A Plague On Both Your Houses

State Dept. Investigates Hillary Aides (again and again)

In virtually all of the cases, potentially sensitive information, now recategorized as “classified,” was sent to Clinton’s unsecure inbox.

via www.washingtonpost.com

Of course they are.  Anybody with one brain cell could have predicted this.  Trump, as usual lashes out and blames others for the things he does.  The truth is, Hillary's misdeeds are so 2016.  Who cares? Is she President? No. Is she in government? No. Does she have any real power? No.  Trump just can't stand being blamed so he plays the "Whatabout" game and gives us an investigation into yesterdays news, which was already investigated for years by a republican congress and a republican Senate.  What a surprise! Donald wants to distract us from the things he did wrong. Alert the media!

GOP Defense of Trump Tepid

GOP battens down the hatches after release of Trump whistleblower complaint

The GOP Senators need to be a little less trusting that somehow Trump is going to act like a normal President would. They have already abdicated their power to him, now they want him to act like he cares.

Guys, I hate to break it to you, he doesn't. Not about you, not about the Country and not about anybody not named Trump.

Trump the Politician and the Whistleblower Crisis

Donald Trump has always been a masterful politician. In fact the biggest lie he has told his supporters is “I am not a politician.” Now, don’t get me wrong. He isn’t a politician like Nancy Pelosi or Mitch McConnell. He is a corporate politician. Pelosi and McConnell, for all their faults, actually believe in something outside their own self interest. Trump believes in nothing but his own prosperity and self interest. Like any good corporate politician he blames others for mistakes he makes, he criticizes others preemptively for things he is doing or is about to do himself and he takes credit for others’ accomplishments. In the current “crisis” Trump will do one or more of the following and those that are opposed to the way he is destroying American democracy and American interests throughout the world, should be prepared:

1. He will no doubt blame countless others across the board. Biden, of course. Hillary, just because. The Democrats, the deep state, the intelligence community, the Ukrainian President. I think he will also blame Bolton and possibly other former “friends.” He may even let Rudy take the fall. That’s just who he is. No matter what he will maintain that he is blameless completely;
2. He will obfuscate, delay and create distractions of all kinds. He will wind down or gear up the China trade war. He will go to North Korea or have Kim come here. He will come up with anything to distract from his guilt or draw media attention away from the investigation and his guilt. He will create slogans that any number of supporters at rallies can chant and that supporters on twitter and in the media can repeat ad nauseam. Similar to “No collusion.” They will be simple, straightforward and repeatable in all contexts. He already started by trying out “No quid pro quo” but that isn’t catchy enough;
3. He will give clues to what he has done, or will do, by what he accuses others of doing. In my view the first such “admission” is the recent accusation of “spying.” It truly makes one wonder if he is in fact the Manchurian candidate. In any event he will accuse Democrats of a cover up and he will no doubt reference much covering up by the Clintons, because they are his go-to foils. This will come as he destroys or hides evidence;
4. His people will pull Lewandoskis at every hearing and every opportunity. He will sue and he will resist and delay. His supporters in Congress will take every opportunity to cast blame on others and delay and destroy the hearings.

All in all he will preserve himself without a care in the world about what that will do to the country. He will not do what’s best. He will not give up or give in like Nixon, because he knows the Country needs it. He cares not a bit about America or it’s greatness. He will not behave “normally” and anybody who is shocked or dismayed by that is just an idiot.

A short Essay on depression inspired by the deaths of Anthony Bourdain and Kate Spade

I am not a psychologist, but in dealing with, reading about and thinking about the problems of depression that have been close to me I have come to realize that personal demons are real and personal. They have little if anything to do with the outside world or “reality” as most of us think about it. Depression is a “thing” as far as I can tell. A physical, palpable, oppressive, real thing. Holding it at bay is a constant, exhausting and sometimes overwhelming struggle. It is incredibly unkind, naive, stupid and damaging to call suicide “selfish” or “cowardly.” As if that will somehow deter someone else, through guilt, from committing suicide. In all likelihood, such statements exacerbate the depression of those already battling it.

Those who battle depression are incredibly intrepid and courageous. They fight a battle they see as without end and without hope, yet they keep on fighting day after day, week after week, year after year until they finally can fight no more. That is the reality of depression.

