I'm not sure of what to think

Does adding a second bible add any substance, legitimacy or truth to what Trump swore to on Inauguration Day?  I doubt it.  It only serves to create an image of false piety for a man from whose mouth only comes lies - including the words "And" and "The".

- - - - - -

As I write this entry, less than two weeks have expired since Trump took office, and we're already seeing chaos in the land. Previously approved refugees, legal residents/green card holders, and other vetted people are being denied entry to the USA, because of Trump's latest executive order. How does this make us any safer? How does this make us appear to the rest of the world?  To me, it only gives nations such as Iran a propaganda advantage, as they will not reject previously approved holders of American passports from visiting their country. And to make things worse, the 3 Arabic speaking countries which are exempt from Trump's executive order (Egypt, the UAE, and Saudi Arabia) are those in which Trump has business interests.  Two of these countries (Saudi Arabia and the UAE) are countries that supplied the 19 hijackers that commandeered the planes on 9/11/01, killing almost 3,000 Americans.

An op-ed piece in the Huffington Post is already.talking about the inevitability of impeachment. But is that what a Democrat should be looking for?  Each day that Trump is in office, he tarnishes the GOP brand and helps to mobilize more potential Democratic voters - people who could be very useful in 2018 and 2020. When the Women's March gathered 3 times on the National Mall as many people as Trump's inauguration, one has a potential movement.  But when one takes into account the other 1,500,000 people protesting around the world, it's easy to see that a raw nerve has been touched.  We have to make sure that the reaction gets us the results we want.

- - - - - -

It is no accident that ALL of Trump's appointments have been to the extreme political right. His deal with Pence is likely the same he offered to John Kasich: You run both foreign and domestic affairs, while I make America great again.  Kasich has some ethics, Pence does not. He is a religious wingnut, someone more dangerous to us than Trump - something that I found hard to believe at first.  If we are stuck with a President Pence, he will follow the GOP policy with no compromises allowed. This is different from Trump, as he can easily be manipulated with flattery.  

The Huffington Post piece noted that Trump suffers from Malignant Narcissism.  Otto Kernberg characterizes it by an absence of conscience, a pathological grandiosity and quest for power, and a sadistic joy in cruelty. And everything said about Trump indicates a diagnosis of Malignant Narcissism would be one of the things high on the list of possibilities. Can we afford this in a national leader?

It is possible to manipulate someone like Trump.  It has often been said about him, that if you are the last to give him an opinion, he will often lean your way - as long as he feels in charge and feels that he is the strongest alpha male in the room.  However, it is much harder to manipulate someone like Pence, as his currency is power. Pence is smart enough to wait around until someone self destructs. And that's what Trump seems to be doing, seeing how much work and thought goes into being president.

- - - - - -

But I go back to the title of this entry, as it raises an important question: Is it in our best interest to help get Trump out of office, taking an immediate gain? Or, is it better to help Trump stay in office until the 2018 elections, preventing a potential President Pence from serving more than 6 years as President in his own right?  Can we afford the damage that Trump will do to this country in a little under than 720 days?  

I've already accepted that Trump will destroy as many external checks and balances as he can, regarding those we have on large businesses.  I've already accepted that Trump will be a disaster for the environment, given his belief that Global Warming is a Hoax.  And I've already accepted that he will be a disaster for human rights. Do we know ALL the risks of removing him from office either via impeachment or via the 25th amendment to the constitution?  I don't think so.  And that worries me.

Understanding our problems from a historical perspective

In order to understand what is going on with this year's election, one has to understand history. In short, one has to understand what led up to the Great Depression, what led up to Iraq War #1, the Bill Clinton presidency, the George Bush (#43) presidency (especially the response to 9/11), and the Obama presidency.  In the light of history, everything going on makes sense, and I'm still surprised that only the Libertarians have emerged to be a potential disruptor for this election.

