Wednesday, October 26, 2016

The Internet is the Work of Gnomes

I am continually gobsmacked that politicians are tech-clueless. The world of IT might as well be French Cuisine or the Navajo language for all they appear to know (my apologies to the Navajo - the French are on their own). 

There's no better illustration than the the former Secretary of State (a demonstrably smart and detailed person) choosing to run a private email server in her house -- something to cause the most laissez faire IT professional to recoil in horror. In its current state of understanding the Hill has "virtually" no chance of solving any problem in IT (see this Wired article). Why is our government so stubbornly Luddite when dealing with IT?

Newsflash Senator Doe, your "social media director" is not a technology expert. Tech isn't "what the kids are doing these days". I started making a list of "important IT concepts for legislatures, but let's start with just one - the The ISO Network stack. If I get some positive responses I'll add to this thread and create a series of posts. First the techy stuff:

ISO Networking Stack

The ISO stack is an network model that helps troubleshooters like the Muse think through problems in layers of services or technologies. It helps techs get our arms around the "Big Picture". I won't explain it in detail here - read the Wikipedia article for a full description - but let's talk about why it's important.



Most computer programmers do not actually program "computers" (CPUs). The actual CPU code is  so low level that it consists mostly of instructions to open and shuts little gates in address registers. Instead, most programmers program against a service layer which in turn depends on another service layer and so on. 

Here's an example to keep your eyes from glazing over. Consider a simple task like tweeting. The Muse types "Trump is a Cotton Headed Ninny Muggins" into Tweetdeck and clicks "send". 
Tweetdeck: Yo Chrome, I gotta message here to send to Twitter. My guy thinks he's got an opinion someone cares about - heh. (For some reason my Tweetdeck sounds like Di Niro's Al Capone).
Chrome: Got it Tweetdeck, I'll transpose it into the right format and get it sent down to transport. Hey transport, pretentious Mr. "Muse" thinks he needs to grace the world with his thoughts on twitter again. Here you go.
Transport: Okey dokey, let me fire up the old segment packager and box it up. Hey NIC I gotta another clever tweetery thingy from Mr. smarty pants.   (Transport sounds like Uncle Joe from Petticoat Junction - shows how old I am).
NIC: Sending out packets. Confirming acknowledgement, Message sent and received.  (NIC is at the physical layer. He doesn't have much programming - just a driver - so his personality suffers). 
Of course I've left out many other things that have to happen. Notice that a Tweetdeck programmer didn't have to inform his program of how to segment his message, transcribe it into packets or guarantee it's delivery. He knows one or two things and he "hands off" the process to modules written by other programmers who also know one or two things - but none of them know everything.

This is the entire tech universe. Very few people "get" how the whole stack is intertwined - and no one understands very much. I have 30 developers -engineers working for me but there are only a few that get this "big picture" idea. The rest are "specialist". They can write complex stock option charts in Java or create OLAP cubes for data research, but they are happily stuck specializing at the level they understand. 

So what? Why does this matter? 


No one -- not Linus Torvalds, Bill Gates or Steve Job's ghost -- understands what is actually "there" when we talk about the internet. Even God probably has to consult some ginormous user manual. The net is not some planned city of carefully crafted pieces that fit together. There are dozens of avenues to do any one thing and dozens of ways to circumvent controls that are implemented.

It is as if a crew of gnomes worked independently creating cool things. Instead of showing their work the gnomes exposed only how to use them to each other. Eventually, they all began to use each other's cool things and some larger, cooler thing emerged. Before long they were dependent on the larger, cooler thing to create other cooler things and so on. It is not intelligent design. It's not even innovation writ large. It is evolution and natural selection. 

Understanding this idea is the genesis for common sense solutions. Specific legislation that addresses narrowly specific problems will be obsolete a week after it is signed. There are too many ways to do everything and waaay too many gnomes.

Meanwhile, when it comes to finding broad principles to use we seem to atrophy. What we need is legislatures who see the big picture and are able to work in a non-ideological way toward broad common goals at the same speed as the advancing technology. Also, we need unicorns in the National Zoo.







Friday, October 21, 2016

Post Election Civil Unrest... Meh

Will we have riots and revolution on November 9th? Not to spoil the ending, but the Muse doubts it. Trump's pledge to "wait and see" before honoring the results of the election is an empty threat. It is increasingly clear that, while his handlers cannot control him, he is not the head of some powerful "movement". True, he has brought to light some of our worse fears and least savory undercurrents as a nation - but on November 9th I expect the adults to pick up the mantle and begin to deal with those issues in a serious manner.

Donald, meanwhile, will find ways to keep his "movement" afloat so that he can attempt, over the course of whatever years he has left on this earth, to wreak revenge on those who betrayed him. If this does not sound familiar to you, let me recommend the movie "Downfall". Why am I so sanguine about the possibility of violence? Two words - historical perspective.

