Author: Spocko

Why Trump beating Bush in Iowa is good news for Democrats
By Spocko

As a time-traveling Vulcan I try not to violate the Time Prime Directive, but letting you know Jeb Bush didn’t win in Iowa isn’t a big surprise.

To explain why he lost, listen to my friend Cliff Schecter talking to Sam Seder on the Majority Report last Friday.  Link

They were discussing the dynamic between Trump and Jeb. Sam plays clips showing how Trump got into Jeb’s head but he doesn’t quite understand why.

I think the key to understand this is to remember Jeb was the little brother of George W. Bush, bully in chief.

In a biography about George W, the author recounted a story of George shooting his younger brothers with a BB gun–inside their house. He also describes W’s “punching down” jokes and his assigning insult nicknames to people.

Donald Trump’s taunts and insults tapped into what W did to Jeb. Bullies are geniuses at finding hot button insults.  When Jeb appealed to the moderator during the debates you can almost hear him saying, “Mommmm, he’s picking on me again!”

Throwing out a great insult or put down appeals to lots of people. They see it as “winning the conversation.”  They would like to be able to do the same and hate being on the receiving end of the insults.

Most of us hate bullies, so how can a Bully like Trump defeating Jeb be good for progressives and America? The answer to that question came out yesterday in this great podcast on Virtually Speaking with Cliff Schecter and Digby. Start at 43:00 minutes.

Digby talks about some of the research by Ron Brownstein that she has been writing about over at Salon. It’s wonderful to listen to her explain it in the audio clip. (As Mrs. Spocko and I listened to it in the car yesterday she said, “That was so interesting! And Digby speaks in complete sentences, just like Obama.” )

It was encouraging to hear that the push ever rightward by Fox News, RW think tanks, and Citizen United money will not be able to continue to win over the new face of America.

Trump and the right are pushing a “Make America White Again” message that is just not going to continue, unless all the walls are built and the non-whites are kicked out.

 We aren’t there yet, and the right is using all their tricks to stay in power.

Also, sadly, the Democrats at the DCCC haven’t got this message yet, and Cliff points out stupid moves in Ohio and how Debbie Wasserman Schultz continues to fail in her position.

It can be depressing when you read about the 100’s of millions dumped into electing right wing politicians post Citizens United, but
Cliff and Digby provide a message of hope for the future. More progressive Democrats are coming.

Listen to her, it might be just the thing for people to listen to today after they see the results from Iowa.

Do not despair about the future, even though you see RW bullies prevail! I could tell you more about the future, but as they say on Dr. Who, “Spoilers!”

It’s time to prosecute armed bullies threatening to kill us

By Spocko

The current stand off in Oregon is not over. As of 9:00 pm Thursday January 28th, 2016 four are still at the refuge.

Below is a video of one man at the refuge asking people to come help him. Listen as he tells them exactly how they should impede officers of the United States from discharging their official duties.

“You a militia man? Come get some! It’s what you been training for, preparing for. We just happened to be the ones to step in it for ya. Now we are here. We need you. We want you, we welcome you.”

“Don’t be afraid of those roadblocks, drive up there and shoot them. They are dishonorable, not following their oath, not protecting the American people, [we’re] good patriots fighting for our rights, they’re the terrorists.”

“Any LEO, military, law enforcement or feds that stand up and fuck their oath–don’t abide by their oath–are the enemy!”

“If they stop you from getting here, kill them!” (Oregonlive video link)

Four holdouts want charge dropped for one to end occupation.  –Les Zaitz | The Oregonian/OregonLive

This specific stand off with these four might be over before I publish this, but I had been working on a piece examining the DOJ/FBI response at the Bundy Ranch last April vs. the current one and wanted to talk about a few issues around them and future ones.

Yes, we can learn from mistakes

After the Bundy Ranch stand off last April, the WH, DOJ and FBI  looked at their actions, the media response and public reactions to gauged how well they did. The White House didn’t want bloodshed and there was none. They wanted Cliven Bundy to lose his RW media love, so they made his blatant racism clear. Even Sean Hannity had to walk away from him. So on a couple of fronts they won.

However, in order to end that standoff with no bloodshed, I’m guessing the DOJ authorized the FBI to cut deals. The FBI probably talked to the snipers and others and said something like, “We are within our rights to arrest you. We have hard evidence that will win us a conviction. But we would rather not do that, so as a condition of not arresting you, you agree to not get involved with any more active situations like at the Bundy Ranch.  However, if you break the deal we will arrest you, seize your assets, your guns and source of government income. We will also tell all your followers that you cut a deal with the hated government to save your own skin.”