Anthony Bourdain’s girlfriend said “only the best, funniest, loveliest, most empathetic, wonderful, talented people have depression.” She’s right and I have a theory that they are so, because they know the opposite. They know what a dark and dull and lonely and uncaring and loveless world looks like. They think they see it every day, so they try their hardest to be the opposite and they care deeply about those who suffer, because they see the big bad world every single day.
I have described my thoughts on suicidal depression to someone who has attempted suicide twice. The first time, she had second thoughts and called the paramedics herself just before the booze and sleeping pills took her under, they had to revive her on the way to the hospital. The second time, I found her. She was in ICU for two days. My description was as follows:

A person travels through a bleak desert. The sun bakes down on them. They can’t seem to get out of the desert yet they struggle forward in an attempt to get across it. Day by day they struggle. They have no food nor water yet they carry on. Occasionally, they think they see an end, but it is only a mirage. Occasionally they find a drop of moisture but it evaporates quickly. Onward they go. Soon they are on their hands and knees still struggling, still pushing, inching forward, clawing and crawling. Finally they can not do it anymore. Finally they give up. They feel terrible about giving up. Their dying thoughts are of their friends and family and the life they loved and lived, but they can go no further, struggle no more, they are just too tired. They are in too much pain.

Would you call such a person “selfish?” Would you say they were a “coward?” Of course not. They did the best they could through pain and suffering that we could not see or understand, we don’t see the world as hopeless and painful, they do.

Some make it through the desert. Some, with the help and support of family and friends, good doctors and good medicine can come out the other side or at least make the pain bearable, the struggle easier. To help them and others we need more understanding and compassion, not judgment.

Democrats Failed

On CNN a week or two ago I heard a familiar refrain from a Hillary Clinton supporter. She said in so many words, “its not our fault, we just made some tactical mistakes, Jim Comey screwed everything up, there’s a real problem with sexism and misogyny, we failed to get out some Latinos and African Americans, she won the popular vote, and yes we should look at the electoral college because its not democratic.” Of course these aren’t her exact words, but the gist seems to be the same. This reminds me of 2010 when the Democrats lost and basically said hey, we didn’t misunderstand the electorate, they misunderstood us. Today Chuck Schumer said we need to communicate our message better that we want change and to resolve the economic problems that people are struggling with.

Let me try to make this clear to the Democrats. You lost because you have the wrong message and you put down, disrespect, belittle and take for granted the single largest minority in the country - the white working poor. You also lost because you are insiders who treat outsiders as if they are idiots. It’s pretty easy for the national Democratic Party to win in places like California where you hand out money and perks to various minority groups while the Republicans disrespect them. Essentially the system amounts to legal bribery. It’s a quid pro quo. You vote for us we will continue giving you handouts. Woe betide the Democrats if the Republicans start doling out social justice and create new ways of enhancing the lot of minorities than throwing money at them.

This election had nothing to do with misogyny and very little to do with Donald Trump’s remarks on tape. Don’t get me wrong. Donald Trump is a total sleaze-ball. He always has been. He probably always will. But the electorate basically said Hillary is a dishonest insider and Donald is a piggish and dishonest outsider. Ok, we’ll take the outsider. That’s not a lack of messaging, that’s a complete lack of respect by the insiders inside the beltway for the electorate.

And about the electoral college. Really? You want to disenfranchise everyone between the coasts and say basically you don’t matter? You want to turn back time to the tyranny of the majority? You want elite urban snobs to run the country? You really have lost touch. And what happens when the shoe is on the other foot? What happens when you aren’t in the majority? Will you want it back then? The electoral college is in place to do exactly what the Constitution has done on many issues. It is there to put in place checks on the overly powerful. It is there to make sure the minority in rural areas is not disenfranchised. It is there to protect against the government being too powerful and controlled by too concentrated a segment of the population.

Both political parties have lost sight of the characteristics and values we as Americans share. The values of integrity, reward for hard work, opportunity (not gifts), and an aversion to overly centralized power. Maybe some party, in order to deal with the central problem in this country, should not talk about endless taxation and redistribution of wealth. Maybe instead they should talk about making sure that the rewards that go to successful people are shared by those people with the people who help them get there. No tax, no government involvement, no salary caps. Just say that 40% as an example, of corporate profit that is not reinvested in the Company goes to workers, and that all Companies provide their employees with an ownership stake through stock or phantom stock. Just force corporate executives to provide their workers with some of the profits. Also don’t put a cap on corporate executive rewards, just force them to provide others with benefits. Something they should do voluntarily. Reward them for this with tax breaks and other incentives.

