Author: Spocko

Let’s help GOP billionaires attack each other 


by Spocko

“When your opponent is drowning, them ’em an anchor.”
–old phrase from some famous person you admire

“Great job on Trump Kelly! BTW, did you know Trump screwed your old client Experian out of millions? – Your friend at Bickel & Brewer LLP?”

If one group of ham handed right wing ratf****** try to sell deceptively edited video about Trump passing themselves off as “journalists,” well you didn’t tell them to do it.

Remember in Animal House, where they assigned Neidermeyer to do the dirty work?  Why not? They are good at it.

It was sadly hilarious to watch Fox ask “tough” questions and then get praised for it on the left. But Trump fired back.

Ailes doesn’t want Trump? Let’s help Fox uncover dirt. Ask them for journalism!

Of course they won’t listen to us, but maybe one of their billionaire backers can take it as a challenge, “You look weak against Trump, why don’t you un-cover the hidden truth behind his ….”

Get the supporters of Lindsey Graham to dig into Trump like he dug into Obama’s birth certificate. But…and this is important, don’t ask the MSM to do this. Because that would mean doing their actual jobs, not just reporting on the horse race.

If they did a story they would be all “both sides do it” and ask everyone involved before they ran a Graham engineered smear.  That is why we have to encourage the RW media to do it. And then double dog dare them to hit harder. Trump can take it, and then he can start dishing it out back, on the other billionaires…

Productive anger with your eyes on the prize.

My anger at right wing talk radio hosts, their distributors and their disgusting violent rhetoric, led me to act. Since 2007 it has cost the industry 100’s of millions of dollars in lost ad revenue (mostly from customer facing sponsors.) People have lost jobs. Distributors have had to make embarrassing statements to stockholders about their failure to keep the cash coming.

This includes the great work done by my friends who focused on Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh. They have stopped 100’s of millions of commercial advertising dollars from going into the wallets of distributors. 

This cutting of an easy revenue stream hurt them.  They fought back, but, because we had the law and sponsors on our side, we had cover.

So who will help us in our fight between GOP billionaires? All the people working for GOP billionaires, Fox News and all the people working for Donald Trump. Let’s use these people to our ends.  I derived this idea from another old saying.

“Let’s you and him fight.” –clever old guy who wins when his competition fight each other, instead of him.

We assume that eventually the candidates “throwing red meat to the base” stuff will stop, but not yet. And you can’t just go into one RW billionaire’s puppet lair secret bast headquarters and work on his behalf to attack another billion—oh wait a minute, yes you can. It happens all the time. The Ron Paul people were great at this.

Various candidates are trying to distance themselves from the crazy to seem moderate for the general election, but as we know, when you fight crazy people they fight back. I suppose it’s like bear bating, only you aren’t the bait, they are.

It might be fun to watch. BTW, I’m not suggesting this just clears the path for my favorite candidate. I’m suggesting we use the momentum of one big nasty player on another. Who wins after that is still up in the air.  Help them focus their own arrogance, pride and deviousness on each instead of our candidates–and the rest of the country.

Who helps shooting survivors deal with the media?

 By Spocko

The day before the GOP presidential candidates were on TV ignoring the issue of gun violence, there was another attack in a theater in Tennessee. We saw the now standard scenario unfold:  ID of assailant unknown. First reports –assailant is white male and 51. Killed by police. Theatergoers injured, but alive.

Then as details came out we found out the assailant was a 29 year-old white male who had been committed four times for mental illness. He used pepper spray in the theater and had an Airsoft gun, not a real one.  Details from The Tennessean here 

What struck me about his story was the response of one of the survivors. He asked the media to leave him alone. It got me thinking about how people cope with the media blitz following a shooting.  I wrote a post on the issue (below) and then asked some experts.

.@everytown Do you have people who help shooting survivors deal with the media? Need shown: http://t.co/999NRudHAn

— Spocko (@spockosbrain) August 7, 2015

Following big shootings the media swarm to get comments from survivors, witnesses and officials.

When there is a high body count the official NRA spokespeople lay low. In comments sections or on twitter people suggesting anything but prayers are scolded, “It’s too soon to push any agenda, the bodies aren’t even cold!”

However, the one group of people that it is deemed appropriate to hear anything from following an attack are the survivors. Because of their involvement they are expected to answer questions, first to the authorities, and then to the media.

In the case of the recent Tennessee theater attack, one of the survivors had seen how shootings play out and asked the media for anonymity and wants no questions beyond his statement. (See video)

In it he:

• Praises the police for their rapid response
• Asks people to pray for the family of the man involved who, “obviously has some mental problems.”
• Asks the media to leave him and his family alone,
• Says he didn’t do anything to bring this on,
• Is grateful no one else was injured,
• Thanks the EMTs who helped him and his daughter when they were pepper sprayed.
• Thanks the citizens who gathered around to help, “That kind of gives me a little more faith in humanity again.”

Following violence involving guns (or gun-shaped objects) in public leads to the “What is to be done?” question. Since Steven doesn’t want to talk anymore, who will fill in the void? First, the professional “Guns Everywhere” people.