Let's look at the Bush #43 presidency first.  He was elected with the mantra of "Compassionate Conservatism" infusing his campaign.  One would have expected him to be a president who focused on domestic affairs.  He did push a reactionary conservative agenda to appease the hard liners of the GOP base, and did appoint many conservatives to the courts. But 9/11 threw him and the rest of the country for a loop.  Politically, he couldn't allow another terrorist attack to occur without an appropriate amount of security theater - so we built up much of our dysfunctional security infrastructure in his reign.  But he also had to get us into a never-ending war, where we disrupted the power structure in Iraq, allowing ISIS to form.

Next, we have to look back at the Bill Clinton presidency.  Bill was a sex addict (no surprise, FDR and JFK also "suffered" from this affliction).  But Bill succeeded beyond anyone's expectations, leaving the US with a treasury that was spending less than it was taking in. Yet, his presidency was marred with scandals (something common in politics), and his wife was tarred with the same brush that tarred him.

Bush had a choice - should he borrow to pay America's bills for a war in Afghanistan, or should he raise taxes to pay for the war?  He chose to borrow AND decided to cut taxes - leaving whoever would following him with very tough choices - do we cut the military or social spending budgets, and which line items are sacred?  Luckily these tax cuts were temporary, and would expire after he left office.  They were designed to make a Democratic president look bad, as no Democrat would touch social spending - so he would have to let the tax cuts expire, allowing the GOP to claim he raised taxes.

The GOP has a mantra of "Less regulation brings on greater prosperity."  When the economy collapsed in 2008, a smart GOP candidate would have to ask the question: "What happens if we continue our dysfunctional policies?  Could we have another Great Depression?"  And I'll bet that John McClain realized this in 2008.  Could he tell his party's loyalists that they needed to pump money into the economy AND impose new regulations on the banking sector of the economy?  Of course not.  So he made a decision that he'll never admit making - to trash his chances of being elected President by nominating Sarah Palin for the office of Vice President.  (But he had to play dumb.  Any hint that he threw the election would damage his stature in the GOP - and he hasn't admitted that he did this yet, and I doubt he ever will....)  John McCain was very aware of what happened to Herbert Hoover.  His administration was blamed for the Great Depression, and the Democrats held the office of the President for 20 years under FDR and Truman.  I'm pretty sure that McCain figured that the GOP could brush Bush #43 under the rug, and possibly tarnish the Democrat (Obama) so the GOP could win in 2012.

Obama is elected in 2008.  We know from recent history that the GOP opposed everything he tried to do to prevent a Great Depression.  But both Bush #43's advisors and Obama's advisors were working to script legislation to prevent the worst from happening. And Obama was more successful than expected, in spite of the GOP.  He knew not to shred the social safety net while things were getting worse, and then to take away the extra support when things got better.  No matter what people did to find scandal in his administration, his was the cleanest we've had in decades.

During Obama's administration, the GOP regained control of congress.  And repealing Obamacare became a new mantra.  Hillary Clinton takes on the job of Secretary of State, dealing with many of the foreign policy decisions that Obama doesn't have the time to make, being involved in the domestic economy and its problems.  But this places her back in the cross hairs of the GOP's attacks on her.  If they could have convicted her of anything, they probably would have done so.  But the most they could do is to tarnish the reputation of a woman because she was married to a president of the opposition party who was very successful and very flawed.

The GOP congress was ineffectual in delivering on its many problems, and many in the base stopped believing in the lies told by its elite. So, Donald Trump became a great disruptor.  Voting for Trump was a vote against the GOP elite.  Sadly, Trump is a person who leaves anyone and anything he touches poorer for knowing him.  But one would have to know his history to think he's anything other than a successful entrepreneur.  

At the same time, the Democratic elite was also shown to be worthless, leaving fertile ground for Bernie Sanders' candidacy.  If it weren't for Bernie NOT realizing how powerful his message and candidacy would become, and how the Democratic party's elite structured things for Hillary to win, he might have just pulled up the upset of the century.

Now we have Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump as our presumptive nominees.  They have the lowest approval ratings in decades.  And the Libertarian, Gary Johnson is polling in the double digit range.  Will he be able to keep polling this high and get into the debates?  I'm not sure, but he is another disruptor. If Johnson were to win any electoral votes, and if neither Trump or Clinton win a majority of electoral votes, the presidential election could go to the House of Representatives.  Would the majority GOP states vote for Trump, or would they do something embarrassing like voting for Clinton?  I suspect that neither candidate would be acceptable, and this would leave the Libertarian (who is, I believe, a former GOP governor) as the only palatable choice. 

