On criticizing President Trump

I’ve have been debating with friends about how best to deal with the new president and his administration. Some say, “Give him a chance,” while others think he’s already gone too far. A former president made the point far better than I could have, and so I’m simply going to quote him:

The President is merely the most important among a large number of public servants. He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or inefficiency in rendering loyal, able, and disinterested service to the Nation as a whole. Therefore it is absolutely necessary that there should be full liberty to tell the truth about his acts, and this means that it is exactly necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right. Any other attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile. To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else.

Teddy Roosevelt, in a letter to the Kansas City Star, 18 May 1918

Hilary Clinton: A little improvement over making America break again

HIllary Clinton Many of us have experienced loss in our lives, and we get hit with the cruel irony that we don’t know what we’ve got until it’s gone. We Americans like complaining. To be sure there is plenty to complain about. You have your own list; I won’t write one for you. But things can get a lot worse for Americans than they are.

Donald Trump looks up to President Putin and envies China, because he sees an uncontested leader and hunger to win, regardless of rules, respectively. But that doesn’t mean we want to live in those countries, where people are subject to arrest without cause, where one cannot say what wants to say. These are countries that operate by the rule of man (and I do mean “man”) and not the rule of law, where might makes right, and where the ends justify the means. Putin took the Crimea because he could. He imprisoned and poisoned his opposition because he could. He has interfered with an American election because he could. China violates intellectual property rules and builds islands in the Pacific because they can. These are the ones Trump looks up to.

The American ideal is different. We don’t believe in kings, and we surely do not believe in thugs. We like our freedom, where government acts on the will of the People and not the will of an individual, and where it is constrained not only by the People, but by those who we elect through their oaths to uphold the Constitution, a document that guarantees freedom and fairness, that a person won’t be treated different because of sex, race, or religion. Our ideal extends the Constitution to cover other innate characteristics, such as sexual orientation. Fairness is something we hold dear.

I do not believe that Donald Trump understands any of this. He has spent his life cheating people out of money. To him, the ends will always justify the means. To him, the art of the deal is a matter of deceit, and knowing when to violate its terms. And he does so as long as he can get away with it. An agreement to him only binds him until he finds it inconvenient. Donald Trump will never deliver on his promises, and we know this because of all the broken promises of his past. He is vindictive, and spews hatred towards others. He does not know how to delegate responsibility, and he does not know how to accept responsibility for his mistakes. According to Trump, he’s never made a mistake.

Hillary Clinton lacks the charisma of her husband. She is not a visionary like Bernie Sanders. She is an incrementalist. She is a policy wonk, and she’s a bit nerdish. She will be challenged by a vociferous and resentful opposition. Under a President Hillary Clinton we will not see a Democratic House of Representatives. That will never be her mission. What we will see is steady leadership. Mostly status quo. Status quo means that we get mostly what we have.

And we have quite a lot. We have freedom. We have a functioning, if imperfect, support infrastructure. We have an innovative society. We have democracy. We have checks and balances. We have the right to practice whatever religion we want, so long as we don’t hurt others. Under a President Clinton we would have humility in leadership, and someone who is serious about trying to take a great America and make it better; not by a lot, but at least in the right direction. She is the type that will work to fix the potholes and leaks in the roofs. And she won’t promise more.

She will also deal honestly and ably with what crises hit her. No president is defined by his or her campaign platform, but rather how they react to the problems that are thrown at them. Hillary Clinton will do that will a cool head. We cannot say the same about Trump.

Image Courtesy: Gage Skidmore from Peoria, AZ, USA – Hillary Clinton, CC BY-SA 2.0

Guns and Gun Control: The Numbers Are Beginning To Add Up

Drawing_from_holster Many people have made the claim that they need to own guns to protect themselves, that they can’t leave it to police to protect them, the enormous assumption being that a gun actually does offer some protection. There are a number of scholarly works to test that assertion.

A longitudinal study by Johns Hopkins and Berkeley published in 2015 the American Journal of Public Health shows that Connecticut’s Permit to Purchase law reduced firearm homicide by 40%.
A separate Johns Hopkins study showed that firearm suicide rates in Connecticut dropped 15.4% after that law was passed, while Missouri’s firearm suicide rate increased by 16.1% after they repealed gun control legislation. There was also a lower than expected overall suicide rate in Connecticut.
Missouri also saw a 25% increase in homicides after their background check law was repealed.
An earlier CDC study published in 2004 in the Journal of American Epidemiology showed that simply having a gun in the home, regardless of how it is stored, increases the odds of death by firearm by a factor of 1.9.
A more recent meta-study by Harvard researchers in the Annals of Internal Medicine showed an increase risk of both suicide and homicide in homes where guns are present. In particular, that study found that homicide victimization rates were slightly higher for those who had guns in their homes than those who did not.
A 2011 CMU study did show that having a gun in the home seems to deter certain planned crimes such as burglary, but has no effect for unplanned crimes. Furthermore, it showed that only having a gun in the home does not provide the deterrence, but that this fact needs to be somehow brought to the attention of the burglar.