I’ve said before how skilled the PR and lobbying people for gun manufacturers are. Not only are they the best in the county at creating arguments and counter arguments on an issue, they effectively spread them to their followers. They also create great bumper sticker slogans while attempting to churn out Constitutional scholars.

They actively work each event, stoking preemptive fears that lead to more gun sales. “This time Obama is REALLY going to take your guns!”

They spin scenarios of the wonderful world of polite armed people everywhere (more sales!) They ignore the successful cases of places without guns like Australia.

Understanding how they work is important if any change is to be made.

I have a Ph.D in Argueology! What part of ‘shall not be infringed’ don’t you understand?

In last weeks Virtually Speaking my friend Cliff Schecter and David Waldman (Daily Kos Radio, Kagro X in the morning) had a great discussion where they demonstrated responses to the various gun and constitution arguments and counter arguments.

Cliff even suggested questions to pose to the guns everywhere crowd and how to counter their rebuttals. It was great to hear and learn from them, but frankly I don’t want to spend time arguing with the guns everywhere people.

Here’s the deal, people who believe the answer to gun violence is more guns spend a tremendous amount of energy, thought, time and money to work the issue and push their views.

When someone does spend the time to look at the arguments and counter arguments they find that they can be dismantled rather easily. Which brings me to the recent attack.

We saw a traumatized person who may now have a new view about guns, but he hasn’t had the time to incorporate that information with his experience.

We don’t know what Steven thinks about his states’ laws for dealing with people with a history of violent mental illness. We know that the attacker didn’t have a real gun, does that mean that he was on the National Instant Criminal Background Check System list and was denied one?

Does that mean that because that part of the system worked, he had to use pepper spray and an ax instead of an automatic weapon with a 100 round clip?

The media could look into the state of Mental Health Reporting in Tennessee from the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, but that is boring.

This is important information that should come up ever time someone says, “The suspect had a history of mental illness” and shooting in the same news story.

If Steven later decides to engage in the media whirl, he will be listened to because he was a survivor. But that doesn’t mean he will instantly become an expert in arguing about guns in society, public policy or the Constitution.

One of the reasons that the gun lobby’s views keep sticking, even after tragic events, is a combination of the passion of their supporters, the cleverness of their sloganeering and the emotional appeals of freedom and liberty to certain audiences.

These are all powerful tools, another is when the guns everywhere believers are encouraged to challenge those who don’t share their views.

For some people this is great fun. That is why they like to do it. They like to argue and bait others on issues. They like to “win” the conversation, even thought it doesn’t mean any minds were changed. If they lose on one point, they shift to another and another and another.

I like to educate, persuade or influence people. I like to get people to see things from a different point of view.

I like it when people act based on the concepts and ideas that I have convinced them is the right thing to do.

However other times I also want to “win” the conversation. That involves learning all the tricks and techniques of the arguers. “Yes, I know it’s a magazine not a clip. Let’s talk about gun show loop holes.”

Overall I want to reach the people for whom the issue only comes up when they are watching the news, which as we have seen, is not the place to talk about gun policy unless you are a survivor.

If I wanted to provide the media with insight on a shooting where no survivors are ready to talk, I would want to parachute in former survivors of shootings who are now educated on the issues. That person’s opinion is relevant, and they can point out all the weakness with the arguments made on the internets that someone wouldn’t make to the face of an educated survivor. (BTW, if the TV station really wanted to some intense TV they could put the two on camera together.)

But I know how the media works, unless you can quickly provide a compelling narrative, one will be assigned to you. Right now the narrative “you need more guns to stop guns” and “there really is nothing anyone can do” is being driven by the people who make money selling guns.

Rubio: It’s the media’s fault we have to take billionaire’s money 


by Spocko

#SignsYoureRightWing No matter how powerful or rich you are, you are the real victim.

— Spocko (@spockosbrain) August 4, 2015

All Things Considered did a story yesterday about a Koch event attended by GOP presidential candidates. It’s really stunning to listen to some of their quotes.

Here is the link. Here are two audio bits I highlighted in the transcript below:

From the story:

“The biggest contributor so far is hedge fund magnate Robert Mercer. He sent $11 million to a super PAC backing Ted Cruz. Florida Sen. Marco Rubio told the Koch network the candidates really have no choice about raising money.”

(SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED RECORDING at 1:48)

MARCO RUBIO: As long as newspapers and television stations keep charging people to speak out on politics, we’re going to have to keep raising money to pay for it.

Great narrative flip Marco! You are the real victim here. You had no choice but to accept the trucks of cash dumped on your doors! And besides, why should you have to pay for your “free speech?”  (Hey, does this mean he wants the fairness doctrine back? )

“And Carly Fiorina, a former CEO of Hewlett-Packard, said the media isn’t nearly as critical of liberal donors and labor unions.”

(SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED RECORDING at 2:01)

CARLY FIORINA: The point is the media doesn’t like one kind of money, but is OK with another kind of money. I think…
(APPLAUSE)
FIORINA: I think everybody ought to play by the same rules.