Could this scenario happen?  It's highly unlikely, but we've seen the strangest things happen this year, and I'm not ruling out even stranger things from happening.....

TSA - Your Government Dollars hard at work.

In the years since 9/11, we have grown used to the security procedures at our nation's airports. But there is a problem. As long as the government runs the security environment, and doesn't respond to the needs of business or the public at large, we will suffer each time we need to fly somewhere.

Years ago, President Bush said that we'd only get the best people to run Airport Security. Could any intelligent person believe that malarkey?  Other than earning a paycheck, would any intelligent person want the job?  Some TSA workers get off on hassling people.  Others are lazy.  And still many others are diligent hard workers who are doing this job until they find better work elsewhere.  How much of a career can it be for a person, when politics dictates what opportunities would be available to the average person holding the job?

One of my friends used to work for the TSA, and he couldn't hack it.  I don't know how I'd feel if I had to scan thousands of people each day for contraband, and then deal with people and their feelings.  And many people are very unhappy - especially when the TSA does not staff up to meet peak periods, and causes people to wait for up to 3 hours to get through a security checkpoint.

Are we any safer now, than when private industry put its "rent a cops" on the front lines?  I doubt it.  But the TSA agents now have better benefits than when they were employed by the private firms.  And I find that this is important to me.  Yet, I think that private industry could do a better job - with the right supervision by government.

Years ago, our military designed weapons, and handed off production to private industry. The government kept the arms makers honest by inspecting one crate out of each hundred shipped.  If any item in the crate was not up to snuff, everything shipped (in those 100 crates) was destroyed, so that the private firm couldn't ship any of the other crates.  In short, it was crude quality control, but it provides a model for what we could do with our airports.

What would happen if we had the equivalent of "ethical hackers" testing security?  (I know they must exist.  But I'm examining a philosophy here.)  If a private firm failed a test, it would be ineligible for the next round of bidding for that airport.  If no one could bid, the government would provide security as last resort.  Business could also put in requirements of minimum staffing levels for time of day and day of week - and policies to maintain both quality of service and speed of service could be established.  The airport security fee of $2.50 (?) per flight segment might need to go up.  But no one wants to risk another 9/11, and why should we....?

PS: The TSA's director was just fired by the Obama administration.  

He kept us safe....

I have to admit - Donald Trump is a breath of fresh air, mixed with the usual smog of politics. And recently, he opened up a conversation that mainstream Republicans wanted to avoid - was George W. Bush's presidency a great failure?

In an interview, Trump opened up a pissing match with Jeb Bush, noting that Bush #43 was president on 9/11, and we went down the wrong path by destabilizing the Middle East.  Jeb responded that his brother "Kept America Safe".  Does any sane person really believe that Bush #43 actually kept us safe - even though it might be unfair to hold him accountable for 9/11?

This idea "he kept us safe" is the one thing that many Republicans hold on to which prevent themselves from massive "transformative learning". It's hard to admit that one's leadership got it totally wrong to such a large degree as Bush #43 did.  And Jeb is making the mistake of saying his brother did the right thing, while the majority of Americans (including a growing minority in his own party) believe that his brother was a total failure as president.

- - - - - -

If we go back to 2003, Bush #43's administration made a decision to remove Saddam Hussein's government from Iraq, setting the stage for a "forever war" the minute a power vacuum was allowed to exist in Iraq.  Obama, giving the American public what it wanted, pulled troops out of Iraq, allowing ISIS to form.  This was a two-stage clusterfuck. We either had to stay in Iraq, with thousands of Americans coming home in body bags - or, we could pull out, and take a risk of radical Islam gaining power.  There was no good choice - and this was Bush #43's legacy.

Did he keep us safe?  No.  But he did create great political theater to make us feel this way. When you look at the TSA and their continued screw ups, one wonders how more incidents haven't happened.  They can spy on our high tech communications.  But they can't spy on low tech (paper) in the same way.  Each time there is a failure in keeping us safe, the TSA tightens things up until the public complains, then eases off a bit.  There is no way to preserve absolute safety - but the public is being treated like a bunch of children and is not being told the truth - life, itself, is a bunch of risks.

