Bitcoin ETF Buzz Offers Short Term Opportunity

If you follow Bitcoin at all, then you know that its value is spiking. It has already surpassed a massive spike on Thanksgiving night 2013, and this weekend, a single Bitcoin surpassed the cost of an ounce of gold.                             [continue below image]

Like any commodity, the exchange value of Bitcoin is driven by supply and demand. But, unlike most commodities, including the US Dollar, the Euro or even gold, the eventual supply is capped. It is a mathematical certainty. Yet, demand is affected by many factors: Adoption as a payment instrument, early signs that it is being considered as a reserve currency, fascination by Geeks and early adopters and its use as a preferred tool by some criminals.

But chief among reasons for acquiring Bitcoin is speculation. Whether it is buy-and-hold or day trading, speculators still outnumber those who use Bitcoin to settle debts or to buy and sell other products and services. (Earlier this week, I argued that speculation is responsible for 85% of demand and of transactions—but that’s another story).

It’s a bit ironic that speculation—in the early days of a new market—retards organic adoption. It contributes to uncertainty and volatility, and it reduces the fraction available to the markets that make it both useful and liquid. Yet, in free markets, speculation is a necessary and critical antecedent to adoption.

This week, short term speculators have an unusually keen opportunity to profit, especially if they know how to buy a ‘put’ or sell a ‘call’ (i.e. to leverage a bet for or against the direction of Bitcoin, without actually acquiring any). For example, you can bet that an exchange-traded stock will fall, because it has an options market. But it’s not as easy to bet against commodities that lack a futures or options market.

I am not going to give advice in this article. I am not a licensed investment professional and although I am bullish on long term, organic adoption of Bitcoin, I really don’t have an opinion on the current news or the short term prospects for a pull back. But, if you have an opinion on a current news event, then there is an immediate opportunity for you to make (or lose) a significantly leveraged sum in the next few days…

SEC and ETFs  (Alphabet soup of investment banks)

Next weekend, on Saturday March 11, the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) will approve or deny an application for the first regulated, recognized and significantly backed Bitcoin Exchange Traded Fund (ETF). Why is this significant? Because most investments are not hand picked by individual investors. Most investors choose the level of risk or diversification that seems reasonable for their life stage and then they leave the decisions to a formula, a market sector basket, or a fund manager. That is, they invest or park their money in a fund rather than betting on Space-X, PayPal or the local electric company.                             [continue below image]

If approved, an ETF potentially adds massive new demand for a commodity, by offering a financial instrument than can be subscribed by the vast fraction of funds, investors, pensioners and speculators who prefer to leave asset management to an organization, outside broker or formula.

The first ETF application is created and backed by the Winkelvoss twins. They were Olympic rowers, but found fame & fortune by contracting Marc Zuckerberg to create an early platform for Facebook. If their application is approved, a dozen more investment banks, brokers and hedge funds are standing by to jump in with both feet.

This morning, Cointelegraph put the odds that the ETF will be approved at 50%. Some analysts place the chances even higher. But consider that Bitcoin has already spiked dramatically in the past few weeks. The excitement is already reflected in the price. So, where is the opportunity?

The opportunity, as with any speculative decision, is in the dissonance between your research and hunch compared with the overall market expectation reflected in the current price. So, for example, if Bitcoin is accepted as the basis for an ETF (and if it continues to grow in more fundamental adoption), the current price is actually remarkably low. Under these assumptions, it hasn’t even begun its period of rapid ascent. Perhaps more obviously (and even more short-term), if you believe that an ETF will be blocked by regulators, then the recent rise is likely to be reversed quickly, at least in the minutes after the March 11 decision is announced.

So how can you profit from your belief that a commodity will drop in value? I leave that to your personal investment knowledge and research or your financial advisor. My purpose is not to advise, nor even to teach about puts and calls. It is to point out that a few people will win or lose a lot of real money this coming weekend—at least on paper. And it all hinges on whether they can correctly predict the outcome of a regulatory decision process.

Again, Bitcoin is a very limited commodity, There are only 15.2 million coins today, and there will never be more than 21 million coins. This does not present an obstacle to adoption, because the coins can be sliced smaller and smaller as needed. In a noteworthy demonstration of ‘good deflation’, there will always be enough units for everyone—even if the entire world adopts it for every transaction under the sun.


Ellery Davies co-chairs Crypsa & The Bitcoin Event. He is a columnist & board member at Lifeboat Foundation,
editor at WildDuck and is delivering the keynote address at the 2017 Digital Currency Summit in Johannesburg.

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 been shipped away in humiliation and disgrace. Rousso sums up the experience by observing: “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.

21st Century Gender Sterotyping? Not so Fast!

Jennifer Wright (@JenAshleyWright) kicked up a firestorm last week, when she tweeted a photo of two side-by-side magazines on a newsstand. The contrast between cover features of Boys’ Life -vs- Girls’ Life is startling. With characteristic sarcastic wit, she tweeted:

“Why are you feminists always complaining?
We treat boys and girls exactly the same.”

For those who are reading this without the image below, the current issue of these magazines calls out to readers like this:

  • Boys: Would you like to build and fly the next generation of jet fighters?
  • Girls: What on Earth can you do with your hair and nails this weekend?

Boy'sLife-vs-Girl'sLife

The difference between these covers suggests that the respective magazine editors are pushing 19th century aspirations onto the next generation of women. It’s a reminder of the differences in the way we perceive the sexes. But does this contrast present a fair and balanced comparison?

Certainly, there is work to do—but, the stark difference between these magazine covers may not point to a societal ill in the way that seems to jump off the screen.

  1. Despite similar titles, these magazines have very different audiences and goals. I doubt that Girls’ Life is aimed at the broader demographics of Boys’ Life. The subscriber base evolved to target the girls of Toddlers and Tiaras. I am exaggerating by pointing to a narrow demographic, of course! but it sells to girls who already aspire to be future homemakers, or who simply have the fashion obsession that is still the hallmark of many preteen girls.
  2. Unlike boys, girls really do have more options for viewing their future and their careers. Feminism and technological/political empowerment is not yet universal or even universally embraced. Some families, particularly among the south, among religious conservatives, and among hard-hat towns dependent upon muscles and mining, still promote the notion of TFRs onto the next generation (traditionally female roles). Right or wrong, it brings us to point #3…
  3. It’s clear that there is a stark difference between covers: “How can I build a jet fighter?” -vs- “What will I do with my hair tonight?” But, it is all too easy to assume that we understand cause-and-effect. That is, the difference is likely to be a reaction to market forces, rather than the publisher’s attempt to shape desires. One cannot find fault with delivering content based on consumer demand.

If you tell me that there are plenty of girls that hope to build or fly a jet fighter, I will nod in agreement. But if you tell me that there is an equal fraction of boys who obsess over their nails, hair and the color of a blouse, I will wonder if we live on the same planet.

My teenage daughter is clearly in the former group: She imagines, asks tough questions, builds, tears down, and then builds a better gizmo from scratch. She codes Android apps and creates massive murals for the local shopping mall. But, some girls care about classic ‘girly’ things, at least during their early years. And here’s a surprise…

Many of these gilrly girls exhibit just as much technical proficiency and self-confidence as their empowered peers. They are assertive, independent, financially savvy, and aware of their equal political and career footings. Helen-Gurley-Brown-vintageYet, many of us feminists bristle at the thought of a female child who obsesses about their hair and nails (at least to the point of subscribing to a magazine in that venue). In fact, the two are not mutually exclusive.

So, can I still call myself a feminist in the mold of Betty Friedan or Gloria Steinem? Perhaps not. I am more likely to identify with a less militant Helen Gurley Brown. She was all about empowerment and sexual equality. Yet, somehow, she avoided pushing the sexes to be completely indistinguishable and androgynous.

Do you disagree? Do you think that I exhibit a Luddite attitude that is at the core of a chauvinistic society? Don’t just let it grate on you—Be a Wild Duck! Leave a comment.