Notice how smoothly they shift the blame to the media. And the media is just going to sit there and take it.

Yes, the liberal media is to blame. She’s saying, “Why is the media always picking on rich conservatives? Why not pick on rich liberals or those damn Unions?! Let’s have some false equivalency here media!”

Why would anyone in the media ever want to stop big money in political campaigns? Why would they piss off the Kochs or other billionaires who might be buying ads? What’s in it for them, except loss of revenue? And really, where is the harm in letting it continue?

“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”
― Upton Sinclair, I, Candidate for Governor: And How I Got Licked

TV media are not going to question any money coming into political campaigns. As long as the money keeps coming, they won’t even question the process too hard.

The billionaires are telling the media,

“Shut up and take my money.” 

And they do.

Even on the public media side they let someone else question the money and then put in a nice balancing quote from Jeb “Ice In the Belly” Bush.

JEB BUSH: “Money helps. I’m playing by the rules of the game, the way it was laid out. And if people don’t like it, that’s just tough luck.”

Fund raising has become so easy candidates would be stupid NOT to do it, if only for the future benefits. This is what we are seeing now.

The media want to maximize revenue during this post Citizen United time. They don’t want to rock any boats. But they will be happy to cover the people who do, and then provide “balance” to distance themselves from them in the eyes of advertisers.

This, my friends, is an opportunity.

This Thursday we will see just how acceptable extreme opinions are.

Will we see the crowd cheering for cops defending themselves from cigarette smoking women and agreeing about those raping Mexicans? Trump will be providing lots of great extreme opinions. Will others use his views to distance themselves from Trump’s remarks or try to top him?

by  Spocko

In honor of Roddy Piper’s death rewatch They Live. It showed greedy, ugly aliens taking over the media.Turns out it was a documentary. 

— Spocko (@spockosbrain) July 31, 2015

One of my favorite films in the 80’s was “They Live.” Not just because of the science fiction aspect of it, but because of the biting satire.

On the surface it’s a standard “Aliens take over Earth” story, but underneath that it showed how some in the media and government really see Americans and what they want us to do.

When our heroes put on special glasses they could see the messages that were embedded in our media, all in black and white. (Video link)

Frank: What do these things want?

Gilbert: They’re free-enterprisers. The earth is just another developing planet. Their third world.

The main character, Piper, comes to town looking for work. He is directed to a camp of other men and women looking for work. His interview:

Female Interviewer: Last place of employment?

Nada: Denver, Colorado. I worked there for ten years and things just seemed to dry up. They lost fourteen banks in one week. So, well…

Female Interviewer: There’s nothing available for you right now.

This movie came out in 1988, at the end of the Reagan years. Homelessness and yuppies existed side by side. It was an awkward juxtaposition for people with empathy.

During that time many people figured, if you can’t beat ’em, join ’em! Even if it meant having no empathy for others. Look out for number One, especially if he looks like you!  Get that BMW and Rolex! If people have a problem getting work it was their fault, not the power structure or the system.

What kind of people would act this way? Certainly not good Christians given what that guy Jesus said in the parables in the New Testament. It was hard to believe that decent humans could act this way. Therefore they must not be themselves. So that is what the filmmakers did, made greedy, selfish people into actual ugly aliens.

Yes it’s a simplistic metaphor, but the movie creator then went beyond it to include humans who weren’t aliens, but who believed in the alien “values.”  Let’s call them “aspirational aliens.” 

Drifter: What’s wrong with having it good for a change? Now they’re gonna let us have it good if we just help ’em. They’re gonna leave us alone, let us make some money. You can have a little taste of that good life too. Now, I know you want it. Hell, everybody does.

Frank: You’d do it to your own kind.

Drifter: What’s the threat? We all sell out every day, might as well be on the winning team.

Join the winning team! Why associate with the poor, even if they are like you. Don’t be a loser!  Outsource the jobs at your company and you get a cut of the profits. Get that juicy government contract, then bitch about welfare for, “those people.” Winner!

Frank: The steel mills were laying people off left and right. They finally went under. We gave the steel companies a break when they needed it. You know what they gave themselves? Raises.

One of the themes of the movie was how the aliens in the media helped the aliens in the government. The media amplified the messages of consuming goods and obeying authority. Meanwhile, the aliens literally sent our wealth away from Earth. 

Some of the people who Piper wanted to join him in the struggle against the aliens had to be forced to see the truth. (This involved a classic alley fight scene with Piper and Keith David video link ) 

When Keith David finally sees what is happening, the scope of the alien’s power and control is stunning.  

Together they do the best they can to fight the aliens and their human collaborators. They become hunted criminals in the process.  Who can they turn to for help? Who are their allies? Not the media, they had profits to make.

The media attacked the people handing out the glasses that let everyone see the truth for themselves. It’s easier to write the truth tellers off as nuts. Fortunately, some in the media were still human, and helped.

The heroes’ crime was trying to open people’s eyes to what was hiding behind media and government fronts.  Does any of this sound familiar?  Have you heard a story like this lately?

Today the actor Rowdy Roddy Piper is dead, but “they” live.

