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.

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.

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.

Obama, Obamacare, the Shutdown and the Strategy

What people say in Washington, what they do in Washington and what they think in Washington are all different things.  As I write this, it appears that the US will avoid the potential cliff of debt default and continuing government shutdown.  As Winston Churchill said “We can always count on the Americans to do the right thing, after they have exhausted all the other possibilities.”

I want to step back and look at this from a different, more political standpoint.  Most of this is pure speculation, but I believe it bears us thinking about it.

We start with the premise that, despite all the talking heads rhetoric, Barack Obama, John Boehner, Harry Reid, Mitch McConnell, Eric Cantor, the Tea Party, the Republicans and the Democrats are none of them idiots or politically naïve. In this “debate” they have all made very calculated political decisions based upon one strategy or another.  If you believe that Washington politicians work on anything other than political calculus, that they are somehow altruistically striving for the best interests of all Americans, like they say they are, you and I should have a conversation about a bridge I am selling.  Some have won and some have lost and some have lived to fight another day, but all have made calculated strategic decisions and that’s what I want to talk about.

In my view, the President has won this battle decisively.  In the White House, behind closed doors they are high fiving all around.  Barack Obama is a Chicago machine politician.  Nobody wants to say it or talk about it, but if you can’t see it you are blind.  In the immortal words of Jerry Seinfeld “Not that that’s a bad thing.” It just is.  He and his people played a masterful game with this budget deal because they saw an opportunity to deal a real blow, perhaps a crippling blow to their arch nemesis the Republican Party by possibly permanently dividing it.

The President, knowing he is toxic to Republicans, repeatedly and publicly marginalized and demonized the Tea Party.  By doing so he was able to take the metaphoric high ground (not in any way the moral high ground) on the battle field.  By coming out he laid blame while at the same time inflaming divisive passions in the opposition. He recognized that the adults in the Republican room would recognize the dangers to the economy and he believed, correctly, that the country would hate the Republicans more than him.  At the same time, he drove the wedge deeper into a split that already existed in the Republican Party.  His decision had nothing to do with Obamacare or the good of the country.  It had everything to do with politics.

Of course he was able, and has been able, to do this without getting his hands too dirty.  Like a good machine politician he has people to carry his water, namely Harry Reid in the Senate.  Obama has completely solidified his position while dividing the opposition.  Its really very simple divide and conquer is always a good strategy.  Now, if he is unable to get anything done he can maintain this theme that the Tea Party is to blame.  He can look like a conciliator while maintaining a relatively hard liberal line, because he now has a target for any problems.  A designated blamee.

Now, he can and has come out looking like a diplomat, a cool head, a person who wants to get together and get things done.  For somebody who has in fact created much of the divisiveness, that is quite an accomplishment.  You have to admire his political acumen. 

The Republicans and in fact the Tea Party has lost in this battle, big time.  The President has boxed them into a corner where they will find it hard to come to unity.  They made a strategic decision to take a hard line and use a crisis and the President called their bluff.  Because it was a bluff.  The old line Republicans were never going to let the crisis come to fruition. They may have made a strategic decision that basically said, look if we allow the Tea Party to carry on this brinksmanship one of two things will happen, either the President will cave and we will win, or the Tea Party will be damaged and we will take a hit, but we will get these idiots off our back.

All of them made a mistake.  They all utterly discounted the reaction of the American people, even Obama.  His rhetoric softened considerably when the polls came out saying that Americans hated everybody, that the Democrats were taking a hit, and oh, by the way, Obamacare wasn’t going so well. 

At the end of the day, this has been political brinksmanship in the big leagues.  It has had almost nothing to do with making things “right” for the American people.