~Ellery

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

Supreme Court Ruminations

Although this Blog covers political issues in at least 1/3 of posts, I have never written about the Supreme Court. Perhaps this is because—despite politicization by partisans—this branch of government is distinguished by the fact that it enjoys a high approval rating by the American public. For the most part, Americans believe that our top justices are motivated by truth and a desire to apply the law fairly.

The observations below are just bits & pieces; Ellery’s insight into political thought. Some day, I may return to add or expand on these topics…

On Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg opining about Donald Trump

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg

It’s hard to fault Justice Ginsburg for adding to the alarm that all thinking people feel concerning the popular rise of a xenophobic, self-centered misogynist. While a Supreme Court justice is expected to maintain a poker-face throughout their career, Ginsburg probably feels a patriotic obligation to do something other than remain quiet regarding a course of events that could well lead to riot and national ruin.

I have nothing against Mr. Trump personally—but I admire anyone with influence who refuses to keep quiet.

On Congress delaying Supreme Court review/ratification until the election

Judge Merrick-GarlandSpeaking of the Supreme Court, just where is it written that the US Congress can shelve their duty to review and ratify a judicial nominee, just because the president belongs to a different party—or because he has entered the last year of his term? That’s ¼ of his elected term. I mean c’mon folks: It’s your sworn duty. Do you job! Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland is not a partisan appointment.

For the record, Judge Garland has previously been vetted and exulted by a Republican Congress. He has distinguished himself as he supervised the investigation into the Alfred P. Murrah building bombing in Olklahoma City.

The never ending issue of safe & legal abortion

What is it that pro-life advocates don’t get—concerning the benefits of a secular, tolerant and inclusive government? I realize that lifers feel strongly that abortion is murder.

But there must be a line between government protection and a person’s own body. To draw the line of government oversight and meddling in the bedroom is beyond outrageous…

‘Pro-choice’ is not a nihilistic philosophy. Advocates do not set out to end the life of a fetus. Just as with end-of-life care, we believe that incredibly difficult and personal medical decisions belong with family and physicians rather than neighbors and government bureaucrats.

And while we’re at it, Planned Parenthood is not a tool of Satan. I can’t imagine an NGO that has done more to elevate women and serve their needs with sensitivity and compassion. Planned ParenthoodWhen you consider the shocking legal restrictions on facilities, tools, professionals, medicine and basic information, this organization shines like a beacon into the dark abyss,

Got Pokémon Go? Not Wesley Crusher!

If your a Trekkie, you remember Wesley Crusher, the young ensign, and son of the ship’s doctor on Star Trek, Next Generation. The character, played by Will Wheaton, appeared regularly for the first four seasons. But beginning with Season five, he made sporadic appearances as a guest star.

tumblr_inline_mqzrxpodNn1qz4rgpIn “The Game” (season 5, episode 6), Wesley locks lips with Ashley Judd, in her first on-screen kiss. It certainly wasn’t Will Wheaton’s first kiss. In “The Dauphin” (season 2, episode 10), he smooches with Salia, a shape-shifting alien with a penchant for morphing between a glowing pile of Jello into the more pleasing form thedauphin1-300x229of teen actress, Jamie Hubbard.

But I digress…

Wesley and his romantic interest hitch a ride on his former ship and discover that a virtual reality game is spreading across the crew like Ecstasy, or more specifically, like Pokémon Go, a Nintendo app that—just 5 tumblr_inline_mqznzssqzs1qz4rgpdays ago—no one had heard of. Now, it runs on one in five smart phones and is spreading like wildfire.

No phenomenon has ever spread across 20% of the population in 5 days. Not in the physical world—and not even in the digital realm. Edison’s gramophone and Alexander Graham Bell’s telephone are indisputably more crave worthy inventions than catching cartoon characters in imaginary balls. Yet, it took these earth shattering inventions twelve years to achieve market penetration.

Kitarian Game on Star Trek Next Generation

A quick pleasure? Use your thoughts to slide the red disks into the funnels.

The Tienanmen Square tank boy and the blue dress (I still claim that it is gold and white) are just bits and pixels. Yet, even these touchstone photographs spread across the country slower than the current Pokémon Go craze.

And just like the eyeglass-mounted game on the Enterprise, Pokémon Go taps directly into the pleasure center causing players to lose sense of where they are and what they had set out to accomplish. How can I be so sure of it’s nefarious capacity for mind control? After just five days, it is implicated in malware scams and armed robberies. It is every bit as addictive as crack cocaine, and possibly as destructive.

Forcibly tapping Wesley’s pleasure center via a game

Forcibly tapping Wesley’s pleasure center via a game

Do you think I’m kidding? When people are addicted to a VR app, bending their will is not difficult. Just ask 1,014 Star Trek crew members who were hypnotized and repuposed by a Ktarian mind control game. If it hadn’t been for the quick thinking of Wesley Crursher and his girlfriend, Ensign Robin Lefler (played by Ashley Judd), we’d all be speaking Ktarian today!


Postscript: This article is more about a Star Trek episode than it is about a new game app. I have always wanted to write a short post about a terrific television franchise that has touched so many people across three generations and all continents. The sudden spread of a new Internet sensation has simply given me the excuse to do so. Just like “Blink of an Eye”, The Game is indelibly written into my psyche. The parallels with an addictive new game that even captivates my AirBnB guest, Javier, and my neighbor, Lois, is eerie and raises questions about the causes, mechanisms and effects of mind control.

Mr. Trump’s Star of David

“I didn’t do it. I didn’t mean it…We thought it was the star
of a an iconic Sheriff’s badge. Only crooked Hillary or the
liberal media would interpret it as an Anti-Semitic tweet.”

 

No, it’s not a quote from Mr. Trump. It is a mash-up of responses from his deputies and spin-meisters on CNN. They were responding to trump-tweetthis graphic, issued from their leader’s personal and infamous Twitter account.

The great thing about using proxies to do your dirty work, is that you can throw whatever you want toward the wall, and then disavow whatever doesn’t stick.

Along with name-calling and race baiting, it’s what six year olds do best in a sandbox. Later, when they become teens, they mature into slashing tires, throwing Molotov cocktails or electing bigots to the white house.

This is what a Sheriff’s star looks like, Mr. Trump. It has 5, 6 or 7 points. Those with 6 points always have balls at the vertices—especially, Sheriff-5-6-7if it constructed from two equilateral triangles. A Star of David is not an iconic Sheriff’s star.

When used to frame text, graphjic artists and layout editors almost always choose a 7-pointed star, because it maximizes text area. A Star of David is made of two overlapping, equilateral triangles. Although it can portray other things, the shape is fairly distinctive because of its simplicity. There are no balls at the vertices.

According to the FBI, 57% of hate crimes in the United States are committed against Jews, while only 16% target Muslims. Your tweet plays to the haters. You know it. Believe me, Mr. Trump, you know it!

As a leading candidate for political office, you most certainly have a sense of your audience and how words and images are likely to be interpreted. star-of-davidYou cannot play dumb with the rest of Americans. But in the event that you are, in fact, clueless, your naïveté or indifference is almost as dangerous as the hate that most Americans suspect of you.

The bottom line is that divisiveness, marginalization and intolerance are the hallmarks of a weak, thin-skinned bully. They have no place in politics and are not compatible with secular government or the democratic process.


Ellery is rarely a political pundit. But he has written about Donald Trump before:

Do you have a right to view an ISIS Kill List?

According to The Clarion Project, a political information bureau that warns westerners of the growing threat from radical Islam, ISIS has published a ‘kill list’ that includes the names, addresses and emails of 15,000 Americans.

Clarion_300So far, this is interesting news, but it is not really new. I found ISIS, Hezbollah and Al-Qaida kill lists going back at least 8 years. This 2012 bulletin complains that NBC would not release the names contained on a kill list.