Summing up: studies thus far demonstrate that having a gun in the house increases the chances of someone in that house dying by firearm, it increases the risk of suicide, and it does not prevent a crime of passion, although it may deter a burglary. More analysis is needed. It is likely, for instance, that the type of gun matters. A lot of studies are needed about open carry laws. Still, if you think a gun offers you any sort of protection against others, consider the risks.

Image courtesy of aliengearholsters.com.

Bernie Sanders For President

Bernie Sanders will change the course of American politics. By making clear what his moral positions are, he will lead the country away from three decades of failed right wing policies, providing a clear Democratic vision.

Today I’m endorsing Senator Bernie Sanders for president of the United States.

Both candidates would make infinitely better leaders than any of the Republican choices. Both derive their positions from deep experience, both as executives and legislators. Both believe in a strong collaborative foreign policy as opposed to Republican isolationism. Former Secretary Clinton has amazing intellectual capacity. The many unfair attacks against her speak more about the character of those doing the attacking. She would make an excellent president.

However, we need someone who will not lead us from the supposed center, but who instead will effect a tectonic shift of the center, who will have no truck with those who would settle for status quo. For over thirty years, America has been misled by Republican leaders to believe that public investment in infrastructure and government oversight is somehow wrong. The poisoned water in Flint Michigan was no accident, but the result of neglect. That same neglect threatens our food supply and the very air we breath. Thirty years of neglect of our school systems have caused teachers to walk away from an honorable profession, dividing our country into two classes- those who can afford a decent education, and those who cannot. If we want to put an end to that, someone must lead us away from the oncoming climate disaster, and from rule by religion that the Christian Right has enjoyed for too long.

Mrs. Clinton would only hold the presidency, and lead from the current center. She seeks to build incrementally on President Obama’s policies. Mr. Sanders has an opportunity not only to capture the White House, but to establish a firm Democratic vision that will reform the party. In so doing he would take a wrecking ball, not to our infrastructure as the Republican leaders have, but to the failed Republican practice of allowing a good Fox News sound bite full of falsehoods dictate policy. America needs to begin to correct the damage that has been caused. That’s where the center needs to be, and that is where I believe Mr. Sanders will take us.

U.N. renews IGF and World Summit for the Information Society

For those who haven’t been following the party, the United Nations has had an effort for the last decade called the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS). This ongoing activity was up for renewal this year. While the Internet technology provides us so much, many we face many challenges. They include access to the technology, security, and human rights. WSIS addresses itself to these challenges. The UNGA decided to continue this effort for another 10 years. As part of this renewal process, the mandate of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) was extended for another 10 years as well. At the same time, the UNGA is taking a conservative approach toward government involvement by not trying to supplant the enormous efforts of those who do the work today.

As a community, we could have done a lot worse. ISOC president Kathy Brown and her team, Ambassador Daniel Sepulveda, Marian Gordon, Chip Sharp, Chris Fair, Dominique Lazanski, Avri Doria, Bill Drake, Chris Buckridge, George Sadowsky Veni Markovski, Vint Cerf, Robert Pepper, and many others who were in the room are to be congratulated for their hard work, not only in the room, but beyond. I personally am very impressed with ISOC’s outreach effort in region, and how that has impacted these sorts of discussions.

Within the industry we need to recognize that women are the exception to the rule at the edge of the technology development cycle. I want much better for my daughter. Also, as we head toward over 50 billion devices being connected, the Internet of Things must be secured. The architecture needs lots more work to do that. Today many endpoint devices do not have well bound names, even. At the same time, the quality of code needs to improve, which is a particular challenge in many places. Human rights is another area on which we are only just scratching the surface. And yes, we must continue to struggle engage all stakeholders, including governments. The IGF itself really needs work. It needs funding, and we need to find a way to meet the challenge set by the UNGA in terms of identifying positive outcomes.

Yes, we all truly have a lot to do, and yet these challenges present many opportunities for innovation at many levels. I’m excited to be working in this space now.