Tag: decision-2016

Decision 2016: Understanding Email and Related Concerns

Posted onAuthorcahwyguy

userpic=cardboard-safeA number of people I know refuse to vote for Hillary because they believe she mishandled classified information, and that the FBI was wrong in not prosecuting her. I’d like to convince them otherwise. So let’s do some reasoning, shall we?

We are talking about email here. What is a unique characteristic of email? It has a sender and a receiver. Suppose you are friends with Jared Fogle, the Subway guy. He decides to send you an email with one of his favorite pictures of children attached. It arrives in your server, unsolicited. Are you guilty of possession of child pornography? Even if you delete it when you receive it? It’s a serious question. I was once at a security conference where someone said one of the best attacks in the world is to go to a conference room computer, load child porn from a thumb drive onto that computer, and then delete it… and then report the person for possessing child porn. Look, he even knew he was guilty when he deleted it, right?

Wrong. The criminal is the person that loaded the illegal material, not the recipient.

The same rules apply with classified information. If someone emails you a classified document over an unclassified system, the person who is in big trouble is the person who originated that document (i.e., took content they knew was classified and entered it into an unclassified system) in the first place. The person who receives it is suppose to recognize and report it (although that doesn’t always happen), and their computer is appropriately cleaned (often with only a minor warning to them, because it wasn’t their fault).

Think about what you know about Hillary’s server. The messages that were found were sent to her; she didn’t originate them. At worst (and this is a supposition), she inadvertently forwarded them because they were not marked properly (plus who would send her classified info on a public computer).

But, you say, people have been prosecuted for having classified information on unclassified computers. Yup. But look at those cases closely: they put that information on those systems, often with the intent to exfiltrate it to an unauthorized party. In fact, espionage laws requires that intent to be present, and provably present. I have not seen any articles that demonstrated that Secretary Clinton took a document she knew was classified, put it on her email server, and sent it to someone else with the explicit intent to exfiltrate it. That is why the FBI did not prosecute her, even though there was classified information found.

But, you say, she sent messages with classified information. Other than possibly inadvertent forwarding, my understanding of those incidents is that the information was not classified at the time it was sent; it was classified sometime later. In these cases, what matters is the classification at the time it was sent. Subsequent classification does not expose anything because there is nothing that indicates the original message was confirmed as classified information. It has the same status of classified information published by Wikileaks in the New York Times — if you don’t know it is classified, it has no authority.

Again, there is no evidence (and remember: one is innocent until proven guilty) that Secretary Clinton took information from a marked, classified document, and then entered that information onto her server with the intent to exfiltrate it. That is the crime.

If your sole reason for voting against Hillary is that you believe she mishandled classified information, then I suggest you change your mind. Secretary Clinton — as demonstrated by her debate behavior — is some that always thinks before she speaks and is always prepared. She knows what is classified, and does not discuss it publicly (unlike Donald Trump, who has disclosed some of his intelligence briefings). She is cautious in how she words things and says things; again, a behavior we have not seen in Mr. Trump). Secretary Clinton cannot control what people send her, and whether they mark it correctly. Her only infraction here is not recognizing mis-marked information and reporting it (for she has already acknowledged the mistake of having the private server in the first place, and indicated she would not do it again… and at the time she did it, private servers were permitted for unclassified information).

ETA 10/25/16: My friend Rick Smith over at Cryptosmith has a great article on this subject. Reading it, another cybersecurity colleague, Dave Bell, wrote: “This is a nice exegesis of the laws and regulations surrounding classified information in general and classified email in particular. Lapses in following Department rules on disclosure are not ILLEGAL (in the sense of violating laws) unless the information is covered by the Espionage Act (circa WWI) or the Atomic Energy Act of 1946. The article points to a more detailed, lawyerly article.”

Lastly, you’ll say, she deleted all this email. That make her guilty of something, right? Nope. In America, absence of evidence does not imply guilt. The courts require that guilt be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and there is a presumption of innocence. Just as Mr. Trump is not guilty of all the sexual assault claims until he has his day in court, and the actual evidence presented and a jury convinced, Secretary Clinton is innocent until there is actual evidence of a crime with a conviction. One cannot have the standards be different for some citizens.

So, let’s drop the whole canard about Hillary’s emails. It is up there in the meaningless category with the canard that she is responsible for her husband’s infidelities. Ah, but you say, if that’s a canard than Trump’s behavior is a canard. Potentially, you’re right. Nothing has been proven yet in court. He is only accused, and not proven guilty. He’s as pure as Bill Cosby. Yet words do demonstrate attitude, and he is on record for what he has said, and has not (a) apologized for the words, and (b) changed the behavior. Contrast this with Bill Clinton — there has been no evidence that his behavior has been repeated since the incidents in the 1990s.