A kill list is newsworthy, and the Clarion article is interesting—but the article has more “facts” with which the publisher wishes to generate mob frenzy…

  • It explains that 4,000 of the names on the Kill List have been leaked by hackers
  • It echos a report by Circa News that the FBI has decided to not inform citizens that they are on the ISIS kill list.

In a clear effort to whip up and direct audience indignation, it asks readers to take a one-question poll. Which answer would you choose?

  1. I have a right to know if I am on an ISIS kill list
  2. I do not need to know if my name is on the ISIS kill list.
    The FBI can protect me without my knowing

Let’s ignore, for a moment, that the editorial comment appended to answer #2 involves a misleading assumption (i.e. that your safety is related to inclusion on the list and that you need or would be the focus of FBI protection). Even before this cheap tactical mis-direction, I am frustrated with the sleazy promotional and shock tactics of The Clarion Project (formerly, stopradicalislam.org).

Muslim Imam, orders the destruction of Christian churches

This a pity—because the Clarion Project also creates and distributes valuable educational literature. For a few years, they were the credible standard in defining and issuing warnings about the dangers of radical Islam—especially as it is seeded and spread from within. The Clarion Project also produces terrific “wake-up” videos and documentary evidence about life under Sharia law and the shocking intolerance, misogyny and disrespect for human rights that characterize ISIS. It highlights the brutal tactics that emerge when regional governments are controlled by religious zealots. Like any repressive dictatorship, ISIS rules through fear instilled by bands of roaming thugs and by turning everyone into snitches.*

But the Kill List Poll points to a growing trend at Clarion. Four years ago, I objected to Meira Svirsky’s inflammatory report that criticizes a DOJ official for refusing to answer a complex and subtle question with a Yes-or-No response. The Clarion Project has a critical and noble goal. But pushing the emotional hot buttons of an audience by over simplifying or vilifying subtleties undermines the entire organization. In the end, it only demonstrates that they are bullies. And just like Donald Trump, bullying plays only to mobs. It is no the way to win hearts and minds.

My Answer to the Poll

  • I do not need to know if my name is on the ISIS kill list

Rationale

Both ISIS leaders and radical clerics have repeatedly declared that *all* Americans, American allies, Jews and non-believers may be killed on the spot or taken as sex slaves to pleasure suicide bombers and Jihadist soldiers. quranThey state that doing this fulfills Jihad and prophecy and is sanctioned by the Holy Qur’an. With this in mind, I feel that the poll options are political, selfish and offensive. It assumes that readers are idiots…

The multiple choice answers are incomplete and misleading. Of course, Americans have a right to know if they are on a kill list—and, in fact, we already know. We are all on that list!

About Radical Islam

The warning bell at the heart of Clarion journalism is an alarm that must be heard—very loudly. Radical Islam is a cancer and not just figuratively. It exhibits all earmarks of a spreading pathogen that invades and attaches itself to its neighbors while building offensive outposts far from the region that it started. It has not yet been contained and excised. It presents a significant ongoing threat to our safety, our health and our wealth.

~Ellery Davies


* I could illustrate my point with photos of men being burned in a cage, the abduction of preteen school girls from their homes (they were given to soldiers), a child slitting the throat of captives, or a women having her nose cut off because she was raped by a stranger. After all, in the twisted world of radical Islam, anyone who is different, unique gay, Christian, or not in agreement with the local Imam is to be tortured and killed.

But I can similarly point to even this comparatively mild video. It shows a Turkish music store under attack last week (June 2016), because a group of thugs suspects that the band signing autographs represents secular hedonism—or that that fans in the store might be consuming alcohol during Ramadan.

NC House Bill 2. Ignorance? No. Intolerance? Yes!

Indiana Governor Mike Pence must be breathing a bit easier right now. It was just a year ago that his zealous support for the Religious Freedom Restoration Act threatened to undermine every business sector in the state,

Of course, that was a year ago. Governor Pence has signed legislation that revises the law to prevent potential discrimination. Although the revised law doesn’t outlaw LGBT discrimination, the stench around Indiana lawmakers has abated because a year has passed since the glare of a media spotlight. Now, the spotlight is focusing on North Carolina, where House Bill 2 is threatening that state’s fiscal health.

For Indiana, the rebellion was led by sports teams, including national gatherings like NASCAR. With North Carolina, it is led by musicians and, of course, business. In just the past two weeks a slew of venues was cancelled or sidelined, including concerts by Bruce SpringsteenPearl JamMaroon 5 and Itzhak Perlman.

Business and enterprise has a slightly longer time horizon than concert bookings, but the handwriting is on the wall: PayPal withdrew plans for a new Charlotte operations center because it opposes the law; the center would have created more than 400 jobs for the city. Deutsche Bank froze plans to add 250 jobs.

How bad is the public backlash? The Charlotte Observer reports that House Bill 2 could cost the state 5 billion dollars. That billion with a ‘B’.

North Carolina House Bill 2

Yes. This is the bill that thumbs its nose at the Obama administration after the White House issued guidance on common sense gender policies in public restrooms, especially in public schools, where it threatened the withdrawal of federal funds.

I won’t pretend that the issue is black & white. After all, a frequently repeated argument asserts that this ruling (or clarification of Title 9, as the White House characterizes it) permits a pervert to enter a girl’s bathroom by dressing as a woman or claiming to be transgendered, and that such entry poses a threat to children. The argument sounds reasonable—at least, that is, until you think about it for 10 seconds.

To illustrate my own take on the “Bathroom Bill”, I will support the common sense rights of transgendered individuals in using facilities that match their gender (as opposed to their birth sex)—by countering the arguments espoused by this angry, bipolar transphobic who is yelling his opinions at a Target store. He may be more vocal on the issue, but his logic is identical to every argument for shutting down Title 9 protections.

Caleb is the WildDuck reader who referred me to this video. He  exclaimed “Look at this ignorant nut and how a shopper takes him on,” This is my response to Caleb and anyone who is sitting on the fence about LGBT self determination…


Although you and I both disagree with the shouter in this video, Caleb, the term “ignorant” is not my first choice to describe this guy. I think that he is either a nut case, or he is off medication. But let’s consider his key argument: He claims that men can dress as women and take pictures of children in a kid’s bathroom.

  • I have not seen a kid’s-only bathroom—not even at Target. And so, I think that he is referring to the women’s bathroom.
  • There has always been the potential for a man to dress as a women and slip into a women’s bathroom. If the guy looks passable as a girl (whether transgendered or not), this activity cannot be easily prevented by Target or by turning back the transgender/Title 9 interpretation. After all, no one checks identity or gender when a customer ducks into a bathroom.
  • A pervert can just as easily take pictures of little boys. Just as with homosexual clergy, the proclivity to ogle little boys may be more common then it is with girls.
  • If a child is young (i.e. if she is defenseless), a parent or bigger sibling is generally in the bathroom too. When parent is with child, there may be a stranger taking covert photos, but who the h*ll cares? He doesn’t pose a threat—and he is more likely to be identified and reported.                                 [continue below photo]

hb2civilrightsviolation0505

For all of these reasons, an inclusive and tolerant Title 9 interpretation is reasonable. The people who oppose tolerance are those who hate the idea that transgendered people exist (or worse: want them to be “cured”) . They oppose rights for personal and religious reasons. But, religion and exclusion have no place in government policy.

I admit that I paused to reflect on this issue—and a closely related issue regarding public school funding last week. But my reflection was brief. SNL-RFRA-sTransgendered individuals aren’t hurting anyone, nor damaging the fabric of society. Moreover, the opportunity to photograph kids in a bathroom is not increased by permitting individuals to use the restroom that matches their gender identity. That few people are likely to even know that their gender differs from their birth anatomy, makes this issue a red herring.

A Wild Duck Analysis

The fervent zeal to turn back transgender guidance is based on religion, hate, ignorance or intolerance. These traits have no place in government. It can be difficult to separate our fears from our better judgement, but these traits must never influence the law. Each member of society deserves civil rights. Congregate with whomever you wish, but our community laws should not attempt to repress benign behavior.

