Sessions & Mueller: Will Trump get away with this?

Here is an opportunity to do something for our country. Do it for the environment, for women, for minorities, for truth, for the 1st amendment. Do it for the world.

This is not a matter of Republican –vs– Democrat or Conservative –vs– Liberal. It is scholar, leadership and ethics –vs– ignorance, intolerance and an utter morass.

Sign the change.org petition. Protect the special counsel investigation. Defend justice.

Does voting against someone violate a principle?

These “I Voted” stickers are lined up on our microwave oven—a tradition in our home that began 10 years ago. Each sticker represents an even-year election.

I look up to my older brother. He has always been a mensch in dealing with both personal and business relationships. More consistently than me, he stands for noble ideals. He is not quick to give into self-interest or raw emotion and he always weighs the affect of his actions and decisions on the greater community.

But sometimes, standing firm on principle can backfire. I think that this is such a time.

Two years ago, my brother felt that neither major-party candidate for US president was worthy of his vote. And so, he voted for a 3rd-party candidate. I recall his conviction: “I must have faith in the candidate that gets my vote. I will not vote against someone.”

I felt differently. I agreed that the 3rd party candidate was best for the job, but I was more practical about his very low polling number (under 5%). A vote for him would make my voice ineffective. I was more concerned with the possibility of a seriously racist and unqualified man seizing the oval office.

In principle, my brother and I supported the same candidate in 2016. But in practice, I felt that it was necessary to stop a train wreck in the making. I voted against a candidate instead of for a candidate. I voted against racism, bullying, misogyny, leadership without scholarship, a tyrant without integrity, an individual who builds walls instead of bridges—and one who lies about how the wall will be funded.

My brother voted for the candidate with no path to victory. In the interest of fairness and full disclosure, he felt that the other major-party candidate had significant flaws, but he agrees that she wasn’t a train wreck. I would have preferred that he helped to avert the dismantling of all that we value.

I still admire my brother. His word is his bond and his principles are unshakeable. But today, I did exactly what I did two years ago. This time, I hope it makes a difference.

Why vote against someone?

I am ashamed to admit that it has become necessary to vote against something or someone… Against an insipid cancer which is taking our country back to the days of slavery, eugenics, dirty politics and Manifest Destiny in the guise of exceptionalism.

We draw our strength from our diversity, friends—a frightening Truth for those who benefit from their perch. But, we Europeans aren’t the first to enjoy this land. We needn’t be pushed backwards toward ignorance, intolerance and racism. A rising ocean floats all boats. Blacks, Jews, Asians, Mexicans, Native Americans, “unnamed Middle Eastern men” and those who confirm their gender identity are not the problem. They are our strengths—our partner and a solution. Together, we represent a nation of rich diversity, culture and with better opportunity for a successful and vibrant economy.

Far from our differences being a threat, the real problem is intolerance and the assumption of a “zero-sum” game. It isn’t necessary and it isn’t true.

I recognize that there is a legitimate debate over border security, healthcare, gun control, abortion and social programs. Some even feel that there is still a debate over the environment. But, we needn’t be predators. We are not in a battle over territory or the carcass of a deer. Resist racism and intolerance. We can all rise to put this train back on its tracks.

Observations about trust and moral authority (in just this past weekend!)

Getting into Bitcoin? 2 subtle points…

Andreas Antonopoulos releases a new talk on his YouTube feed several times each week. If you are still a Bitcoin doubter, watch his latest video with an open mind. It highlights two subtleties of utility and adoption that can overcome the gap between early adopters and doubters.

Early Adopter: I do not refer to an investor, but one who embraces Bitcoin as both a payment instrument and a currency. Someone who realizes that is very likely to become a stateless currency some day.

Doubters: These are individuals who see Bitcoin as either risky, unnecessary, susceptible to hacking & scams, or fueled by libertarian anarchists. In general, they do not perceive a fundamental or compelling benefit to a stateless currency—or they believe that Bitcoin is not backed by something real, tangible or enforceable. They question a currency without some form of central authority, clear backing or point of redemption.

In particular, Antonopoulos helps his audience reconcile the relationship of a decentralized currency with a community or government that does not fully embrace the benefits or fears the downside (crime, tax dodging, deflation, loss of control over the monetary supply).

Below, I have added notes related to two key points below. These are the very same points that I focus on in my conference presentations. Andreas is very articulate and we are certainly on the same page about these subtle but critical issues:

1. Resist the urge to regulate or control
Timestamp 10:34

— Governments or trusted, established banks (e.g. Merrill Lynch) may try to persuade you that blockchain-backed currencies have potential, but that certain ‘safeties’ must be added to the to make them compliant and commercially viable. They will say that this is needed to encourage compliance & reporting—or to thwart criminal activity.

For example, the treasury, IRS or other fiscal bureaucracy might ask the community to respect a list of assets that are tainted by criminals and to seamlessly substitute new coins for the tainted coins. This seems like a small change. In fact, it seeks only to overlay a law-and-order framework on top of Bitcoin. But, don’t be misled by good intentions.

This is exactly what you don’t want to do! Fiddling with the legitimacy of outstanding wealth undermines the entire purpose and benefit of migrating to a decentralized, stateless currency. The architecture must remain open, permissionless, resistant to censorship, and resistant to manipulation by any authority, whether good or bad. There is already a mechanism for distributed consensus—one that does not vest any central authority with the power to annul a user’s wealth by edict.

Ironically, even the US treasury recognizes the critical importance of unit fungibility. It guarantees the exchangability of every issued dollar for any other—no matter what its history.

2. Don’t just save—Use it in your business
Timestamp 12:12

— How do I get started with Bitcoin (or some other cryptocurrency). Help me get started with an exchange so that I can buy my first crypto coin…

No, no, NO! Don’t start with an exchange account. Learn how to set up a wallet in your home or online. One that you control. Rather than hoard Bitcoin, accept and spend it. This is critical if we hope to see eventual adoption of a transformative economic mechanism in our lifetimes.

— Buying cryptocurrency should not be your first step into the game. Don’t think of crypto as an investment asset. Think of it as a currency that you accept and spend.

Bitcoin will not be relevant in your lifetime, until the fraction of trades fueled by purchase & sale, salaries, fees and loan payments dwarfs the number of transactions fueled by speculators, investors, HODL and even sector funds or ETFs. All of these trades retard the day that Bitcoin will be stable, fluid, fungible and useful. Currently that first set of transactions represents 98% of all activity. To spur adoption, we must change push the fraction of investor transactions and currency exchange below 30%. It’s a tall order, but it is gradually beginning to happen.


Ellery Davies co-chairs CRYPSA, hosts the New York Bitcoin Event and is keynote speaker at Cryptocurrency Conferences. He advises The Disruption Experience in Singapore, sits on the New Money Systems board of Lifeboat Foundation and is a top Bitcoin writer at Quora. Book a presentation or consulting engagement.

Sarah Huckabee Sanders: America’s Tariq Aziz

Sarah Huckabee Sanders, please tell me—I earnestly wish to know…

Are you completely daft?!

• Have you no honor?      • No self respect?      • No backbone?      • No shame?
• No concern for your future career?      • No concern for sexual assault victims?

I mustn’t be unfair.
Let’s recall a bit of recent history…

Five days ago, in the wake of Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s testimony before the U.S. Senate, President Trump showed sympathy toward Dr. Christine Blasey Ford. Regarding her claim of attempted rape by Brett Kavanaugh—and her fear of being killed by pressure to her mouth— Trump acknowledged that she was “very credible” and that she is “a very fine woman”.

What a difference 5 days makes!

Shortly after Dr. Ford and Judge Brett Kavanaugh testified in an open Senate inquiry, Republican Arizona Senator Jeff Flake was cornered in an elevator by two woman survivors. This led him to announce that he would not confirm Kavanaugh unless the FBI was given orders to investigate claims of alcohol fueled violence toward women.

If you live in the United States, and have not been squirrelled away on a camping trip, Buddhist retreat, or secret skunkworks project, then you already know this. It’s yesterday’s news. But today, Trump railed into Blasey Ford, making her out to be a liar and a political operative. At a red state political rally, he attacked this “fine woman” by mocking her memory, claiming that she recalls having one beer, but forgets where, when and with whom she was with at the time of the alleged attack. Trump goes on to claim that she remembers only having a drink and nothing else.