In our haste to remember the 60s fondly we often forget the unrest that accompanied our last cultural upheaval. Here's a quote from a times blog article, "1969, a Year of Bombings":

"The hearing, part of an investigation led Senator John L. McClellan, Democrat of Arkansas, concluded that from January 1969 to April 1970, the United States sustained 4,330 bombings — 3,355 of them incendiary, 975 explosive — resulting in 43 deaths and $21.8 million in property damage."

That's right - the US experienced 4300 plus bombings including 975 explosive bombings (as opposed to fire bombings) in a 15 month span. Detroit riots in '67 saw 43 dead and 1100 injured. Newark NJ riots of the same period left 26 dead. In contrast, protest riots over Freddy Grays death in Baltimore were short lived and resulted in zero fatalities. There were none killed in Ferguson protests riots.

Certainly we have had fatalities and violence in the last 2 years. Police violence continues to be a problem in some jurisdictions. Issues of justice are at the top of the agenda in minority communities who suffer an undue burden from unequal treatment. That's the Muse view born out by many studies and a great deal of evidence I find compelling. Five policemen were shot in Dallas and the gunmen himself killed. The horror show of the pulse nightclub illustrates the danger of terrorism, lone gunmen and virulent bigotry.

Such shootings and protests all have a political taint to them of course - but none of them are really central to this campaign. There is no equivalent to the Weathermen or the Black Panthers working overtly to bring down our government by violent means. If you think the circus of WWE fans at Trump rallies yelling the F word and breaking out in fisticuffs amounts to the same thing as the bloody confrontations of the 1968 democratic convention, you need to watch the footage of that event to see what real unrest looks like.

So I'm not on pins and needles worried about alt-right rioters in the streets. I'm sure there will be some (hopefully casualty free) side shows of men playing soldier in the South and West. But overall I still expect a peaceful transition of power. But I will say that it does suck that I have to come out and say that.

Thursday, October 20, 2016

Trump's Problem with Hillary is Her Age and Looks

Last night Trump once again proved he has not idea what America is or what it represents. When asked by Chris Wallace if he would support the results of the coming election regardless of the outcome (i.e. if he loses) he answered, "I will look at it at the time."  If you accept the rhetoric coming from the Trump camp about a rigged election, Trump is saying this because he believes he's being cheated by the process if he loses.  Yet in spite of his stream-of-consciousness speaking style and spitball policy pronouncements Trump is not a stupid man. He doesn't believe even half of his own talking points. He is a man with enormous talent and enormous blind spots. Here are two of them.

Women, Can't Live With 'em.

Donald has a problem with women. I don't mean women voters - I mean he has issues dealing personally with women. His Porky's-come-Manhattan urge to use and dominate women is only one facet of a genuine psychological fear and loathing of the opposite sex. If there was ever a candidate that could relate to Norman Bates, this is the one. 

His philandering is not of the garden variety. He careens from desiring women as sexual objects or possessions to loathing them as disgusting (a favorite word) and nasty (his new adjective for Sec. Clinton). When Trump says a woman is ugly he seems to think that judgement is a final nail in the coffin - a way to write her off as worthless. He has no idea it only really says something terrible about him. 

I believe that Donald simply can't believe he's losing to woman - especially this woman. Hillary has plenty of negatives, but I'm betting it's her age and looks that push him over the edge. It drives him crazy. Every poll showing Hillarymentum stokes his loathing for that "nasty woman." I'm surprised he hasn't said "nasty old woman" by now. The Muse has no proof for any of this - but notice how his reaction to women who oppose him is visceral, unhinged, and rooted in base emotions like disgust. It is not within the continuum that we usually think of as normal - even for politicians. If the democratic candidate was a man I suspect he would be much less emotional his second place finish.

A New Hope

If it worries you that Trump will somehow parlay his pathology into a revolution I would say take heart. I think a revolution takes a ground game, ideology, planning and execution. These are not really in his bag of tricks. Meanwhile, Trump surrogates, campaign officials and GOP leaders are all saying that Trump should and will accept the results of the election. It's hard to see how he starts a movement out of that goulash. Starting a TV network based on resentment and conspiracy theories may be well within reach however. 


Wednesday, October 19, 2016

Most Humorless Candidates Ever

Donald Trump telling a joke:
"A horse walked into a bar... I owned a horse, a fantastic horse, a thoroughbred. This horse, not my awesome beautiful horse but some other horse.. sit's down and the bartender... I have many bars in my fantastic hotels... top shelf ... you should see them.. many people say they are the best bars... the bartender says 'why the long face' ... I have the best face. I've been on many many magazine covers... I'm very photogenic."
What does Trump think is funny? Based on debate transcripts which the muse has painstakingly reviewed, the following is full recounting of where either candidate attempted to use humor to lighten the mood, make a point or engage with the audience. 
...
...
...
...