RelatedBad for Business:Laws that Bully LGBT

Ellery Davies is a recovering homophobic. Fortunately, recovery started
decades before Indiana and North Carolina stuck their heads in the sand.

Is San Bernardino iPhone fully Encrypted?

Here is a question that keeps me up at night…

Is the San Bernardino iPhone just locked or is it properly encrypted?

Isn’t full encryption beyond the reach of forensic investigators? So we come to the real question: If critical data on the San Bernardino iPhone is properly encrypted, and if the Islamic terrorist who shot innocent Americans used a good password, then what is it that the FBI thinks that Apple can do to help crack this phone? Doesn’t good encryption thwart forensic analysis, even by the FBI and the maker of the phone?

iphone-01In the case of Syed Rizwan Farook’s iPhone, the FBI doesn’t know if the shooter used a long and sufficiently unobvious password. They plan to try a rapid-fire dictionary attack and other predictive algorithms to deduce the password. But the content of the iPhone is protected by a closely coupled hardware feature that will disable the phone and even erase memory, if it detects multiple attempts with the wrong password. The FBI wants Apple to help them defeat this hardware sentry, so that they can launch a brute force hack—trying thousands of passwords each second. Without Apple’s help, the crack detection hardware could automatically erase incriminating evidence, leaving investigators in the dark.

Mitch Vogel is an Apple expert. As both a former police officer and one who has worked with Apple he succinctly explains the current standoff between FBI investigators and Apple.


The iPhone that the FBI has is locked with a passcode and encrypted. It can only be decrypted with the unique code. Not even Apple has that code or can decrypt it. Unlike what you see in the movies, it’s not possible for a really skilled hacker to say “It’s impossible“” and then break through it with enough motivation. Encryption really is that secure and it’s really impossible to break without the passcode.

What the FBI wants to do is brute force the passcode by trying every possible combination until they guess the right one. However, to prevent malicious people from using this exact technique, there is a security feature that erases the iPhone after 10 attempts or locks it for incrementally increasing time periods with each attempt. There is no way for the FBI (or Apple) to know if the feature that erases the iPhone after 10 tries is enabled or not, so they don’t even want to try and risk it.

oceans_of_data-sSo the FBI wants Apple to remove that restriction. That is reasonable. They should, if it is possible to do so without undue burden. The FBI should hand over the iPhone to Apple and Apple should help them to crack it.

However, this isn’t what the court order is asking Apple to do. The FBI wants Apple to create software that disables this security feature on any iPhone and give it to them. Even if it’s possible for this software to exist, it’s not right for the FBI to have it in their possession. They should have to file a court order every single time they use it. The FBI is definitely using this situation as an opportunity to create a precedent and give it carte blanche to get into any iPhone without due process.

So the answer to your question is that yes it is that secure and yes, it’s a ploy by the FBI. Whether it’s actually possible for Apple to help or not is one question and whether they should is another. Either way, the FBI should not have that software.

Puzzling Demographics of Trump Supporters

Who remembers the blue-or-gold dress of just a year ago? Who could forget?! For some, the photo clearly showed a blue & black dress, while others viewing the very same photo saw a dress that was plainly gold & white.

For the record, I see a dress that is sparkling gold and white. Although it appears to be shot under a harsh bluish-white spotlight, I can’t fathom that anyone with an eye and a brain perceives any blue in the material. blue_or_gold-sRevisiting this Internet phenomenon a year later, I just don’t see it. And black? Where is there any dark fabric? Is it the gold part or the white part? It’s just not there!

…And so it is for a presidential candidate. Who among us sees Donald Trump as anything short of a contemptuous, sexist, and bigoted buffoon—one who is incapable of keeping a dirty or hurtful thought to himself?

To be fair, I have no way to gauge Trump supporters, because I have never met one. Seriously—even with a sweeping lead in every presidential poll—I have yet to actually meet and talk with a real, live Trump supporter, or at least someone who admits it. But, I am not in denial. I listen to poll results. I read. I believe that the pollsters know their art. They can’t all be wrong. Clearly, a great many people want Trump to be our next president, and so—I assume—that many of these same people respect Mr. Trump.

But here, too, I see Mr. Trump differently. It’s a difference as stark as the different ways people view the dress. I imagine that Trump supporters revere his presence, his demeanor and his moral authority. They share his vision. I sense none of these things.

Anyone reading this Blog during the 2016 US presidential campaign hardly needs a Trump tutorial. I suspect that WildDucks have already made up their minds concerning The Don’s demeanor. But what about readers who come across this article in a century or two. In the interest of historical perspective, let’s review Mr. Trump’s recent comments about Mexicans, Senator John McCain, Carly Fiorina, Hillary Clinton, Rosie O’Donnell, Megyn Kelly and some of the female contestants on his former TV show.

[About Mexican Immigrants]
They’re bringing drugs, they’re bringing crime. They’re rapists…”

[About John McCain]: “He’s not a war hero. He’s a war hero because he was captured. I like people who weren’t captured.”

But, above all, Trump has serious issues with women. Perhaps a past wife cut off part of his manhood. After all, he has contempt for anyone with different plumbing. Here are some of his thoughts. I have verified each quotation below. If any of the links have expired, these Trump-isms can be verified with a Google search…

Megyn Kelly[About Megyn Kelly]:
“There’s blood coming out of her eyes. There’s blood coming out of her…wherever!”

(Confronted with this crude statement, Trump insisted that he was not referring to menstruation. He said that he meant to say blood was coming out of her ears).

He also called Ms. Kelly a bimbo, a 3rd rate reporter, a lightweight and “not good at what she does.” This week, Trump said that he “might be the best thing that ever happened to her,” because no one had ever heard of her before the August debate.

[About Carly Fiorina]: “Look at that face! Would anyone vote for that? Can you imagine that, the face of our next president?!…I mean, she’a a woman, and I’m not s’posedta say bad things—But really folks; Come on! Are we serious?!”

Fox & Friends confronted Trump about these particular remarks, in this follow up interview. Trump stated that he was talking about her persona and not her looks, but then he complained that no one stands up for him when someone criticizes his hair

[About Hillary Clinton]: (after Mrs. Clinton used a bathroom during a break).

“I know where she went—it’s disgusting, I don’t want to talk about it. No, it’s too disgusting. Don’t say it. It’s disgusting.”

Seconds later, apparently practicing his Yiddish, Trump exclaimed that Mrs. Clinton doesn’t have a chance of beating him, because “She got schlonged by Barack Obama” (referring to Clinton’s defeat in the 2008 democratic primary). ‘Schlonged’ means ‘screwed’ (if you can turn an anatomical organ into a verb), but the word describes the literal act, rather than employed as a euphemism.

Rosie-O-Donnell-s[About Rosie O’Donnell]: “Rosie O’Donnell’s disgusting both inside and out. Take a look at her, she’s a slob. She talks like a truck driver; she doesn’t have her facts; she’ll say anything that comes to her mind.”

[About a contestant on his TV show]:
When Trump was told that Celebrity Apprentice contestant Brande Roderick had gotten down on her knees and begged not to be fired, Trump looked toward the young woman and said “Must be a pretty picture—you dropping to your knees.”

Do respected, national leaders ever use such language or hurl hurtful remarks? Perhaps. I suspect that most anyone has uttered a flippant remark, perhaps in the midst of anger, booze or emotional turmoil. But, if Ronald Reagan or Jimmy Carter ever used this type of language, you can bet that it was occasional, among a very small group of friends, and with an expression of profound regret soon after. But not Donald. Each time he opens his mouth, he inserts a foot, and then he doubles down and chews on the entire shoe.

Are these the words of an executive or a politician in public discourse? Are they the words of any adult with respect for others or any semblance of self-control? Of course not. They are the words of a hysterical donald_j_trump-schild who is trying hard to assert stature on a playground. It seems incomprehensible that an individual running for high office would spew such taunts and potty humor on live television. Does he have any brain? –any conscience? –any internal mechanism of guidance or control?