- - - - - -

There is a growing list of politicians who are willing to discuss the mistakes this country made in the wake of 9/11.  And this is a good thing.  The GOP can not govern unless it is willing to look at itself honestly and say what they got wrong, and what they got right.  If they build on the things they do right (and we're not talking pandering to ignorant, dogmatic parts of the base), they have a chance to sell America on a market based economy, with all of the risks markets entail.  But this will include safety nets for whom the market can not serve.  If the party fails to address these points adequately, it will shrink in importance as its base shrinks as a part of the general population.

Questions arising from the report on the CIA Enhanced Interrogation program

The recent release of the Senate report on the activities of the CIA in the wake of 9-11 is very disturbing. But I'm disturbed for reasons tangentially related to the document itself - that people will excuse violations of law and human decency in the pursuit of vengeance and political cover.

It's been over 13 years since the Twin Towers and the Pentagon were attacked. Many people were in extreme fear, as mainland America had never suffered a terrorist attack of this scale, nor had it been in the front line of any major wars since 1865. I remember my downstairs neighbor having a sticker on his car announcing "Lake Afghanistan" - as if the way to eliminate our fears was to bomb this country off the face of the earth. Even I was caught up in this fear - and lost sight of what my core values were and should have been.

Shortly after the attacks, the CIA was charged with gathering information which the government could act on. And as the report shows, they were ramping up a mass scale intelligence gathering program without much knowledge of how to do so. In short, they were flying by the seats of their pants.

In most technology fields, we deal with a three legged stool: Cheap, Bug Free, On-Time - pick any two. We have to make trade offs to deliver products with an acceptable balance of these three factors. In intelligence gathering, they have another three legged stool: Quick Information, Large Amounts of Information, and Accurate Information. Torture can produce a lot of information quickly, but the quality leaves much to be desired - as both Israelis and Egyptians would tell you. Skilled interrogation (as used by the Israelis and other governments) produces a lot of accurate information, but it takes time. In short, there is a trade off that has to be made in intelligence gathering.

What I find interesting about the executive summary of the report just published is that we have learned how many records were preserved by the CIA, save the videotapes of the "enhanced interrogations." This is reminiscent of the detailed records kept by a major Central European power in the 1930's and 1940's. The key difference here, is that in the USA, our CIA acted to hide information from both elected branches of government. In fact, one of the documents mention that if Colin Powell (then Secretary of State) hears about this, he'd be livid. Even worse, the CIA kept information from the then President himself!  Only the Senate and House intelligence committees had knowledge of the activities in question.

Ronald Reagan's signing statement on the ratification of the UN Convention on Torture states:

The core provisions of the Convention establish a regime for international cooperation in the criminal prosecution of torturers relying on so-called ‘universal jurisdiction.’ Each State Party is required either to prosecute torturers who are found in its territory or to extradite them to other countries for prosecution.” 

Therefore, waterboarding and other "enhanced interrogation activities" are likely to be considered torture by the treaties we've signed.  Where is the outrage that our House and Senate oversight committees looked the other way while our laws were being violated? Are we a government of law, or that of expediency? This is a very important question.

Shortly after the executive summary of the Senate report was issued, I had a conversation with a gentleman I see regularly. And he parroted the view of the Republican rebuttal, as well as saying that this report should never be made public. He feels that whatever we do to others can be justified in the name of protecting Americans - even if it means breaking laws, then covering up the lawbreaking. I feel that we are a nation of laws, and sometimes it means that we suffer so that the powers of government are kept in check.

The big questions here that bother me very much are: Can we afford to allow a government act illegally, and then cover things up in the name of protecting Americans? Where is the point where allowing a government to act illegally harms Americans more than protects them? I have serious concerns in regard to religious obedience to law, as I know that some problems can not be resolved within the rule of law. On the other hand, how much freedom can we afford to give a government agency which seems to have gone rogue in the performance of its duty? I only wish I had good answers....