Did Republicans hurt themselves by using Don Trump’s tactics against him?

Remember Carly Florina’s face
Remember which orifices women (including Trump’s wife) bleed from
Remember mocking a handicap person (Bad tactics especially when the disabled person is more intelligent than Don Trump).

These are all Don Trump’s playground bullying and grandstanding showing he is tough, he doesn’t care, he’s above civility, he’s a Neanderthal and not part of the human race. No one in New York City cared about these manhood manifestations until the Thursday night event. Republican opponents raised and asked about real stuff, not playground insults:

  1. Don Trump swindled thousands of students who have incurred tens of thousands of dollars in student debt at Trump University. Trump is being sued.
    2. Trump’s stump speech can be repeated in 20 seconds. No use listening to him for any longer.
    3. Trump hires foreign nationals to work within the United States of America. That is his idea of ideal immigration enforcement.

If this is a playground dispute as the reporters claim, politics in New York City must be soft, soothing and nice. New York City reporters and commentators want everyone to be gentle and polite to Don Trump because he is fragile and breakable. He is crushed by criticism. He’s “not being treated fairly” by the Republican party.

Seeing Don Trump melt away is not surprising. He’s a big blob of jello; give it a little heat. But he wants to stay in the kitchen while all people are presenting the truth. Cry, Don Trump. Cry. Your new campaign slogan, BIG BABY FOR PRESIDENT.


Apple claims it has a free speech right not to cooperate with the government’s warrant to open the phone, tell what is inside. Free speech in inapplicable. No one is preventing Apple from saying anything, however stupid.

Also, Apple must establish that it cannot open the phone and do much extra work. Next Apple must state that it has not cooperated with every other government and institution on Earth and blocked access to the data on its phones. Moreover, Apple must demonstrate that persons writing applications and compatible programs within Apple’s eco-system do not have an abilities to unlock part or all of Apple’s code.

Apple has submitted no evidence to answer the inquiries in the previous paragraph. To sell in China, do Americans believe Apple did not cut a deal with the Chinese government, one of the most intrusive governments on the face of the planet? (Oh yeah, every Chinese citizen has a right to privacy especially if he owns an iPhone.) If an Islamic Extremist is using an iPhone in Syria, does anyone in the United States of America believe a court, resulting from Apple’s brief today, will prevent the United States government from listening in? (Image a guy in the Syrian desert being observed by an American drone. He holds up his iPhone and yells, “I have my privacy rights!”) I observe McAfee last week offered to unlock Apple’s phone, on his own. It would take three weeks for one person.

Apple’s brief (355 pages) is a data dump. What the California Supreme Court said about long briefs in King versus Gildersleeve, 1889, is applicable to Apple’s submission today:

We are inclined to doubt the correctness of the [brief], on account of
the extreme length of the brief of the learned counsel…Knowing the
abilities of counsel and their accurate knowledge of the law, a brief
of eighty-five pages coming from them …casts great doubt upon [their
argument]. However, the learned counsel may not have had time to
prepare a short brief, and for that reason have cast upon us the
unnecessary labor of reading the extracting therefrom the points made…
(79 Cal. 503, 507-508)

Apple has presented no evidence to support its position. Its brief in opposition to the warrant argues the law. Evidence – facts are the salient elements a court can make a determination about – are absent. Every attorney knows and every juror learns the legal maxim, Argument is not evidence. Argument produces no facts. This point is continually glossed over by journalists, and Apple.

From press reports, albeit the product of journalists, it sounds like Apple has failed logically to construct a right on which to support its non-compliance with the warrant. In order for Apple to succeed, Apple needs constitutional lawyer, who knows how to construct a freedom. The answer is not to be found in the caselaw.


Getting support from Chris Christie is like buying used tires. Christie has been around many blocks, around and around, and has had many flats along the way. How is bridge gate going? Did they get that last bit of information from the New Jersey’s Governor’s office? Is bridge gate as volatile an issue as Don Trump’s University gate?

