Farcical Presidential Debates And Drunk Blogging

Drunk BloggingThe first Republican presidential nomination debate will air on Fox News on 6 August 2015. That’s just two and a half months away. I have very found memories of live-blogging some of the 2012 presidential debates with all the guys over at The Reaction. But that put a lot of pressure on Michael to take email that the rest of us were sending and then post it. Plus, users then had to manually update their pages. That is the problem with using Blogger for your hosting. It was also the problem here when Frankly Curious was using the Nucleus CMS. But now that I’m using WordPress, I can get actual live-blogging software, so I’m thinking of doing that here. Given that I can usually only stand to watch these things while I drink, it could be interesting.

Earlier this year, the RNC had announced that they were going to take control of the nomination process. But apparently not. Jonathan Bernstein summarized the situation well, Fox to Candidates: Go Nuts. On Camera. Please. One would think that the party would want to tightly control those who are in the debates, you know, so that the party doesn’t look totally crazy. But that apparently would have ruffled feathers with the crazy base of the party. So the RNC has abdicated the responsibility and just thrown it on the cable news networks.

Obviously, the networks have a different incentive than the Republican Party does. It strikes me as indicative of the fact that even the “adults” in the party are incompetent. For the first debate, Fox News is going to allow the top ten candidates as indicated by the last five polls before the even. That might include ties, so there could be more than ten. But isn’t ten about three times as many as the Republican Party needs to deeply embarrass itself? The situation is even worse for the second debate at CNN. For that, the network is going to have two debates: one for the top ten and a second one for those not in the top ten but who receive at least 1% in “public polling” — whatever that might be.

2012 Republican Presidential Debate

Jonathan Bernstein noted that even more than the bad incentives it provides the networks, are the incentives it provides the candidates, “We’re going to see gimmicks, stunts and every attention-grabbing device the campaigns can think of, all timed to maximize poll standings near the end of July.” He added that the huge amount of money available to some candidates will allow them to buy ads on Fox News to make it into the top ten. A win-win for Fox News!

At the moment, the Real Clear Politics average of polls provides the following winners in the top ten: Jeb Bush (15.4%), Scott Walker (13.2%), Marco Rubio (13.2%), Rand Paul (9.2%), Mike Huckabee (8.6%), Ted Cruz (8.6%), Ben Carson (7.8%), Chris Christie (5.4%), Rick Perry (2.4%), and Rick Santorum (2.3%). That’s like 2012, but worse. The field rounds out with John Kasich (2.0%), Carly Fiorina (1.3%), Bobby Jindal (1.3), and Lindsey Graham (1.3%). It’s quite a collection.

At the very least, the first couple of debates will be events to behold. So I think I’m going to press forward with the live blogging. If you see some weird stuff going on here over the weekend, it probably means that I’m testing some new software. Otherwise, I’m sure I will announce any live-blogging I intend to do. It would be nice if at least a couple of people watched. Like I said: it could be interesting. Especially if you’re drunk!

Lack of Accountability Means Future Torture

Ryan CooperThe big question is what this means for the future. Torture is extremely illegal (no matter what Bush’s Justice Department said) — but as the blog emptywheel points out, so is perjury, making false statements as a government employee, and obstruction of justice, all of which has continued up to this year. (It is worth keeping in mind that there is no statute of limitations on torture that is known to risk or cause serious injury or death.) Any halfway competent prosecutor would be able to roll up half the agency with those tools and this report.

But the only person who has gone to jail over this program is the man who exposed it in the first place: John Kiriakou, for leaking classified documents. Nobody gets prosecuted when they leak classified information to win public support for war crimes, but a decent and honorable whistleblower got 30 months in federal prison.

It’s time to start treating the CIA for what it is: a clear and present danger to the United States as a democratic nation. The CIA has proved time and again that it is a rogue institution that follows its own destructively idiotic instincts — and the post-9/11 era has been no different.