Based on some close reading of the histories of the people at the wildlife center it appears that one or more of the people who cut deals refused to honor their agreements.  Some, like Kenneth Medenbach, were arrested before. A condition of his release was he would not “occupy” any federal land. He violated that condition when he went to Malheur. On January 15th, he was arrested for driving a stolen refuge vehicle. If he is convicted of a felony that means no guns.

I don’t know the details of the various deals, but it appears the government kept its part of their bargain. Some Bundy supporters kept their’s, others did not. But since nobody who cut a deal talked about it, the people outside of the inner circle thought, “Hey, if those guys can point guns at government law enforcement and not get arrested, we can too!”

There is a reason governments have a policy of not negotiating with terrorists.

Domestic terrorists across the country saw the lack of arrests following the Bundy Ranch stand off in April as a consequence-free win and decided to replicate it.

The Good News

It looks like the WH, DOJ and FBI learned from the April stand off and decided to act differently this time. They knew not to go full on Waco mode, but they also didn’t cut as many deals (clearly some were offered, but rejected.) With the recent arrests the WH made clear the actions of armed occupiers have serious consequences.

Before I figured out that a lot of Bundy Ranch protesters cut deals to avoid arrest, I wondered why the government wasn’t more aggressive in tracking down and arresting people. I could think of a couple of reasons. First is denying them an excuse to be the victim. Right wing media loves to turn white domestic terrorists wearing cameo into heroes, but its harder to lionize people who talk like racists and point sniper rifles at federal law enforcement.

A friend pointed out a incredible practical reason there were fewer arrests. “If a Fed has a choice between arresting an unarmed Occupy Wall Street protester, and a guy with an arsenal, armor piercing bullets, and a history of making threats, which one is he going to pursue first?” The guns everywhere crowd LOVE to make threats, they like to remind people how well armed they are, how viciously they will respond and how serious they are. They even do it online, on Facebook and in YouTube videos.

Now is the time to do some serious prosecution of the Bundy’s and their militant supporters. They were given multiple opportunities to walk away and they didn’t. The hard evidence against them has piled up, even their previous supporters have acknowledged they have gone too far.

I’m sick and tired of armed intimidation and threats being downplayed as not serious, spun as being part of “free speech”  or used as bargaining chips for future compliance.

When there are no arrests or prosecution for armed intimidation and threats, people get the idea it’s no big deal and they keep doing in it. That needs to stop.

For years the NRA has used the “Obama’s going to come and take our guns!” as a sales tool, even when he wasn’t.  Now, some of these same people, if tried and convicted, will lose their right to own guns for cause.  When they scream, “Obama came and took my guns!” the mainstream media can point to the photos and video of the threats and their actions. If they don’t, we should.

GOP Debate: Who would Jesus Christ Bomb?  


by Spocko

I won’t be watching the GOP schlong measuring contest tonight because I’m going to see some real comedians, Frank Conniff and Trace Beaulieu at SF Sketchfest. 

But when I do watch I’m going to be listening for how the candidates establish their credentials with what they believe Evangelical Christians want to hear.

Will they talk about their personal relationship with Jesus Christ?  Maybe Ben Carson can talk about Jesus and this portrait. (This is really in his house- Snopes link )

Portrait of Dr. Ben Carson posing with Jesus.

Will they talk about their work with the poor? Will they explain how their medical health care programs will lead to more healing of the sick?

Will they use classic stories of forgiveness, love and inclusiveness of their neighbor like the Prodigal Son or the Good Samaritan?

Will they repeat that seasonal story of people taking in refugees fleeing persecution?

Will they talk about how Jesus’ line from the beatitude, “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.” informs their world view? (“Did he say cheese makers?”)

No. Of course not. Those ideas and attitudes ascribed to Jesus Christ are seen by a vocal faction of Christians as weak and meek. The only story of Jesus they like is the one where he is kicking the money changers out of the temple. (Hmmm. Who would be kicked out of the temple in today’s world?)

With Carly out of the picture, who will bring up lies about Planned Parenthood?

They will talk about how tough they are and how ready they are to kill people. They want to rain down massive death from above as soon as possible. Because that is the solution that they believe makes them look the toughest, even if it isn’t effective, even if it is a war crime, and even if it is immoral.