Share

Election Reminders and Information

Posted onAuthorcahwyguy

userpic=voteFirst and foremost, the most important election reminder: Get out and Vote. This election is critical — not only at the top of the race, but in the down-ticket races, and the measures and propositions in your area. You allow someone else to control your life if you don’t vote. Soldiers and many others have given their lives so that you can exercise the privilege. If you haven’t registered yet or are unsure, and you’re in LA County, visit the County Registration Page. Elsewhere in California? Visit here. Some other state? Visit here.

Are you a Trump supporter? I urge you to reconsider: the man has not the experience or the demeanor. But, you say, Hillary is a crook — just look at all the email issues and Benghazi. Those are just a canard, and reflect misunderstanding about how email work in that part of government. Consider this: If you are considering Trump innocent of all the accusations of sexual improprieties because nothing has been proven in court and there is no conviction, you must apply the same rule to Clinton: she has never been convicted in a court of law, and is thus innocent until proven guilty. If Clinton is guilty, then Trump is a sexual predator, antisemite, and racist. You can’t have it both ways.  Oh, and if you think what Trump did is no worse than Clinton did, think again.

But, you say, abortion. Try again.

But, you say, you don’t understand the concerns of the Trump voters. Actually, I do.

But, you say, I read such and such on social media. Hint: It likely wasn’t true, wasn’t the whole story, or was sensationalized.

But, you say, … I say set aside all the character claims, and on experience, demeanor, understanding of government, and positions, she wins hands down.

But, you say, she shafted Bernie Sanders, and he should have been the candidate. Trust me, you wouldn’t have wanted to see that.

Next, if you haven’t seen it, here are the links to my ballot analysis:

Share

Experience and Demeanor — A Message to Trump Supporters

Posted onAuthorcahwyguy

userpic=political-buttonsThis is a message for all my readers who are still — for whatever reason — supporting Donald Trump. I would like to present two reasons for you to reconsider that choice: experience and demeanor.

Experience

As I wrote in my post where I endorsed Clinton, she hands down has the most and best experience: “She has an experience as an executive, from running the State Department. She knows intimately the demands of the office of President, having been First Lady. She has been in the legislature, having been Senator from New York. She hasn’t been a judge, but she is an attorney, so she knows the law. She knows foreign policy, having been Secretary of State and having negotiated with world leaders. ”

But what about Donald Trump. He has never held elected office, he has never negotiated with world leaders, he has never worked in a legislature, and he is not a lawyer. He has only been a top-level executive in the corporate world. To some, this is a plus, but it really is extremely bad. As an executive in his companies, which have been privately held, he had full power. He could hire and fire at will, and set corporate direction without having to consult and win the approval of governing boards. In fact, if the boards said no, he could fire the offending board members. As President, this is not true. A President has extremely limited authority. For almost everything, the President has to obtain approval of Congress — and that means demonstrating the ability to work with both sides, even those he does not like.  His appointments might not be approved, and his policies may be changed or modified by Congress.

A President also has to work within the legal confines of the office. He has demonstrated here, through his remarks, that he doesn’t understand this. His constant claims that Clinton wants to repeal the 2nd Amendment demonstrates that he doesn’t understand how amendments are either ratified or repealed. His argument that she should have been able to, as Senator, change tax law also demonstrates lack of understanding of the office: Revenue bills must originate in the House, and a single Senator does not have the ability to either originate a revenue bill nor ensure its passage. His call for a special prosecutor for Clinton ignores the fact that special prosecutors are called by Congress, and must operate within the rules of evidence. In fact, his constant calls that Clinton is guilty misunderstands the proof that is required in a courtroom. His threats to sue newspapers for making negative reports on him demonstrate a misunderstanding of the 1st amendment. His bringing up claims that Clinton was wrong for defending a rapist demonstrates he does not understand the 6th amendment.

Trump has not worked within our political system, and has demonstrated that he neither knows how it works, or knows the constitutional limitations of his office. Indeed, he does not understand what the Constitution actually says, he appears to know only what he’s read on the Internet. He simply does not have the experience and knowledge for the job.

Clinton, on the other hand, does. Disagree with her policies if you will, but the best way to fight those policies is to elect House and Senate members that are congruent with your views who will work the way you want in Congress. Clinton has demonstrated the ability to work with Congress and find a middle ground. That will not happen with Trump. In terms of experience, you should vote for Clinton and the down-ticket candidates with whom you agree.