Will Christie love Trump when the big Duck is found guilty of violating the RICO statute (the statute Christie supposedly enforced civilly and criminally). The Big Duck will pay plaintiffs counsels’ fees plus triple damages. That will greatly diminish Don Trump’s net worth by at least one billion dollars.

Is Christie looking for a job, vice president perhaps? A lot of men are already kissing up: Scott Brown, Mike Huckabee, Joe Scarborough and now Christie. Image sculpting statues of these men, and most will have double chins. I wonder how they will hear they are fired. Brown might be too skinny. Christie is too short. Scarborough is too much of a mouthy know-all. Thereafter, Christie can have another s-fit. Let’s hope it’s not public.

Trump is the last person in politics anyone should befriend with an endorsement. Christie’s name goes from respectable competitor onto an ever-expanding s-list. When asked about Trump last summer, Christie said being in Trump’s presence was tiring. When nothing is going on in life or life is ending (Christie has a year or so as Governor of New Jersey), tiring becomes attractive and entertaining. The move today makes Christie slow and thick.

Move over, Christie’s wife draws a big salary from a financial services firm. Businesses in financial services are shedding employees to reduce costs. Christie’s wife may lose her job unless Don Trump is nominated. Don Trump will protect all the favors that Wall Street has as he preserves its status quo. NO REFORM ON WALL STREET!

Christie’s enforcement guarantees that Trump will take none of the states in the Northeast in the general election. Christie is that polarizing and untrustworthy, like Don Trump. The people who know Christie and Trump best will not vote for the big Duck.

In his endorsement statement today Christie became totally like Don Trump. It is not resolve in his voice. It is hate. Christie hates what happened to him during the campaign and he despises everyone who did better than he. Hate is not a religious, moral or ethic virtue and trait prized in our Judeo-Christian culture. Don Trump and Christie can camouflage tones of voice, can use different words, and can soften hardened gazes. But each of them presents behaviors that add up to hate. Listen to Don Trump’s on-going harangue today after the endorsement. One wonders if Christie found that tiring. I’m sure Christie loves hearing Don Trump repeat himself, every two minutes (sometimes more frequently) because he has no new material.

So who do Christie and Trump hate? Anyone who disagrees with them. Anyone who is more talented than either of them. That is reminiscent of Richard Nixon, and the American experience is, Americans do not want to elect persons who hate and thereafter are in charge of the FBI.

An irony in the Christie endorsement is the missing iPhone. On it are all the plans, details, timing and contacts between Governor Christie and Don Trump: How to close the bridge and anger everyone. After the iPhone is found in May, Apple Corporation will refuse to disclose its contents for review.


When the Constitution was ratified in 1788 and by each state since, was Apple’s right to possess a chip, a software program, a means of communication in the document? NO. Does Apple have anywhere among statutes or constitutional provisions, a means to prevent the government armed with a warrant to serve and require Apple to hand over information? NO.

Yet, Apple claims it has extra-judicial, extra-legal, over-the-top exemptions from the language of the Constitution, whereas the remainder of Americans are fully bound and must adhere to the document and its interpretation.

Apple claims no court should ever issue warrants to learn communications between terrorists or among criminals; only Apple itself has the discretion and the wisdom to view those notes, as violent as they be. Apple believes it has a right to privacy, so it never has to deliver information in its possession that may keep the United States safe.

In essence Apple makes itself complicit in the actions of the perpetrators; the longer Apple dithers the deeper it sinks into the conspiracy. Should criminal liability attach to Apple for interfering with an investigation, resulting possibly in obstruction of justice charges?

Readers may believe they saw this scenario played out on TV, but the real-time, reality component of daily events reveal a rotten core.

What Apple and all monster American information gathering companies want to protect is their own collections of data. Every company knows when users are on computers, asleep, eating, using the pot, and which appropriate advertisement should be sent for specific activities. The time of day is taken into account because the advertisement for toilet paper does not appear when sitting on the big white phone. That ad comes in the grocery store – hurrying to buy a package and avoiding embarrassment at the check-out counter. (The full mobile experience.) Our lives are controlled by computers and their memories, and no one cares about the privacy of Americans!