The successful, safe return of US sailors in Iran, by talking to people, has really upset the people at Fox and Friends and Friends. (link) They really wanted an excuse to bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran.  This is Brian Kilmeade to State Department spokesman John Kirby.

KILMEADE: But you look SO WEAK! The State Department is making America look weak and meek. And that is the message to the Middle East where you spend the most of your career. 

 I know that for millions of Christians, when it comes to their desire to kill and their willingness to support leaders who want to engage in killing, ignoring the teachings of Christ is something they do everyday.  Over the centuries they have created a number of reasons and rationalizations to allow it. The reasons range from the Just War theory, to self defense in the face of active attacks. Now they want to include preemptive strikes–sometimes on entire regions–other times on people of a single faith.

Occasionally, when I read some exceptionally vicious comment about wanting to bomb, kill or torture people I simply ask, “Are you Christian?” For some it gives them pause, but for others it seems strange that someone would expect their faith to have anything to do with their views on killing adults and children around the world.

I know that US Presidential candidates aren’t running for the job of Jesus or moral leader. But all of the GOP candidates will call out their Christianity as their moral center. Maybe someone could point out the disconnect between the things they say they will do vs. the teachings of the faith they claim to adhere to.

What if they claim they have a moral code, but they reject it when given various scenarios as President? Is Christianity REALLY at the heart of their moral code? Or is their moral code actually something else?

At the last GOP debate it sounded to me like they were all itching for the chance to push their actual code vs. the code they claim to believe.

After you watch this clip from the Dead Zone tell me, “Which one of these Christian candidates can you imagine ignoring a diplomatic solution in favor of bombing? Who would be more likely to bully his way into control and say, “The missiles are flying, hallelujah!”

Peace and long life,
–Spocko

DHS Predicted Armed Standoffs In August. Why didn’t FBI or DOJ Act?

by Spocko

In August 2014 I predicted that if the FBI and DOJ didn’t act following the actions by  Bundy supporters in Bunkerville, Nevada in April, armed stand-offs like the current one in Oregon would happen.

I’m pretty good at predicting the future, but I don’t expect people to listen to a time traveling Vulcan. But why didn’t they listen to the Department of Homeland Security?

Bundy supporter and armed protester Eric Parker from central Idaho aims his weapon from a bridge next to the BLM’s base camp near Bunkerville, Nev April 12, 2014 Photo Jim Urquhart -Reuters via KLAS-TV 8

In August 2014 the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) put out a report, titled “Domestic Violent Extremists Pose Increased Threat to Law Enforcement and Government Officials,”

Bill Morlin from the Southern Poverty Law Center wrote about it.,

The report found that Cliven Bundy’s militia-backed standoff with Bureau of Land Management agents in April galvanized “some individuals, particularly militia extremists and violent lone offenders, to actively confront law enforcement officials, increasing the likelihood of violence.” Furthermore, the report adds, “this perceived success likely will embolden other militia extremists and like-minded lone offenders to attempt to replicate these confrontational tactics and force future armed standoffs with law enforcement and government officials.”

I understand the PR “optics” of not wanting a blood bath at the Bundy Ranch. But I don’t understand the failure to arrest people months later. Was it a law enforcement/prosecution issue or a PR concern? Did they want to bust them for additional crimes that were indefensible to the anti-government movement?

I didn’t know the reason they didn’t act back in August so I wrote my friend David Neiwert from the Southern Poverty Law Center, asking:

“I’m thinking of doing a follow up on how the Bundy Ranch protesters were treated at the time and then afterwards vs. how the Ferguson protesters are being treated now and will be afterwards.”

He explaining that “the federal law-enforcement agencies involved in the Bundy Ranch standoff and its aftermath are seriously pursuing federal criminal cases against the men who were aiming their loaded weapons at federal agents on April 12.” (He wrote about the investigation in May for Hatewatch.)

I was going to call the FBI but figured I’d get a “No comment, active investigation, blah, blah, blah. are you a registered alien Mr. Spocko?” The FBI are professionals and I didn’t want to tip off the guys they were investigating, since I know they read everything I write. However, Ryan Lenz, from SPLC, did check in with the Feds in October and there was still no movement.

If some people from the Bundy ranch did get arrested Fox News would happily whip up multiple stories from the jailed suspects about “government over reach” and arguing, against video evidence, that the poor patriots “totally didn’t point their guns at Federal officers!”  

I’m wondering if the FBI was looking for other evidence to make people like Sean Hannity disown various “patriots” like they did with Bundy himself? Did they want to produce additional evidence showing the public that these are domestic terrorists?