This leaves me with a rather obvious question: What are the demographics of Trump’s sweeping lead in the GOP primary polls? Did they forget to poll women or anyone who respects women? Perhaps women who support Trump don’t mind that their blood and stool are staples of his redneck political rallies . Honestly—I wish someone would explain this to me.

Today, Fox Media claimed that Corey Lewandowski, a Trump campaign manager, threatened Fox News anchor, Megyn Kelly. A “threat” would be unacceptable, of course, but I call it bullying. Bullying is worse, because a threat, in this case, would be hollow—a presidential candidate cannot really hurt a journalist—but, bullying shows Trump for what he is—a misogynistic jerk.                                Continue below image…

Trump Campaign Bullying

I am certain that Lewandowski is echoing his boss’ words. After all, Trump has attacked Megyn on camera. Why? Because he can’t control her questions. He wants control over content and spin, but most importantly, he wants an absence of powerful women in his field of view. He has stated it clearly: He is more comfortable with them on their knees.

As Donald Trump said himself, “Seriously Folks. I mean C’mon! Are we serious?! We can’t continue to be nice, folks!”

Of course, that remark relates to his intentions for China and Mexico. Somehow, he believes that they will send a great deal of factories and jobs back to America and then help us to build a wall so that their drug peddlers and rapists can’t get in to steal those jobs. (This is the central tenant of his entire campaign).

But that statement about voters “getting serious” precisely expresses my sentiments about Trump’s popularity as a political candidate. I can only hope that it is a bad dream, a joke, or transient. Just as NBC and Univision dumped The Don after he spewed forth xenophobic venom toward Mexicans, I wonder when Republican voters will dump Donald for a more credible candidate—Marco Rubio or Chris Christie, perhaps? If Republicans don’t wake up to Donald, like they did to Sarah Palin, voters in the general election will do it for them. Hillary Clinton is a lot more credible that Donald Trump! She is smart, experienced, just as strong as Donald. Most importantly, she doesn’t assault detractors or insult voters.

Conclusion: More of a question than a conclusion

Concluding that Trump is sexist and a jerk isn’t just my opinion, it is the opinion of every mainstream media outlet, every independent pundit, every former contestant, most journalists and political analysts, and many of his friends.

Sure!—it’s fun to buck the expected and the mainstream; it’s fun to toss polite behavior to the wind…just to shake things up once in awhile. But when a grown man wallows in a world of potty humor and misogynistic rants, one eventually wonders just who are his proponents? trump_on_playgroundFrom where does he rally a commanding lead in every poll? Are they all dunces?!

_____________

More Trump TV insults

  • Trump hosted The Apprentice , a US television series for 14 seasons. During that long run, he threw a stream of invectives at at guest contestants—calling them, alternatively, slobs, pigs or just plain disgusting.
  • In a New York Post interview, contestant Mahsa Saeidi-Azcuy explained that Trump asked male contestants to rate female contestants based on their looks.
  • The Post also reported that Trump made one female contestant come around the board table and “twirl around”. Apparently, he wasn’t satisfied with boobs—and decided to gaze at her butt.
  • The Washington Post reports that Trump told one contestant “I bet you make a great wife.
  • Trump’s crudest remark was to a contestant after being fired from his show. When a producer explained to Trump that she begged on her knees to remain on the show. He said to her: “Must be a pretty picture—you dropping to your knees.”

Donald Trump exhibits a threat response to almost anything: people with less money or fewer votes, anyone who is educated, articulate, or who disagrees with his opinion, and especially confident or empowered females. He cannot keep his thoughts to himself, no matter how crass or off-topic. He attacks opponents based on any perceived slight.

 NBC and Univision decided not to air the Trump-owned Miss Universe Pageant. Macy’s dropped his signature clothing line. New York Democratic Mayor Bill de Blasio has ordered a review of Trump’s city contracts, and NASCAR moved an annual banquet from the Trump National Doral resort in Miami.

—All that backlash was the result of just one of Trumps off-color remarks.

Related:

Iran’s swift processing of US sailors. Why the outrage?

Last week, the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps [IRGC] captured, processed and returned two US Navy boats along with 10 sailors. Apparently, one boat had engine trouble and drifted into undisputed Iranian territorial waters, while sailors on the other boat were preparing to assist. The incident began just two hours before President Obama’s final State of the Union Address and just days before the lifting of US-led sanctions on Iran and the return of billions of dollars in frozen assets.

There has been an incredible outcry—especially from anyone who opposes the Iranian nuclear deal and Republican presidential hopefuls—all of them campaigning on an anti-Obama platform. sailors_on_knees-01These individuals insist that the US has nothing to apologize for and that Obama should have retaliated for the humiliation directed at the sailors. They were disarmed and briefly forced to kneel down with arms folded over their heads.

Others have pointed out that airing videos of the sailors in a submissive posture and broadcasting one sailor explaining that their treatment was excellent and that the territorial incursion was accidental—including the words “We apologize for that”—was a further sign of a weak and ineffective president.

Like anyone viewing the Iranian video, I cringe at seeing US service personnel in a submissive posture. But, I wonder on what planet the disarming of soldiers illegally entering a territory on the military boat of a foreign power constitutes an unreasonable response? sailors_on_knees-02With the exception of the video broadcast (it likely violates the Geneva Convention), there is absolutely no evidence that the Iranians were harsh or that the American response bears evidence of a weak US president.

Sure. The sailor’s apology should have been issued or cleared through his military command. It may have been coerced or a tacit condition for his release. But, let’s face it…If the Navy boat was truly adrift (that is, it was not on a mission to gather intelligence or to land and disembark), then it is fairly obvious that the staff would be sorry for the incursion, even if it was an accident or unavoidable.

I get that we are in the midst of a presidential campaign and I get that the Republican candidates are jumping over each other to demonstrate which among them is the supreme Anti-Obama. But c’mon guys! This isn’t rocket science…

  • These sailors drifted into hostile waters
  • Whether or not it was intentional, they certainly didn’t intend to be intercepted
  • Interception by an adversary is a reasonable procedure. It is expected!
  • Using a show of force to disarm foreign sailors and requiring them to sit still is a reasonable way to ensure everyone’s safety
  • Iran neither demanded nor expected concessions or payment for the release of these abu-ghraib-sservicemen
  • The sailors were believed and they were not forced to divulge military information
  • At no time were the sailors treated like we have occasionally treated prisoners at Abu Ghraib
  • The sailors were fed, processed and released within 14 hours to a foreign power; one with which Iran has grave misunderstandings and a hostile relationship.

How often does an enemy treat the military personnel of a foreign antagonizer with such deference and respect. especially after a suspicious incursion? (Yes! respect—even though they were made to briefly kneel down and surrender their weapons). Again, I ask: On what planet is this a bad outcome? On what planet would the initial event be unworthy of an apology?

This is not a partisan analysis nor a pro-Iranian perspective. My request to the US presidential candidates: Please grow up! I realize that Donald Trump cannot suddenly become mature, but to the other Republican candidates, I humbly request a semblance of truth and balance. Please suppress the urge to assert American exceptionalism or to characterize reasonable events as if they are the result of poor leadership.

Ellery Davies is editor at A Wild Duck and an occasional political wonk.

Planned Parenthood: Undercover Video Kicks Up Firestorm

When I started this Blog, I committed to publish clear and blunt Wild Duck opinions on even the most controversial issues. But I also made a promise to myself to refrain from commenting on a few things, simply because I didn’t want to use my Blog for these issues, nor defend my belief system:

  • Personal vendettas against vendors, no matter how egregious the practice
  • Religious beliefs of any public figure
  • gagThe abortion debate

Two Down; One to Go

Despite pure intentions, the gag rule had to go. I have already violiated the first two prohibitions…

a) Personal Vendettas

First, there was my interminable frustration over a ludicrous string of billing errors by Verizon (it was resolved only after 3 years, 150 phone calls and 120 statement credits). Incompetence and disrespect for customers of this magnitude begs to be shared.