A legislature with even the slightest scrap of dignity or self-respect would at a minimum immediately undertake a complete reorganization of the security apparatus, followed by a truth and reconciliation commission. Better yet, an official war crimes tribunal.

But we’re not going to do that. Republicans overwhelmingly support torture as affirmatively good policy, which means the only change we’ll see with the incoming Congress is more deference to CIA goons. The executive won’t punish anyone, either — President Obama, to his shame, has already ruled that out, again. And much of the mainstream media is incapable of treating this subject seriously. John Yoo, author of the worst legal memos in American history justifying the torture program, gets a respectful hearing on Morning Joe. Michael “37 pages of lying” Hayden gets kid glove treatment in Politico.

Senator Dianne Feinstein, the chair of the SSCI, says the point of the report is to prevent torture from ever happening again. But without any accountability, it’s just as likely that America will torture again in the future.

—Ryan Cooper
Why America Will Torture Again

Radio Shack Shows No Company Values Privacy

Adios Radio Shack

Have you read the privacy policy here at Frankly Curious? I’m assuming not, because there isn’t one. But if there were one, I can promise you this: I would have really meant it when I wrote it. I’m like Google: I do my best not to be evil — as long as it doesn’t inconvenience me much. But if I had a bunch of your private information, and I could sell it and retire in Paris (or even Canada), I would have a policy change. You would probably think that I was a jerk, but I would be justified in thinking that you were an idiot for believing me. For one thing: you didn’t even know that I didn’t have a privacy policy! If I did, I would doubtless have put something in it to allow me to weasel out of it.

Okay, maybe not. I pride myself on standing for something. Just the same, I have my price. I wouldn’t murder someone just to spend my evenings in cafes drinking Burgundy, but giving your contact information so that some company could sell you things is not the same. If someone offered me a more reasonable (but still unrealistically large) amount of money, like $1,000, I wouldn’t do it. I already have a hard enough time living with myself; I don’t need that on my conscience. So you are safe. More or less.

But given that privacy policies are apparently not legally binding, one might wonder why companies have them. The reason, I think, is because they are evil. They don’t know what they are going to do with all the personal information they have, but they know that it might be helpful to have it. At some point, it might be worth a lot of money. And then it is Burgundy Time, my friends! (How ever they may define that.) And then they just change that policy and sell out. Go team!

The reason I bring this up is because Radio Shack just announced that because of its bankruptcy, it is selling all of our personal information for $26 million. If you are as old as I am, you may remember that you simply could not go into a Radio Shack and purchase a half foot of wire without providing them with your full name and address. Really, the next time an employer wants to know where I’ve lived the last ten years (and increasingly, they all do), I should just refer them to Radio Shack. Or rather, Standard General, the company that is buying Radio Shack’s rotten corpse.

As Michael Hiltzik noted, Radio Shack made a very big deal out of their commitment to the personal data that the company collected on upwards of 120 million of us:

“We will not sell or rent your personally identifiable information to anyone at any time,” the chain stated on its website. At the checkout registers in its stores, a placard read: “At RadioShack, we respect your privacy… We pride ourselves on not selling our private mailing list.”

They did pride themselves on that! And now that they did exist, they don’t need no stinking pride. They need money to pay their creditors. And these creditors aren’t little people like are in their data files; they are rich people; you know, people who matter. Hiltzik joked that Radio Shack is like Captain Corcoran in HMS Pinafore, for whom “never” means “hardly ever.” But I’m afraid that is too generous a description of the company. Radio Shack valued customer privacy exactly up to the point where it didn’t.

The government doesn’t care. “Privacy Ombudsman” Elise Frejka decided that it was okay for Radio Shack to sell the data because it “is not of a sensitive nature.” One has to wonder, however, if that’s the case, why did Radio Shack make such a big deal out of collecting it? Also, it seems to me that it provides enormous amounts of personal data about shopping patterns. Regardless, if it is such banal data, why is it worth $26 million?

