Take Donald Trump... Please!

Trump enthusiasts and apologists--as well as people who can't stand the man and are just trying to comprehend his rise--often explain his appeal by saying that he is "funny."  I suppose he is, in the same way that fart jokes are funny--they're amusing once in a while, but they do get tiresome and repetitive.  And an appreciation for fart jokes is not the kind of thing most people take pride in.  A recent instance of Trumpian "humor" features The Donald splashing his adoring audience with a water bottle and yelling, "It's Rubio!"--a reference to his rival's well-documented thirstiness during a response to a State of the Union Address.

I doubt Trump's acolytes realize the irony in celebrating their idol's "sense of humor," while demonizing President Obama--arguably the funniest man ever to occupy the Oval Office.  Love him or hate him, few would dispute that the guy has great comic timing.  But more importantly, we are selecting a president, right, not a comedian-in-chief.  And if we are electing a comedian, we can certainly do better than Trump, right?  Jon Stewart must be itching for a new gig by now, no?

Trumped

Today, in honor of Black History Month, a staff member at my college gave a presentation on Liberia.  The presentation was well-attended and thorough and interesting.  At one point, the presenter showed a slide explaining that, in the heyday of colonialism in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, Liberia and Ethiopia were the only two African nations not annexed, colonized, or otherwise exploited by Western powers.  Instead of finding this inspiring, however, all I could hear was Donald Trump's voice in my head, saying, "That's disgraceful! Disgraceful! Now if I had been president back then, we woulda had one-hundred percent colonization of Africa!  Am I right?  It woulda been unbelievable!"

This campaign is really getting to me.

Apple Nitpicking

Apple CEO Tim Cook this week published an open letter in which he condemned a court order requiring Apple to "unlock" an iPhone that belonged to one of the perpetrators of last December's San Bernardino massacre.  Apple claims that requiring the company to create a "back door" to hack into the device represents some unconscionable violation of privacy rights.  And while in general I find it heartening that the tech colossus has such a passionate regard for customer privacy, I'm frankly bewildered by Cook's response.  Am I missing something?

People have a right to privacy.  But privacy, like any other right, has limits.  Police or other government agents may not come into my home and search it--unless they have a warrant expressly allowing them to do so.  Law enforcement agents may tap phones and read text messages, as long as, again, they convince a judge that such intrusions are necessary.  How is this case any different?  A judge has signed an order allowing law enforcement to overrule an individual's right to privacy--and frankly, since the owner of this particular iPhone was killed after his attack, I doubt he's particularly concerned with his right to privacy anymore.  (And on a visceral level, I feel he forfeited that right when he and his wife decided to gun down a dozen innocent people at a Christmas party, but that's kind of beside the point.)

Apple, I think, claims that the request is unreasonable because it is forcing the company to create a mechanism--which doesn't currently exist?--to compromise its own security systems.  They claim that this mechanism could then allow others to hack other iPhones.  Which I guess is a legitimate concern, but does anyone believe that hackers aren't already trying to figure out ways to hack iPhones?  If Apple engineers do create this workaround, will we all really be so much less safe than we are now.

Another objection I've heard is that, if the US government can compel Apple to unlock its technology, then what's to stop other governments from requiring such accommodations.  Well, nothing, I guess.  But, what's your point?  Governments enforce laws.  If Apple operates in a country, it is subject to the laws of that country.  Like any "citizen" (corporations are people, right?), Apple can dislike the laws and can use its considerable financial and political muscle to advocate for changes to those laws--but it can't simply disregard the laws.  And this is true whether we're talking about US law or the laws of other countries.

Finally, some have suggested that Apple simply cannot bypass the encryption standards it has programmed into its devices--that is, that they don't have the technological capacity to do so.  I believe the technical term for this response is "bullshit."  I don't believe for one second that Apple engineers could not figure out a way to unlock an iPhone.  Put it this way: If some evil genius creates a virus designed to target and destroy Apple's internal networks, and if the only way to prevent the release of this virus was to crack open the evil genius's iPhone, I suspect the good men and women at Apple would figure out a way to do so.

I have the same basic concerns as anyone else over the tendency of government agencies to intrude into the lives of private citizens.  But as long as the government is playing by the well-established rules of law, then corporations have no excuse not to play by the same rules.

Don't People Even Know How to Obstruct Anymore?

What is wrong with Mitch McConnell?  OK, let me be more specific.  What was Mitch McConnell thinking when he declared that the Republican-controlled Senate would not so much as consider confirming anyone President Obama nominates to replace Antonin Scalia on the Supreme Court?  I understand partisan politics, and I get that McConnell wants to fire up the conservative base, particularly in an election year.  But still, the man has been a politician for years: Does he not understand the basics of politics?  Has he become so unhinged by eight years of Obama-hatred that he cannot remember them?