We have always had greedy humans selling out fellow humans for profit, demanding everyone submit to their authority and obey, no questions asked. But we need to keep fighting them in our life and within our fiction.

Let’s listen to Piper give the inspiring words of screenplay author John Carpenter 

Why I care when people with ‘something to hide’ are hacked


by Spocko

“Privacy” by Melanie Feuerer used under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 United States License

It’s all about the Privacy. 

Do some people deserve it less than others?  Who decides?

Online Cheating Site AshleyMadison Hacked
    — Brian Krebs, @briankrebs Krebs on Security July 19, 2015 

When people who are supposed to protect someone’s privacy fail, what should their responsibility be following the failure?  How do you make “someone whole,”  as they say in the insurance biz, following a privacy breach?

Hacks of OPM databases compromised 22.1 million people, federal authorities say     — Ellen Nakashima, @nakashimae, The Washington Post, July 9, 2015

Fighting Evil Corp. There’s an App For That! 

by Spocko

I’m a crappy chess player. This became clear to me when my 8 year-old nephew beat me while explaining, “The horsey piece can only move in an “L” way Uncle Spocko!”

One of the things they say you learn from chess is thinking several moves ahead, anticipating your opponent’s responses and acting accordingly. I learned this skill from life experience.

Right now I’m watching Mr. Robot. They are looking at the personal reasons people fight big institutions, as well as the human cost of those fights. That’s the part people don’t see, and it can be exhausting.

When I went about the process of defunding RW talk radio, I knew I needed to anticipate how they would respond to my actions.  Then, how they would respond to my responses.

When I started alerting advertisers to the violent rhetoric, sexism and bigotry coming from the RW radio hosts I knew the radio station would use multiple excuses to keep the advertisers. First they discredited me, and then the information. Next, threats of arrest from law enforcement agencies, then hints of exposure of my identity. Finally legal threats, which they carried out. They threw around phrases like libel, tortuous interference with contract and copyright violation before they settled on a bogus copyright violation action.

I had read some books on the topics to prepare, but the smartest move I made was talking to a lawyer at the Electronic Frontier  Foundation. Following that conversation, I made sure what I wrote and posted on my blog would meet the four factors of Fair Use.

Even though I met both the spirit and the letter of the law, ABC/Disney lawyers still sent an cease and desist letter to my ISP, 1&1 Hosting, who folded like a cheap umbrella.

Lawsuits: PR Gifts, Personal Nightmares or Both?

People who have money and power have easy access to lawyers and “fixers.” They see lawsuits and threats of lawsuits all the time. They use them as tools. They know when to dismiss them as “saber rattling”  or when to use them as opening shots in a longer game.

But for normal people getting threatened with a lawsuit from one of the largest media corporations in the world is the stuff of stress nose bleeds and very un-Vulcan like floods of tears.

Following my victory over KSFO/ABC/Disney I made sure everyone I talked to who wanted to use the Spocko Method understood the law, how it might be used against them and how to prepare for the attacks.  (Right now my friends in #stoprush are seeing personal attacks vs. legal attacks. Rush doesn’t have a legal leg to stand on so uses other methods. Power players don’t like it when you interfere with their revenue streams. Corporate bullies don’t always back down when they are wrong. They will play dirty especially when money is at stake.)

The good news is that for advocates who want to use copyrighted material to educate, critique, challenge or parody powerful groups, there are new tools.

Today I spotted a great app, The Fair Use App.  It was made by an organization called New Media Rights. It helps you figure out if your content meets the four factors of Fair Use.

I would have liked to have had that when I was planning my action and preparing for the reaction, but I still would have needed the help of actual human lawyers.

I thought my case was clear cut fair use, but that didn’t mean I still wouldn’t be threatened with a suit. It means little to them to send a threatening legal letter, but it was a huge deal to me. That is why someone having your back is so important.

Big institutions and ideological groups use multiple tools to stay in power and enforce their will. These days, the corporations use automated tools to protect themselves and take action. It’s hard to reason with a DCMA take down bot. You need to understand its criteria before the fight because if you try to fight it during a hot issue, the opportunity might pass.

Activists need all the help they can get.  If you donate to groups like the Electronic Frontier Foundation or New Media Rights you might just be helping the next Mr. Spocko battling Evil Corp.

Clowns Who Run for President Vs. Comedians Who Do

by
Spocko

I was in downtown Chicago this week by the river. A woman next to me was taking a photo, of Trump Tower. I asked her, “So are you voting for him?” She burst out laughing, “No!”

Donald Trump running for President is a massive gift to the media, almost as big as his ego. He also is a Trump Tower shaped gift to certain members to the Republican Party running for President.

Sam Seder predicted this months ago on the Majority Report and it’s coming true. Trump is great fun for the press. Look at it from their point of view. Would you rather cover Trump or Ted Cruz?  (Cruz makes me feel like his Brylcreem is oozing out of my speakers when he talks)

Watching Rubio makes them thirsty and listening to Jeb Bush makes them sad. But Trump can be treated as both ridiculous AND serious which meets both  tabloids and “Very Serious People” needs in the media.