Demeanor

Let’s turn now to Trump’s demeanor — what some call his temperament. Further, for this discussion, let’s set aside his racism, sexism, and all the other -isms he embodies. Yes, they are horrible. Yes, it appears that he uses his power to make sexual advancements against women (which might be harassment in many contexts). Yes, it appears that either the candidate or his supporters are racist or antisemitic, and he does not denounce such behavior. Ignore all of that. Set it aside, as many of his supporters do. For if you ignore all of it, he still doesn’t have the right demeanor for the office. Here’s why:

He doesn’t put his brain in gear before he puts his mouth in motion.

A President, in public speech, must be measured. What you say is important, and how you say it is even more important. Words must be chosen carefully, and be chosen to convey and exact unambiguous meaning. Trump simply does not do this. He speaks off the cuff, and seemingly has no filters in what he says. He tweets at all hours, and those tweets are not reviewed. He often says things that are misinterpreted. He speaks without thinking, and then has to scramble to apologize for it later. He does not realize when his words are being recorded, and that they might be used against him later.

Although in a candidate this may be refreshing, in a President, they can start a nuclear war.

Now, add back in Trump’s attitude and speech towards women. Consider what happens if he slips up with a female head of state or prime minister, or makes a pass at the Duchess of Cambridge. What happens when his stereotypical attitudes erupt during a formal meeting with mid-east leaders. When he calls Hispanics names when meeting with a Latin American dignitary. Will it be easily excused, or an international incident?

Clinton has been cast as cold and calculating. That may be the case, but that is what you want in a President. You want a President that thinks before she speaks, that considers the possible impacts of what she is saying and how she is saying it before it ever leaves her mouth. The last thing you want is a President who has to apologize for saying something that is stupid, or that was interpreted the wrong way. Whether you like what Trump says or not, you must agree that he does not always think about the consequences before saying something. That is dangerous, for the leader of the free world.

Conclusion

Donald Trump simply does not have the knowledge of the position, the experience, or the demeanor to be President. Hillary Clinton does, but (at least to you) she has policies that you don’t like, and you don’t trust her. So what should you do that is best for the country?

The answer is simple.

Vote for Hillary Clinton as the only candidate with the right experience and demeanor. Then… vote for congressional and senate candidates with whom you agree, and who will represent your position in Congress and hold Clinton’s “feet to the fire” for your views. That is why we have Congress, and that is why we have a President with limited constitutional authority.

Share

Jews and Decision 2016

Posted onAuthorcahwyguy

userpic=obama-hillary-california,politicsAs the sun goes down today, Yom Kippur comes to an end. Yom Kippur is a day to atone for what you have done wrong in the previous year, and to commit yourself to make an honest attempt to do better next year. If Donald Trump wins, I know I will regret that I didn’t do enough to convince you, so let’s plow through some saved articles about The Donald. In the spirit of the day, these articles explore what might be good for us Jews in this election.

We all know that the Donald has a long long history of sexism and racism and corruption. It is not just isolated incidents (as we have seen from his opponent), but a continual pattern from when he was young to the present day. No indications of repentence, no indications of tshuvah. But what about the Jewish question? Let’s explore that for a bit.

For those of us in Progressive Judaism (i.e., Reform, Reconstructionist, and to some extent Conservative), Donald Trump is anathema to us. He goes against our ideas of social justice, and his solutions for Israel will increase conflict in the region. But for many Orthodox Jews (and a small number of Progressive Jews), Trump is their man. The estimates vary—one Orthodox source consulted for the story just linked says that he expects Trump to win 70 precent of the vote in the Brooklyn orthodox stronghold of Borough Park, while another doubts that the Republican will get more than a third of the Orthodox vote, an estimate roughly in line with the Yeshiva University student poll—but a significant percentage of the Orthodox are still going to vote for him. Why? One rabbi said (according to the story linked) that the Republican candidate is a needed corrective to contemporary liberalism’s vision of “a world without any beauty and any pride and any happiness.” Trump, in his view, is “fighting a battle that we have felt for a long time,” namely the conflict between traditional Jewish life and the spiritual emptiness, and perhaps the inevitable meaninglessness, of the world that he believes the modern-day, Clinton-supporting left envisions. Many support him because of his strong, one-state, pro-Israel stance.

But it’s not a given. An opinion piece in the Forward makes the case that Orthodox Jews should support Hillary. Orthodox Rabbi Menachem Genack notes that, “For the Orthodox community, it comes down to one issue: Israel. And on that issue, during Israel’s most difficult times, Bill and Hillary Clinton were there.” It’s not only Clinton’s personal concern for Israel that makes her the right choice, Genack says, but also her view of America’s place in the world. “What Israel needs more than anything else is a strong America, respected in the world, that protects Israel’s interests — an America engaged in the world. That’s what Hillary represents,” he said. “An isolationist America, which is what Trump advocates — hiding behind a wall, dismantling 70-year-old alliances like NATO — for the Jewish people, that, historically, leads to disaster, just like it did in the 1930s.”