I don’t want to second guess the FBI’s actions, but now might be the time to show the public that pointing loaded guns at law enforcement officers constitutes assault against an officer and is a federal crime. A crime that can carry a sentence of up to 20 years in prison when a deadly weapon is involved.

If the government doesn’t act, then the message sent is clear: It’s okay to bring guns to your protests. You will be taken seriously, you won’t be arrested now or later.  It looks like peaceful, non-violent protests are for suckers.

Based on this evidence, Maybe my friends in the anti-war movement and Occupy Wall Street should follow the exact model that was laid out in Nevada.

“But Spocko, you have to be white to not get shot!”

Really? I’m tired of people suggesting that the police and government won’t treat you the same as the Bundys if you are black or Muslim–and armed.  I’ll bet people of any color or religion can do this. You just need to follow the exact model of behavior that was laid out in Nevada.

(Of course since I pass for white, I won’t be able to test this model, but I’m totally sure it would be worth it to prove my point that these days armed protests work better than unarmed. I mean if Fox News and the entire right wing doesn’t get behind–and welcome–black and Muslim armed protests they would look like anti-American hypocrites.)

Is this reckless for me to suggest this? Based on evidence to date, who is more likely to be shot, tear-gased, beaten and arrested?  Unarmed non-violent protesters or armed, ready for violence, protesters?

Next up: Getting advice from the armed right wing

A new wave of left-wing armed protesters are blatantly defying the law and are pointing guns at duly elected state and local law enforcement officers. How do you recommend arresting them and taking their guns away, without causing a blood bath?” Then apply what we learn to them.

I needed a gun for Christmas, not a stupid helmet!


by Spocko


After Christmas on Vulcan I would call my best friend and ask him what presents he got. We could compare notes and then meet up to play with our toys or to show them off. (Because Christmas is so much better if you got cooler toys than your friends.)

If this year we were playing war, I needed a big gun like, the Johnny Seven O.M.A. – One Man Army Gun – Topper Toys 1964

The best selling boys toy of 1964! Seven guns in one, which included: Grenade Launcher, Anti-Tank Rocket Launcher, Anti Bunker Missile Launcher, Armor Piercing Shell, Rifle fires 10 Bullets, Slide Bolt Action Machine Gun, Detachable Cap Pistol which fires shells. Detachable Stock & built in Bi-Pod. Over 3 feet long!

Description from Time Warp Toys

“You’ve won with Johnny Seven, the one man army gun!”

As you can see from this commercial, we were training to become the leaders of squads of commandos in World War II, so we wanted needed armor piercing shells and anti-tank rocket launcher to take out the Nazi tanks and save the world.

Later, during the cold war, we were training to become spies. Spies were cool. You worked alone, your gun needed to be concealed, you brought it out at the last minute to take out the bad guys. We also did covert ops with hidden communication methods, which was cool.  In our fantasy world nobody knew we were a spy, until we saved the day from the commies.

 “You might think I’m an ordinary guy, but in the sinister world of counter espionage I’m known as Agent Zero M”

 I mean seriously, a helmet?  For Christ’s sake, you might as well put a big “kick me” sign on the kids back. Also, what is the play value of a helmet? Zero. They just sit there and protect you, they don’t let you be the hero.

In fantasy world you don’t need protective gear because the bad guys shots always miss, you are never taken off guard and your shots never hit innocents.


As I grew up I learned the difference between reality and fantasy. I learned logic, and the problems with making decisions based on emotion instead of reason, and how my human half didn’t want to listen to reason.

I learned about statistics and media hype and how facts can be ignored with a good emotional story or clever tag line.

But the little boy in me missed the gun action fantasy. I missed comparing whose toy gun was bigger or stealthier . I especially missed being the hero and taking out bad guys with my perfect shots. Eventually I found other action adventures, others ways to be the hero and other ways to protect myself and my family.


But not everyone wants to let go of their fantasies, so they transform entire states into their castle, where their rights, skills and decision making power are perfect and overrule other’s rights.

In this fantasy world showing off a big gun intimidates the bad guys. In this fantasy world a hidden gun gives them a license to kill.

Media hype of mass shootings is used to ignore boring statics of thousands of negligent and accidental shootings.

I Won the Thanksgiving debate with my Republican Uncle!


by Spocko


This year I was ready for my Republican Uncle at Thanksgiving.  I had all my facts, talking points and debate strategies prepared. I rehearsed in my head my counter points to his points.