In fact, Dr. Ford recalls the names of others present, what she was wearing and very specific details of the attack. But, beyond the flat-out lie, Trump pretended to be Dr. Ford, by shrieking and whining in the first person—just as he did while flailing his arms in mockery of a handicapped reporter during his election campaign.

Nothing can be said about these low points in American politics other than to note that we are surviving a period in which the Oval Office is occupied by a child, a bully, a liar and an ignorant human being.

But this post is not about Trump. It is about Sarah Sanders, articulate and passionate defender for a dunce.

Now, let’s go back further than 5 days
— Let’s turn back the clock 15 years

Who remembers Tariq Aziz? He was Iraq’s deputy prime minister and then foreign minister, under Sadam Hussein. His early military and political careers weren’t notable to anyone living outside of Iraq. But you couldn’t help to marvel at this guy during and after Operation Iraqi Freedom, the US led an invasion—first to find weapons of mass destruction—and later to find Sadam himself. Throughout the war, Aziz was thrust squarely into the spotlight as spokesman and poster boy for Sadam’s regime.

With the veracity of a broken cuckoo clock, Aziz insisted that the American dogs were being defeated in a string of bloody battles; that Allied soldiers were scurrying like mice, and that no Iraqi had been affected by the imperialist aggression. If it weren’t for news from hundreds of reporters (and photos through the bomb sites of coalition planes), you could almost believe him. But ultimately, the facts demonstrated the opposite of what he claimed. The schism between facts and fantasy revealed Aziz to be more than a lackey. He became a court jester and fodder for late night comedy.

As the Iraq army crumbled, troops deserted, Sadam’s sons were shot to death and Hussein ran into the forest to hide. Throughout it all, Aziz could have focused on the immorality or questionable legal basis for the American invasion. But he didn’t. Instead, he continued to make fun of Allied operations and insisted that American’s were losing. With conviction and character, he said that American’s were scared, retreating, deserting and on the run.

If the war weren’t so bloody, the Aziz diatribes would be comical. But, it was bloody—thousands of Americans and a half million Iraqi soldiers and civilians among the dead.

There probably weren’t any weapons of mass destruction—and history may ultimately condemn USA for initiating war when we should have focused ISIS terrorists and on finding Osama bin Laden. But, what made Tariq Aziz both memorable and laughable was his incredible loyalty to a dictator. He defended and distorted whacky behavior with passionate fervor.

Getting back to Sarah Sanders…

I won’t draw out the comparison, but for one minute, consider the similarity between Tariq Aziz and Sarah Sanders. They are in the same business: Putting lipstick on a pig. Defending the indefensible!

And today, Sarah defended the mockery of a sexual assault victim, the bullying by her boss, and the lies of a man who has no shard of credibility. Why? Can she find no other employment?

Sanders is saddled with the world’s worst job. It must be horrible to be in her shoes. She must defend and justify behavior of a child who commands a once great nation. She must explain misogyny, xenophobia, abject ignorance, mockery of the handicapped and of victims, and a continuous stream of lies. She must defend “sh*thouse nations” reneging on trade agreements and nuclear treaties, rude behavior toward a chancellor and crude behavior in the presence of a Queen. At some point, any reasonable person must ask “Why, Sarah?!!” Why defend the indefensible and distort the obvious. Is it out of a sense of loyalty? Out of patriotism? —Or out of sheer ignorance? Have you always stood firm with bullies and blamed victims?

When Sean Spicer was Whitehouse spokesperson, one could easily overlook his daily Daffy Duck pronouncements. Let’s face it: He was sort of a goofball from the very start. With no history, no pedigree, and no reputation to protect, it was easy to dismiss his absurd excuses. He was just a marionette in the oval office—a ‘Mini Me’ to Dr. Evil.

But when Sanders stepped up to the podium, I was  impressed. She was educated, articulate, impassionate and with an apparent capacity for critical thinking. She didn’t appear to be a pushover—not for the press and not even for the president. For a few weeks, she convinced me that she was part of the checks-and-balances offered by a critical staffer.

Alas, our hopes for a reasonable liason to the chaos in Trump’s head were dashed. And now, they are dashed more than ever.

Sarah: Have you no moral compass? Have you no shame? In what capacity will you work after a Trump presidency?

Uber & Lyft fight drivers over caps NYC

New York legislators are close to deciding an issue driven by Uber and Lyft drivers. They are demonstrating in the streets and demanding a cap on the number of authorized ride-share vehicles.

Mainstream media began covering this dust storm two weeks ago, but the pending decision is putting international attention on the issue of licensing a sector that was credited with eliminating nanny-state legislation. After all, licensing should be confined to the singular issues of transportation safety and not overall commerce.

A cap? What is a cap?! Does this mean that a person with a clean car, a good driving record and no criminal complaints will need a special license or medallion to participate in a ride sharing service? How ironic! Don’t glance in your rear-view mirror, because that is exactly what we used to grant taxi services until…Well, until sometime next year. It’s an old school, anti-free-market concept that we surmounted 10 years ago!

Legacy drivers claim that we need a cap of 80,000 entrepreneur-drivers, ostensibly for two reasons:

  1. They want economic protection. (Duhh!). Drivers who were early to the party are cruising the streets in cars that are empty 42% of the time. They are waiting for their next guest. This quite ironic, because these are the same drivers that disrupted the protections afforded to taxi companies.
  2. They claim that capping ride-share cars will reduce congestion on crowded Manhattan streets, along with pollution and commuter frustration.

But the ride share companies are not backing their drivers. They are lobbying anyone who will listen that we must avoid legislative restrictions.

A Wild Duck Opinion…

Uber and Lyft are absolutely right in championing the fight against a legislative cap and thereby removing free-market economics from the transportation sector. These drivers are owner-operators. There is already effective vetting of safety and criminal records. They are not employees of a municpal service. They are entrepreneurs exploiting a smart-phone app to sell their own services. It is no different than programmer who uses an app to write and distribute his own software.

Putting legislative caps on the number of participants in a new-era, free enterprise service, or limiting hours of operation is antithetical to a democratic and empowered free market constituency. It smacks of a Communist mind set. The armchair economics of protestors (drivers who feel threatened by newer drivers) and even well-researched data of credentialed economists) plays no role in an organic, facts-on-the ground growth industry.

I am not suggesting that an unlicensed or criminal driver should get away without vetting. But attempting to impose restrictions that are unrelated to health, safety or the environment will have unintended consequences, such as:

  • Underground apps that do the same thing with even less restrictions
  • Pushing innovation and profits off shore — or —
  • Ceding the market to foreign countries

Licensing has always been intended to serve the public good and not thwart innovation, growth and individual entrepreneurs. Unfortunately, it is often used to protect early entrepreneurs and exclude newcomers. That’s not how it should work—certainly not in a free country.

If you can’t take the heat of fair market competition, then innovate.

 

How Fear Affects Ideology

A very brief comment…

Is Conservative-vs-Liberal an expression of the same spectrum as Fear-vs-Trust?

The video below offers an interesting take on the difference between conservatives and liberals. It’s short, entertaining, and it clearly explains a reasonable hypothesis.

I am not sure what my few Trump-supporting friends would say about this analysis, but I don’t see it as divisive. It’s just an observed correlation without any judgement.

Spoiler: It ends with a call for us to all move toward the center… Not necessarily the center of the political spectrum (conservative -vs- liberal)—but toward the center of Fear -vs- Trust, which the video strongly correlates with our individual politics.

NASA director reverses on climate change, after 1 month

For millennia, our planet has sustained a robust ecosystem; healing each deforestation, algae bloom, pollution or imbalance caused by natural events. Before the arrival of an industrialized, destructive and dominant global species, it could pretty much deal with anything short of a major meteor impact. In the big picture, even these cataclysmic events have not destroyed the environment—they just change the course of evolution and rearrange the dog pile. A new alpha animal emerges and thrives.

But with industrialization, the race for personal wealth, nations fighting nations, and modern comforts, we have recognized that our planet is not invincible. This is why I serve on the board of Lifeboat Foundation. The foundation is all about recognizing the limits to growth and protecting our fragile environment.

Check out this April news article on Trump’s appointment of Jim Bridenstine, a vocal climate denier, as head of NASA. NASA is one of the biggest agencies on earth. Despite a lack of training or experience—without literacy in science, technology or astrophysics—he was handed an enormous responsibility, a staff of 17,000 and a budget of $19 billion.