The Democratice Debate

If this were any other time, any other year, the media would be singing the praises of Hillary for her debate performance last night. In terms of substance Hillary clearly won. In terms of calm, presidential appearance, Hillary clearly won. In terms of passion, Hillary at least tied.  But let’s get real. There’s a reason Hillary doesn’t get respect.  This is the year of the populist.  This is a time, even more so than 2008 or 2012, when marketing rules the day, not substance.  If you want to market to the young popular culture, you don’t want a wonkish, substance oriented, agressive, knowledgeable, strong, woman who looks like your mom and wears pearls and suits.  An elderly, kind of wild looking, grandfather figure, with “youthful” and “revolutionary” ideas, who talks a good populist line boiling down to “screw the rich,” is much better.

 

Nevertheless, last night, smart people saw the real difference between the two.  Hillary may be nerdy but she has both passion and substance. Bernie, as I’ve said before, is full of sound and fury signifying nothing. When you scratch Bernies surface, there’s nothing underneath but the same righteous indignation you see on the outside. Hillary may not be the sexy, oh-so-inspiring choice, but in an increasingly frightening and unstable world, she has the stability, the knowledge and the expertise to lead us through the quagmire. She may not always be right or make every decision I would like, but I trust her a lot more than either Bernie or the Donald.

*Bernie Sanders Strategy*

 

Make no mistake, Bernie Sanders has a politically sound strategy. Throughout this campaign he has fostered it, refined it and implemented it to great effect. His populism does not stem from an inherent morality. He does not have an Arthurian round table of justice, honor and equality. Bernie has a plan calculated on the most basic of human calculators, pure politics. 

Virtually all ambitious politicians strive for the ultimate goal of becoming President of the United States. No higher office exists. How then does a socialist reach the POTUS goal?

According to his Senate website, Sanders is the "longest serving independent member of Congress in American history." Bernie has no superior claim to others as an idealist and outsider. A stranger to politics, political calculation and strategy he is not. In fact Bernie has done virtually nothing in his life other than run for and hold political office. So how does an independent socialist become a Democratic candidate for President? He implements an effective and sophisticated strategy to get there.

Election calculus does not require a degree in rocket science or qualification for brain surgery. You need to know your audience (target market/supporters), you need to understand your opposition's strengths and weaknesses, you need to have good timing, and ultimately you need to understand what message will best reach your target supporters. It helps to understand your own strengths and weaknesses as well. The real key to an effective strategy lies not in simple linear thinking about these components but in weaving them together so they all coalesce into an useful mechanism for winning. 

Timing, they say, is everything. They know of what they speak. Bernie has graced the political stage for almost 40 years, he's had other opportunities. Given his age, his time may be running out, but the timing couldn't be better. The country is angry, divided, and ripe for "revolution." The threat of communism, and the adjunct fear of socialism, died long ago. Progressives (blech, I hate using that word, why can't I call them lefties or radicals or at least liberals?) favor European neo-socialist policies. Mix that up in the stew of presidential primary politics and you can easily see the timing for a bubbling pot of Bernie love.

But there's an obstacle. Hil's in the mix. She's popular, she's smart, she's a woman, she's got credentials and backers and the Democratic establishment out the wazoo.  Who can Bernie target as an audience when he's up against that? How can he reach that audience, once he decides on his target market? The keys - anger, division, fear.  Who is angry and at what? What do they fear? What frustrations do they harbor? 

Think like Bernie's political consultants. Oh, yeah, he has them just like all the others. Who, you might ask yourself, are the constituents that make up primary voters?  The Democratic voters divide into a number of categories for easy marketing - minorities, the poor, elderly, Tom Wolfe's radical chic (rich liberals) and their beneficiaries the Democratic political establishment, young idealists, garden variety progressives and moderate social liberals. You know, because you know politics, that Hil will get the minority votes, because she has established credibility in their communities and you do not. Hil is likely to get the elderly because they are more moderate and they remember Bill. Hil will get the establishment. You might be able to pull the poor, the radical chic and the young idealists and the most left leaning progressives. Moderates go to Hil.

So the target audience consists of the party's left wing, the frustrated poor and young idealists. How do I reach them? What political strategy can I use to greatest effect to bring them in to primaries in droves?