Seriously - that's it. 

Have we ever had two more humorless candidates? Donald "thinks" he makes jokes, but mostly they are just outrageous statements. Famously, Trump suggested that "Second amendment people" might be able to do something about Hillary - a seemingly veiled reference to assassination. His campaign manager declared it was a joke a day later. When Trump called out Clinton and Obama as the "founder of ISIS," he subsequently excoriated the media for not be able to recognize sarcasm. Saying outrageously untrue or provocative things is not a joke - and almost never funny.

Clinton can deliver a joke - but not terribly well. When she had a coughing attack and was advised to not talk for a day or two she laughed about it telling reporters it wouldn't happen. Self-deprecating and mildly amusing. She joked about Pokemon Go - saying she wanted to create "Pokemon go to the polls."  But examples are pretty slim. 

In a debate being able to elicit a laugh at your own expense is a crucial and endearing quality. Reagan's most memorable debate line - I will not make an issue of my opponents youth and inexperience - was a poke at his own age. Neither Clinton nor Trump seem able to spontaneously "quip" with audience members, moderators, or each other. It's one of the things that makes the debates difficult to watch.

So the Muse is looking for a third debate devoid of humor. I suppose I'll do what I usually do, make jokes on twitter and laugh at myself. :)

Tuesday, October 18, 2016

Why Doesn't the Main Stream Media Cover....

I'm a fan of Julie Mason and her excellent show "The Press Pool" on Sirius/XM's POTUS channel. Almost everyday she receives tweets or calls from listeners that go like this:


  • Why isn't the main stream media (MSM) talking about Hillary's emails?
  • Why isn't the MSM talking about Trumps Taxes?
  • Why isn't the MSM talking about Hillary's health?
  • Why isn't the MSM covering Trump's bankruptcies? 


Ms. Mason's response is typically a radio version of the eye roll followed by the question, "How did you hear about it?" Of course the MSM (however you define it) covers all of the above. How do listeners who are obviously engaged in the political discussion (they are listening to POTUS just like the Muse after all) come to believe that something is not being covered? What they are really saying is, "The coverage doesn't match what I perceive as the truth." The emphasis is wrong! It's really a struggle with internal dissonance.

As voters we come to believe the world is like us - or that it would be like us if only everyone saw the truth. This, more than any other thing, is the bane of modern politics. If you are a conservative with liberal friends, stop believing they will "understand if they ever get their head out of the clouds." If you are a liberal, quit saying of your conservative friends, "If they just picked up a book once in a while..." 

The truth is the gulf between us isn't a matter of education or a dearth of common sense. We have simply forgotten that those around us may see the world quite differently from us. We have been trying very hard to persuade people over to our world view - to get them to wear our prescription glasses instead of their own. I believe that's a fool's errand. Our task, should we choose to pick up the mantle and stop sniping at each other, is to put our shoulder to the same wheel and find middle ground. We need the politics of the possible.


What Then Shall We Do?

If you are dismayed by the level of vitriol coming from the Trump campaign, you might be tempted to throw his followers into the now infamous basket of deplorables. I suggest you consider what you intend to do. 

After the election these millions of people will still be with us. We aren't going to deport them or jail them. They are exercising their constitutional rights in proclaiming these values. Do we choose to create a permanent ideological underclass or do we encourage these folks to pay heed to the better angels of their nature? Do we make room for them at the table again? 

I'm not advocating that we give in to demands and ban Muslims, build a wall and put women's rights back to the 50s. I think these are expressions that come from the top and I find them reprehensible. But such crude and simple policies are not the only expressions. Conservatives have been responsible for much that is good in our society. Conservatism serves as break on change. That's sometimes bad, but often good. Revolution is painful and often hurts more people than it helps. The tension between left and right keeps us flexible and growing but also stable and thoughtful. There should be room for both. 


Book Recommendation


Finally, let me recommend that you pick up Nixonland by Rick Perlstein. Read the chapters that cover the events from 1968 to 1970. You will quickly realize that America has been here before and survived. As a student of history I never good too riled up - perspective helps! 



Friday, October 14, 2016

The Biggest Loser: the Concept of Evangelical Leadership

The unrepentant Trumpzilla continues to destroy Tokyo while his surrogates assure the faithful that the city was condemned already and that it is only minor remodeling. Meanwhile, Ben Carson, (Bless his heart!) is doing his best to defend Donald Trump's behavior. Ralph Reed put up a spirited defense of Trump on NPR after the Access Hollywood revelations. Jerry Falwell Jr. is actually stumping for Trump - parroting trumps talking points that his accusers are lying. Across the board Men (always men!) thought of as leaders of the Evangelical movement are sticking with Trump. Even "Focus on the Family's" James Dobson is sticking with Trump (come on Jim - you know better). 