In 2013, Bridenstine criticized Obama for wasting taxpayer money on climate research, and claimed that global temperatures stopped rising 15 years ago.

The Vox News headline states “Trump’s next NASA administrator is a Republican congressman with no background in science”. It points out that Jim Bridenstine’s confirmation has been controversial — even among members of his own party.

Sometimes, flip-flopping is a good thing

In less than one month, Jim Bridenstine has changed—he has changed a lot!

After less then a month as head of NASA, he is convinced that climate change is real, that human activity is the significant cause and that it presents an existential threat. He has changed from climate denier to a passionate advocate for doing whatever is needed to reverse our impact and protect the environment.

What changed?

Bridenstine acknowledges that he was a denier, but feels that exposure to the evidence and science is overwhelming and convincing—even in with just a few weeks exposure to world class scientists and engineers.

For anyone who still claims that there is no global warming or that the evidence is ‘iffy’, it is worth noting that Bridenstine is a hand-picked goon. His appointment was recommended by right wing conservatives and rubber stamped by the idiot-in-chief (the original stooge for the ultra right). He was a Denier—but had a sufficiently open mind to listen to experts and review the evidence.

Do you suppose that the US president is listening? Do you suppose that he will grasp the most important issues of this century? What about other world leaders, legislative bodies and rock stars? Will tey use their powers or influence to do the right thing? For the sake of our existence, let us hope they follow the lead of Jim Bridenstine, former climate denier!


Ellery Davies co-chairs CRYPSA, hosts the New York Bitcoin Event and is keynote speaker at Cryptocurrency Conferences. He sits on the New Money Systems board of Lifeboat Foundation. Book a presentation or consulting engagement.

Shifting Politics: Perhaps Texas can be redeemed, afterall

I love Texas! I love horses, wide open prairies, cowboy lore, beef, The Alamo and Texas Instruments. San Antonio and the area around El Paso is way cool. I especially love the independent spirit of limited government politics.

I’m not too keen on an economy that is still tied to fossil fuels, but I get it. Texas, Oaklahoma and Pennsylvania were the spigot of a carbon-based industrial revolution. The economy grew up hand-in-hand with the automobile and natural gas piped directly into homes, businesses and powerplants all over the country. It was a time before we became dependent on foreign nations. It was a time before we learned about greenhouse gas and a fragile environment. Gradually, even Texans are accepting the science of man’s relationship with nature—educating children, motivating citizens and retraining thousands of workers.

But seriously. What’s not to love?

Well, for one, there is an undercurrent of rural xenophobia. At least that’s what I have heard. To be honest, I have yet to meet a Texan that does not appreciate Mexico and the contributions of Mexican Americans—even during an extended house hunting trip deep in the heart of Texas, I sensed generous and tolerant citizens. If hate is brewing, it is still buried deep below the surface.

The Demographics

Outside of large cities, much of Texas is a single-party state. And the party is not mainstream Republican. At least not the Republicans that anyone over 40 was taught to respect. You know—the one that stood for limited taxation, but still understood the need for a safety net. The one where neighbor loved neighbor and religion was a personal conviction; not peddled with the conviction of superiority. It certainly is not the party that I once called home—the one that represents shared goals of limited government, personal freedom and modest checks & balances on the redistribution of wealth.

Something happened on the road from Regan to Palin to Trump. The modern evolution of rural, red Republicans is a bastardized version of party politics, alternatively known as Tea Party or Trumpians. It is characterized by head-in-sand intolerance, hate and xenophobia. Its lies are not accompanied by shame nor even awareness. It spews forth misogyny and it changes position with the fears and intolerance of donors. And the biggest alarm: It injects a bible into our democratic system of pluralistic governance. Is that the basis of a democracy? When has that formula ever worked?!

Fortunately, this is beginning to change—and the change is spearheaded by MJ Hegar who is running against Tea Party Congressman John R. Carter, man without a clue. This video is sheer genius! Perhaps Texas will move away from hate and find its footing.

As you watch the video below, consider that Air Force Major Mary Jennings Hegar is a search and rescue pilot who served three tours of duty in Afghanistan. After her helicopter was hit by enemy fire, she continued her rescue mission. She crashed on that mission while returning Taliban fire. She won the Purple Heart and a distinguished flying cross with valor. When she was denied ground combat service because she is a woman, she sued the Pentagon and won.

If you are Republican, try to overlook that Hager is running as a Democrat. In the end, it’s not about party. Parties mash disparate issues into a ‘platform’ and punish candidates for statements or deeds outside their red lines. They are incompatible with independent thinkers who consider the common good (i.e. the collective needs of all constituents). They don’t tolerate officials who vote their conscience.

Reflect, instead, on Hegar’s message. She is tolerant, inclusive, compassionate and willing to continue working for a country that constantly tries to shut doors in her face.

Republican, Democrat, Libertarian or Independent, MJ Hegar is my kind of woman!

What Countries use US Dollar and Why?

Other than the United States, 5 U.S. territories and 12 sovereign nations use the US dollar as their legal currency. (Note that Micronesia covers six sovereign countries).

Additionally, I have traveled to island nations and some countries in Asia and Pacific that peg their currency to the US dollar. In these regions, citizens accept US dollars interchangeably with their own national currency, and their governments don’t seem to discourage or prosecute such transactions.

What gives value to paper?

Around 350 BC, Aristotle worked for the Greek council, trying to get farmers, weavers, chariot makers and tradesman to use government issued currency for the exchange of goods and services, rather than bartering with neighbors. This would not only facilitate taxation and public works, but it would help farmers to store and forward their wealth, instead of seeing their assets perish with each change of season.

He reflected on what makes a currency trusted and functional. He felt that one critical trait was “intrinsic value”. Today, most economists interpret this phrase as a currency having inherent or self-contained value. That is, it mustn’t be paper nor even a promise of redemption (for example, a picture of Caesar). And it mustn’t rely on the ‘good faith and credit’ of citizens. After all, nations are subject to the whims of transient politicians and any economy can collapse because of war, drought or over-spending. Rather, the money must be made from something of useful and dense value. For example, it could be gold, silver or some useful thing, like chocolate, coveted jewelry or a tool.

Today, money is no longer backed by gold or even a government promise of redemption (offering to exchange dollars for gold, grain, goats or land). For developed nations, this backing—a method of establishing intrinsic value—ended between 1971~1973, when President Richard Nixon dissolved the Bretton Woods Agreement and withdrew the promise of a conversion guaranty.

Instead, today, the value of national currencies floats in response to supply and demand.

Supply and demand is a natural economic mechanism, and for fluid and widely distributed commodities, it can be an elegant solution to the problem of establishing value, function and durability—but only if the supply is capped or very tightly regulated and the issuer is trusted by individuals, organizations and nations that quote prices, save or trade with the currency.

Unfortunately, this is not the case for any national currency across the world.

  • Supply: National currencies increase in supply when the government spends more than it raises from fees, taxes, government owned industries and borrowing—or whenever it cannot meet debt obligations. With fiat currency, the supply is open ended and uncertain.
  • Demand: The demand for a currency is a function of its issuer’s economy: How much are its people producing? How high are their debts? Do creditors believe that they will repay their debts in kind?—at least, someday, down the road.

Today, it’s all about trust—Trust in the ability of a country to return the goods and services that were bought by their people and trust in their government to avoid printing more money, which depreciates savings, redistributes wealth, and cheats creditors through the insipid dilution of inflation.

Whenever a government prints money, it reneges on debt and breeches the trust of creditors.

Why would any country substitute the currency of another country?

One need only look at this Zimbabwe money to understand why an independent nation might substitute the US dollar as legal tender. The same has happened to Argentina, Greece, Venezuela and Germany between the wars.

It was withdrawn from circulation in 2008. At the time, it was worth US 40¢ (40 cents). Today, Zimbabwe uses the US dollar as its legal currency, because its spending value is stable relative to monies issued African central banks. That is, the citizens trust the US dollar to resist inflation—and so they use it to store and trade their hard-earned wealth.

Is Adoption of the US Dollar growing around the world?

The days of our friends and enemies trusting the dollar—or even using it to negotiate large international trades (that is, as a “reserve currency”)—is gradually coming to an end. This is changing, because:

1. Bitcoin is gradually displacing the dollar as the world’s reserve currency. Even though it is slow to gain traction as a commercial and consumer payment instrument, it has all the components of an ideal currency for large international quotation, exchange and settlement.