Populism has been used for thousands of years as an effective political strategy in times of anger, frustration, upheaval, fear and injustice. Populism doesn't merely promote policies to appeal to the electorate logically. Populism plays on the anger, frustration, perceived injustices and fears of the population to avoid having to make real policy choices and to avoid having to define policy too clearly. If the anger, fear and frustration mean the populace wants the moon, you promise them the moon. It doesn't matter if you can deliver, it doesn't matter what it costs, it doesn't matter who it tramples or what it violates. The moon it is, cause that's what they want. Populism's only vision, in the words of some Republican talking points, requires leading from behind. Populism gives the people what they think they want, not what is right, or what they need or even what you believe.  Give them what they want and then you can get elected.

Populism provides the perfect strategy for Bernie. The young idealists are frustrated? Give them the old chicken in every pot, the old free lunch, or in this case free tuition. The poor are angry? Throw them millionaires and billionaires and Wall Street to sate their anger. Progressives think they have been betrayed, throw them universal health care and higher taxes on those millionaires and billionaires and stomp all over free trade policies.  For goodness sake stay away from foreign policy. Hillary was Secretary of State and a damn good one, no sense in trying to attack strength with weakness.  Hil can be attacked on her ties to Wall Street and her speeches. Young idealists will come out in droves if you promise free tuition, and get them riled up enough about millionaires and billionaires and how Wall Street is forcing all our jobs overseas and big corporations are getting fat and happy off jacked up prescription prices. Moderates are not big primary voters anyway. Get enough of the poor in industrial states, and voila a recipe, a strategy for success.

My problem lies in all the adoration heaped on Bernie by his supporters as some kind of moral saint looking out for the little guy. Bernie is viewed as somehow above the fray and outside the political elite. That's preposterous. Bernie is as calculating in his populism as Donald Trump is. They have taken the exact same approach, long on rhetoric and rabble rousing, short on substance.  They go for the same fears, frustrations and anger in much the same populations.  They are both "full of sound and fury signifying nothing."

Donald Trump

Well at long last, a few days before Super Tuesday, the Republican field and the Republican party decided to take Donald Trump (or as John Oliver says "Drumpf") seriously. The arrogant idiots deserve what they have got. The truth is that Trump always took himself seriously. People have to understand that he is a developer. Call him a project developer, not just a real estate developer. Two things you have to understand about developers. First they take themselves very seriously. They believe in their dreams. They believe in their projects. Second, they will lie, cheat and steal to bring those projects to fruition.

In politics this seems like hypocrisy. On the one hand he really believes what he says when he says he wants to make America great again, that he's going to build a wall, that Mexico is going to pay for it. But most importantly he believes in putting himself in the White House and putting his name on the Presidency. He gets all excited when he thinks about the "Trump White House" or the "Trump Presidency" or "President Trump." On the other hand he continuously lies in order to get to that goal. The media and the political "establishment" doesn't get this. Nor do they understand the attraction of someone like him.

The establishment and the media are used to people who are utterly insincere. But these insincere people won't tell bald faced lies, because they don't want to be embarrassed by getting caught in those lies. Because they are insincere, they don't want to get caught in their insincerity. Trump is in fact sincere. That's his great attraction. That's why people like him. He isn't insincere. He just lies. There is a huge (YUUUUGE!) difference.

The media and the politicians are cynics. Trump is a dreamer. The reason he can sell ice cubes to Eskimos is because he really believes they need ice. Politicians and the media are used to people who don't really believe what they are saying and they parse words to make people think they are cleverly not "lying." In fact people see through this and they are tired. Trump is a breath of fresh air. Who cares if he lies. They all lie. At least he believes in the results. Wouldn't it be nice to have someone who actually believes? That is his attraction.

The problem of course, to paraphrase Monty Python, is that he is that most dangerous of people, the cleverly sincere lier. In other words he beleives in his project. The only difference between a developer and a con-man is that a developer believes he has something to sell, he believes in the project. A con-man knows he has nothing to sell. Donald is dangerous because he doesn't care how he gets his project (putting the Trump name on the White House so he can make America great again) off the ground. Trample the constitution, no problem. Lie, no problem. Call people names, no problem. Be vicious about the competition, no problem. Send mixed signals to racists, no problem. He only cares about the result. As he would put it "Winning."

Those of us who care about America more deeply find this frightening. This is why people compare him to Hitler. Hitler wanted to make Germany great again. And he tried, at the cost of humanity, civilization, decency, justice, and millions upon millions of lives. He didn't care. He cared about the ultimate result. Thank God he never got it. Trump raises the vision of somebody who doesn't care. He believes the ends justify the means. That morality takes a back seat. That decency is secondary. That the constitution is just a piece of paper.