I listened closely as he repeated easily debunked economic theories that came from the 1%. I took mental notes while he talked about school “reform.” My zingers and responses to his follow up points on taxes were epic and hilarious.

I had my source articles bookmarked on my phone for referring to guns, refugees, Middle East politics and oil.

But I didn’t say anything at first. I let him build his case all afternoon. Then during dinner I got ready to pounce.

I anticipated the aftermath of my epic beat down. I envisioned it something like Emma Stone lipsyncing to DJ Khaled’s “All I do is win.”

This time I was going to force him to admit that I was right and that he was wrong, and to agree to never again bring up ideas that had been proven failures. I’ve killed lies before and I’m tired of pretending that reality didn’t happen because he didn’t like it. But even that wasn’t the only reason I wanted to win this year.

I wanted to win because I wanted to hurt him, like he had hurt me. He had disrespected me and my “bleeding-heart liberal” views. Time and time again I was proved right, yet I wasn’t allowed to gloat or “rub it in.”  Fuck that!

I knew this would be upsetting to my aunt and other uncle, but screw them! They had let him go on with his bullshit with no challenges for DECADES! Why didn’t they shut him down or defend my views? Why did I have to be “the better man?”

I realized I wanted to punish him for believing this conservative bullshit and also for spreading these sick views, views that were cruel, lacked empathy and had failed time and time again.

Would humiliating him in front of the rest of the family shut him up? I got ready to bring up his all his past hypocrisies and crush him once and for all time.

I could win this year. I had the power. I could show him a direct link from his current problems, the people he had voted for and their horrible ideas. I learned from the right wing, I would show no mercy, give no quarter.

We reached the “what are you grateful for,” part of the dinner. He talked about how the 1% strategies weren’t working for him (because he wasn’t the 1%).  How scary life is with no real safety net. Why support of family was so important to him.

Then I realized I had been set up for this debate by a long line of right wing radio and TV hosts.  People whose job it is to push wedges between families and communities for fun and profit. Their definition of winning is not mine.

I have spent years making these RW talkers who spread division less profitable, something that hurts them.  These were my opponents, not my Republican Uncle. By playing their game, their way, I was following their script–not mine.

Finally the question came to me. “What are you grateful for Spocko?”

“Mrs. Spocko, everyone here and my friends all over the world.”

“Now, who is ready for a nice vegan dessert?”

Fade in “All I do is win, win, win no matter what…”

What can be done? 
In September I wrote a piece about changing how the media cover shootings following the WDBJ shootings. Following that I started talking to my friends at States United to Prevent Gun Violence, Media Matters and The Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence. I also spoke to friends in the print and TV media. I started writing a few more pieces on steps to take to change the media coverage.
My goal was to help activists in each state better prepare for the next shooting the media deemed newsworthy. Then the mass shooting at Umpqua Community College in Oregon happened.

Lately I’ve been talking to my friends at Ceasefire Oregon, Nebraskans against Gun Violence, Arizonians for Gun Safety and Newtown Action Alliance.  I’ve adopted a 50 state strategy because your state could be next.

Read the rest here at Spocko’s Brain

Now is the time to change how the media covers shootings


by Spocko

Andy Parker looked into the camera and spoke directly to CNN’s Chris Cuomo and the media covering the live shooting of his daughter Allison.

“I know how you guys are, this will be a good story for a couple of days and then it will move to the back burner.”   

This astute comment really stuck me. I don’t know his background, but he is exactly right about how the media works.

Parker wants change and is urging people to call their senators. That’s great, but because of his daughter’s profession I think he could also lead a change in how the media covers gun violence.

Here are some suggestions on what he could do and how you could help if you are interested.

Have Parker contact the media directly on follow-up stories about shootings. 

This is the reality of our celebrity culture. Parker now has standing as a type of celebrity. Journalists will take his calls. But he needs to offer more than just another interview with a shooting survivor or grieving loved one. What new story can he bring the media?

Parker can talk about the barriers to change he is seeing. This is an important topic since all shooting follow-up stories now ask, “Why didn’t the Sandy Hook shooting bring change?”

Stories don’t move forward unless some new information is revealed or an event happens. Now is the time to ask different questions that can reveal new information. He can also talk to the media about how they cover other non-shooting gun-related events. I have some ideas about that, but I’ll save them for another piece.

It’s not news and not their job–anymore
Most journalists aren’t aware of all the ways the pro-guns activists have blocked change in multiple areas. That’s because it’s not news–until the next shooting.