The fundamental reason for the gradual trust in Bitcoin is illustrated by these graphs. Bitcoin is a capped commodity backed by a robust 2-sided network. Understanding and trust in its distributed consensus mechanism is growing. It cannot be manipulated by transient politicians. Nations that use it for significant transactions cannot be cheated when their trading partner or a 3rd party prints money to cover their own shortfall. It is an ideal reserve settlement instrument.

2. In recent decades, the dollar is built on debt rather than domestic output, a trade surplus, or high quality credit. This creates the potential for a collapse, if US citizens or creditor nations begin to doubt the likelihood of the United States reversing its slumping exports and staggering trade imbalance.

3. In recent years, the United States has lost gravitas in world forums due to the projection of power beyond its borders without a clear mandate or international support, and its recent lack of leadership in issues like the environment, trade accords and arbitrating regional peace agreements. This impression—along with the erratic statements and behavior of U.S. politicians causes both allies and enemies to seek an alternate reserve currency. Why so? …

A reserve currency is an international quotation and settlement instrument—even when the United States is not a party to a sale or transaction, and even if one or both parties is not a US ally. Many countries, banks and producers (of oil, food, military gear, etc) do not desire or appreciate the tremendous side-benefit that accrues to USA.

In effect, when you adopt the currency of one nation as the reserve currency for others, you grant credit to that country, without collateral. You allow them to print money without substantive backing, guarantees or even a balance of trade that makes it likely you will be repaid without the dilution of inflation.


Ellery Davies co-chairs CRYPSA, hosts the New York Bitcoin Event and is keynote speaker at Cryptocurrency Conferences. He sits on the New Money Systems board of Lifeboat Foundation. Book a presentation or consulting engagement.

What if Apollo 11 had failed? Nixon‘s undelivered speech

In 1969, William Safire was President Nixon’s speech writer. He wrote the short speech shown below, and delivered it to Chief of Staff, H.R. Haldeman. The speech was to be read by Nixon in the event that the Apollo 11 lunar lander failed to launch or that some other problem caused the lander or mothership to crash back onto the surface of the moon.

In 1969, the space race was at full throttle. Russians were first to launch a satellite, send a dog and a man into space,* and perform an extravehicular space walk. America was under great pressure to fulfill John F. Kennedy’s promise and beat the Russians in landing a man on the moon. Today, former engineers at NASA acknowledge that they believed the chances of such a catastrophe were more than 50%.

William Safire was a brilliant orator and linguist, known primarily as a columnist and journalist. He received the Presidential Medal of Freedom (from George Bush in 2006). He died in 2009.

The Apollo 11 disaster speech is pure poetry. It fits Nixon’s demeanor, while inspiring the public to continue support for exploration despite such a spectacular failure.

William Safire’s speech for President Nixon—in the event of a moon landing disaster:

Fate has ordained that the men who went to the moon to explore in peace will stay on the moon to rest in peace.

These brave men, Neil Armstrong and Edwin Aldrin, know that there is no hope for their recovery. But they also know that there is hope for mankind in their sacrifice.

These two men are laying down their lives in mankind’s most noble goal: the search for truth and understanding.

They will be mourned by their families and friends; they will be mourned by their nation; they will be mourned by the people of the world; they will be mourned by a Mother Earth that dared send two of her sons into the unknown.

In their exploration, they stirred the people of the world to feel as one; in their sacrifice, they bind more tightly the brotherhood of man.

In ancient days, men looked at stars and saw their heroes in the constellations. In modern times, we do much the same, but our heroes are epic men of flesh and blood.

Others will follow, and surely find their way home. Man’s search will not be denied. But these men were the first, and they will remain the foremost in our hearts.

For every human being who looks up at the moon in the nights to come will know that there is some corner of another world that is forever mankind.


* The US was first to send an animal into space. On June 11, 1948, Albert 1, a rhesus monkey, was launched on a V2 rocket. But this was a suborbital flight. It cleared the atmosphere but could not have sailed away from Earth’s gravity, nor even achieved orbit. The first animal to attain orbit was launched more than 9 years later. A dog, Laika, launched on board the Soviet Sputnik 2 spacecraft on November 3, 1957.

Source: Watergate.info

Multisig Wallet: Protect Bitcoin in case of death or forgetfulness

UPDATE (April 2018): See footnote regarding Coinbase multisig vaults.* The feature will be retired this month, because it interferes with plans to improve support of Bitcoin forks.

Legacy Method of Inheriting Assets

Many Bitcoin owners choose to use a custodial account, in which the private keys to a wallet are generated and controlled by their exchange—or even a bank or stock broker. In this case, funds are passed to heirs in the usual way. It works like this…

An executor, probate attorney, or someone with a legal claim contacts the organization that controls the assets. They present a death certificate, medical proxy or power-of-attorney. Just as with your bank account or stocks and bonds, you have the option of listing next of kin and the proportion of your assets that should be distributed to each. These custodial services routinely ask you to list individuals younger than you and alternate heirs, along with their street addresses, in the event that someone you list has died before you.

Of course, Bitcoin purists and Libertarians point out that the legacy method contradicts the whole point of owning a cryptocurrency. Fair enough.

Multisig to the Rescue

Using multisig would be far easier, if wallet vendors would conform to standards for compatibility and embed technology into hardware and software products. Unfortunately, they have been slow to do so, and there are not yet widely recognized standards to assure users that an implementation is both effective and secure. But, there is some good news: It’s fairly easy to process your ordinary account passwords and even the security questions with a roll-your-own multisig process. I’ve done it using PGP and also using Veracrypt—two widely recognized, open source encryption platforms.

This short article is not intended as an implementation tutorial, but if the wallet vendors don’t jump up to home plate, I may release a commercial tool for users to more easily add multisig to their wallets. It really is safe, simple and effective. (If readers wish to partner with me on this? I estimate that it will take $260,000 and about six months).

What is Multisig and How Does it Protect your Wealth?

Multisig allows anyone with credentials to an account, wallet or even a locked safe to create their own set of rules concerning which combinations of friends and relatives can access their assets without the original owner. The owner sets conditions concerning who, when, how much and which accounts can be accessed — and the heirs simply offer passwords or proof of identity. If implemented properly, it doesn’t matter if some of the heirs have forgotten passwords or died before the original owner.

This can be illustrated in an example. I am intentionally describing a complex scenario, so that you consider a full-blown implementation. Although the ‘rules’ listed below appear to be complex, the process for creating the associated passwords is trivial.

The last 2 rules listed below do not use Multisig technology, but rather Smart Contracts. It enhances an owner’s ability to dictate terms. Here, then, is the scenario…

I want heirs to have access to my assets
at banks, brokers, exchanges or other ac-
counts–but only under certain conditions:

  • If any 4 of 11 trusted family and friends come together and combine their passwords (or an alternate proof-of-identity), they may access my wealth and transfer it to other accounts
    • But, if one is my husband, Fred, or my daughter, Sue, then only two trusted individuals are needed
    • —But not Fred and Sue together (At least one must be an outsider)
  • If any account has less than $2500, then it goes to my favorite charity, rather than the individuals I have listed
  • None of my accounts can be unlocked by my heirs, until I have not accessed them with my own password for 3 months. Prior to that, the Multisig will fail to gain access.

Again, the decedent’s wishes are complex, but executing and enforcing these rules is trivial. In my presentations, I describe the method on two simple PowerPoint slides. Even that short description is sufficient to show anyone who has used common cryptography apps to weave their own multisig add-on.

Of course, each individual will need to locate their own secret password, but a biometric or other conforming proof-of-identity can be substituted. Even if several survivors cannot recall their credentials, the multisig method allows other combinations of individuals to access the assets across all accounts.

This article may leave you wondering about the legal process—and this is where I agree with the Libertarian viewpoint: Sure! The courts have a process and heirs should document their access and decisions for tax purposes and to assure each other of fair play. But a key benefit of cryptocurrency and the disintermediation offered by the blockchain is the personal empowerment of access with impunity and without waiting for any legal process.

Let the courts to what they do, while you honor the wishes of your dearly departed.

If this article generates sufficient interest, I may prepare a short tutorial on how to split off your own Multisig passwords, regardless of which wallet or hosted services you use. It will work with any vendor, app or gadget —or— Perhaps, I will refine my homespun solution and offer it as an add-on app that can be used with any wallet, bank account or exchange. Simple, ubiquitous and effective multisig should have been available to even traditional banking customers years ago!