That is the problem with Trump. That is what makes him so scary. Not that he is a lier in the usual political sense, or even a con-man. Trump should be feared because he believes in his goal, putting his stamp on the White House, to the exclusion of all else.

Apple, Security and Free Speech?

Apple now has an "interesting" argument that says code is free speech and therefore, under the First Amendment, the government can't compel speech, and therefore the FBI can't make Apple write the code to break into the San Bernadino phone.  If this is true, then why doesn't the Government have an equally, yet simpler arguement that Apple is engaging in obstruction of justice, by its refusal to comply with a court order compelling it to produce the contents of the phone under a valid warrant.  After all, Apple intentionally wrote the code that prevents the Government, in a criminal investigation, from getting information to which it has a valid and legal right.  Why not get Apple under the California statue:

"A person who, knowing that any book, paper, record, instrument in writing, digital image, video recording owned by another, or other matter or thing, is about to be produced in evidence upon a trial, inquiry, or investigation, authorized by law, willfully destroys, erases, or conceals the same, with the intent to prevent it or its content from being produced, is guilty of a misdemeanor."

It seems that this would be an equally interesting argument. Apple clearly is intentionally concealing and there may be an argument that they are willfully destroying it by refusing the FBI's request to prevent the phone from destroying it.

And while we're at it. Why is Apple insisting that this is a privacy issue?  This is only a privacy issue for everyone who wants, or can afford a iPhone and has bought it. Will this same software affect LG, Samsung or other phones? Will it affect cheap phones?  The argument that this is somehow a threat to all our privacy is just not true.  If you have the money to own an iPhone, you get privacy, but everyone else is out of luck?

The truth is, if you look closely and don't just have a knee-jerk reaction, there are holes all over this Apple argument. The fact that Apple hasn't said "It can't be done" begs the question why can't somebody else do it? And that begs the question if somebody else can do it, what they hell are we paying all these tax dollars for the NSA and other "cyber" government agencies, if they can't do it?  And if its so likely to get out into the "public" if Apple does it and keeps it in house (like the FBI has suggested) why hasn't that happened already? And really are we seriously to believe that they locked the door on all these phones and threw away the key?

Apple and the Security Problem

First let’s talk a little about warrants and searches.  The Government has a right to search your home, your property or your person without your consent, as long as it has a warrant. It can also seize your property with a warrant.  That’s the law. That’s what the constitution allows. That’s the extent of your privacy rights in connection with search and seizure by the Government.  And if they have your permission, they don’t need a warrant.

In the case of the terrorist phone involved in the San Bernadino killings, the phone belonged to the county, the people using the phone did not have a right to use it for personal private use.  The county gave the government permission to search it.

Think of it this way. If the Government had a warrant to search your apartment, and they didn’t have the key they could either break down the door or make the landlord give them the key. 

So now we come to the phone.  The only potentially viable argument Apple has against unlocking the phone (and the one they have made) is that allowing this to happen, the act of inventing the software to do it, somehow is so dangerous to all American citizens that it violates the 4th Amendment.  And that under the law, they can’t be forced to do so.  I am sure, philosophically, this makes sense to many people.  The Government is indeed not trustworthy, security is not infallible and no matter how its done, the software is likely to get out.

This is the first argument and really the only argument Apple has. To me that’s somewhat disingenuous.  If the Software can be invented, and if the problem is that security is not infallible, so if its invented it will get out, why isn’t it out already?  Is Apple’s security so much better than everyone else’s that only they can prevent someone from inventing software that governments would pay billions for (slight exaggeration) and it getting on the market? Can only someone hidden away in Apple’s admittedly security conscious facilities invent such software? Is the US Government so incompetent that they need someone else to do this? The NSA who supposedly can spy on everyone and everything, can’t hack into one iphone?  Really?

I imagine it would take time to break the encryption. They clearly believe Apple can do it quicker and easier. No doubt true. But if it can be done by Apple, ultimately the Government can probably do it themselves.  And if that’s the case, why is Apple fighting this? The Pollyanna in me wants to say that Apple is taking a philosophical stand.  The cynic in me wants to say this is great marketing and publicity for Apple and they don’t get that very often.

The fact is that the case for Apple is a loser.  The Government can make the apartment manager unlock the door.