Ah yes, Eileen Gu...

 It's hard to miss the numerous articles in the news of late regarding Eileen Gu. After reading some of them, it's hard not to form an opinion regarding her decision to represent China in the 2026 winter olympics. I suppose that one's opinion will vary depending on whether you're Chinese or American. In case you haven't been keeping up, let me give you a little background.

Eileen Gu is a world-renowned freestyle skier, fashion model, and student at Stanford University. Born in San Francisco in 2003 to an American father and a Chinese mother, she has become quite well known for her record-breaking athletic performances and her decision to represent China in international competition. Taking into consideration that she is of American and Chinese descent, one might argue that her decision was not unreasonable. There are, however, some mitigating circumstances. 

Gu is a documented American citizen. She holds an American passport. At the time of her decision she was not a Chinese citizen. China does not recognize dual citizenship. In order to become a Chinese citizen, Gu would be required to renounce her American citizenship. She has not done this. Several of her sponsors that finance her training, travel and expenses are American corporations. Her mother was educated at Stanford, where Gu is currently enrolled. Gu actually began representing China in 2019, and the Chinese Consulate General has stated that athletes in her position would need to be naturalized or gain permanent residency status to compete for their team. 

It has not been documented that Gu was granted Chinese citizenship, though it's quite obvious she is representing China in the olympics. In early 2025, a public budget document from the Beijing Municipal Sports Bureau accidentally included the names of Eileen Gu and figure skater Zhu (Beverly) Yi. The document designated approximately $6.6 million for the two athletes for "striving for excellent results in qualifying for the 2026 Milan Winter Olympics." Over a three year period leading up to the 2026 games, the two athletes reportedly received nearly $14 million in total government support. It is likely Gu received the larger share considering her three olympic medals. While these direct payments were revealed, the vast majority of Gu's income, estimated at roughly $23 million in 2025, comes from private endorsements and sponsorships, including Red Bull, Porsche, Louis Vitton and several Chinese companies such as the Bank of China and Luckin Coffee. The disclosure of these state payments ignited vigorous debate on Chinese social media regarding public spending on US-born athletes, and the names were removed from the published budget documents. 

Given these dubious, and might I say nefarious circumstances, there's one other minor circumstance I'd like to mention. To cement her status as a 'polarizing' subject of the Milan Winter Games, in an interview with a reporter Tuesday Gu responded to a question about her winning two silver medals instead of gold, as a "ridiculous perspective." She responded, "I'm the most decorated female skier in history. I think that's an answer in and of itself. I'm doing things that quite literally have never been done before." 

So, to each, his own regarding her questionable, misplaced allegiance. Evidently, there's nothing questionable about her arrogant, narcissistic attitude, however. One must admit though, she belongs to a very small cohort, those who aspire to be Chinese and American, depending on who pays the most...

Let's Talk About AI...

 There's been a lot of discussion about AI of late, and a lot of controversy. One of the biggest points of contention is that it is going to be the cause of job losses. Possibly thousands, or even millions of jobs. As of right now, AI has already resulted in some job displacements. The vast majority of these losses have been entry-level and routine task jobs. Meaning, of course, younger workers, aged 20-25 have seen significant drops in employment opportunities. Oddly, older workers in the same sectors have not experienced the same drops. Interesting, huh? Layoffs across such industries as tech, media, and customer support that have been linked to AI adoption predict more workforce pressures ahead. 

However, as of today, broad, mass unemployment from AI adoption hasn't happened yet. Central bank data suggests that AI adoption hasn't significantly increased overall unemployment so far and is more associated with re-training than layoffs. Studies find no evidence of large-scale job loss overall and unemployment rates remain relatively low in economies aggressively adopting AI. 

So, why exactly, so far, is the impact 'mixed'? AI doesn't always eliminate jobs outright, it often transforms jobs by automating parts of the work, changing what people do rather than making them obsolete. Analyses estimate that AI and automation create new roles, as in AI development, maintenance, oversight, and complementary fields that outnumber direct AI-related cuts, though they may require higher skills or retraining. 

Workers in routine, repetitive, or entry-level positions are most at risk today, while roles requiring complex human judgment, creativity, care, and interpersonal skills are more resistant, and these roles may even grow. 