It is that administered boatload of personal information breaching the privacy of every American, obtained without consent or warrant, that Apple and corporations of its ilk want to protect and keep absolutely secret, until sprung on the victims, unwitting Americans.

U.S.A. 1 Apple 0

Apple will lose its National Security lawsuit with the United States government. Apple is a corporation. Apple has software which is not protected by Constitutional provisions other than the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution (“the taking provision”). At best Apple can say it has trade secrets to protect.

To my delight and without my knowledge Apple discovers and fixes problems, issues and patches in its software. It gives away for free those updates. In order to make those improvements, Apple must enter a software program, change the code and test its compatibility with the remainder of the software, the apps and the machine itself. There is no backdoor created.

Complaining that Apple is being asked to write a backdoor key to enter an iPhone (and all the iPhones in the world) may not be a solid argument.

There is no right to privacy enumerated in the Constitution of the United States. It is inferred from the Fourth Amendment (Search & Seizure plus warrants). The Government has a warrant. The Fourth Amendment is satisfied. The Right to Privacy is certainly part of the Ninth Amendment, which neither courts want to cite nor humans want to ponder. So the Ninth Amendment has been forgotten.

In the Apple matter does the corporation have a right to assert a right to privacy for individuals who are dead, who committed murder, and who likely are aligned with terrorists, domestically and overseas? The right to privacy belongs to the two dead perpetrators. They are dead; they have no right to privacy. Can Apple resurrect their right to privacy to stop the government’s getting the information from the phone? Note that the information on the iPhone is owned by the perpetrators, not Apple.

One legal issue: Does Apple have standing to assert the right to privacy on behalf of the dead, especially in this case?

This case is a loser for Apple. I don’t know which set of attorneys (big fees, bad result) convinced Tim Cook to oppose. If the case goes forward, Apple and the whole software business will be saddled with a poor, unrepresentative legal precedent which will forever be like law enforcement that now obtains a warrant for a safety deposit box rented to a criminal, getting the key and retrieving the contents.


A JURY OF HER PEERS – Elaine Showalter

This book is invaluable. It should be in every public library and in private collections.

American citizens should read this book to learn how women have viewed America since 1630.

American literature students, male and female, should buy, read and refer to this book. It is an excellent teaching source; it is an engaging source to acquaint students with an entire body of little known literature.

Male and female students of writing should buy, read and refer to this book.

If Americans of all ilks believe they have read as much American literature as is available, this book will provide at least 50 novels to read.

For example, Jo Marsh of Little Women wrote books about her family, sequels to Little Women. One of those books discusses in the 1870s a woman’s wish today: “Having it all.”

An issue in the 1960s Civil Rights movement was the position of women. Not intending to be pejorative or derisive, Stockily Carmichael accurately described that position as “prone.” Doubly for Black women. Should Black women support the Civil Rights movement or the Women’s Movement? Each involved different and conflicting obligations and goals. In history, sociology and journalism there is little development and discussion of the issues. HOWEVER, black female authors raised and wrote about this issue. These books are described and discussed in Showalter’s book.


John Sayles, Writer/Director

This movie is a lot of fun, says something about its characters and comments upon burying the past and implementing the new in the United States.

Eminent Domain in Florida plagues the lives of poor white and black residents of a neglected community, now coming into view of developers. They want to build another exclusive, beachfront, senseless community for snowbirds.

The developers are like a presidential candidate, coarse, crude, vulgar, boasting, petty, ignorant, money-driven and vile with opponents who are enemies. Political incorrectness, obnoxiousness and being rude and offensive are common. There is a full-blooded Creek Native American, who is “sh-t creek.” The developers are bought partially the City, County and regulatory bodies to get approval for all development. One means to get all the property is develop partially and drive up property taxes so the poorer residents cannot afford them.