My only advice is to not trust anyone. And that is impossible in this modern world. We are supposed to have a government to protect us from such things. But in America, the government just facilitates whatever the rich want. The only solution if for us to take control of the government. I’m not hopeful about that.

Josh Duggar Molested His Sisters: Shocking?

Josh Duggar

Many years ago, I had the unfortunate experience to see the television documentary, 14 Children and Pregnant Again! about the Duggar family. And then there was 17 and 18 and finally 19 Kids and Counting.

I thought it was very creepy. The family had child rearing systematized, so that after the first year or so, the older children raised the younger children. It seemed to me that Michelle Duggar might be addicted to babies — neither she nor Jim Bob seemed to care that much about the children.

But what really bothered me was the complete lack of individuality of the children — and the complete lack of anything that I recognized as true joy. Of course, there was also the fact that the family clearly fetishized baby making, while taking an “abstinence only” approach to sex for the the kids and all the others who were not married according to God’s plan.

The Story of Josh

So now that we know that Josh, the eldest of the Duggar children, molested four of his younger sisters, we should not be surprised. Nor should we be surprised that Duggar Inc seemed to have already spent years with lawyers and PR advisers in preparation for this moment.

Both the statements by Jim Bob and Michelle, as well as that by Josh himself, refer to him being a “young teenager.” Not so much. I’ve gone over the 33 page police report from 2006, and Josh was molesting his sisters at least from June 2003 to March 2004 — that’s when Josh was between the ages of 15 and 16.

The statements are also full of euphemisms so juicy that I got dragged into this whole thing. Josh said he “acted inexcusably” and took steps to address the “situation.” His parents said that Josh made “some very bad mistakes” and they were “shocked.” And, of course: “Even though we would never choose to go through something so terrible, each one of our family members drew closer to God.”

I’m really tempted to make a sarcastic comment here, but it seems inappropriate. Christians always claim that no matter what happens to them, it brings them closer to Jesus; that’s fine, but maybe we should let the young women speak for themselves.

Denial Even in Rehab

Apparently, after Josh’s behavior was first alerted to his parents, he was sent to a “rehab” for three months. But according to the person who alerted the police to the situation, it was “not a rehab for sex offenders.” Given the timing of the first occurrences — roughly June 2003 — I assume it was some kind of Christian summer camp where postpubescent boys are taught that they must stifle all sexual urges until they get married. In other words, exactly the kind of thing that doubtless brought out this behavior in Josh in the first place.

I doubt very seriously that Josh Duggar is some kind of sexual deviant. Or at least if he is, that he was born that way. I simply do not think you can have a family whose raison d’être it pumping out babies and not make a 15 year old (or 14 or 13 — we don’t really know) mighty curious about what’s down there. And given the philosophy of the family about sex, it isn’t surprising. Stifling biological urges tends to create neuroses. So I’m inclined to be sympathetic to young Josh. (Grown Josh seems to be a total jerk.)

The Victims

I’m also, of course, sympathetic to the Duggar girls, who would have been ages 9-10, 10-11, 12-13, and 13-14. (I’m assuming he did not molest Joy-Anna, who would have been 5-6.) In the police report, they seem to have forgiven their brother and gotten on with their lives. But that gets back to what originally creeped me out about their kids: their acceptance of how ever life was — like dogs suffering from learned helplessness. I don’t know, but I wish them well.

But my sympathy does not extend to the the Duggar parents. To me, they’ve treated their children as a kind of commodity — something they sell for their very station in life. We didn’t need a sex scandal to know this. They’re clearly scarred their children in their clear neglect. And I wonder what other wounds are lurking in that family — both obvious and not. It’s very sad. Please Lord, don’t let these people adopt. And please just make them go away.

Update (22 May 2015 8:29 pm)

Looking at more of the police report, the Duggars said that the events took place a year earlier than stated in the initial complaint. That makes all of the ages one year older than I reported above. Of course, that timeline also just so happens to put the behavior outside the statue of limitations. But I assume that it is correct.