Economists and business leaders disagree on the scale and timing of future job losses. Some forecast modest job losses in the next decade with a significant need for worker retraining. Leaders in the technology field have explicitly warned that AI could automate a large share of white collar jobs within a short time frame, which could pressure employment if adaptation lags. International organizations (like the IMF) highlight that many jobs will be transformed or enhanced by AI, not simply eliminated. 

To sum things up, it's fair to say that AI has already contributed to job losses and reshaping of roles in certain sectors. But it has not caused a widespread collapse of employment overall. Many displaced workers are moving into different jobs or retraining, and new AI related job opportunities are emerging at the same time. We are experiencing more of a 'transition phase' than something more serious and disruptive. 

Now that we have discussed AI from a broad perspective, let's talk about it from a more personal viewpoint. For students, when given an  assignment to write an essay, or discuss the fine points of a book, or 'give your views' on what message the author was trying to get across, it's too easy, too inviting, too irresistible to not ask an AI app to do this for you. It can be done in a matter of seconds. And the answer will be credible, perhaps even impressive. Professors, teachers, often pressed for time and underpaid will be more than willing to assume that the student has read the essay, or book and given the assignment due diligence and written what they think. If that's the case then they have indeed learned something. Like how to understand and interpret what they have read. Undoubtedly, a very critical skill required for success in life. If they have copy/pasted what ChatGPT, Claude, or Gemini told them, what have they learned? That's a rhetorical question, of course. Nada, zip, zilch, zero. AI wasn't intended for that purpose, but it's pretty safe to assume that it is often used for such. 

There are endless articles of literature and science and the arts that expand our view of the world and help us to understand it. But if we lack the basic ability to read and understand and interpret, then the work of the great thinkers before us is lost. The works of Michelangelo and Leonardo daVinci have fascinated humans for centuries. But for those curious enough to ask why, why their work is so fascinating, who was Michelangelo and daVinci, what were their  lives like, where did they come from? Yes, those answers can be found (quickly) through an AI app. But nothing on any AI app can give you the insight that can be gained through reading a book on Michelangelo or Leonardo daVinci. A book where an author has taken the time to research their lives and interpret all the knowledge he has learned from his research. We can all look at the frescos on the Sistine Chapel ceiling, St. Peter's Basilica dome, the Mona Lisa, and appreciate them. Without knowing a thing about who created them. But once you have taken the time to read about them, who they were, what happened in their lives that made them the artists they became, then you can truly appreciate their magnificent work. Fascination becomes real. Michelangelo and Leonardo daVinci didn't have AI. They didn't need it even if it were available to them. They were creative thinkers...

Between the Whistle and the Gun

Some stories begin as ideas. Others begin as obligations.
This one began as a question that wouldn’t let go: What happens to ordinary people when history moves on without them? After more than a decade of writing, revising, and living with that question, I’m finally nearing the publication of a novel that grew out of it.

---

Between the Whistle and the Gun

I’ve been working on this novel for a long time. Long enough that it stopped feeling like a project and started feeling like something I owed to the story itself.

Between the Whistle and the Gun is a work of historical fiction set in the final decades of the 19th century, in a country that no longer exists on any modern map: Indian Territory.

It is a place caught between worlds—between treaties and treachery, between law and lawlessness, between survival and erasure.

At the center of the story are Clint Franklin and Vivvy Tuttle, two young people whose lives become entangled with forces far larger than either of them imagined. Railroads carve through the land. Outlaws stalk the margins. Presidents make promises from distant offices. And ordinary people are left to live with the consequences.

This is not a novel about famous men alone, though some appear. It is about the people who live in the wake of history—those who must decide whether to bend, resist, or endure when the rules are written elsewhere.

Much of the story is rooted in real events: train robberies, political maneuvering in Washington, the collapse of tribal sovereignty, and the quiet heroism of people trying to build a life where stability is constantly under threat. The fiction lives in the spaces between the records—the private conversations, the moral choices, the cost of doing what feels right when the outcome is uncertain.

At its heart, this is a story about heritage. About what is taken, what survives, and what must be defended even when the odds are overwhelming.

I’m nearing the end of the long road with this book now. As publication approaches, I wanted to begin sharing more about it here—not as marketing noise, but as context. This story has asked a great deal of me over the years. I hope, when it’s finally in your hands, it proves worthy of your time as well.

If you’d like to follow the journey toward publication, I’ll be sharing updates and reflections here as the book makes its way into the world.

Thank you.

C. Clayton Lewis