* History of Coinbase support for a multisig vault

Oct 29, 2014 — Coinbase adds Multisig Vault
                           Multisig rule: (3) private keys created. 2 are required to access coins:

  1. User Key
  2. Coinbase Key
  3. 2nd Coinbase Key but only user has passsword

Aug 31 2017 — No more NEW Multisig vaults

April 19 2018 — Sunset of Multisig vaults (and announced earlier, on Mar 20)

Sunset on Multisig vaults: They make it difficult to support forks. A new tool will still support withdrawls after multisig vaults are retired.


Ellery Davies co-chairs CRYPSAhosts the Bitcoin Event and presents at Crypto Conferences around the world. Book a presentation or consulting engagement.

Trump: Lamenting lost opportunities…

Twice, this past year, I promised that a final missive about our president was my last word, in a blog that resolves to be apolitical. This was a supremely difficult promise to keep—I have clearly failed. I lose sleep over our shared unfortune. And so, here is one more parting thought on a matter that troubles me deeply.

During the winter holidays, I settled into Las Vegas for a few shows and some fun. (Thank you, Ryan, for loaning me a Pontiac sports car!). I shot this photo through my window from Highway 15 as I was approached my hotel on the Vegas Strip.

It is sad that this building still shows such a disgraced brand name. It is sad that our country still wallows in that disgrace. How so?…

It is not so much the lies, divisiveness, misogyny, xenophobia, abject ignorance or thin-skinned bullying that bothers me. It’s not the constant contempt for everything embraced by the past administration (it clearly consumes him). It’s not the blind allegiance to white supremacists (he doesn’t even realize that they are racist). It’s not his goofy battle with the 1st Amendment or his professed support of the 2nd Amendment. And it’s not even the ignorance on issues related to the environment and nuclear threats…

Rather, it is the lost opportunities during moments of crisis and everyday business in which perspective, rational leadership, and respect from peers could really make a profound and positive difference to the futures of people everywhere!

To my good friends Dania, Peter and my nephew, Nate: Note that I never mention the name of any politician or statesman in this post. The name on that building speaks for itself. I respect you, but I do not respect the individual whose name adorns this building. It gleams in the sunset, and towers over Las Vegas. But it shines with shame. It may be beautiful and well maintained, but it represents a crumbling America.

Absolutely, the last word on Donald Trump

Months ago, before and after the election of our 45th president, I recognized that a growing fraction of posts in this blog were diatribes—railing against Trump and intolerance, and focusing on national politics. These topics were never intended to be a major focus of Wild Duck. I was concerned that personal politics was beginning to detract from the goals of a blog dedicated primarily to Bitcoin, privacy and the intersection of technology with social policy.

And so, I am doubling down on my commitment to move the shame and disgrace of the US president off of this web site. This is not the place. This is no longer the time. This is not the venue for political divisiveness.

except just this one last time. Please, Gawd! Just one last word about an issue of global importance.

Instead of making America great again, our president is dragging America into a pit of denial, division, xenophobia, and intolerance.

The longer that we tolerate this glitch of democracy; the longer we delay impeachment or guided resignation; the longer we accept divisiveness—this will be the period during which our nation treads three rungs below mediocrity. We grunt and grit our teeth; but, we slip further toward a cliff of irreversible, historical and ecological consequences.

Last week, I was traveling with my daughter in Costa Rica, and so I missed a New York Times op-ed (Aug 17, 2017). It screams out from the page—confronting and demanding reconciliation; it deserves amplification. Please consider what you read. Don’t just nod in agreement or reject it due to Trump loyalty. Truly consider the consequences. Stand up. Call your neighbors and friends. Do something. [Click image at bottom]


Vicente Fox: Message to Donald

I try hard to avoid pushing too many Trump posts into AWildDuck. The blog is intended to be more about technology, privacy, cryptocurrency and social policy.

But all too often, something like this hits the news and it’s tempting; like Adam & Eve and the apple, all over again!

I could be mistaken, but it appears that this video message to US president Donald Trump was really produced and presented by former Mexican president Vicente Fox. It does not appear to be an actor or comedian. The video is posted on President Fox’s Facebook page and his own personal web page.

Even if this is an actor portraying the Mexican president, it is clearly authorized. It is not only funny, but insightful and relevant—and very sad. That too! Funny, but sad…

US withdrawal from Paris accord; Universal disappointment

Yesterday, I had a fantasy. One that I passionately hoped would become reality. Minutes before Trump announced the withdrawal of the United States from the Paris Climate Accord, I began to daydream…

  • I dreamt that Trump might listen to his top science advisors and his daughter
  • I dreamt that he might not gamble our existence on his minority opinion that humans cannot help rescue the environment.
  • I dreamt that he would recognize that clean energy jobs trump legacy coal mining
  • I dreamt that he would avoid export tariffs for failing to respect international norms
  • I dreamt that he would stop pandering to Yahoos and stand for something worthy and undeniable

No such luck! The USA has lost its Mojo—at least while it is led by a man with no grasp of science, history, morals or a global perspective. As Trump begun to speak, I was sucked into a cruel nightmare. But this nightmare is reality. It’s the reality of a buffoon representing you and me in our nation’s highest office.

Question: Time for a thought experiment. Can you guess the answer?…

What do Arnold Schwarzenegger, Elon Musk, The Pope, Richard Branson and French president, Emmanuel Macron, have in common?

Answer: They are all saddened that the US is surrendering its inspiration, leadership and common sense. Clean energy creates jobs, saves our planet, and aids the political and military stability of nations. Trump doesn’t sense any of this. He is validated by his base and his Yes men. He is a climate denier, and he doesn’t even read. He only watches what others say about him on television.                     [continue below video]

I cannot add perspective nor amplify President Macron’s urgent message to Americans. The clip is trending on Facebook with the caption: “French president destroys Trump in 5 words”. This suggest that he is taking a jab at Trump; mocking his poor grasp on science and the environment. But, politics plays no role in this message. It is about global impact and opportunity…

The French president hasn’t made a fool of Trump. Trump has brought shame onto his office and made a fool of our system of government, all on his own. His defiance of science and complete lack of understanding history risks irreparable harm to our planet. Trump feels that American jobs come before environmental policy. Yet, he is turning his back on the biggest jobs market since the steam engine.                 [Continue below video]

Perhaps more critically, his withdrawal from the global accord will bring about tariffs against US cars, steel, airplanes, timber and electronics. After all, by pulling out of the Paris accords, we ducking environmental safeties in an effort to make America great — or more accurately, in our effort to bury our heads in the sands and let the rest of the world take the lead on clean energy, efficiency, reducing pollution and averting global warming.

Response to US withdrawal…


Ellery Davies co-chairs Crypsa & Bitcoin Event, columnist & board member at Lifeboat, editor
at WildDuck and will deliver the keynote address at Digital Currency Summit in Johannesburg.

Sex Equality: I’m With Her

A Wild Duck guest editorial

Lydia Begag is a high school junior at Advanced Math and Science Academy in Massachusetts. She got our attention when she published an editorial critical of the school’s uniform policy. With eloquence and articulation, she laid out a brilliant and persuasive argument that the policy was anything but uniform. It was ambiguous, arbitrary and discriminatory.


I’m with Her
Ideas Regarding Sex Equality—Forget the Rest

Political and social turmoil are everywhere we turn, especially in the early months of 2017. Lunch conversations, small talk at work, and, of course, the media we consume have all become related to a singular topic: the United States government and its workings. Emotionally, I want to curl up in a ball and block out the political nonsense being spewed left and right until the day I die (pun very much intended)—but I feel intellectually obliged to confront the controversy.

All who live and breath America understand why politics have always been a hot topic for debate. Every ideology, action, and word are potentially contentious. Such is especially the case with modern feminism. Everyone seems to have a different opinion of it and portrays it in different ways, from the group of men wolf whistling at a woman on her way to her car after work to powerful cultural figures who associate themselves with the movement. Before we can even begin to familiarize ourselves with conflicting beliefs towards women and feminism in general and their reflection of a worrisome mentality, it is crucial to first understand feminism’s roots in the United States, and how interpretations of the word and the movement have varied throughout the years.