As an Evangelical in the center who thinks Trump is an megalomaniac dictator wannabe, you might think I'm discouraged by this apparent Faustian bargain. Let me reassure you that Chicken Little is not in the Muse nature. Instead I say "meh". Let me explain:


Evangelical Leadership is a Misnomer

We do not think of Anderson Cooper or Megan Kelly as "main stream media leadership", but we do make that mistake with these Evangelical leaders. Instead of casting James Dobson as a popular radio host, we sometimes think of him as the head of something - a person with legions of loyal followers. But Evangelicals are not particularly loyal. They are a fuzzy mass of (often contradictory) doctrines, beliefs, and cultural preferences described with a jargony lexicon of tired phrases. Indeed, they are simply not what the media thinks they are. 

I attend a church of 3000 in Omaha NE. I would wager that about 20% of the people in my church know they are "Evangelical". It's not stated from the pulpit and it's not in our literature. Attending an Evangelical church does not make you subject to the whims of some guy with a TV ministry. In most cases you can disagree with the church you attend on many points and still be an accepted participant in service activities. If you attend a modern mega-church and you are a low information voter, you may not be equipped to answer the questions on a survey that would put you on the Evangelical tab. More to the point, just like the political parties in this country, only an small sample of parishioners are so heavily engaged in church culture that they can list "Evangelical leaders." Average attenders are more likely to list their favorite Pop-theology author or their own preaching pastor.  



Badges? We Don' Need no Stinkin' Badges!


Leadership implies a certain base loyalty. Jame's Dobson is a good example. He has been around long enough to acrue a large base of listeners and readers. He has influence with them and some of them are doubtless swayed to vote for Trump. But the majority of Evangelicals will feel free to simply ignore him if he strays beyond the pale. For Muse readers who want to cite polls to me, take note that this is a process that happens slowly among Evangelicals -- more slowly than an election cycle. If enough people ignore him, his celebrity dissipates and he goes away as an influencer. Dobson's "leadership" is dependent upon his popularity and ability to draw a crowd. 

This flexibility is the beauty and the curse of evangelicalism. It's the part that puzzles those from traditions with popes and bishops. With no large hierarchy and no "general will" you choose the church that suits you. The dizzying array of stylistic choices of church rivals a gay pride parade. Of course this ability to shop your faith leads to all kinds of sorting and false consensus - but it also means that Evangelicals are pretty innovative and flexible with regard to who they think of as "leaders". Meanwhile, leaders currently going down with the Trumptanic have an opportunity in a year or so for a redemption narrative and a book on how terribly deceived they were. 


So if you are an Evangelical take heart! Jim and Tammy Baker didn't "destroy" the movement in 1987/88. Droves of Pentecostals didn't say to themselves, "Now that Jimmy Swaggart is a lech I'm going to worship Cthulhu." It turns out that their influence and leadership in both cases was simply a chimera. Instead, like choosing not to watch season 8 of "24" they simply put down the DVD and listened to new voices. 


If you lived through those days in the late 80s as I did -- being both an Assembly of God pastor and a pastor's son at the time (I'm still a pastor's son) -- you would have heard all sorts of yammering about the demise of the church. Yes Muse readers, Evangelicals call the "Evangelical church"  simply "the church" - just like to Chinese people, Chinese food is just "food". But the church survived and even thrived. So take heart my Evangelical friend. Jesus still loves you and loves the world. He even loves Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton.





Friday, October 7, 2016

Donald Trump IS who we THOUGHT he was

With all due respect to those who are suddenly coming to the realization that Donald Trump is a sexist pig who's mind is permanently locked in a towel snapping high school locker room, I give you Dennis Green infamous tirade about the Chicago bears. Green said, "They are who we thought they were. If you want to crown them, then go ahead and crown their A**."   






In case you missed it, the Washingington Post released this video and story titled, Donald's Trump's Woman problem just got much, much, much worse. The 2005 video is a casual conversation between a married DJT and Billy Bush where he brags about trying to have sex with a woman who turned him down, riffs about big breasts and grabbing a woman's P***, and takes a breath mint in case he gets to do any kissing. Honestly the Muse feels a bit dirty just describing it to my readers.



Why is this News?

The Muse question is this - why is anyone (anyone!) surprised at this behavior? This is the Donald Trump we all know - he is who we thought he was. He's a perennial guest on the Howard Stern show (and indictment in my view), a serial adulterer and a man who's objectification of women is obvious based on his own words and choices on the presidential campaign trail. Why anyone would think he is not trying to leap into bed with every woman he meets is beyond me. Such men belong at the strip club stuffing dollar bills into the G-strings of women who can clearly do better.