“Bucaneer Days,” a local festival once again fails to become a community tradition to attract tourists. Angela Bassett and her husband, James McDaniel, visit her mother, Mary Alice, after decades of separation. That story plays out and dovetails into the grab for real estate riches. Edie Falco operates an older motel/restaurant and looks after her parents, Jane Alexander and Ralph Waite. They represent the change that the world is bringing to the community without the developers.

In the end development is stopped. A Native-American burial site (arrowheads) is discovered.


Movie Review, BBC Production

Michelle Dockery is a governess who is in an institution. She is confined and considered disturbed by the experience of her work.

Her savior is young, blue eyes himself, our faithful pal, Dan Stevens playing a doctor, counselor or a scientist. He coaxes the story of Michelle’s work before she is carted off to a more secure facility.

The problem with this story is the source, Henry James. The script is derived from one of his stories and is evidence that Henry James read far too many women’s books of the nineteenth century. I know this because in A Jury of her Peers Elaine Showalter explained the formula for many novels written by women during that century: Perfectly reasonable woman finds that life, work and circumstances drive her to the edge. [Note Michelle Dockery has no housecleaning, gardening or cooking to do.] In this case what drives Michelle bonkers are ghosts, or perhaps her imagination, or her undisclosed, unbalanced nature as a woman, of some other absurd cause. Only Henry knows for sure.

But I don’t care. It was good to see Dan and Michelle in another production set in the 1920s, but not in this movie.


This unfinished novel has three subjects and two styles. The first chapter (the longest, “Unspoiled Monsters”) is mostly chronological and has brilliant, captivating passages and remarks about writing as a career, the mind set of a writer and marketing forces. For a magazine editor/publisher the writer spreads his cheeks, a casting couch into publishing.

The second chapter (39 pages, “Kate McCloud”) happens in Europe and is chronological. Without much money the character tags along with rich people. Comments about writing disappear, but those overseas New Yorkers and East Coast Establishment mucks are superficial and empty.

The Third Chapter (41 pages, “La Cote Basque) presents a change of style – stream of consciousness, Virginia Woolf foibles come to mind through paragraphs of endurance, nothing to follow, little to comprehend but phrases interspersed here and there and a story of meandering words which come to nothing. It is a form of writing exercise, an experiment. Chapter 3 was published in the mid-1970s and was not well received. There was little effort to conceal or camouflage who the many characters were – although in East Coast fashion they said little of consequence and nothing significant. After its publication in Esquire magazine, Capote’s rich friends ended contact with him.

The changes of style and substance produce varied work in this three chapters. The first chapter is well-written, although it fails to present a story. It is a series of colorful antidotes, adjectives and description adding character to sentences (and not necessarily to human beings written about). There are not many thoughts and ideas transmitted, instantly but not throughout the 90 pages. Hence, any conveyance of theme is absent.

The second chapter also becomes antidotal with adjectives, and overlong sentences. It is fun and funny to read but takes the reader no where. It is like watching TV. The third chapter is the worst from the standpoint of writing, in contribution to the craft and in explaining itself. It seems there are inside jokes and inside knowledge. It was written and published first. The targeted readers apparently discovered themselves. Capote may have chosen the stream of consciousness, or overlong sentences in paragraphs covering a least a page to conceal his intentions. He was mislead by style and substance. He did not define the characters and give them much action. He labeled characters within sentences by describing them – this lumpen mass sits on her couch all days and eats bon-bons. A writer must be much more discrete.

Reference points can be made to another novel, The Great Gatsby. Fitzgerald refused to include party conversations, or intelligible dialogue which is Capote’s forte. Every party scene in Gatsby could be supplemented by dialogue from Answered Prayers. If it were the purpose to define New York Citiers and the wealthy as they phonies they are, Capote only had to set out their conversations: empty, unconnected and coarse. On page 74-75 the character Aces Nelson is a doubleganger for Nick the Narrator in Gatsby.

In another writing I criticized Fitzgerald for using rioters for roisters at the Yale Club in New York City (Gatsby, page 57) However Fitzgerald may have property used rioters [shorthand for gay, circa. 1925(?)], as Capote describes a gay encounter in the Yale Club. (Answered Prayers, 94)