Feminism begins its legacy in 19th-century America, where its first-wave arises at the Seneca Falls Convention of July 1948. Prominent feminists of the era (including Elizabeth Cady Stanton—more on her later!) issued a Declaration of Sentiments for women that emulated the Declaration of Independence their husbands had crafted 170 years earlier. The document asserted that women had fundamental rights that were denied without cause, including suffrage. However, the first-wave feminist movement raised a series of questions regarding whether it was acceptable to promote black civil rights over and into women’s rights. Should the rights of black men be prioritized over establishing and recognizing rights for women? Should black women be considered in the fight for gender equality as well, or would that undermine the cause white women had been fighting for for so long? The moral conflict eventually resulted in a success for the women’s suffrage movement in 1920. White women, led by famous feminists such as Stanton, Alice Paul, and Lucy Burns, gained the right to vote in federal and state elections via the 19th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Women of color, however, were left in the dust and did not start to gain suffrage until 1965. This type of exclusive feminism did not end when women of color gained suffrage; it has proven itself to be significant even today.

The list of American feminist milestones goes on and on. Women experienced sexual liberation in the Roaring 20s, when life was grander and more exquisite than ever. They essentially took over maintenance of the U.S. economy when men went  to fight in the world wars, and Rosie the Riveter was born. Women were also becoming increasingly influential in politics. Such milestones included the first woman to run for president on a major-party ticket in 1972 to landmark Supreme Court cases asserting that a right to privacy does include guaranteed legal accessibility to abortion and contraceptives. Title 9, the amendment to the Education Amendments Act of 1972, enabled girls in schools across the country to receive the same benefits as their male peers. All of these milestones reshaped a woman’s role in society throughout the 20th century onwards, but they did not come without drawbacks. The ’20s was an intense era of sexist and classist attitudes. Female sexual liberation resulted in extreme objectification. After WWI was over and soldiers came home, women were whisked back into the households to resume their roles as obedient housewives. Male dominance made running for public office harder for a woman, despite having the opportunity. And let us not forget the controversy surrounding a woman’s right to privacy. A significant factor involves religious morals and/or other ethical reasoning that are not related to gender equality, but it is impossible to ignore the misogynistic rationale that many pro-lifers exhibit. All of the achievements we’ve had have seemingly been countered by just as much dissent as support, a persistent reality since Abigail Adams urged her husband to support gender equality.

We are currently in the era of what fundamentalist feminists call “Take A Shot Every time You Offend Someone With One of Your Comments.” That term, of course, is colloquialism at its finest. You’re probably more familiar with something called third-wave feminism. This type of feminism has become increasingly less focused on the kind of feminism Stanton was prominent for (Yay! Exclusivity!) and more on queer and non-white women. The concept of intersectionality was introduced in the late ’80s just before this third wave began. It has received great support by women of color and those who had always been ignored by exclusive feminists, but as we already know, dissent is just around the corner.

The most popular criticism focuses on a lack of cohesion. First wave feminism fought for and gained female suffrage. The second wave fought for the right for women to have access to equal opportunity in the workforce and an end to legal sex discrimination. What is third wave feminism’s goal? Is there even a goal, or are its advocates serving as the world’s determinators of what is PC and what is not? The stigma around the feminist movement has existed ever since its origins in this country, but the increasing disassociation of women from the term ‘feminism’ has become alarming in recent years. For every outspoken celebrity and political feminist there is out there (think Emma Watson, Shonda Rhimes, Nancy Pelosi) there is an equally prominent female figure that opposes the movement, such as Lana del Rey, Tomi Lahren, and Shailene Woodley. Here’s the kicker: these role models usually aren’t misogynistic or demeaning. They simply seek to avoid affiliation with the word itself and its modern day supporters. This is understandable; we’re a country founded on grounds of freedom. If a person doesn’t want to associate themselves with a movement, there’s no obligation to. However, the fact that women don’t even want to be labeled feminists because of what it has come to signify is something I find very problematic. I don’t see this as an inadequate reflection of what 21st century women believe in, but rather a poor reflection on the feminist crusade. The way I look at it is this: apples don’t fall off a tree because they are too heavy. Rather, they fall off because the stem is too weak to support them.

This creation of a conflict within a conflict has led to major confusion on what “right” feminism is. As defined by Merriam Webster, “feminism” is the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes. This most basic meaning of the word is something most women, if not all, should consider when they debate  whether or not to label themselves a feminist. Sex equality is really the only thing the third-wave feminist movement should be focused on. Issues such as racial inequality, and rights for LGBT and disabled persons, are a matter for a cause much broader than feminism (think egalitarianism). The more narrow a movement and its fight becomes, the more likely it is to accomplish its goals. The first two waves of feminism all had a set goal in mind, which was something that followed core feminism to the nines. In the midst of all of the social unrest that has risen since the ’80s, the feminist movement has been trying to take over the egalitarianist one. However, if women ever wish to gain social equality between the sexes, it is necessary to narrow the cause to its fundamental roots.

Another issue with the modern feminist movement is that, in the effort towards sex equality, many feminists have interpreted being equal to men as trying to act just like them. Men and women are different, biologically and perhaps psychologically, but of equal value. To quote Mary Ramirez’s “Dear Daughter: Here’s Why I Didn’t March For You”: “…we are biologically and physically and emotionally different from men, but that doesn’t mean we’re less. It means we’re special.”

Nonetheless, achieving social equality between the sexes is something I consider crucial, particularly for the girls just starting to grow up in this country. It is disheartening for women to live in a world where, from the moment we start to grow up and find ourselves in a male-centric society, life becomes a tale of denigration and overt sexualization. However, the problem with using modern feminism to change this sexist attitude is that it has turned into a male resentment club, and no longer seems to revolve around sex equality in society. Off the top of my head, I can think of multiple times where the “feminists” surrounding me on a daily basis have remarked on female superiority or denounced women who do not wholeheartedly accept their idea of feminism. Feminism should preach equality and acceptance. Instead, it has turned into a catty game of doing to the men what the men have done to us. We live in a world where raising people up has turned into knocking others down. Vulgarity and impertinence has turned into the ideal image of a “strong” woman, and has become more and more acceptable. The idea of a feminist who respects others’ opinions has seemingly been swapped with one that thrives off of the idea of being regarded as “bitchy,” angry, or disrespectful. We’ve come a long way since our feminist founding mothers marched down Pennsylvania Avenue fighting for suffrage, and unfortunately, it’s not for the best.

Envisioning myself in the world of politics five or ten years down the road…I won’t pretend it doesn’t worry me at times.Influential female politicians over the years have found not their beliefs or their policy agendas as the primary subject of media conversation, but rather whether or not they’re menstruating or have considered cosmetic surgery. Seeing myself and others in my current situation has worried me as well. Despite growing up in a privileged setting where I receive nothing but acceptance from my family, the school and work environment has offered me and similar girls slut-shaming, catcalling, and the craftiest of off-hand remarks (“Who are you trying to impress today with that outfit?”). A multitude of women who come from different backgrounds have experienced similar toxicity in their surroundings. Ultimately, any setting for a woman can be a problematic one, and a promotion of classic feminism could turn things around. To me, an advocacy for respect on both sexes’ parts—rather than claimed superiority—would be transformative in making these conditions for bearable for young American women and men. Right now, what we have is extreme exclusivity and not enough acceptance.

Want to call yourself a feminist? Great! Reluctant to associate yourself with the movement but still support sex equality? Sounds good! Don’t support sex equality and a reversal of traditional gender roles? That is still okay! Obviously if an opinion undermines the cause you are fighting for, you’re not inclined to encourage it. But what the American public needs to realize is that, when advocates contradict the cause of unity and respect with their actions and words change will not come. Crudity does not empower you; it only cheapens you.

As mentioned before, narrowing down the movement’s goals is also crucial in moving forward. In comparison to many nations around the world, the United States has seen great success when it comes to fighting for sex equality. The third-wave feminist movement does have some valid issues to advocate for—domestic violence, raising awareness for rape victims, pay discrimination, etc.—but also chooses to focus on trivial causes like Free the Nipple and eliminating “manspreading.” Perhaps it is because we have obtained legal equality (thanks, first two waves!). But now that social equity has become the main focus, a blur of ideas and beliefs have resulted in a chaotic, incohesive movement. If you consider feminism at its core, the social issue to fight for is clear. There are many causes worth fighting for: racial inequality, ableism, and marriage justness, to name a few. But for the love of God, leave the aspects that do not relate to sex equality for the egalitarians. They’re there for a reason.

Author’s Note:  Add a comment or question below. I will respond promptly.