Come for the Guns Stay for the Racism

I watched the GOP candidates speak at the NRA convention. Trump was energetic, funny and pivoted from “I love the 2nd Amendment” to CURRENCY manipulation in his speech!

It actually wasn’t that big of a stretch. Something for the Minutemen on the border in Texas to get pumped up about then for the real audience, the media, talk about global economic manufacturing and monetary policy.

Trump can say wacky and racist things and the other candidates can distance themselves from him to seem more moderate.

Readers of this site know all this. Insiders know all this. But what I found interesting was actually watching the fake hand wringing about how “Trump is going to damage the Republican Party!” and hurt its brand. Ha! As if.

Thanks to The Odious David Brooks™ you can hear first hand how Trump is saving the party, and how he will help the candidate who gets through to the main election to seem more palatable to the rest of the country. Watch as how Brooks distances himself from Trump‘s comments as well as list the others who did.

As Marc said, the useful thing about what’s happened is that we have seen this fissure in the Republican Party, where Jeb Bush came out very strongly against Trump, saying he takes it personally, Rubio again very strongly.

It has brought them out. It has brought their ire out, a little passion in rebutting Trump. Ted Cruz, a little more disgraceful, more or less saying he raises good issues and things like that. So we have begun to see a split. The party now has to confront this. And I think most of the leading candidates have, to my mind, come out on the right side.

E.J. Dionne called out the other GOP candidates for not distancing themselves from Trump after his racist remarks.

 Brooks gives them cover, “No. It was a matter of days or even hours. They had to formulate things.”

 Exactly, because they did the political equivalent of licking their finger and putting it in the air.

Right then I knew that Trump will stay in long enough to allow all the other candidates to separate themselves from his worst remarks. They can choose how to “formulate” their response depending on who they want to appeal to when.

 At the same time Trump can run long enough to send the dog whistle to the base saying, “Yeah, what he said OUT LOUD was wrong. But you can tell where we really stand by how slowly we denounced him.”

People like Brooks will just point to the denouncements, not the speed or the vehemence of the denouncements. That’s the meta-data that tells you more than just the words.

 Hearing, “We don’t think all Mexican’s are rapists.” from others right away is different from two days later. (BTW, fun word emphasis exercise.  Read the quote above with a different emphasis on each word in turn. Note how the intent of the statement changes each time you read it.)

People joke about “The Clown Car”  of GOP candidates that de-legitimizes the runners. The mainstream media choose to take people who announce seriously (or at least pretend to take them seriously) because if they call Trump a clown and joke, they would get hit by the RW media as having a “liberal bias.”

Therefore we see somber faced Judy Woodruff ask The Odious David Brooks™ how Trump could hurt the party’s brand.

What’s the difference between Donald Trump and Pat Paulsen?

One is a funny guy, saying outrageous and nonsensical things while running a presidential campaign with no chance of winning, the other is Pat Paulsen.

“We Can’t  Stand Pat!”

– Pat Paulsen for President Supporter’s slogan.

Imagine if the media back in the 1960’s took Pat Paulsen serious as a candidate?

He would have kicked serious butt. Look at some of these genius quotes pre-twitter.  On immigration:

I don’t want to say too much about illegal immigration. I’m afraid my views will be reported on the Cinco O’Clock News

and

All the problems we face in the United States today can be traced to an unenlightened immigration policy on the part of the American Indian

He was a head on the drug issue:

• Marijuana should be licensed and kept out of the hands of teenagers. It’s too good for them.

 He even had thoughts on the rights of criminals and murders that is hot today.

 On the Miranda warning:

• Why should we tell kidnappers, murderers, and embezzlers their rights? If they don’t know their rights, they shouldn’t be in the business.

Paulsen being dead doesn’t mean we have to take him any less seriously than Donald Trump being alive and orange.

Paulsen’s running would make Marcio Rubio look animated and hydrated. Rick   Perry could distance himself from his health care views. “You think Texas’ health care is bad? Well at least I’m still alive. If you were so smart why are you dead?”

 The Meet the Press discussion, with a propped up corpse of Paulsen, would break just as much ground with “news makers” as Chuck Todd’s interviews with Jeb Bush.

 The MSM media don’t want to call a clown a clown. They love Trump because he’s fun to write about. Even though he has no chance of winning, they get to use him to help other radical RWs seem less bizarrely out of touch.

Also, unlike Trump and other GOP candidates, Paulsen could be honest at the deepest level.

His campaign slogan was sheer elegance in its simplicity.

 “If elected, I will win.” 

Who is this Economic Deity Who Starves Babies?

by Spocko

Today listen, watch and read how people talking about “The Economy”

Bernie Sanders
@SenSanders I applaud the people of Greece for saying NO to more austerity for the poor, children, sick and elderly. pic.twitter.com/hoAwRDy6gl

There will be billions of bits spilled today talking about Greece and “The Economy” it’s nice to see someone put people in the picture.

As my friend  Anat Shenker-Osorio says in her book, “Don’t Buy It: The Trouble with Talking Nonsense about the Economy.“

The economy is not a force of nature. It’s not the tide that raises all yachts. It is not like a tidal wave where humans can’t do anything to stop it or change it.