Like the 1930s. What would a Trump win be like for Jews in America? The campaign is giving us a taste — it is awakening millennials to the extent of antisemitism in America. Most millennials have grown up during an unprecedented era of prosperity and assimilation for Jews in America, one in which the struggles endured by an earlier generation is understood as something closer to historical lore than present fact. The early months of 2016 brought in a strange tide of online hate speech aimed largely at Jewish journalists who had published articles critical of Trump or his campaign, with all the old ugly epithets on display. Then in July Trump’s Twitter account posted an image of a six-pointed star next to a picture of Hillary Clinton, with a pile of money in the background. Though he deleted the tweet, afterward Trump walked up to a brightly lit podium and defended the image, bellowing that the Jewish star was not a Jewish star. A dim reality descended on American Jews. Yes: Trump had broadcast the message of a neo-Nazi without apology. In September, the ex-wife of Trump’s campaign manager, Steve Bannon, said that Bannon had kept his daughters out of a school because he there were too many “whiny” Jewish brats there; the candidate’s son, Donald Trump, Jr., retweeted someone described as the neo-Nazis’ “favorite academic”; and a Trump advisor was accused of discriminating against Jewish employees (and denying the Holocaust).

It is unclear if Trump himself is antisemitic. But, as this shows, some of his campaign staff is, and some of his followers certainly are. An opinion piece in Ha-aretz relates what is going on. It is a preimium article, but I found some of it reposted. It noted that attacks from his supports began in earnest early in the year, following the February South Carolina primary, when reporter Bethany Mandel was attacked as a “slimy Jewess” and was told she deserved “the oven” for writing about Trump’s relatively large number of antisemitic supporters. The attacks only grew in intensity, scope, and, if alt-right sites are to be believed, in organization of harassment. In April, prominent feature writer Julia Ioffe published a profile of Melania Trump in GQ. Ioffe, who is Jewish, was barraged with death threats and crank callers, one of whom played recorded speeches of Hitler on her phone line, another who told her that her face would look good on a lampshade.

The problem is that white supremacists and American Neo-Nazis and Klansmen and the technology-borne alt-right hear in Trump’s dog-whistles, in his retweets of their filth, and in his belated, disingenuous, or nonexistent disavowals, the sound of a common cause, and a golden opportunity. “Dog Whistles” are code phrases not heard by most people, but signals to various consitiuencies. Want an example? Look no further than the latest debate, and the repeated mentions of “Sydney Blumenthal” — which is a signal about Jews controlling the administration. Two weeks ago, Washington Post columnist Anne Applebaum wrote a piece titled “In Poland, a preview of what Trump could do to America.” The Breitbart news site – whose on-leave executive chairman is Trump Campaign Chairman Stephen Bannon – then ran an article which said of Applebaum that “hell hath no fury like a Polish, Jewish, American elitist scorned.”  Jew-hating Trump supporters have reserved some of the most toxic of their venom for staunch Republicans and conservatives who happen to be Jewish. They’ve even coined an obscenity just for them: Kikeservatives.

Then again, there is Trump’s relationship with David Duke. In a robocall, the former KKK grand wizard said he and Trump come as a pair in the 2016 elections.

Trump may not be antisemitic. I’m sure that some of his best friends are Jews; his son-in-law certainly is. But he permits and does not denounce antisemitism in his staff and followers. His solution for Israel is not practical, and his solutions for the US will not ensure a strong US is there to defend Israel. Lastly, his plans will not bring the forms of social justice that are a hallmark of Judaism.

ETA: Alas, I must add the following: The day after I posted this, the following appeared on my FB feeds: “Trump just gave an anti-Semitic speech ‘dripping with hatred’ — and the Internet is horrified“. The article, from Raw Story (so I need to confirm), talks about another “dog whistle” from Trump, when in a speech in Palm Beach FL he lashed out at global elites who undermine American sovereignty through “international banks”. He accused Clinton of being “the vessel (of) a corrupt global establishment that’s raiding our country and surrendering the sovereignty of our nation.” The article noted how many Internet readers of the speech felt it had antisemitic undertones. Here’s the transcript of the speech. Here’s one quote: “This election will determine whether we are a free nation or whether we have only the illusion of democracy, but are in fact controlled by a small handful of global special interests rigging the system, and our system is rigged. This is reality, you know it, they know it, I know it, and pretty much the whole world knows it. The establishment and their media enablers will control over this nation through means that are very well known. ” «Global special interests» strikes me as a dog-whistle for the Jewish conspiracy, a common antisemitic trope. Here’s yet another dog-whistle: “Their financial resources are virtually unlimited, their political resources are unlimited, their media resources are unmatched, and most importantly, the depths of their immorality is absolutely unlimited.” This plays to the antisemitic trope about Jewish bankers and Jewish control of the media. Yes, he is not explicit about it, but I think the signals are there. Additionally, he’s telling people they can’t trust the media — I’ve written about the problems of that before. He says: “Let’s be clear on one thing, the corporate media in our country is no longer involved in journalism. They’re a political special interest no different than any lobbyist or other financial entity with a total political agenda, and the agenda is not for you, it’s for themselves.” Translation: Ignore the media, listen to me and me alone, for only I tell the truth. Think of who else said that, and we should be afraid — and make sure we go out and vote.