Rent-a-Terstappen desk-s2Then, there was the unforgivable lies, deceipt and theft by Rent a Terstappen—the Dollar / Thrifty car rental franchise at the Frankfurt airport. If they tried these tricks in the US or anywhere else in Europe, the franchise owners would be in jail and the corporate office would be decimated by a class action suit.

Finally, Keurig/Green Mountain has finally removed restrictions from their Keurig 2.0 brewer,due, in part, to this scathing review of their haughty business practices.

b) Religious Beliefs

Religion keeps popping up, just like Whack-A-Mole. I have finally come to realize that it was an unrealistic and unnecessary editorial restriction. I don’t really care to debate your faith or my background—I just don’t feel that any reasonable and representative government should recognize, support, defend or lie in bed with any religions, period.

First, there was the town that wanted to balance the display of a public Christmas tree with a public Hanukkah menorah (Editor’s Tip: Get rid of both. Neither belong on public property). Then, there was the US congressman who believes that the universe is 6,000 years old and the New Testament is his working job manual. He is a member of the Space Sciences committee and makes decisions that affect NASA.

Finally, I wrote a popular piece that justifies an agnostic belief (or is it a lack of belief?). And, of course, I have frequently published stories about Islamic extremism and Daesh (aka ISIS OR ISIL). Anyone who participates, contributes or sympathizes with the so-called Islamic Caliphate SO-oo-o needs to be dragged out and shot.

…And so, now there is but one frontier to cross. That is, my self-imposed prohibition on treading into the topic of abortion and public policy.

c) Abortion

Looking over the first three years of this Blog, I find that abortion has rarely been mentioned; only referenced in two political articles.

The problem isn’t that abortion is a contentious issue. A Wild Duck thrives on contention. In case you hadn’t noticed, I love to justify my opinions. fetusBut, the ethics and legal recourse are difficult to debate, because the Pro-Life camp believes that abortion is murder. If one party to a debate believes that the other side is engaged in unjustifiable homicide, the two will forever be locked in a stalemate. Sure, abortions will go on. But, depending upon prevailing winds—religion, ethics & politics—they will either be legal or illegal.

FWIW: Wild Duck is Pro-Choice

I am staunchly Pro-Choice. There! I have said it. But, beyond the next few paragraphs, I don’t care to justify my opinion on the issue. It could not possibly serve any point.

A women’s right to choose the disposition of her body, her womb and her unborn baby (or ‘fetal parts’, depending on your ilk) should be supreme and inviolate—until a child is born and is breathing apart from the mother. Pro-choice is not a nihilistic philosophy. Advocates do not set out to end the life of a fetus. We simply believe that incredibly difficult and personal medical decisions belong with family and physicians rather than government.

Pro-choice advocates believe in family and their capacity to make tough personal choices. We don’t survey the ethics and religious doctrine of neighbors and we don’t bring a community of pundits, analysts, and our neighbor’s clergy into the bedroom or our doctor’s office. Callout-abortionThere must be a clear delineation between an individual’s medical and ethical decisions and the rights granted to a new life—even if a fetus could survive apart from the mother. I feel strongly that government should stay uninvolved. The dividing line (the point at which society should forcibly intervene or punish) should be the birth of a child.

Sure, a fetus is viable and every bit as human just before birth, but a mother doesn’t abort at a late stage with callous recklessness. It is a very tough choice. One must ask if this difficult choice should be made by family with their doctor, or by a government, reigid rules and popular consent. The decision demarcation cannot be conception or anytime before birth.

I have often hoped that, someday, a simple, easily obtained medication (like Plan B) would make this entire debate moot. But nothing is that easy. Abortion options that are too quick, too simple and too easily concealed raise other serious questions… Has the family weighed all options? What if someone slips an abortion pill into a woman’s drink? I will not address these questions. This article is about a current news event.

Planned Parenthood: Signs of Trouble

One issue that is squarely in the spotlight this week is the sale of fetal body parts. When there is a potential for money to exchange hands, the incentive can drive the decision to abort or even influence a doctor’s methods and practices. For this reason, federal law prohibits the sale of human body parts. But it allows for the the donation of tissue and organs and it allows for the use of human tissue in medical research.

This video, released two days ago, has sparked a firestorm. It has also sparked the fury of Republican presidential candidates, Rand Paul and Ted Cruz. They promise congressional investigations and a push to defund Planned Parenthood.

In the video, Deborah Nucatola, a senior director of medical services for planned parenthood, casually discusses abortion procedures and organ harvesting with an undercover investigator for a right wing group. Clearly, the investigator is after a smoking gun and he wants to generate media hysteria and a congressional backlash. He succeeds in spades. But what exactly does the smoke point to?

One day after the story broke, defenders of Planned Parenthood argued that although the discussion was in a shockingly cavalier, nothing illegal was offered or discussed. Dr. Nucatola mentioned a paltry $30 or $100 dollars to cover the added cost of having the doctor save and preserve specimens. Although details are gruesome, the fee clearly does not constitute “selling body parts” including some that may be illegal. Yesterday, The New York Times, defended Planned Parenthood in this article. Factcheck.org (admittedly, a democratic web project) makes the same point here.

But Is The Video Damning? You Bet.

I support Planned Parenthood. For nearly 100 years, they have been a beacon of truthful information, respect and victim empowerment. They balance fanatic zealots who seek to undermine a woman’s natural right to have providence over her own body.

The tangible issue raised by the undercover video is whether the incentive to sell or even donate fetal tissue and organs influences the choices made by pregnant women or the methods employed by abortion providers. And, of course, whether it influences the motives and actions of Planned Parenthood. But no one is selling body parts. This was not the 600 pound gorilla—the intangible issue hit home by the video. It is the tone with which life-terminating procedures are discussed. It comes across as cavalier and disrespectful…

I stand with Planned Parenthood, but I do not stand with supporters who feel that the video is anything less than destructive. Callout-Planned_ParenthoodIt points to a problem with attitude, ethos and consistent signaling. The video reflects poorly on Planned Parenthood and their mission.

Likewise, another undercover video from Inhuman, captures Planned Parenthood CEO, Cecile Richards, in a wink-and-nod at the very end of the video. This, too, reflects poorly on Planned Parenthood. While it is likely that Ms. Richards was simply patronizing a visitor that she wanted to get rid of, it doesn’t reflect well on the organization or it’s mission.

Perception & Reputation

The survival of every organization—even churches, governments and non-profits—relies, in part, on a marketing component. I am less concerned with how the enemies of Planned Parent spin this video than I am with how it perceived by it’s supporters.

The bottom line is that the brand has been tarnished. Recovery will be arduous and, perhaps, long in coming. It is not a forgone conclusion that Planned Parenthood will recover. But it is also a fact that Planned Parenthood stands for freedom, privacy, woman’s rights, and the sanctity of family. Even if the organization is damaged or destroyed, we must never forget the noble mission for which they stand.

Related

Chicago taxes Netflix—Why not!

Service taxChicago is my birthplace and my favorite place to visit family. Unfortunately, it is also a city guided by morons.

Chicago politicians think that they can tax cloud and streaming services that sell to their residents, including Netflix, Spotify, Pandora, XBox Live—and even premium email services.

They can enact a cloud tax, of course. But can it be applied fairly? Can it be enforced? —At what cost? It certainly can’t be enforced at a cost that is less than many times the anticipated revenue. But who cares? This is Chicago!

More likely, any attempt to enforce such a screwy tax would simply move the providers further away from Chicago jurisdiction. If the entire country is compelled to honor and collect taxes on behalf of every other municipality, then the service will simply be moved to another country. After all, we are talking about virtual services, aren’t we?!

Can you imagine the Chutzpah? As if there is something local about internet content.