— Lydia Begag

VILE: USA treatment of tourists under Trump

 

I wrote this during Trump’s first address to a joint session of Congress (Day 40 as president). Pundits
praised his conciliation and delivery. Trump stayed on-point and appeared more “presidential” than in past.
This post is about action; not talk or appearance. It is testimony of his leadership earlier on the same day.

This weekend, Mem Fox—a well-known Australian children’s author—was pulled aside at the airport upon arrival. She describes a horrifying and undignified experience. One that made her abhor our country. Others in the room were treated even worse. Those who were not white, English-speaking and upper-middle-class were yelled at and mercilessly humiliated. No toilet or water was offered to arriving passengers—even a young woman with a baby.

You might wonder what was the reason for suspicion? She certainly doesn’t fit the profile of  a terrorist. Many American children grew up with her books. This was her 117th visit. She is white, wealthy, educated and articulate. (None of these traits are required to visit the United States). She was pulled aside and interrogated because her airline ticket appeared to be paid by her American publisher. The immigration official claimed that she was attempting to sneak in—and work in America, illegally.

Ms. Fox isn’t the only tourist to come forward today. The French Holocaust historian, Henry Rousso, was held for 10 hours at immigration. Was his entry suspicious? He has taught at Columbia University in New York and Sorbonne in Paris. He was visiting America to give a Keynote Address at Texas A&M. But just as with Mem Fox, the immigration agent learned that he was receiving a fee for his speech. He was told that he would handcuffed and deported on the next plain to Paris. If not for a sharp lawyer at the University, he would have would have been shipped away in humiliation and disgrace. Rousso sums up the experience with this observation: “The US is no longer quite the US.

Their experiences make a mockery of the Emma Lazarus’ words at the base of Miss Liberty: “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.” Apparently, under a Trump regime, even the upper class, the academics, and the distinguished don’t make the cut.

Is this the friendly and welcoming face that we wish to show our foreign visitors and academics? Do you think that they will travel to the United States or do business with us, if clueless border control agents behave in this manner?

What Chutzpah, Xenophobia, and misguided attempts at protectionism! Unfortunately interacting with minor officials under Trump seems a lot like the interaction between German citizens and Jack boots of the Nazi SS or Gestapo.

For many individuals like Fox and Rousso, it’s not just about fake news, narcissism, a string of lies, fearing the press, lashing out at critics, lining pockets at taxpayer expense, surrounding oneself with racists or buffoonery. Instead, it’s personal; it’s ugly; it reflects on all Americans; and it is reprehensible.

It doesn’t require a bipartisan gaggle of psychiatrists to recognize that our president is seriously deranged. That diagnosis is just plain common sense. Additionally, it doesn’t require a political analyst to observe Republican congressional leaders squirming in their chairs or struggling to show unity on the evening news. At least not if you avoid the ‘fake news’.

Now, we must summon the strength and the resolve to do something. Trump must not complete his first year in office. Even if his paranoia, vindictive ethos and contempt for the truth abates, think of the missed opportunities, the mass exodus of talent, the likelihood of a military orgy. Think of the lost business deals, the serious environmental damage and the fostering of hate between cultures. Think of a woman’s right to choose and the hard won LGBT right to marry and to be who they are.

Think about Mem Fox and Henry Rousso. I wish that I could get over the slimy behavior from his campaign trail, but here one last jab… Think about a leader who brags about his p*nis size and about grabbing woman by the p*ssy. Think like an individual who cares about the future of our nation, our alliances and our planet. Raise your voice. Join your neighbors. Seize the day. Do something!

In years of writing, I never thought that I would end an op-ed piece like this:

  • Resist
  • Defend
  • Restore our lost ethics and compassion
  • Embrace diversity—It is a core strength
  • Speak out for the environment
  • Deal honestly and fairly with other countries; lest they flee a relationship
  • The truth matters

Trump’s Behavior: A Rational Explanation

It is no secret that I am opinionated. Although flexible when presented with a contrary opinion, I am unapologetic in articulating blunt positions and pushing emotional buttons. After all, this is the luxury of having a bully pulpit. It’s also a blessing of the First Amendment and the Internet.

But there are boundaries—even for an opinionated and sarcastic Blogger. When I became editor of Wild Duck more than 5 years ago, I made a New Career Resolution. I committed to never discuss three topics. They were over-hyped, argued and litgated in other venues. I didn’t want the noise and I didn’t care to defend my opinion nor deal with the return fire. Not on these three issues..

I don’t expect you to click through all the links below—but as you can see, my New Career Resolutions were kicked to the curb. I broke two of three promises in the very first year!

Despite pontificating on all of these banned topics, on election day 2016, I made a new resolution to at least remain quiet about Donald Trump. I wrote six articles about him before the election. But the fact is that he has won. And for the past 3 weeks, I resisted the temptation to rant, whine, complain—or hold my breath until the family jewels turn purple. He won. He is our Chief Honcho Elect. ’Nuff said!

Well, at least this latest resolution was good for 3 weeks. Today, I break that commitment by linking to this article: Jane Goodall, the famed anthropologist and expert on primate behavior, offers a simple and scientific explanation for Donald Trump’s behavior and outrageous claims.

Donald Trump hoots & stomps at Jane Goodall

Donald Trump hoots & stomps at Jane Goodall

She demonstrates with rigorous academic precision, that Trump’s statements and attacks map directly onto chest-thumping, tree dragging, hooting and stomping of lowland gorillas. And not every act is a metaphor! For example, male Gorillas don’t just attack others they perceive as competitors, they berate, degrade, lie, bully and demonstrate p*nis size to ensure that they get their way. Even more interesting, they increase their humiliation and attacks on any other male who fails to support their earlier attacks.

Seriously, this is no joke! It’s academically valid and very illuminating. Don’t just take it from me…check it out here. And just for the record, this post is not about Trump. It’s a wildlife documentary and a tribute to a highly respected scientist.

Thought leaders who back Trump

I have two very smart friends who share a rare trait. Since I have not asked them for permission to ‘out’ them in my Blog, I will call them ‘Dan’ and ‘Peter’. For this one Op-Ed, I will avoid photos, because some readers would recognize them.

I met Peter through business connections and his headline speech at a technical conference. Dan has been a close personal friend since immigrating to America 25 years ago. I’ll get to the rare quirk that they share—but2-person silhouette-s first, they have some other things in common…

  • They are each remarkably intelligent. Their respective patents stand among the most inspired business ideas in high-tech history
  • They have both launched high-tech start-ups—solving meaningful problems, employing others and creating impressive brands
  • They have sparkling, magnetic personalities— exuding trust, kindness and generosity.
  • They are each superlative communicators—equally adept with a pen, a TV camera, social media or in front of a live audience.
  • They communicate with confidence, con-viction and an uncanny gift of persuasion.
    They are unquestionably influential. Their eloquence and stature convey gravitas

Years from now, I doubt that either of these friends will point to this page as testament to their esteem among peers. You see, of my many smart and influential friends, these are the only two who support Donald Trump as a candidate for US president. I estimate that this makes them members of the “one percent” (No. Not that one percent).

How can this be? Can smart individuals honestly see Trump as a man that they trust to lead a nation, hold the nuclear codes, build respect among other nations, and honor our cultural diversity? Try as I might to deny it, I am forced to admit that at least two smart individuals support Donald Trump. How many other Peters and Dans are out there?

Here, then, is my personal plea to Dan and Peter. Are you listening, guys? In the open letter below, I have given up trying to change your minds. At this late stage of the election cycle, I appeal, instead, to your patriotism, your conscience and your heart…


Hi Dan {Hi Peter},

I don’t know if you watched Obama at the Singapore press conference today. It is painfully clear that every policy and bilateral agreement that he tries to enact is thwarted by partisan politics back home in our own country. These politics are motivated by the desire to make him look bad—and for these bad optics to rub off onto Hillary.

I can’t get into your mind on Trump, but I certainly appreciate and respect that we have different political philosophies. We both want a fiscally conservative administration, and a smaller, hands-off government; less debt, less tax redistribution, etc—But we have differences on guns, trade, abortion rights, global warming, the Supreme Court appointment process, and other social issues.

