Why?

Posted on

After 5 years of obvious corruption, authoritarian demagogue Donald Trump is finally being exposed by the Democratic Party and the tiniest number of Republicans.

In 2016, we watched and we voted. 2.9 million more of us voted for Donald Trump’s opponent. But because of the rules, Donald Trump became President of the United States.

Traditionally conservative bastion, constitution waving parts of our government like the military, FBI, DOJ, CIA, and CPB were, at best, paralyzed and at worst turned into brown shirts.

Starting in 2017, we attacked immigrants. The weaker they were, the more we hurt them.

We separated immigrant parents from their children and put their children in cages.

A year ago, a supreme court candidate, later confirmed, said in his opening statement of his Judiciary committee hearing:

My friends and I sometimes got together and had parties on weekends, the drinking age was 18 in Maryland for most of my time in high school and was for all of my time in high school. I drank beer with my friends. Almost everyone did. Sometimes I had too many beers. Sometimes others did. I liked beer. I still like beer, but I did not drink beer to the point of blacking out and I never sexually assaulted anyone.

Kavanaugh

This candidate came and did a job interview, said this, and the Republican Senate advised the President to hire him, literally, for life.

October 28, 2018, Chesley B. ‘Sully’ Sullenberge III, wrote a Washingtonpost opinion piece titled: “We saved 155 lives on the Hudson. Now let’s vote for leaders who’ll protect us all.“

In 2018, we watched and we voted. The House flipped. Beto lost to Cruz by a smidgen.

Democratic politicians told us we voted for healthcare and pocketbook issues and not impeachment. Pundits explained how our voting was just part of the normal cycles. Yet, Democratic Senate candidates received 12 million more votes in Senate races but failed to win the majority of the Senate seats because of the rules.

SCOTUS

Posted on
Sotomayor’s Opinion

This Vox article explains how the Supreme Court of the United States warps justice to protect President Donald Trump’s constitutionally questionable practices from immigration to defying Congress.

Our Justice system, the “rule of law”, only works because we all believe in it. SCOTUS and the GOP have killed Roberts’ balls and strikes 2005 myth.

Soon to be Chief Justice in 2005

Who is left who believes?

Jean-Paul Sartre on the Anti-Semite

Posted on

The anti‐Semite has chosen hate because hate is a faith; at the outset he has chosen to devaluate words and reasons. How entirely at ease he feels as a result. How futile and frivolous discussions about the rights of the Jew appear to him. He has placed himself on other ground from the beginning. If out of courtesy he consents for a moment to defend his point of view, he lends himself but does not give himself. He tries simply to project his intuitive certainty onto the plane of discourse. I mentioned awhile back some remarks by anti‐Semites, all of them absurd: “I hate Jews because they make servants insubordinate, because a Jewish furrier robbed me, etc.” Never believe that anti‐ Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti‐Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past. It is not that they are afraid of being convinced. They fear only to appear ridiculous or to prejudice by their embarrassment their hope of winning over some third person to their side.

Secretary of Defense Mattis’ Resignation Letter

Posted on

Written on Secretary of Defense letterhead, dated December 20, 2018, and, reportedly, hand delivered to Donald Trump

Dear Mr. President:

I have been privileged to serve as our country’s 26th Secretary of Defense which has allowed me to serve alongside our men and women of the Department in defense of our citizens and our ideals.

I am proud of the progress that has been made over the past two years on some of the key goals articulated in our National Defense Strategy: putting the Department on a more sound budgetary footing, improving readiness and lethality in our forces, and reforming the Department’s business practices for greater performance. Our troops continue to provide the capabilities needed to prevail in conflict and sustain strong U.S. global influence.

One core belief I have always held is that our strength as a nation is inextricably linked to the strength of our unique and comprehensive system of alliances and partnerships. While the US remains the indispensable nation in the free world, we cannot protect our interests or serve that role effectively without maintaining strong alliances and showing respect to those allies. Like you, I have said from the beginning that the armed forces of the United States should not be the policeman of the world. Instead, we must use all tools of American power to provide for the common defense, including providing effective leadership to our alliances. NATO’s 29 democracies demonstrated that strength in their commitment to fighting alongside us following the 9-11 attack on America. The Defeat-ISIS coalition of 74 nations is further proof.

