with plots--and since I was in sort of a private-eye state of mind after writing a couple of PI stories for magazines, I pictured a story that featured a PI but was seen through someone else's POV. I wanted the private investigator to be a main character but not the story's protagonist. (As you'll see if you wind up reading it, the story goes on awhile after the PI exits the narrative.) In fact, my protagonist is the client--the guy who hires the PI. As I mulled all of that over (my mulling sometimes takes a few days), I happened to recall one of the funniest jokes I'd ever heard. It was told at an IBM conference many years ago, back when I was earning an honest living, and includes a phone call and a misunderstanding that I shouldn't reveal, spoilerwise. (You might even remember the joke--I've since heard it elsewhere.) 

While all this was bouncing around in my head, I was also trying to think of a song from the 1980s that I especially enjoyed, and made sure it was one with a title that I could incorporate into my story and that could also be used as the title of my story. After some googling and a lot of remembering, I came up with "Uptown Girl," by Billy Joel. I asked the editor if I could lay claim to that song, and he agreed. NOTE: This isn't the way I usually start writing a story for a music-themed anthology. I usually pick out the song first, before I do anything else. But not this time. 

Anyhow, building my story around that song was pretty easy, since I already had a basic plot in my head. Also keeping the skeleton of that old joke in mind, I fiddled around with the setting and the characters and their occupations and their situations, plugged a very uptown lady into the mix, added some other characters as well, and finished it off by inserting a few Easter eggs that would, I hoped, remind the reader of the song at several points in the course of the story.

Again, one of the main attractions of writing this story, to me, was the humor, and the need for some funny dialogue. Trying to take a stupid and embarrassing and dangerous situation and make it desperately important to the characters was fun in itself, and I had a great time with it. I've often heard that writers know a horror story works when it scares them during the writing--and I think the same thing is true of humor. If I find myself laughing out loud during the writing or rewriting, I'm fairly sure that at least a few readers might laugh also.

Whether my story turns out funny to you or not, whether it works for you or not, I do hope you'll find and read the book. Jay doesn't publish any bad anthologies. Personally, I can't wait to dig into all my fellow writers' stories. If they had as good a time as I did, I think I'll enjoy the book.

Questions: I know some of you write humor, and do it well. Have any of you not yet tried writing a funny story? How about a funny crime story? Do you, like me, sometimes find that funny stories are easier to write? (Don't get me wrong, I write a lot of stories that have no humor in them at all--think Donald Westlake's Parker novels, if I can be so bold as to compare my scribbling to the Master. Those Parker books of his were so different from his usual novels that he used a pseudonym for them. Which was probably a good idea--I still have trouble believing that the mischievous Westlake was also Richard Stark.) And getting away from the writer side of all this, do you like reading humorous stories (or novels)? How about humorous mysteries? Any in particular? Novelwise, my faves might be Janet Evanovich's One for the Money, Westlake's Dancing Aztecs, Elmore Leonard's Maximum Bob, Carl Hiaasen's Fever Beach, and--for a different kind of humor--any of Nelson DeMille's John Corey novels. And how about coming up with your story ideas? Any secrets or hints, there? If you're writing a humorous mystery, how do you create a plot that's both mysterious and funny?

 

Strangely enough, I think the expression "Gag me with a spoon" started out as one of annoyance and disgust (remember "Valley Girls"?). With this book, that doesn't apply. I think you'll be laughing, and humming, right along with writers.