P.S.: I’m not saying Trump is all bad. After all, he has done something no one else has been able to do: He has brought the country’s leading Republicans (many of them, at least) and Democrats together, because they have finally found something they can agree upon: They can’t abide Donald Trump. There’s Paul Ryan, of course, and John McCain, and a host of other high-ranking Republicans in Congress. Barack Obama has been anti-Trump from the outset, and is now actively working to persuade Republicans to abandon him. The progressive wing of the Democratic Party is on board, including Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), as is much of the right-wing commentariat, among them Erick Erickson and Glenn Beck. There are Republican lions, like George H.W. Bush and Democratic lions, like Al Gore and Jimmy Carter. In short, though he presumably did not mean to do so, Trump has built a remarkable coalition. The reason for this, of course, is that for all of their disagreements, all of these individuals have much in common. They all respect the rule of law, and appropriate limits on government power. They lament sexual violence against women. They also recognize that part of the social contract on which a democracy is founded is abiding by the outcomes of elections, even if those outcomes are disagreeable. In fact, on Tuesday, numerous Republican leaders told Donald Trump and his acolytes in no uncertain terms to stop their talk of a “rigged” election.

Share

The Erosion of Trust

Posted onAuthorcahwyguy

userpic=observationsI wish I knew who to blame.

Ever since I read “Denial”, I’ve been talking about the convergence of the facts. That we must go where the facts tell us; facts are not swayed by opinion. Facts just are, they are true, they point the way.

Alas, there’s a big problem with that. A gigantic problem. A yugggge problem. No one trusts the facts anymore.

I wish I knew who to blame. I can point to various culprits. Fox News is a big one, having introduced the notion of putting a particular political spin or slant on the news. As such, many people started discounting news from that source. Another culprit is the financial decline of print media, which forced newspapers to eliminate many editorial positions, including fact checkers and editors. As such, newspapers were no longer bastions of truth, but often presented the news either inaccurately or with particular political slants. Yet another culprit is the Internet, which has allowed anyone and everyone (including moi) to become a publisher, resulting in even more biased or slanted news sources camouflaging themselves as the truth. As such, people chose their curated news source without seeing the bias, and thus refusing to believe any other. The Internet is a culprit in yet another way, by creating echo chambers for news. As such, people don’t even realize they aren’t seeing the full stories or only selected sources that they “like”. A final culprit? The growing distrust of authority in society, making even the formerly reliable news sources now untrustworthy, whether that particular appellation is deserved or not. As such, authoritative papers of records or fact checking sources are now not trusted.

Whatever the culprit, people no longer believe the facts. And that, dear friends and readers, has brought us to where we are today. A society that has given us Donald Trump, and the lies he spreads as facts. It has given us a populace that no longer believes in science; it views science as merely an opinion. It has given us a populace that no longer believes in objective historical fact; it discounts historical facts unless they have been processed by a particular spin.

I could cite numerous examples of the result of this. Climate change deniers. Anti-vaxxers. Conspiracy theorists.

What brought this to a head for me was a discussion prompted by “And Hillary Clinton laughed at a 10 year old who was raped.” This is a particular like that has been promoted by the right wing media, by the Trump news establishment, by the establishment that has ignored facts consistently to build up a picture of Hillary as a demon. A media market that has played the populace just like the antisemitic media in Germany painted the picture that it was the Jews who were responsible for all of Germany’s problems. With today’s media, of course, it isn’t just the Jews. It is those demon Clintons and the liberal establishment.

Because of the distrust of the media, the folks to whom I indicated that statement was wrong did not believe me. You see, I had cited Snopes (which now seems to have a fake-“you’re infected” warning), and Snopes (of course)  is a conspiracy of the left. Of course, there are multiple sources pointing out the same thing:

Note that the ABC News article is from 2014, well before this year’s campaign.