Regardless of our differences, I am very concerned at the neck-and-neck polls between two such different options: A sane, articulate, rational and experienced executive who may have lied about certain events—and a completely unworkable buffoon with an empire built on scams and bravado. I urge you with passion and urgency to please reflect and reconsider your endorsement of Donald Trump. Recant and recast your influence. This is not a Republican–vs–Democrat issue. Even a liar cast in the mold of Richard Nixon would be a far better choice than Donald Trump to lead our country. Trump will destroy our nation’s influence, reputation, economy, and alliances everywhere on earth. He is already well on his way to doing this.

I have always been impressed with your rapid rise as a thought leader. You are intelligent and very persuasive. Please switch horses, Dan. President Obama feels strongly that Trump is unfit to be the US President. I am more specifically concerned that he is unfit to be the object of your persuasive influence.

I see myself in Donald Trump—and I don’t like it!

Look at it this way, Dan: Trump and I share some “qualities”…

  • I have been known to exaggerate—when I believe that I will not get caught
  • I have used an alias to make phone calls (to make my organization look larger or my position seem more credible)
  • I sometimes speak with emphatic conviction before carefully checking facts
  • I have occasionally allowed myself to give into the lure of divisiveness and discrimination

But here’s the point, Dan: I know that these emotional and erratic tendencies make me unfit to govern the United States—especially if I lack a clear record of surrounding myself with critical advisers who are empowered to challenge me, delay my stupid statements and bravado, and with power to cut off my twitter feed before any random, venomous thought spits out from my ADHD brain.

More importantly, Trump doesn’t do these things occasionally. He does them every day, and with the passionate zeal of a bombastic, pathological liar.

If comparing Donald Trump to my low-brow idiosyncrasies fails to move you, then allow me to try reasoning with facts…
Is Donald Trump a legitimate candidate for US President?

You assert that liberals take Trump’s statements without context. I believe that I have observed the context. For example, how can you not be disturbed by a comment that Trump made today in reference to Obama’s firm stance against shooting cops. Trump said. There is something going on with Obama. I watched him and there is something going on there that we just don’t know about yet.” He made a similar statement after the Orlando nightclub bombing.

What the h*ll is that?! To me, it is obvious: He is using innuendo to push a conspiracy theory and hoping to cast FUD into anyone associated with Obama. For Trump, this is a frequent tactic. In fact, it is his modus operandi…

  1. Birther Issue: Claims that Obama was not born in the USA
  2. Religion: Claims that Obama is a Muslim or that Clinton is controlled by Jews
  3. Black Lives Matter: Claims that Obama fans the flames of anti-cop hate
— How can you not be disturbed when Trump criticizes a judge born in Indiana for being Mexican? (“We assume that he is Mexican–but that’s OK”). What kind of idiot statement is that?!

— How can you not be disturbed when Trump gets sucked into Tit for Tat with a Gold Star mother and claims that her Muslim upbringing prohibits her from addressing the DNC? (Even if this were true, what type of man would use this to gain points?!)

— How can you not be disturbed when Trump makes fun of a handicap or says that a distinguished prisoner of war is not heroic, because he was caught?

— How can you not be disturbed that a candidate for president makes reference to the size of his penis on a televised debate?

— How can you not be disturbed about a candidate that talks about the redeeming virtues of Saddam Hussein or Putin?

— How can you not be disturbed by Trump’s claim “I love the Bible more than anyone”? (I certainly don’t want a leader who uses the Bible as a blueprint for morality, but seriously: He made this claim—and then attempted to quote “Two Corinthians”.

— How can you not be disturbed by Trump’s crazy defense of his multiple corporate bankruptcies. He even claims that the US may need to renegotiate the national debt or simply print its way out of debt. Is this rational talk?

— How can you not be disturbed by Trump’s desire to deal with the cost of our Nato commitment by encouraging Japan and South Korea to obtain nuclear weapons? Is that the talk of a sane man?

— How can you not be disturbed by a candidate who sends a vile personal tweet about another candidates wife, and then deflects blame by saying “I didn’t start it”? Yes, he did! And, in the words of Anderson Cooper, “That’s the argument of a five year old!

— How can you not be disturbed by a candidate that tells his supporters to punch a demonstrator? —and that he will pay the legal bills [i.e. in the event that they are arrested for a crime orchestrated by the candidate].

— How can you not be disturbed by a candidate who sends a tweet that was lifted from a white supremacist web site, and then claims that the Star-of-David next to Hillary and a downpouring of $100 dollar bills is just a Sheriff’s Star?

— How can you not be disturbed by the only presidential candidate in 30 years who refuses to reveal his taxable income, and then uses the lame excuse that he is undergoing a government audit?

I hate to resort to name calling, but please tell me how you can endorse redneck, racist, white trash, like that?

You claim that I am just repeating lame propaganda by CNN, but I have eyes, ears, a good memory and an analytical mind. Trump is divisive, childish, vindictive and deceitful. It is not clear that he is a good businessman. But if he is, he has built his fortune on hollow promises, trickery, and walking away from his obligations. In the words of Mayor Michael Bloomberg, I know a con when I see one!

Please pause and reflect on this, Dan. You have more influence than you realize. Show your social media readers that you can reverse course. Your voice makes a difference. Donald Trump’s candidacy is far from viable. His words and actions are worse than lies. They are a disgrace. Please counter the insanity with your influence and your enviable soapbox.

God help us, if Americans align with Trump as they step into the voting booth—And God help me, if he wins. With such a thin skin and a history of bullying perceived enemies, Trump is certain to single me out for punitive vengeance.

Your friend (still, and always)
~Ellery

I won’t Put Lipstick on a Pig (but Tony did!)

Last year, an Op-Ed in my personal Blog, AWildDuck.com, caught the attention of a retired US politician. His staff contacted me, due to an editorial that was highly critical of his colleague (a younger politician who still holds office). Fearing an angry reader with clout, I was preparing to defend my position and my First Amendment freedoms, when the bigwig pulled the phone away from his assistant—and made me an offer.

He didn’t want me to retract the article about his colleague. In fact, he thought that the current US Senator was a bigger putz than I had portrayed. Instead, he wanted me to write his kiss-and-tell memoirs—

open_book-s

I was born in a house my father built…

a book that was guaranteed to be filled with all sorts of juicy revelations. I was ecstatic! This was a dream job—precisely the reason that I started the Blog: to land a string of high-dollar writing gigs.

His lawyers contacted me. We exchanged documents. I signed an NDA and provided writing samples in several different styles. His family and aides analyzed my writing for plagiarism, geographic or anachronistic idioms, and for level and clarity. Within the week, he hired me as his ghostwriter.

I began writing under the name of a well-known, national politician. During interviews, I was in awe of this internationally known historical figure, who—in the sunset of life—chose me as his personal conduit to history. Although I could not tell my family who was this important figure, my teenage daughter figured it out, based on overhearing my side of several interviews. She was sworn to secrecy.

Trump-backside-s

“I put lipstick on a pig…I feel deep remorse.” —Illustration: J. Jaén

After three months, and several drafts of the first chapters, I backed out of the project and returned a sizable pile of cash. I was unable to apply my passion and zeal to this man’s shocking opinions and nuggets of “wisdom”, even though my name would not appear on the book. I just couldn’t bring myself to rephrase what he said in interviews and what appeared in his notes…

It’s unclear whether my employer had changed in his golden years, or if—perhaps—a racist misogynist was smoldering under the surface all these years.

Perhaps most surprising, for me, is that he had publicly championed women’s rights throughout an illustrious career, yet—at least today—he secretly feels that our country’s ills are a direct result of gains in women’s jobs, pay, education, rights and reproductive freedom. He wanted me to explain that empowerment of women during the 60s and 70s effectively castrated men both at home and on the job. He earnestly believes that the best place for a women is in the kitchen or the bedroom. He can barely tolerate a woman in the workplace, so long as she is a nurse or secretary or school teacher.

Today, I came across a similar story in The New Yorker. But this one has a very different ending. In this case, the ghostwriter completed the book, only to be filled with remorse!


Tony Schwartz,is the ghostwriter behind Donald Trump’s 1987 bestseller, The Art of the Deal. It is among the most successful business books in publishing history. Unlike me, he did not back out his gig. He is an excellent wordsmith, and—just like a good speech writer—he wove his compelling art for Donald Trump.

Tonight, Donald Trump accepts the Republican nomination for the highest office in our land. But, Tony Schwartz regrets “putting lipstick on a pig”. (Editor’s Note: I really like the metaphor!). Tony’s skillful pen made Trump look astute, insightful, savvy and successful. And it created an impression that hoodwinked the Republican nomination.

lipstick_on_a_pig