The economy is not a deity who demands we starve our elderly and kill babies in order to be pleased.

Do we humans serve The Deity Economy or does the economy serve humans?
(I’m tempted to quote the Twilight Zone, “It’s a cookbook!” )

It is not a Deity demanding more forced austerity. It’s people making those demands. And it’s not about people tightening their belts more. People have been hanging themselves from those austerity belts,

Do Natural People Have any Power over Corporate People?

In the second episode of Mr. Robot, Elliot the protagonist talks about  “The invisible hand that guides us all.”  He knows how people are being hurt by “Evil Corp” and wants to lash out at the system.  But given the scope of the problem the hero wonders, “What’s the point?”

He has to decide to act or not. And then how far to go.

The hero sees how his actions, or lack of them, will have a direct impact on him and his happiness. Does he ignore the human suffering in front of him or keep ignoring it to keep himself happy?

He might tell himself that he needs the human suffering to happen, “for the greater good,” but he knows it’s really his greater good first.

Will he hurt individuals who are not the guilty parties, in order to fulfill his mission of wiping out debt, and punishing Evil Corp? Is there a guiding principle to his attempts to make change where he keeps the lives of humans foremost?

All This Economy Talk Makes Me Thirsty

Today I walked by the University of Chicago the Booth School of Business the Graham School of Continuing Liberal and Professional Studies.

I also spotted this quote for Kevin Murphy. I know nothing about him except what is on this sign. “Economics is about applying some pretty basic principles to a range of areas and trying to inject a little creativity.”

 I thought that was an interesting comment.  So, to echo Bernie Sanders, I ask, “What are the principles being applied?”

Part of a sense of powerless comes from how the situation is presented to us. If I see the economy as a force of nature or deity then who am I to hold back the ocean? Who am I to defy God?

If you have been fundamentally changed by the economic crisis, as I have been, it’s hard to look at the world the same way. I remember the rage, the fear and the powerlessness.

I see people living their life here in Chicago as if there is a tomorrow and they might have work next week. That’s nice, I’m happy for them.

  But I also remember the long cloud that, though no fault of our own, hung over the economy in our country.  I still felt responsible. Maybe I didn’t worship The Economy right. Or I didn’t batten down my hatches enough. Probably not enough bootstrap pulling on my part.

Yes, I have a bias about who the economy should serve. I put myself in the shoes of the Greek people. I would say I’ve walked a mile in their shoes, but I think they use the metric system over there.

Sanders is reminding us that God didn’t create “The Economy” it was just some men in an office building somewhere. And that means that men and women can change The Economy too. They don’t have to change the laws of nature either. Just the laws of men.

Mr. Robot Will Scratch The Corporate Justice Itch in Your Brain  

by Spocko

The pilot of Mr. Robot is the most interesting TV show I’ve seen all year. (Watch it free at USA’s site here)

 It has the potential to become as enlightening (and predictive) about how our current computer-connected corporate power elite function as Person of Interest did when dealing with the ramification of widespread surveillance and the morality (or lack of) in our detection and execution of possible terrorists.

My recap has spoilers, some you could tell from watching the extended trailer. Here’s the marketing blurb.

In MR. ROBOT, Elliot, a cyber-security engineer by day and vigilante hacker by night, is recruited by a mysterious underground group to destroy the firm he’s paid to protect. Elliot must decide how far he’ll go to expose the forces he believes are running (and ruining) the world.

The opening scene takes place in a urban coffee shop. Elliot, the lead character, is describing to the shop’s owner why he ending up finding the 100 terabytes of child pornography the owner had that was serving 400,000 users. We don’t see a single computer screen or keyboard during this, just Elliot and the owner.

 It all started because he liked the fast wi-fi in the shop.

 “It was so good it scratched that part of my mind that doesn’t allow good to exist without conditions.”  -Elliot, Mr. Robot, S01E01

Elliot has a curious mind. “What’s the catch?” he wonders. So he digs. First figuring out what is hinky, then how was it done technically. This is about solving an interesting puzzle, which is a critical thing to understand about many hackers.

Then comes the human puzzle solving side which is more important that people realize. (BTW, in the industry they call lying to people to get the information you want “social engineering” because that sounds like something you go to college to learn. Calling it plain old lying sounds like any shlub could do it. )

His actions, upon finding the porn, reveal part of his moral code. He isn’t going to blackmail the owner. Money doesn’t drive him. He’s going to the police.

The opening scene’s hero/villain morality play was designed to be fairly cut and dried. Serving up child porn is widely condemned as immoral and is illegal. The villain is unrepentant and has few obvious allies. He was caught off guard, was unprepared and didn’t instantly retaliate.  A clear cut win for our hero.

Evil Corp Is Made of People! PEOPLE!

Still, on the subway home Elliot knows he destroyed a man’s life in 3 minutes. That is where he first encounters the mysterious Mr. Robot (Christian Slater) who looks and sounds a bit like a drunk homeless person.