What are the facts that all these sources agree upon? Clinton did not take the case willingly; the court appointed her based on the 6th Amendment’s guarantee that all parties in a case are entitiled to legal representation.  Getting the rapist off? She actually didn’t; she got a plea bargain to a shorter sentence because the prosecution mishandled the evidence, making it suspect. The laughter, not at the victim, but at the prosecution for being sloppy with the evidence, and at the polygraphs for not being as reliable as juries believe they are.

The same people who disbelieve the news believe what they are told: that Clinton was responsible for strongly defending the rapist, even though she knew he was guilty. Never mind the fact that a lawyer in a trial has a legal obligation to defend their client to the best of their abilities, even if they may know that are guilty of the crime. This is especially true when they are a court-appointed legal counsel — they have no choice, no ability to opt out of defending the person. And guess what: if you were that person — perhaps wrongly accused — wouldn’t you want your lawyer to give you the best defense possible. Our country has the legal standard of innocent until proven guilty, and that is proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Today, we no longer look at multiple facts to draw our conclusion. We no longer trust our news sources, relying instead on the court of public opinion, on memes that circulate on the Internet, on the small set of sources that we “trust” despite their slant.

This political season has been built on a scaffolding of lies and innuendo, much of it built by the right wing establishment against the Clintons (Bengahzi, Email Servers, Rape, Murders), and to a lesser extent against Trump by the left-wing media establishment. People have become so ensconced in their lies they no longer recognize fact checking from neutral media. They no longer look at where the bulk of the evidence points.

When news services across the political spectrum denounce Trump and endorse Clinton, when pundits and politicians across the political spectrum denounce Trump and endorse Clinton, when there is almost universal acknowledgement that the stories going around about Clinton are patently false — these should people people to a particular conclusion. But when their leader — Donald Trump — denounces all these sources and individuals as the product of a conspiracy against them, and as a result people no longer believe them, well, there’s the biggest danger to our democracy. The erosion of trust in our media, because you can never disprove a conspiracy theory. We have a society that has become susceptible to demagogues, believing unquestioning what they are told, instead of checking for themselves.

Get it through your head: Our mainstream media — major television channels, major market newspapers (not tabloids), and such, are trustworthy. Further, checking a variety of sources and seeing the bulk of them pointing to the same conclusion should further support the theory that the conclusion is right. Believing multiple fringe sources that all bend their reporting should make one suspicious.

Postscript

Just after posting this, I see one of my extreme conservative friends on FB post the following:

Folks, the Constitution enshrines Freedom Of The Press so that it may freely inform the public of the abuses, lawlessness and tyranny of our government when it becomes corrupt.

But what are we to do when the Press itself becomes just as corrupt, giving itself over to the regime in order to deceive the people to accept despotism, rather than guard against it?

Now you see why I’m worried? When our mainstream media is viewed as corrupt, when people believe mainstream media deceives — that is the opportunity that demagogues and despots pounce upon, for then they can convince people of anything. Perhaps one source is corrupt. Multiple mainstream sources, doing independent reporting, are trustworthy.

Share

Not Equivalent at All

Posted onAuthorcahwyguy

userpic=political-signsThe news cycle his weekend has been dominated with the Donald’s misogyny, his crude language and attitude towards woman. In response, I’ve seen a number of Trump supporters responding that it isn’t so bad, not when compared to ______ from Hillary Clinton. However, what they cite is not equivalent or worse at all. As you know my opinion on Clinton, let’s debunk these:

  • Bill Clinton. Oh, what Trump did pales against Bill Clinton’s sexual escapades. First and foremost here: Bill Clinton is not running for President; he’s already had the job. This cannot be emphasized enough: Bill Clinton is not running, and wives are not responsible for their husband’s behavior. Wives do not make their husband’s cheat on them, they do not make their husband’s express horrible attitudes towards women, they do not make their husband’s commit acts of sexual violence. Saying Hillary Clinton is responsible in any way for Bill Clinton’s behavior is like blaming Melania  Trump for Donald’s vulgar behavior, or blaming Marla or Ivana for Donald cheating on them. Bill Clinton’s sexual escapades are Bill Clinton’s responsibility, just as Donald Trump is responsible for what he said and the attitudes he continues to hold. See, that’s what people miss about Bill Clinton. Look at the long list of woman that have accused Bill Clinton. Notice something. They are all related to alleged incidents that happened during the first term of his presidency or before. After the Monica Lewinsky mess (literally and figurative), there are no more accusations. Lesson learned. Behavior change. Whereas Donald Trump has continued to express women-hating attitudes, as has been seen by statements made by Trump during this campaign. Trump has a continuing pattern of misogyny to this very day. So the two are not equivalent at all.
  • Hillary Clinton. Oh, but Hillary as also slut-shamed and defended rapists. Let’s work back on this. The “defense of a rapist” was a case when Hillary Clinton was a private lawyer in 1975, and the court appointed her to defend a rapist. Remember, in the USA, everyone is presumed innocent (check your law books), and guaranteed a trial, and the court appoints a lawyer if they can’t afford one. The lawyer has no choice in the matter: law and ethics require they do the best defense possible. That’s what happened her: she did her job. As for the “slut shaming”, all the incidents were in the heat of Bill’s messes noted above. Since then… nothing.  Further, fact checking by Politifact has put even the shut-slaming claims in doubt. There is no evidence of a continual pattern of the behavior. Whereas, and you know where this is going, Donald Trump has continued to express women-hating attitudes, as has been seen by statements made by Trump during this campaign. Trump has a continuing pattern of misogyny to this very day. So the two are not equivalent at all.
  • Email Server. Oh, but Hillary leaded all this classified information through her email server. Not equivalent at all. The FBI has withdrawn the statement that there was anything significantly that was classified at the time on her server, and the few cases cited were labelled “confidential” (the lowest security rating), were not properly marked, and were sent by another person to her (which makes the other person responsible for the violation). There has been nothing that has risen to a sufficient level for prosecution. Much as people don’t realize it, minor classification spillages occur regularly because humans are stupid and sloppy. When they are called out, usually the first incident or two result in infractions or warnings, not jail. Prosecution only occurs (and lets say this together) when there is a pattern of disclosure, and that disclosure is accompanied with intent to disclose. That’s not the case with Clinton: there are a few minor incidents, all accidental, not reported by either side of the conversation, and that, most importantly, would not be repeated as President because the President cannot do their own IT (Information Technology). Whereas Trump’s behavior, and you know where this is going, Donald Trump has continued to express women-hating attitudes, as has been seen by statements made by Trump during this campaign. Trump has a continuing pattern of misogyny to this very day. So the two are not equivalent at all.

Isolated incidents cannot compare to continual misbehavior. All situations you see with Secretary Clinton are in the past and have not been repeated to the present day, or (such as the behavor of her husband) are not relevant. Whereas Donald Trump has continued to spew hatred — of blacks, of hispanics, of gays, of veterans, or the disabled, and of women — to the present day. He has disclosed information from National Security Briefings not on an email server, but over news microphones to the entire world.

There’s no comparison.

Of course, I must repeat again what I said in my post Thursday. Hillary Clinton is the best candidate, of the candidates on the ballot, out there, hands down. She is not only the most experienced candidate running, not only the candidate with the best restraint in what she says and how she behaves, and not only the candidate who is absolutely, positively guaranteed to keep it in her pants, she is the candidate (when you compare policy by policy) with the best policies to move this country forward. My vote for Hillary is not just a vote against Trump, it is a vote for Hillary Clinton.

Share

Decision 2016 Ballot Analysis: Summary (6/5)

Posted onAuthorcahwyguy

userpic=voteThe upcoming November ballot, at least in my precinct in Los Angeles, California, is large. As the Donald might say, it is “Yuuuuuge”. Over five posts: one covering the Presidential ticket (although you know where I’m going there), one for the down-ticket races (although note that I reconsidered two judge races), two covering the state-wide propositions on the ballot (50-59, 60-67), and a final post covering the county, city, and special district measures, I have presented my thinking on all the ballot issues. This post summarizes all my conclusions.

Note: Propositions Haiku by Damion Carroll. Click on [📝] for the analysis page.

Office or Issue
 My Position
President [📝]
 Hillary Clinton / Tim Kaine fb (D)
US Senator [📝]
 Kamala D. Harris fb (D)
US Representative, 30th District [📝]
 Brad Sherman fb (D)
California Senate, 27th District [📝]
 Henry Stern fb (D)
California Assembly, 45th District [📝] Matt Dababneh fb (D)
Judicial Office No 11 [📝]
 Steve Schreiner fb
Judicial Office No 42 [📝]
 Efrain Matthew Aceves fb
Judicial Office No 84 [📝]
 Toss up: Either candidate is acceptable: Javier Perez fb or  Susan Jung Townsend fb
Judicial Office No 158 [📝]
 David A. Berger fb
Proposition 51: Bonds for K-12 School and Community College Facilities. [📝]

Nine billion dollars
Of bond funds for school buildings
Term: thirty-five years

  Thumbs Down  No on 51
Proposition 52: Medi-Cal Hospital Fee Program.  [📝]

A hospital fee
Matched with federal dollars
Funds Medi-Cal boost

  Thumbs Up Yes on 52 fb
Proposition 53: Revenue Bonds. Statewide Voter Approval.  [📝]