Look, all McConnell had to do was provide a simple disingenuous sound bite: "We are all shocked and saddened by the sudden death of Justice Scalia.  Now is not the time to discuss the politics of selecting his replacement.  In due time, after the President selects a nominee, the Senate will hold thorough hearings to determine this candidate's qualifications for this vital position."  Anyone with a basic grasp of American politics circa 2016 would translate this as, "No way in hell will we confirm whatever Commie Pinko Muslim-sympathizer Comrade Obama has the nerve to send our way."  And we could all get on with our lives, avoiding at least one political kabuki dance.

But no.  McConnell decides that the way to handle the situation is effectively to say, "Mr. President, we advise you not to do your job."  The paleoconservatives rejoice McConnell's sticking it to the man while everybody else erupts in outrage or, at best, shakes their heads and wonders what the heck is happening.  I mean, does McConnell--or any Republican senator--think that telling Obama not to nominate someone will convince Obama to, y'know, not nominate someone?  Sure, that person may face an uphill--or impossible--battle; sure, the Senate may reject even the most qualified nominee--as is, technically, their right; but to declare yourself opposed to acting in accordance with the most basic reading of the Constitution you claim to revere seems to be displaying hypocrisy for no good reason.

I suppose Obama could totally call their bluff by nominating, say, Jeb Bush!.  Not like he's going to be president or anything.  And since the Senators promised not to hold hearings, what harm would be done.  I kinda think he should go ahead and nominate Trump.  He's ultimately not much worse than Scalia, and arguably better on the social issues.  I kid, of course.  He should really just nominate himself.  Let Biden take care of the country for the last few months until Hillary gets into office.

In Which We Are Disturbed by Our Reputation

Today at a meeting, I was sitting next to the president of my college, i.e, my boss. The main topic of the meeting was upcoming construction projects on campus. As the district's facilities manager began his presentation, he explained that what he was going to show us were preliminary plans, that we shouldn't consider these set in stone, and that we could assume changes would occur as the project progressed.  In conclusion, he said, "Nobody here has crystal balls." Without so much as a pause, the president turned to me and said, "Whatever you're about to say, DON'T SAY IT!"

I didn't realize she knew me so well!

In Which Debt Stalks the Oilfields Like Some Kind of Stalking Thing

Sometimes journalists try too hard.  Here is the lede from an article in today's Times about the debt load being carried by many oil companies:

MIDLAND, Tex. — On the 15th floor of an office tower in Midland looms a five-foot-long trophy black bear, shot by the son of an executive at Caza Oil & Gas.

But it is Caza that has recently fallen prey to a different kind of predator stalking the Texas oil patch: too much debt.

First of all, if the bear is "looming," shouldn't it be five feet tall?  Not that a five-foot tall creature can loom over much of anything. . . unless the reporter is a primordial dwarf. . . . (NOTE TO SELF: Check whether the New York Times employs a primordial dwarf reporter.)

But still, doesn't this opening seem like a bit much?  What did the rejected versions look like. . .

The morning sun gleamed on Caza Oil & Gas' oil derricks standing idle in the Texas scrubland.

Bur it is a different celestial body that will crash like a meteor into Caza, wiping out the company's profits as if they were so many ill-fated dinosaurs: too much debt.

Or maybe,

On the desk of Caza Oil & Gas's CFO, a Nolan Ryan bobblehead doll welcomes visitors with a Parkinsonian wobble.

But it is Caza that will be struck out by a different kind of fireballer tossing a no-hitter at the firm's balance sheet: too much debt. 

In Which We Mourn the Internet

I think the internet must be broken.  President Obama visited a Baltimore mosque yesterday and spoke about the need for Americans to resist the Trumpian siren song of suspicion and hatred, and yet I have not noticed any examples of head-exploding xenophobia, no rabid triumphal shouts of "I durn well knew he were one o' them Ay-rabs all along!"  So. . . Not sure why I'm writing this, as it will obviously not reach anyone. . . .

Listen, it goes against my own personal religion to turn on Fox News, so could someone please at least reassure me that the crew at "Fox and Friends" has dissolved into a frothing hatepuddle?  I'll wait.  But if I don't hear from anyone, I'll assume that the internet is no more and that I can just use this space as I've really wanted to all along: as a place to post my Doctor Who fan poetry:

Thro' time and space the whirling Tardis spins
Spin, Gallifreyan phonebox, spin!. . . .