  • The broadband service itself?
    Sure. It fits within a framework of municipal services. These can be taxed as telecommunication services—at least if they have a fixed delivery address.
  • internet-tax-increaseBut a service that originates out of town and is designed for users on the go? Not a chance!

Can Chicago tax at the source? Good luck. Can they tax at the consumption point? (i.e. tax anyone using a service within their jurisdiction). Let’s think it through. The dim bulbs who enacted this tax, haven’t tried thinking, so we will pose the easy questions…

Will they tax tourists passing through airports and checking email or watching Netflix in the waiting area? What about a Chicago resident who watches TV primarily at his child’s home in the suburbs? Does he pay the tax to Chicago? Perhaps the city will create a bureaucracy of exemptions for tourists and residents who consume entertainment while traveling. Why not? Whatever tax is ultimately collected could be used to employ more Internet Savvy politicians! Then it becomes a jobs bill!

Here’s another good scenario: What about an XBox account that was purchased as a gift by an out of state Grandpa. He used his own address so that he can pay the bills. Is Grandpa now an illegal tax delinquent? chicagoWill there be a warrant for his arrest when he visits little Billy? Or will Chicago perform deep-packet inspection to ensure that Billy is lawfully using the Internet and is not using an out of town XBox account?

Perhaps, the tax is simply levied on a subscriber’s billing address. That would be real smart, Mr. legislator! What about a Chicago residence who is traveling far from home? I occasionally use a VPN relay to get around Netflix geographic restrictions. Does a Chicago resident traveling or living in Germany pay a tax to Chicago for viewing Netflix?

This is not a minor land grab. It is a serious attempt to tax the flow of bits.

wing_nuts

Chicago City Council meeting

It is doomed to failure, of course. Perhaps city council overlooked the fact that the state recently struck down the Amazon tax. Florida even backed down from taxing real-world services such as dental cleaning, Federal Express, fitness membership and private school tuition. If they found it difficult to tax these businesses with Florida addresses and direct customer contact, just how far do they think a tax on cloud services will fly?

Wild Ducks know that I am given to sarcasm. I promised a few readers that I would tone it down just a scooch. But when wing nuts enact wacky legislation in the name of helping constituents (or in the name of religious freedom), avoiding sarcasm is an unreasonable expectation. Their actions beg to be put into perspective. Not one of these idiots sat down to consider whether a cloud tax is reasonable, fair or enforceable.

Ellery responds. Speak your opinion here.

Will Hillary Gag Her Critics?

My friend, Peter, is at it again. He’s the dude with a geographic license to wear loud, floral print shirts that don’t tuck in. We used to be friendly competitors in the email security space. But we both switched careers long ago and we are now fast friends at a distance.

I said “at a distance” because we are separated by both land and politics. At 5100 miles (8200 km), we are geography separated as far as two people in USA can be! And the political distance between a bible-toting redneck and a blue-blooded Libertarian is nearly as great! Actually, I am exaggerating the metaphor… Neither of us is at the fringe—but as the pendulum swings, we each tend to be adrift from the center!

I have always been impressed with Peter’s ability to initiate passionate and popular debate. While this Blog elicits between zero and ten comments for each article, a simple post on Peter’s Facebook wall gets 75 responses, often within hours. His capacity to generate discussion and debate not only speaks to Peter’s breadth of contacts, but more importantly to a keen sense of hot-button issues!

Last week, Peter asked his friends to opine on Hillary Clinton. He was critical of her desire to vet Supreme Court nominees based on their willingness to restrict free speech rights for campaign commercials that slander a candidate in proximity to an election.

His question refers to this article. [Click below to read in a new window]

Hillary

Actually, the use of the term slander is my spin. Slander invokes a very different legal bar, and it is not a form of protected speech. But Hillary openly opposes the airing of any critical opinion in the days leading up to an election.

Peter asks:

If you and your friends pool your resources into a corporation making a movie that comes out 30 days prior to an election criticizing candidate Ted Cruz, should you be arrested? If you answered “No”, then I hope you also agree with the Supreme Court’s ruling on Citizens United.

 

A Wild Duck response…

I have read and understand the Powerline Blog piece on Citizens United. I fully agree with the Supreme Court decision. And, of course, I believe that Clinton should avoid a litmus test that buttresses her effort to thwart our First Amendment.

My initial reaction was to wonder if anyone feels differently? Who can argue with free speech, especially when it comes to politics. Perhaps I live among a small circle of friends, but I can’t think of anyone—regardless of their politics—who would expect or desire a different outcome. (I am assuming that the Powerline article was not slanted—or lacking some germane point!)

Big Business, Money and Free Speech

What if big money backs free speech? Surely, that type of speech should be restricted. Right? Not on your life! The argument that organizations are not people and that they shouldn’t enjoy basic rights just doesn’t hold water. And the argument that money buys elections is just daffy!…

What are we? Idiots and sheep?! There is no such thing as “buying” an election. Not in a country with a free press, free speech and the Internet. Of course, access to money helps any persuasive campaign, just as a well-funded ad campaign helps Coca-Cola sell more soda than Fred’s regional cola. But, when was the last time that you or a family member voted for a candidate because she had more TV ads? If you ask me, modern electioneering is comprised mostly of negative attack ads. I suspect thst expensive messages leading up to an election are more likely to dissuade voters than they are to “buy” votes.

Hillary as President

I have not yet formed a position for or against Hillary as a presidential candidate. But, I would give her a pass for being pig-headed on this issue, at least in public discourse. The ramifications of free speech have hit too close for her to think straight. I doubt that she will find a credible candidate for Supreme Court Judge that would vote to prohibit an opinion piece, regardless of its sponsors or timing.

On Second Thought

church-&-state-sHere, at Wild Duck, I rarely equivocate. My opinions are as pig-headed and bull nosed as Hillary’s. But once in a while, I acknowledge that there may be another side to an issue. (Not the free speech issue. On that, I stand firm). But, on assuming that a candidate—if elected—would not act on their radical or religious beliefs. On this point, I can no longer vote with smug assurance…

I once gave Republicans a pass on the issue of a litmus test. I assumed that they would  never hand pick ANTI-choice justices or ANTI separation of church-state justices. I thought it impossible that any educated individual could be a bible thumper. I was wrong. Clearly, some politicians and judges mix religion with politics or seek to force our sisters and daughters into back room abortions.

And so, Peter, I shall reflect on your question a bit more! Regards from your slightly more liberal friend on the mainland.


 

Like Peter Kay, Ellery occasionally pontificates on politics of the day. But,
unlike Peter, Ellery is apt to opine from a liberal or Libertarian perspective.

Fool’s Mission: Asserting Open Carry Rights

There is a cottage industry afoot that entails making an amateur video of yourself or a friend asserting the right to walk down the street with a gun, but without a badge. After all, we live in a country with a 2nd amendment (the right of citizens to bear arms) and some communities drive this point home by having explicit open carry laws.

LiveLeak.com has recently staked their fame on videos submitted by yahoos, often featuring gang members or reckless youth brazenly taunting police. (“I was just walking down the street officer…minding my own business!)”. In one particularly troubling video, a guy walks into a police station wearing full body armor and carrying an AR15 assault rifle. He calls this behavior a “2nd amendment audit”. Yeah, right! By the same logic, you could test your right of peaceful assembly by surrounding a midnight girl scout campfire with gang members carrying grenade launchers, hand cuffs and duck tape.

There is no confrontation in the police station audit, but check out this video, instead…

Drop to the ground!

This is not a video about race, guns or constitutional rights. It is a video about two individuals and their girlfriends making an a*s of themselves.

It’s not the message about race that bothers me…

In this video, one protagonist is white and the other is black. But before we get into the sub-plot, let’s address the main premise… Do these guys have a constitutional right to bear arms?