In the olden days it would be the job of journalists to answer these question, “Why did this happen? Why was there no change?”

Now it’s up to our activists to connect the dots for the journalists, to reveal the corrupt process that blocks sensible laws, then show how funding is cut or how enforcement is lacking. They also need us to name names. These could be interesting stories for the print media, but isn’t dramatic enough for TV. That needs another tact. Make it personal and local.

Dealing with the “It’s too soon” problem

Following each mass shooting, there are cries of “It’s too soon to discuss this!”

The NRA knows emotional stories like Parker’s are especially powerful right after a shooting.  They have already criticized Parker for being too emotional.

The NRA doesn’t have a problem using people’s emotions, just the kind they don’t want happening when they don’t want it.  As we know, emotional stories to the base leads to action. The NRA’s brilliant marketing move is to use each shooting event to trigger gun sales. “THIS time they will come for your guns! Buy more now!”

The NRA counts on the media’s short attention span. They also know the media has a problem covering the long game played at the state level by lobbyists and politicians. But what if we used one media problem to solve another?

Each new shooting is a media opportunity to see why previous proposed changes either stalled or were blocked in different states.  This gives the media a current news hook to use but without the, “It’s too soon” attacks. They also have a local angle to follow up on.  It moves from a “too soon” national story, to a “what happened to this?” local story.

A politicized story doesn’t mean politicians are in it
Politicians are often asked to comment on big news events. They know to give the usual safe comments about shootings, “My prayers go out to the families.” But instead of asking about the current shooting, the media can ask them to explain their previous actions, or lack of actions–in light of current events. Again, this moves from a generic question to a specific one and can reopen doors. Examples:

 “Congressman, you led the fight to block the bill that would make it harder for mentally ill people to legally get guns. What is your comment on that in light of this recent shooting?” or

“Congresswoman, last year you proposed the bill to make it harder for mentally ill people to get guns. It died in committee. Who stalled that? What was their reasoning? Any plans to do bring it back now?”

Be the media 
Now if I wanted to really push the envelop I’d like the media ask the people who blocked previous bills to explain their reasoning to survivors from Virginia Tech, Sandy Hook or other big local shootings. “Why can crazy people can still legally get guns in our state?”

This is probably too risky for broadcast TV, but it could be done. Maybe somebody will set it up and put it on YouTube. I mean seriously, most of us have the power of a portable TV studio in our pockets, learn to use it in ways other than hilarious cat videos. The point is to get answers to the question they ask now after every shooting, “Why was there no big change following Sandy Hook?” Listen to the answers and then figure out how to do something different this time around.

I understand why people get overwhelmed by this issue, even when it happens to one of their own the media throw up their hands and say, “There is nothing we can do.” But there is. We can take advantage of the medias’ own coverage formulas to move the issue forward. We just need to act. I’ve laid out several suggestions here based on real experience. I have more for other media, but now is the time to help the broadcast media do their job better.

 There is hope. Positive change in how the media covers gun violence is possible.

What good can come out of the Ashley Madison Hack?

by Spocko

Hey, did you read that Josh Duggar was on the Ashley Madison list? And it wasn’t a fake email address either! He confirmed it!

I know that some people get a feeling of joy or pleasure seeing Duggar suffer more misfortune. That’s nice for them. But with all the genuine suffering that this exposure will be causing innocents, can we at least get something good out of it?

The media are already using it for their headlines, therapists and divorce lawyers will be using it to get new clients. But can we get more out of this hack than media hits and billable hours?

What’s the opposite of Disaster Capitalism? Disaster Socialism? 

We know that some people use disasters to profit, others to push an agenda. “We are going to turn Iraq into a free market paradise using these Heritage Foundation interns!”

 I propose we have a couple of items to push on our agenda.

First, increase the importance of privacy in both private governments and corporations. Second, use this data to show the problem with passing judgement on the private lives of ordinary people.

As Glenn Greenwald pointed out in his piece, The Puritanical Glee Over the Ashley Madison Hack,

[None of us should cheer when the private lives of ordinary people are indiscriminately invaded, no matter how much voyeuristic arousal or feelings of moral superiority it provides. We love to think of ourselves as so progressive and advanced, yet so often leap at the opportunity to intervene and wallow around in, and sternly pass judgment on, the private sexual choices of other adults. 

But, what are the concrete things we can change beyond trying to change attitudes? How about a focus on data security at the corporate and government level.