The Tragedy of Tyler Clementi and Dharun Ravi

Ok, gay and lesbian community, you can put away the torches and nooses, you’ve got your lynching.  Dharun Ravi could go to prison for ten years. From what I have heard and seen, that is what will satisfy the blood lust of the GLTC.  But is it right?  No, it is not.  Let’s flip it on its head.  If an 18 year old, computer savvy, supremely confident, outgoing, relatively well off gay man had a shy, unassuming, somewhat depressed, devoutly Christian room mate whom he filmed kissing an older woman and then tweeted about it (without posting the film), and then the shy room mate killed himself, would you have your nooses and torches out then?  I think not.

Is Ravi an ass? Yes. An idiotic insensitive young man?  Yes.  Did he kill Tyler Clementi or even drive him to a tragic suicide?  No.  There is absolutely no evidence that Tyler killed himself because of this incident, other than timing. One wonders what a Psychiatrist would say about the likelihood that these tweets, which Tyler had in fact confronted and discussed with Ravi, caused a person to become suicidal in the few days that elapsed before his suicide.  In fact, the case was not at all based on the idea that Ravi caused Tyler’s death.  The “hate crime” was invasion of privacy, not manslaughter, not bullying, not harassment.  Now it is true that Tyler knew of the invasion and was upset by it and asked for a change in room mate.  But it is also true that he knew how to take care of it, he had already said something about it to Ravi.  When he invited his boy friend back to his room again after he knew of the filming, he did what most intelligent people would do.  He turned off Ravi’s computer and unplugged it and he searched for other cameras.  He had already requested a room change, but had refused the offer of different accommodations in the mean time. Does that sound like the actions of someone so upset by the incident that it would cause suicide? No.  Everything one hears and reads indicates that Tyler was not a happy young man. His suicide is tragic.  Does that mean the Ravi drove him to it and is to blame? No it does not.

Lisa Bloom will tell you that Ravi showed his “anti-gay animus” by his famous tweet – “Roommate asked for the room till midnight. I went into molly’s room and turned on my webcam. I saw him making out with a dude. Yay”  I am not so sure that you can get that from the tweet, unless you have already decided it is true.  And in any event the tweet was not directed at Tyler or even alleged to be directed at him, but Tyler found it and knew of it.  At that is why Ravi is going to jail. Did he intend to intimidate? No, and the jury did not find him guilty of intentional intimidation. He didn’t publish the video which was about 2 seconds, he didn’t go on a campaign of harassment, he didn’t invade somebody’s Facebook page with animosity and meanness. They say he showed this “anti-gay animus” through some tweets, and Tyler knew about it and he felt intimidated and that (coupled with the webcam invasion of privacy) is a hate crime with a punishment of imprisonment for up to 10 years and likely deportation, despite the fact that he has lived here virtually his entire life (one wonders, incidentally if he was from Mexico not India, if people would now be outraged about the deportation).  Beware all, if you don’t agree with your roommate's religious beliefs, sexual orientation, don’t tweet it, don’t say anything about it, and don’t let your roommate find out about it.  Keep it to yourself or you could go to jail for 10 years.  And that presumably goes for everyone.  If you are Gay, don’t complain about being in a room with a right wing Christian.  He or she might be intimidated, and you could go to jail, especially if you tweet about observing him constantly reading the bible or something weird like that, Yay.

Ravi had a lousy attorney and New Jersey had a good one.  Ravi arrogantly refused a plea deal with no jail time and “assistance” against deportation.  A very good deal.  But if all you did was tweet about an incident, in the same way you have tweeted forever about everything, why would you think you committed a hate crime?

No doubt, if anyone actually reads this, I will be subject to vitriol for defending Dharun Ravi, but I don’t think lynchings (either literal or figurative as in this case) are good no matter who is the victim or the perpetrator, and really no matter how heinous his or her crimes.  Read about the case, take a look at the facts not what the talking heads say, but the facts. You might change your view.

Technorati Tags: Tyler Clementi,Dharun Ravi,Gay,Lesbian,Hate Crime,Politics,Lisa Bloom,New Jersey,Court,Society,Social Media,Suicide