I’ve also heard a lot of people talking about Josh molesting girls who were not his sisters. This does not seem to be the case, although it is hard to say for sure. Also, it looks like he may also have molested 6-year-old Joy-Anna. Other miscellaneous information: the Duggars spank their children with a rod and the children were home schooled.

Update (30 April 2021 12:04 pm)

It just gets worse. Josh Duggar was already facing a civil case for real estate fraud (you know, like Jesus). And now he’s been indicted on child pornography charges.

Josh Duggar by Tengrain under CC BY-NC 2.0.

Morning Music: Bill Deraime

Brailleur De Fond - Bill DeraimeI said before that I wanted to go back to Europe. And that usually means France. So I figured that we would highlight the French blues musician Bill Deraime. But I know how most of you are with songs in other languages, so I’ve made it easy on you. Here he is performing Otis Redding’s “Dock of the Bay,” which is on his album, Brailleur de Fond. He does it in French, of course — but you already know the lyrics.

But actually, you don’t. Deraime is from Senlis, France — very far away from any bays, with or without docks. So the refrain is, “Assis sur le bord de la route,” which means roughly, “Sitting on the side of the road.” Anyway, it’s a great performance with a great band:

Anniversary Post: Windows 3.0

Windows 3.0On this day, 25 years ago, Microsoft released Windows 3.0. It was a very big deal. You see, for almost a decade before that, Microsoft had only managed to provide MS-DOS. It was an 8086 clone of the CP/M operating system, written by 25-year-old programmer Tim Paterson. Just to be clear, all Microsoft did was buy what Paterson had written. And this may explain why for the next nine years — 2.0, 3.0, 4.0, 5.0, 6.0, 7.0, 8.0! — Microsoft hardly managed to improve it. Of course, Microsoft did manage to come out with Windows 1.0 in 1985 and Windows 2.0 at the end of 1987. They were pathetic attempts. The only thing more pathetic was that Apple (Of course!) sued Microsoft for copyright infringement — unleashing on the world the “look and feel” lawsuit. (Note: the lawsuit that started this kind of anti-freedom nonsense actually dates back to Broderbund Software Inc. v Unison World, Inc. Courts should not be allowed to rule on technology or science when they don’t understand it — which they rarely do.)

But with Windows 3.0, Microsoft had finally managed to create something that was usable. It certainly wasn’t great. And a lot of it was just that computers were more powerful by that time, so the program could work reasonably well. Even still, the earlier versions of Windows did not multitask well. But let us remember: Windows 3.0 was a program that ran on MS-DOS. It was not until Windows 95 (version 4.0), that Microsoft managed to combine MS-DOS and Windows. And it wasn’t until Windows 2000 (version 5.0) that it became a modern operating system. (For the record, Windows XP is Windows 5.1. I find it annoying that people think that Windows XP was this major release. But all they did was put a different UI on it. If you wanted to save some resources, you could make it look just like Windows 2000. Indeed, my current Windows 7 computer looks just like Windows 2000. I don’t like change.)

So there you go. You may think that I’m opinionated about politics, but clearly computer history trumps that. And that’s especially true when I’m talking about Microsoft and Apple. Bill Gates is (usually) the richest man in the world for one reason: he got the contract to provide the operating system for the new IBM personal computers. He used that advantage to stifle innovation for years. But mostly because of computer heroes like Mitch Kapor (creator of 1-2-3), Gates was able to become an incredibly rich man despite the fact that he was only hurting the industry. But it after Apple lead the way with the graphical user interface (which they stole before they started suing everyone who did the same thing), that Gate got immorally rich based upon his control the operating system that so many people used because of the great programs created by people who were not Bill Gates nor worked for Bill Gates.

Happy birthday to the first decent product that Microsoft managed to produce!