Let’s start demanding the organizations that hold our private data have greater accountability to protect it and more liability when it is taken.The massive class action suit against the parent company of Ashley Madison is a start, but not enough.

We also need to demand nationwide reporting of breaches. It’s ridiculous that if you don’t live in a state with mandated reporting the company or organization  never has to tell you about it.

Next we need an agency who actually wants to help us protect our data. But, since the fear is no entity can be trusted, we need to push for the tools to maintain some control over our privacy.

Right now our privacy tools are hard to use and not as strong as they should be.  Our privacy policy rules for corporations are weak. This is bad for everyone except the hackers.

 I want easier to use privacy tools on desktops and phones. I want tools that my in-laws can use daily when banking or shopping. I also want better tools my nephew can use when coding. You shouldn’t have to know how to encrypt your own email, but you should understand why you should be doing it.

“Follow the money” Deep Throat
      — All the President’s Men

When someone says this to current journalists I want to snark back.  “1976 called, they want their tagline back.”  

The print media only “follow the money” for stories about once a year, usually for Pulitzer submissions.  But now, post Citizens United, they won’t be doing that on a political story.

But there is some good news.  Someone is using the Ashley Madison data to track down dark money in politics.

My friends at the Center for Media and Democracy saw that since Josh Dugger has already admitted his use of the service, they took the opportunity to go further.

Last week they put out a story about how Koch Brothers Freedom Partners Operation shoveled millions to a conservative Christian group. They laid out the shell corporations, who got it and for what supposed purposes. I can practically hear your eyes glazing over.

But luckily for the news scanning public, the Conservative Christian Group getting the money was led by Josh Duggar! As I predicted, he used the Christian “I’m a sinner, forgive me.” card.

The MSM was able to use the hypocrisy card to run the story. He was a public figure who was also a moralizing hypocrite, so they didn’t have to worry about discussing someone’s private sex lives.  He was all wrapped up in one easy to consume baby-faced moralizing package.

But that is as far at they will take it. They aren’t going to use it to look into the sex and political money connections like the CMD did.

Let me repeat. The media do NOT WANT to stop political money flowing into their coffers. They will only talk about it in the abstract as if there is nothing they can do with it beyond sexy headlines and moralized shaming.


 If we can’t stop the data from getting out and want to use this data for good, we have to help the people doing the kind of work that the media will not do. 

Nobody is going to do this but us. 

How will campaigns use Ashley Madison data? How will media? 

by Spocko

Here is some interesting information compiled by @dadaviz taken from the illegally obtained Ashley Madison data dump. Link


34% of Ashley Madison Accounts are Fake

Yesterday I could have downloaded the 10 gigs of illegally obtained Ashley Madison customer data. The idea was kind of thrilling.  I could see which associates of politicians, lobbyists or corporate executives are on the list, prepare it for oppo research, political leverage and/or public shaming.

I didn’t do it but lots of people can and will.  Prepare for the onslaught. I’m trying to get ahead of the curve a bit. Partly to help people see who and how this might be handled. Partly to wonder how it might be used, abused or leverage by others. And finally, I’d like to reinforce the importance of figuring out how to maintain privacy in our current surveillance state.

 I keep thinking about two comments I’ve heard in the past around privacy, sex and cheating on a spouse.

“If you haven’t done anything wrong you don’t have anything to worry about.” 

“It’s not about the sex, it’s about the lying.” 

I wrote about privacy and this breach back in July, Why I care when people with ‘something to hide’ are hacked. I recently did a podcast with blogger out of Ireland. It’s not up yet, but he asked me good questions about privacy, morality and transparency. I realized I didn’t have good answers and it led me to questions of my own.

1. How are media and political organizations going to deal with these revelations?
2. How might these be used against the left or right?
3. How will individuals use this personal information against people engaged in an act consider morally wrong by some?

But what if you don’t consider the act morally wrong, but others do? What if I don’t consider the act wrong, others don’t either but I would still rather not share that with the world? So for example, what if this was a data breach from a gay sex site like Grinder?

I look at things though an activist, political and technological lens, so here are a few other questions.

No, Mike Huckabee won’t be on the list, but what about his staff?

• How will the various political candidates and their campaigns deal with disclosure of Ashley Madison data?
• How will the candidate you hate deal with disclosures vs. the ones you like?
• What if your friends, co-workers and paymasters are on the list but not your political enemies? What if both are?

Media – Sex sells, duh. What’s your media’s angle?

