Biden vs. Bernie in our Coronavirus Time

A powerful Presidential debate just concluded between Biden and Bernie on CNN.  The backdrop and of course the greatest sources of questions were about the Coronavirus pandemic.  But there were other crucial issues debated as well.

I thought both candidates did well, but Biden did better.

On the Coronavirus, and health care in general:  I'm strongly in favor of universal health care provided by our government (see my William H. McNeill and The Logic of Universal Health Care from January 2017).  But I think Biden's way of getting there -- building upon  Obamacare, with a free, robust public option -- is better than Bernie's (which amounts to just magically declaring that we'll have free universal healthcare).  In other words, at all times, but especially in this time of the Coronavirus, practical construction is more reliable than revolution.   Biden added to this with his point about look how poorly Italy is doing in combating the Coronavirus.  They have free healthcare for all, and their  problems with the Coronavirus show that their way is no sure way of limiting the devastation of the virus.

And Biden did very well with his commitment to put a progressive woman as Vice President on the ticket, in contrast to Bernie who, the best he could say was "in all likelihood" he would put a woman on his ticket.  I also liked Biden's commitment to put an African-American woman on the Supreme Court.

As for the past, each candidate had some warranted criticism of the other.  But for me, the criticism that counted the most was Biden's critique of Bernie for voting no on the Brady Bill to limit guns no less than five times.  That's another crucial, literally life-and-death issue.

I'm looking forward to Tuesday's primaries and Bernie's recognition that the best way to get rid of Trump is for Bernie to give his support to Biden,

Fifth 2020 Democratic Presidential Debate: Winners

The six-person Democratic presidential debate just concluded on CNN was easily the best debate so far - best in clarity, power of ideas, and even charm - so far.  Whether this was because of the fact that six candidates had more time than ten and more to express their views, or because these six candidates had better views to express ... well, it's probably a combination of both.

But I thought Klobuchar and Steyer especially stood out in their answers to just about all of the questions, and their concluding comments, and I expect that will help both of them in Iowa and beyond.   But Biden, still not the most articulate person on stage, was clear enough.  And Warren, Bernie, and Buttigieg were articulate and passionate, too.

My favorite exchange, in terms of both truth and humor, was between Biden and Bernie:

• Biden: Kim Jong-un said: "Joe Biden is a rabid dog who should be beaten with a stick" 
• Bernie: "Other than that, you like him." 
• Biden" "0ther than that I like him.  And then he sent a love letter to Donald Trump"

Next, I thought Warren got the better of Bernie in the "can a woman be elected President" controversy.  Although Bernie denied saying that, and offered his view that of course a woman could be elected President, given that Hillary Clinton won the popular vote in 2016, Warren just seemed more believable in both her unspoken denial and her commitment to women in politics, with her example of woman being more electable than men.

On health care, I still remain unconvinced by Bernie and Warren about the way to get to universal health care in America.  It's a laudable, essential goal, but Klobuchar, Biden, Steyer, and Buttigieg made more sense in building towards on what we already have, via the Affordable Care Act.

Warren was also excellent on politics not being the most important thing - in this case, returning to Washington and sitting as a senator in the trial of Donald Trump takes precedence.   All the candidates agreed that, one way or another, Trump has to be removed from office.  Seeing him voted out of office by the Senate would be satisfying, but I'll take any of the candidates on stage tonight beating him in the election this coming November.

See also  First 2020 Democratic Presidential Debate, Part 1 of 2: Winners and Losers ... First Democratic Presidential Debate, Part 2 of 2: Winners and Losers ...  Second 2020 Democratic Presidential Debate, Part 1 of 2: Winners and Losers ... Second 2020 Democratic Presidential, Part 2 of 2: Winners and Losers  ... [missed third debate, I was in Canada] ... Fourth 2020 Democratic Presidential Debate: Winners and Losers

Fourth 2020 Democratic Presidential Debate: Winners and Losers

I thought the 4th Democratic Presidential Debate - just concluded on PBS and CNN - was easily the best so far (but with the proviso that I saw and reviewed both parts of the first and second of these debates, but I didn't see the third, because I was up in Toronto doing this event).  Maybe tonight's debate was stronger because there were fewer people up on stage, so each of the seven candidates got more time to talk.  Maybe last night's Impeachment of Trump inspired the candidates (it certainly inspired me).  But, for whatever reasons ...

I thought the exchange in response to the question about Obama's recent statement that women would do a better job of governing America was outstanding.  All the candidates (with the exception of Yang, who I don't believe gave an answer) responded with clarity, style, and humor.  That included Biden, who easily had his best night, and Steyer, who I thought really came into to his own tonight, with consistently strong answers about how his Presidency could tackle the problems of our time and really make a difference.