Similarly, I believe we must be resolute and unambiguous in our approach to those countries whose strategic interests are increasingly in tension with ours. It is clear that China and Russia, for example, want to shape a world consistent with their authoritarian model – gaining veto authority over other nations’ economic, diplomatic, and security decisions – to promote their own interests at the expense of their neighbors, America and our allies. That is why we must use all the tools of American power to provide for the common defense.

My views on treating allies with respect and also being clear-eyed about both malign actors and strategic competitors are strongly held and informed by over four decades of immersion in these issues. We must do everything possible to advance an international order that is most conducive to our security, prosperity and values, and we are strengthened in this effort by the solidarity of our alliances.

Because you have the right to have a Secretary of Defense whose views are better aligned with yours on these and other subjects, I believe it is right for me to step down from my position. The end date for my tenure is February 28, 2019, a date that should allow sufficient time for a successor to be nominated and confirmed as well as to make sure the Department’s interests are properly articulated and protected at upcoming events to include Congressional posture hearings and the NATO Defense Ministerial meeting in February. Further, that a full transition to a new Secretary of Defense occurs well in advance of the transition of Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in September in order to ensure stability Within the Department.

I pledge my full effort to a smooth transition that ensures the needs and interests of the 2.15 million Service Members and 732,079 DoD civilians receive undistracted attention of the Department at all times so that they can fulfill their critical, round-the-clock mission to protect the American people.

I very much appreciate this opportunity to serve the nation and our men and women in uniform.

1961 Broken Arrow

Posted on
1961 Broken Arrow when we almost lost North Carolina.
 
“Three of the four arming mechanisms on one of the bombs activated after it separated, causing it to execute many of the steps needed to arm itself, such as charging the firing capacitors and deploying of a 100-foot-diameter (30 m) parachute.”
 
(Rick Perry wanted to get rid of the DOE and, famously, had trouble remembering it existed and, now, he runs it).
 
Reading the Fifth Risk this Sunday morning — it is better than coffee at waking me up. It mentioned this … wow, wish it was fiction but it is real.

Scary Tourist Marker
Scary Tourist Marker

E2E Verifiable Voting

Posted on
I learned about 2 kinds of vote fraud this week. In mid-texas, there are folks who sell legit votes. E.g. 500 votes for $250.
 
In the 1950’s, there were chairs who would vote for registered voters who didn’t show up. In one case, according to the signature sheet, 200 people showed up in the last 2 minutes before the poll closed … in alphabetical order.
 
Individual voter fraud which is used as an excuse for suppression is not the problem. However, pulling up the registration by swiping an ID could prevent the second problem. (Of course, I think this only happens in early voting).
 
An interesting cryptographical puzzle …
 
How do you provide the voter proof their vote is counted in the count without simultaneously doing the following?
 
– Providing the voter proof outside the voting booth of their specific votes exposing the voter to the possibility of exploitation.
– Giving the election workers the ability to manipulate the vote or the vote counts.
– Giving the government the ability to tie a specific vote to a specific identity under any condition.
 
For example, you could use a RSA private A and public B key pair and a secure hash of the user’s vote combined with a random number. Store the secure hash and encrypt the secure hash with the A-key against the voter’s name. Give the secure hash and the encrypted secure hash to the voter as a confirmation number.
 
The voter could use the B key to decrypt the encrypted hash to verify this against the secure hash. Likewise, the voter could present the secure hash to prove they voted in a certain election.
 
That covers off proof their vote was recorded but how do you prove it was counted?
 
I gave up and googled “how do you cryptographically prove a vote was counted?” and what do you know there is this Scientific American Blog entry talking about and to Ron Rivest (the ‘R’ of RSA). A couple of more links/searches led to wikipedia page below.
 
And, like, wow, it is called E2E verifiable voting and there are some (many?) options. Some have even been used in real elections.
 
I want this now. Who doesn’t?