Next we see Elliot at his job in the cyber security firm. (Cyber? Really? 1990’s much?) He has an internal monologue about the company whose computers he defends from external attacks. He calls them Evil Corp. They sound like BofAGoldman MonsantoJPMorganChase and use the Enron crooked E as their logo–nice touch.

At work we meet his childhood friend, Angela, who is the new account manager on Evil Corp, Gideon, the boss and Angela’s boyfriend who also works there.

Angela wants to know why Elliott didn’t come to her party the night before, he says he was working, but the scene cuts to him standing outside the bar afraid to come in.  His social anxiety around other people overwhelms him, even though he clearly has feelings for Angela.

If Your Password is Lame, Do You Deserve Protection?

While Angela and the boss meet to discuss the ongoing computer attacks on Evil Corp, Elliott slips out to see his therapist. It sounds like it is court ordered, which gives us an idea of a back story involving hallucinations.  He describes how he uses his ability to read people to figure out their passwords. No fancy hacking tools, just close observation and understanding human habits.

During the session we learn more about his view of people, “I look for the worst in them.”  But we also learn of  his desire to help and protect the people who have helped or befriended him.

He proceeds to use his knowledge of his therapist’s password to read her email and Facebook posts. She went through a devastating divorce and is now dating “losers” she meets on e-Harmony.  He uses this information to find out that the guy she is currently dating is cheating on his wife. He does this by stalking the therapist, then lying to the guy in person and on the phone.

 Once again, we are given a craven individual Elliott defeats. It’s a fairly clear moral code case, but still it’s creepy.

He can tell himself he’s doing this because he wants to help her. That, “people put all sorts of stuff on Facebook” and “she shouldn’t have such an easily guessable password.” But these are all rationalizations. Doing something “for the greater good” as he sees it, justifies his lying, stalking and threatening

Elliott is called into work by Amanda during a massive late night attack on Evil Corp that is big enough to warrant Gideon and Elliott hopping on the corporate jet and going to the data center.

Elliott saves the day, but there is a mysterious message left for whomever fixed this problem. When he returns he again meets Mr. Robot in the subway who promises answers about the message.  Elliott, curious, decides to go with him to an old building in Coney Island.

Slater explains that Elliott has been selected and introduces him to the gang (A black man! A woman! Yay casting director!) He lays out some of his philosophy and mentions a big project they are all working on.

I’m not sure I buy the story given by Mr. Robot, it has a generic, “Get back at the rich bastards who hurt my family” feeling that appeals to Elliott’s sense of justice.  (Elliott’s own father was harmed by a corporation, but he couldn’t prove it.)

Maybe Mr. Robot, like Elliott, knows how to read people and offers them what they want.  Elliott is painfully lonely and this is a group of like minds he can talk to in real life.  (There is a stunningly shot scene of Elliott huddled in a small space between his bed and the dresser crying about his loneliness.)

Elliott is still not certain he wants to join this crew, so he prepares to turn them in after revisiting the Coney Island site. There he hears more of Mr. Robot’s reasons for doing what he is doing, and his plan. He wants to take down Evil Corp because they own 70% of consumer debt.  If done right the group could erase all people’s debt and mortgages and create “the single biggest incident of wealth redistribution in history.”

 Elliott reminds Mr. Robot of how bad the last financial crisis was and how framing the jerky CTO at Evil Corp won’t accomplish much. Mr. Robot explains:

“You don’t take down a conglomerate by shooting it in the heart, they don’t have hearts. You take them down limb by limb.”

The next day Elliott is at work where Angela is explaining what happened to Evil Corp’s CTO, the FBI and US Cyber Command. Elliott is getting ready to expose the Mr. Robot gang when Evil Corp’s CTO has Angela kicked off the account.  Elliott, upset at how she was treated, changes his mind and provides the FBI and Cyber command with the info that frames Evil Corp’s CTO.

A few weeks go by and still no news of any arrest, meanwhile Angela is distant from Elliott. She explains that she was embarrassed by what happened and doesn’t want to talk about it. In the future he should let her fail, “Even if I’m losing, let me lose, okay?”

This exchange is very important. The character that he wants to protect, doesn’t want the protection. She wants to deal with the situation herself and move on. She doesn’t want the experience taken out of her hands by someone who thinks he knows what is best for her. I’m glad they are showing an important female character doing this.

Mr. Robot sees a huge problem with how wealth is distributed in our country, but it is Elliott’s personal relationship with Angela, who is in debt, that helps him justify a larger action.

Dealing with the big issues reminded me of some of the people who I met and worked with during Occupy Wall Street. So much of that was about first pointing out income inequality.  Think about the phrase: The 99% vs. the 1%. This is an accepted concept now, but it represents a major mental metaphor shift for the country.

However, the mainstream media, used to finding, elevating and then destroying leaders that challenge the status quo was frustrated. They needed individual humans with backstories and motivations to focus on, otherwise it’s too abstract.

With no humans, but an interesting idea, the media asked, “So what are you going to do about it?” This is where the show Mr. Robot picks up. It provides humans and a plan to do something about it.