• How will the left, right and MSM cover this differently?  

We are already seeing a few stories. The first I saw was about a religious conservative spokesperson on Gawker. Next, a story in Salon reminding people of the criminal act behind the story.

Josh Duggar’s Ashley Madison account: Celebrity infidelity doesn’t justify the outing of hacked clientsEnjoy the schadenfreude and gossip, if you must — it’s still powered by a despicable vigilante act by MARY ELIZABETH WILLIAMS

The main stream media will be all over this story. They will be using the data in their standard, “Both sides do it” format.

The media will need to appear “fair and balanced” and for every famous right wing person on the list the MSM will put a democrat or liberal person in for balance. Even if the ratio is 100,000 to 1 they will do a fifty-fifty split. (Remember anti-war protests? Hundreds of thousands against the war but the TV made sure to give equal air time to tiny pro-war groups “for balance.”

Look for this. The data is going to be very skewed for multiple reasons, but  like the faked emails,the media won’t be pointing this out.

When this happens it often pushes people to defend people or acts that they disagree with but need to defend on principle.

In the olden days I called it the “But Clinton!” rule because every time you brought up a horrible thing from the right you got a story about Clinton showing equal horribleness.

“It’s not about the sex.”

You could have a real problem with people cheating on their spouse, but what you don’t have a problem with is consenting adults having sex. You could believe that people should have the right to privacy, but not in cases that violate laws that are a violation of constitutional protections.

You might believe that people who violate international laws involving torturing humans don’t deserve privacy, yet they get it. However, when someone breaks the law to reveal these acts of torture, you consider them heroes.

“It’s about the lying.”

I don’t expect any high-level politicians to be on the list.  I don’t want to underestimate sneaky politicians but I also shouldn’t overestimate their ability to protect their privacy when it comes to computer technology.

Some of the coverage will be based on espoused values (no pun intended, but…) Yes you can say, “We aren’t the ones pushing ‘family values'” but that still doesn’t mean that this can’t be used against someone in another different way, Remember this? “It’s not about the sex it’s about the lying–under oath.”

You might think that the right wing religious conservatives will suffer more from this than the left, but I’m not so sure. As my friend Sarah pointed out, the religious right have all sorts of public apology and Christian forgiveness mechanisms in place. Even if you aren’t a serious Christian you can still put out the “Forgive me Jesus, I’m a sinner.” card. Or quote the “He is who is without sin cast the first stone.” line and boom! Your soul slate is wiped clean.

The bright side? It might remove some blackmail opportunities

As Jay Ackroyd pointed out during our Virtually Speaking podcast, The agency that is responsible for helping protect Americans from cyber crime is the NSA. That’s right, the NSA. They are also the ones who are out there looking into other countries’ data. This kind of digging up data is happening all the time. In this case it was not a state actor, but it could have been.

But the defensive side of the NSA is not the focus. As mentioned in this podcast:

“The NSA is not earning their money unless they’re trying to do the exact same thing to the Chinese, the Russians and everyone else,” says Vincent Houghton, historian and curator of the International Spy Museum in Washington, referring to America’s electronic-spy agency, the National Security Agency.  

Why It’s OK to Hack for Spying: Audio Blog: Security Experts See Nation-State Snooping as Norm

Nation states (or political operatives!) could sit on this data and use it for leverage when they want to get a deal done, a bill passed or a contract signed.

It could be used to pressure someone close to a powerful official to do almost anything.

Does the NSA have the equivalent of this info about the Germans, French, British and Chinese? You bet. You don’t think they just tapped Merkel’s phone?

This information will be used for leverage in multiple ways. Negotiations on the TPP, TIPP, major arms deals and corporate contracts.

Remember last week where I suggested that we get the GOP billionaires to go after each other? What if we encouraged the right wing media to dig into this data to get Trump? Or to get the Trump supporters to dig into this to go after Huckabee?  Will that happen? No.

The right will use this to figure out a way to go after the people on the left. And the MSM will go along with it because “both sides do it” and they need balance.

One reason that we push for privacy at times and transparency at others is because some things aren’t anyone’s business but your own. Other times it is because it IS other people’s business and so we set up rules and laws to make that information available. Those rules sometimes change.  Last night I was watching an episode of New Tricks from 2010 when this line came up.

“If you haven’t done anything wrong you don’t have anything to worry about.” 

The response was interesting, especially when you found out the truth at the end.

“It depends on who’s deciding what’s right or wrong, doesn’t it?”