Yes they do! But there is no national consensus on what it means to “bear arms”. Do they have a constitutional right to display automatic weapons as they walk down a street? That’s certainly in doubt. If so, then you could extrapolate this to a right to carry grenades and chemical bombs. Do they have a right to openly carry weapons down the streets of this particular community? Perhaps. Maybe. I don’t know.

But even if their actions are intended to assert their rights or demonstrate a bias toward black males, they are still idiots. Regardless of laws and rights, a society lives on norms of conduct, safety and behavior. Quote me all the rights that you wish; we still can’t have citizens walking down the street with assault rifles or Uzis. Unlike the police, there is no way to know if they have been adequately trained, screened for mental health, enraged by a recent incident, or simply looking for trouble.

These guys are clearly jerks. But it doesn’t mean that I don’t understand their motives. I was once young, arrogant, with a chip on my shoulder, and also an idiot. Too bad that there isn’t a better way to communicate across generations and save these dolts from making the same mistakes in an effort to assert their ‘rights’.

The Narrator’s Other Message

To be fair, the accompanying article explains: “The white guy did not have a gun pulled on him, the black guy never got a chance to say anything before a gun was pulled on him.” The video shows two separate events. One in which a white man is challenged without apparent fear or violence and the other in which an officer draws a gun on a younger black man and yells for him to drop to the ground before engaging in any discussion. Is there a point here about race, balanced law enforcement and prejudice? Sure! But that doesn’t change the fact that both men are idiots.

Let’s be clear. Race is not a main point of the video. In the opening scene, a lunkhead states that he will stage a provocative exercise for “educational purposes” and to ensure that the state of Oregon does not trample on his rights. As to the race angle, there are certainly other ways to research and present sociological data. In fact, it can be done in a manner that solicits the viewer to reflect on their own bias and perhaps take action in changing perceptions and practices. But this certainly wasn’t a primary motive for the white guy wanting to demonstrate his rights. He just wanted to poke a bobcat with a sharp, flaming stick. In his book, it makes him hot stuff; a really big cheese. In my book, he demonstrates about as much sense as a soft boiled egg.

What do you think? I would particularly like to hear from some gun rights supporters. Is it reasonable to demonstrate your rights by walking down a busy street with an assault weapon?

Bad for business: Laws that bully LGBT

I really tried to ignore the brouhaha over Indiana’s thinly veiled discriminatory law. There is little I can add to the public discourse. In my circles, it seems kind of obvious that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) will be short lived. After all, even with a public demonstration of a narrow mind and intolerance, no governor can stand against business for long.

For those who have lived under a rock these past few weeks, a quick study might ask What’s the big deal? After all, we have a federal law with the same name. But there is a big difference! The federal law protects individuals from government intrusion or coercion, while the Indiana law was crafted with the opposite intent! It allows individuals (business owners or employees) to claim a legal basis for their interaction with others. It sets the stage for commercial discrimination and goofy legal defenses…

Saturday Night Live suggests giving businesses helpful signs to show that they embrace the new law

Saturday Night Live offers a friendly storefront sign to businesses that embrace the new law.

Under this law, a McDonald’s cashier can contest being fired for telling each customer to praise Allah—or for refusing to serve customers who don’t respond in kind. After all, he is just exercising his religious freedom. This doesn’t just open a can of worms—It sends a crop duster to spray worms over the entire state!

This slideshow from Huffington Post presents first-hand quotes and tweets from 26 politicians, corporate heads (Apple, Nike, Twitter, Angie’s List, Yelp, NASCAR, etc).

Some people stand with the Indiana governor, such as former governor Jeb Bush, and senators Ted Cruz and Rick Santorum. But it is revealing to note that no corporation or sports team wants this pretext to commercial discrimination. They are vociferous in distancing themselves.

Of course, not all politicians stand with Indiana Governor Mike Pence. The governor of Connecticut is a lightning rod in mustering dissent. So are the mayors of Seattle, Denver, and Washington, DC. You can imagine the statement from Oregon’s governor Kate Brown (she is openly bisexual).

Yea, brother! Are you a straight, God-faring Christian?

Indiana Governor Mike Pence: Straight, God-fearing and bad for business

Financial repercussions are beginning to mount. Angie’s List is canceling a $40 million expansion of their headquarters (this means fewer jobs!). The alternative rock band, Wilco, has canceled a tour stop in Indianapolis. Salesforce.com is canceling a business deal. The Colts, NCAA and NASCAR cannot easily relocate, but they are apologizing to fans and reminding them that these venues welcome all fans–both on and off the field. Anyone in my FanDuel NASCAR fantasy league will be more than aware of how passionate I am about this troublesome issue. Hillary Clinton called it a “sad decision”. The founder of Yelp calls it “unconscionable”.

Governor Pence insists that the law is misunderstood and that it was not intended to be a pretext for commercial discrimination. In response, check out the opening section of a letter signed by Angie’s List CEO and the heads of eight other large corporations. It points out that intent is not really the point. It’s all about effect:

Regardless of the original intention of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, we are deeply concerned about the impact it is having on our employees and on the reputation of our state. All of our companies seek to promote fair, diverse and inclusive workplaces. Our employees must not feel unwelcome in the place where they work and live.

To clarify the law, Governor Pence is rushing a corrective ‘fix’ into the legislative docket. That’s just another head slapper. Why bother?! You don’t fix lunacy, you drive a wooden stake through it, bury it, and hope that your opponents forgive or forget.

Wild Ducks wonder how long Hoosiers must wait before Governor Mike Pence rolls back his spiteful and bad-for-business legislation. We also wonder how the governor could have acted on such bad advice. On the other hand, if he acted on his personal conviction, then — red state or blue state — I wonder how he became governor!

ISIS burns Jordanian Pilot. To what end?

Moa’ath al-Kasasbeh-01aThree days ago, ISIS released a video in which the Jordanian Pilot, Lt. Moa’ath al-Kasasbeh, was burned alive in a cage. The result? A blitz against ISIS positions and logistics with the fury of an enraged leopardess. Jordan and the US led coalition is getting sympathy and support from near and far—even from prospective allies with no former stake in this war.

Why do people commit atrocities on a deeply personal and individual level? Think about it before reading further.

Since you’re still reading, you will obviously learn my opinion:Actually, I just can’t figure it out…

I ‘get’ that some people/groups/governments/rebels want land, power, money, sex—or simply revenge on those they feel have brought suffering or dishonor to their people, their cause or their prophet. I also get that they commit atrocities in an attempt to achieve their goals. But, I cannot fathom why the really bad guys inevitably do things that are so grotesquely evil, inhumane and appalling that they bring unity and resolve to their enemies!

Referring to ISIS actions and tweets: “It is a PR stunt”. But PR serves a purpose, even if it is a twisted purpose or one hell-bent on religious fervor. I doubt that decapitations, burning a man alive, and kidnapping a young, female aid worker help the cause of ISIS, even among the angry, dispossessed youth that they routinely recruit.

charlie-hebdo-cover-603x8002Aymenn Jawad Al-Tamimi, fellow at the Middle East Forum and researcher at the IDC Herzliya academic institution, explains that the video is a “wholly new level of public advertisement of brutality” and that it is “designed to terrorize the outside world, especially the Arab states taking part in the US-led coalition.”

How can anyone be so distorted as to think that such disgraceful and abominable tactics achieve anything other than invigorating enemies and generating massive sympathy for the other side. More to the point, do they not realize that their families will be hunted down and killed, humiliated or otherwise brought to justice?

ISIS believes the US led coalition forces to be an infidel, a disciple of Satan or a rabid animal (metaphors that radical Islam invokes toward anyone who is free, living under democracy, has a brain or a conscience). But even if you believe these things, it makes no sense to back a dog (or Satan) into a corner and poke him with a stick—especially if your opponent has satellite reconnaissance, powerful weapons and growing community sympathy.

Related:

Piers Morgan describes his reaction to viewing the ISIS video of Jordanian Pilot, Moa’ath al-Kasasbeh, burned alive in a cage. He didn’t want to watch, but is glad that he did.