So, really, what is to be done? Worried about massive student loan debt, and want to stick it to the corporate jerks who hurt your friends? You could blow up the entire system, but are there other alternatives?

One of the post Occupy Wall Street groups that I like is “Rolling Jubilee” They buy debt for pennies on the dollar and then forgive it. That is the kind of lateral thinking and problem solving that should be explored and encouraged. 

As the show ends Elliott is brought into the inner sanctum of the men who “really run the world.”

These people have a powerful world view and the ability to enforce it on entire governments. They can make it seem “right,” and even the best choice, to starve Greek children and crush a generation of students with debt. The only alternate they present if things aren’t done their way is the the world will burn, for everyone.

For dramatic purposes crashing Evil Corp from the inside makes for exciting TV. But the reasons why they would want to do it, as well as alternatives to the status quo, makes it thoughtful.

Following the end of Season 2 of House of Cards my friend Joel and I discussed the importance of  how our nation’s storytellers write about the economy. What models and metaphors do they have in their heads? Ones articulated by Elisabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders or Jamie Dimon? 

I don’t know where the rest of the series is going. They just got renewed for a second season. My hope is that the writer/ creator Sam Esmail* keeps intelligently digging into the characters and ramification of the story line he lays out in the first episode.

*Hey Sam. If you want to talk about the economy for the second season with Bernie Sanders or Elisabeth Warren I can totally set you up, I know people who know people. You don’t even need to hack my email to contact me! I’m spockosbrain at gmail. 

Obama on Maron podcast. The Presidency is sort of middle management. 

by Spocko

One of the things I love about radio and audio podcasts is that a good conversation or interview can be very enlightening.

President Obama on Marc Maron’s podcast.  Photos by Pete Sousa

I recommend people listen to this Barack Obama interview by Marc Maron. Here is the link to listen or download.

I got a couple of things from the interview. First, was how Obama sees himself and his Presidency.  The second was his thinking and decision making process. Third was how he goes about trying to implement change.

The hot topic on Twitter about the interview is the use of the n-word by the President.  It was in context and about racism. I’m sure someone has already lost their mind over it, “Why is it okay for him to say it and not me!?” Yadda Yadda, bark bark, woof woof.   Please. Spare me your disingenuous hysterics. 

The end of the interview gave me some hope for the last part of his Presidency, but based on the first part, I’m not expecting something wild, just “a bit better.”

The most interesting insight for me was Maron’s observation at 27:34 that Obama agreed with.  “There is an element of the Presidency that is sort of middle management.”

Obama knows he has power, but he sees the country as this massive ship. If we can turn it 2 degrees in the right direction, that’s progress. Lots of people want a 50 degree turn, and he believes that is not possible. But in 10 years that 2 degrees in the right direction will make a big difference.

The other thing that struck my half-human half-Vulcan mind is that his understanding of what is a fact is really important. He has the Vulcan desire to use reason to make decisions and can’t believe that people, when presented the facts, would decide otherwise.

Compare this method versus people who make up or twist facts to get what they want. Or compare it to people who use emotional arguments to get what they want.  It sounds like he understands that not everyone thinks this way, (but damnit, they should!) and that just giving them the ‘facts’ isn’t enough.

I see this all the time with communications to people by progressives.  “If only they knew the facts!” They are so perplexed when “the truth” doesn’t set people free. They don’t understand why people don’t look at the facts and say, ‘By jove, you are right, I am wrong. I will change my mind from this moment forward.”

Having to deal with messy complex emotions is annoying to logic-based thinkers.  They have to “lower themselves” and “resort” to appealing to emotion. It offends their rational mind that they need to use other methods to communicate and persuade.

When I complained about people having an emotional outburst based on incorrect facts an old friend said, “But Spocko, their feelings are very real to them.”

You need to understand the irrational mind, and what it would mean to them if they changed their minds. There are times when you know you can’t change those minds, so you change the venue, the game or the premise. Or you don’t play in their sandbox and go around them.

I also realized just how important to understanding certain Obama decisions is what was presented as a fact to him. If your economic advisers and Wall Street people come to you with what they call facts, but you don’t have someone there to tell you that their “facts” aren’t really facts but predictions based on assumptions and lies, it’s hard to tell them to do something different.

Wall Street bankers will say, “The facts don’t lie!” yet the people who created those “facts” did lie. Fox News isn’t the only entity that makes up their own facts to fit their narrative.

 Marc asked about where the President is now. It’s part of Maron’s style of comparing his old angry comedian self with the person he is now.

The word that Obama used that stuck out to me was “Fearless.”

I like fearless, it gives me hope.  I doubt he will make a radical change, more like a 2 percent change in the right direction. Where will he apply this fearlessness?

I hope it’s not on the TPP, because as with Wall Street “Economist Experts”, the “facts” he is given about these trade schemes are suspect. The “facts” are coming from the people who will benefit.  Who is in the White House now telling Obama the trade “facts” supplied by the lobbyists aren’t really facts?

Fearless would Obama be saying, “If you lobbyists aren’t afraid of the details, you won’t have a problem with transparency.” That would be a change in the right direction.