Bonds for big projects
(Like high speed rail and Delta)
Would need people’s vote

  Thumbs Down No on 53 fb
Proposition 54: Legislature. Legislation and Proceedings. [📝]

Bills must be posted
On the web, for three days straight
Before they are passed

  Thumbs Down No on 54
Proposition 55: Tax Extension to Fund Education and Healthcare. [📝]

For high-earning folks
An income tax that funds schools
Would remain in place

  Thumbs Up Yes on 55 fb
Proposition 56: Cigarette Tax to Fund Healthcare, … [📝]

The cigarette tax
Would go up, two bucks a pack
E-cigarettes, too

  Thumbs Up Yes on 56 fb
Proposition 57: Criminal Sentences. Parole. … [📝]

Earlier parole
Of prisoners serving time
For non-violent crimes

  Thumbs Up Yes on 57 fb
Proposition 58: English Proficiency. Multilingual Education. [📝]

Kids learning English
Won’t need a waiver to take
Bilingual classes

  Thumbs Up Yes on 58 fb
Proposition 59: Corporations. Political Spending. [📝]

Asks to overturn
Citizen’s United, but
Shucks, it’s non-binding

  Thumbs Up Yes on 59 fb
Proposition 60: Adult Films. Condoms. Health Requirements. [📝]

Adult film makers
Would have to require condoms
Or risk a lawsuit

  Thumbs Down No on 60 fb
Proposition 61: State Prescription Drug Purchases. Pricing Standards. [📝]

In theory, lowers
The cost of some state-bought drugs
(But it could backfire)

  Thumbs Down No on 61 fb
Proposition 62: Death Penalty. [📝]

Vote for this one if
You want to eliminate
The death penalty

  Thumbs Up Yes on 62 fb
Proposition 63: Firearms. Ammunition Sales. [📝]

Requires a permit
Issued by the DOJ
To purchase ammo

  Thumbs Up Yes on 63 fb
Proposition 64: Marijuana Legalization. [📝]

Legalizes pot!
Also raises some tax funds
(Perhaps a billion?)

  Thumbs Up Yes on 64 fb
Proposition 65: Carry-Out Bags. Charges. [📝]

Plastic bag makers
Put this one on the ballot
To punish grocers

  Thumbs Down No on 65 fb
Proposition 66: Death Penalty. Procedures. [📝]

If you want the state
To execute more people
This one is for you

  Thumbs Down No on 66 fb
Proposition 67: Ban on Single-Use Plastic Bags. [📝]

To ban plastic bags
Vote “yes” on 67
“No” on 65

  Thumbs Up Yes on 67 fb
County Measure A: Safe, Clean, Neighborhood Parks, Open Space, Beaches, … [📝]

Modest parcel tax
Maintains parks and rec centers
Rivers and beaches

  Thumbs Up Yes on A fb
County Measure M: LA County Traffic Improvement Plan [📝]

A half-cent sales tax
Funds transit infrastructure
Indefinitely

  Thumbs Up Yes on M fb
LACCD Measure CC: Affordable Education / Job Training / Classroom Safety [📝]

Three point three billion
For community college
Repairs and upgrades

  Thumbs Down No on CC (tentatively)
City Measure HHH: Homelessness Reduction and Prevention [📝]

One point two billion
In bond funding will provide
Safe homeless housing

  Thumbs Up Yes on HHH fb
City Measure JJJ: Affordable Housing and Labor Standards [📝]

Building in L.A.?
Add affordable units
And hire locally

  Thumbs Down No on JJJ
City Measure RRR: Los Angeles Department of Water and Power [📝]

Gives greater power
To DWP’s Board
To hire and set rates

  Thumbs Up Yes on RRR (tentatively)
City Measure SSS: City of Los Angeles Fire and Police Pensions [📝]

Lets airport police
Into the same pension plan
As LAPD

  Thumbs Up Yes on SSS
Share

Decision 2016 Ballot Analysis: Reconsidering Two Judge Races

Posted onAuthorcahwyguy

userpic=voteThursday evening, I published my initial take on the down-ticket offices in the upcoming general election. After I did so, I received some comments on two of the judges races that have led to me reconsidering my recommendations. The questions that the exploration raised, however, was so interesting I wanted to make them a post of their own. Let me discuss the broad issues I see, and then we can go into the specific races.

Issue #1: Diversity.  An issue of growing concern in any workplace is diversity. I’ve noted before my two favorite podcasts that touch on the issue: an episode of Startup where Gimlet explored their own diversity, or lack thereof. The second was an episode of Reply All (also from Gimlet) that explored diversity problems at Twitter. Both explored why diversity was so important. This exchange from the Reply All should clarify it a bit:

Read More …

Share