But Bernie had a powerful night too, with clear expositions of his socialist perspective.  And Klobuchar was strong, in her defense of improving Obama-care rather than scrapping it in favor of Medicare for all, a position she shares with Biden, in opposition to Bernie and Warren.  And Klobuchar and Buttigieg got in some good lines in their one-on-one exchange, as did Warren and Buttigieg in theirs.

So all the candidates, with exception (again) of Yang, had excellent nights in tonight's debate.  Since Biden was already leading in the national polls, his having such a strong outing is especially significant, since it reinforces his already considerable strength.  But Steyer stepping into the light was notable, too, and the performances of all the other candidates (other than Yang) was more than enough to keep them in the running.

See also  First 2020 Democratic Presidential Debate, Part 1 of 2: Winners and Losers ... First Democratic Presidential Debate, Part 2 of 2: Winners and Losers ...  Second 2020 Democratic Presidential Debate, Part 1 of 2: Winners and Losers ... Second 2020 Democratic Presidential, Part 2 of 2: Winners and Losers

Second 2020 Democratic Presidential Debate, Part 2 of 2: Winners and Losers

The headline of the second part of the Second Democratic Presidential Debate, just concluded on CNN, is that Joe Biden did a lot better than he did in the First Democratic Presidential Debate on MSNBC last month. He was still a little inarticulate at times, and a little too prone to let the moderators interrupt him, but he was very impressive.  And so was just about everyone else on stage in Detroit tonight.

Some highlights -

• De Blasio is completely right that current, private health care premiums, deductibles, out of pocket expenses, not to mention costs of prescribed medications, are far more expensive than what we would pay in taxes for universal, government-provided heath care.  On the cost of pharmaceuticals, good for Biden for highlighting that these obscenely high costs need to be brought under control
• Castro and Gillibrand were right to call on De Blasio to immediately fire Eric Garner's killer, officer Daniel Pantaleo (Harris joined in on this call, too.)
• Inslee was right to call for end of Senate filibuster.
• Biden handled criticism of some of his past decisions pretty well.  He explained what he was trying to accomplish at the time, on issues ranging from busing to the Hyde Amendment, and he got support from Gabbard and Bennet.
• In general, just everyone on stage was sharp and combative when needed.  I'd say the weakest, in terms of ideas and constructive engagement, was Andrew Yang.

One point about Harris: she again wrongly contrasted science vs. science fiction in Democratic vs. Republican positions on climate.  Not that the Republican positions aren't fantasy and counter-factual, it's that science fiction is not that, and not the opposite of science.  She did the same thing in the first debate last month.  Here was my response.

The September debate is next up, and there will no doubt be fewer candidates up on stage for that.  I'll be back with an assessment of what should be another exciting, even inspiring, night.

See also Second 2020 Democratic Presidential Debate, Part 1 of 2: Winners and Losers

Second 2020 Democratic Presidential Debate, Part 1 of 2: Winners and Losers

I thought the first part of the second 2020 Democratic Presidential Debate, just concluded on CNN, was much better than the first part of the first 2020 Democratic Presidential Debate on MSNBC last month.  By "much better," I mean that almost every candidate on the stage expressed her or himself better than what we saw last month.

Among the highlights -

• Bernie and Elizabeth Warren were clear, passionate, and outstanding on their view that the avarice of private health insurance means that the best path forward is the government provides all of it.  As Bernie said, health care is a human right.  (I would add, the government protects us from human parasites, why not from micro-parasites and lethal cells?)  And as Warren said, private insurers are all devoted to maximizing profits, which means taking in as much money as possible in premiums, and keeping expenditures for health care to a minimum.  Later in the debate, Rep. Delaney's equation of private pensions and private health insurance was wrong: there is no immoral profit motive in companies providing pensions for employees.
• Amy Klobuchar was outstanding on the need to finally stand up to the NRA as the only way to get sensible gun reform in America, and stop the massacres.
• Back to Bernie and Elizabeth Warren: Bernie was better than Warren in wanting to cancel all student debt, in contrast to Warren, who wants to cancel 95% of that debt.  But good for Warren for being better than everyone else on that stage on that issue, other than Bernie
• Good for Pete Buttigieg for insisting that all U. S. military engagements (i.e. wars) get Congressional approval,  and that approval have a three-year sunset clause.  Here's a better idea: how about we follow the Constitution, and insist on a Declaration of War (but also with a sunset clause).
• Buttigieg also put out an important challenge to all Republicans in Congress: do you want to be remembered as someone who didn't speak up about the racism of Trump?
• Bernie's denunciation of Trump as a "pathological liar" is always good to hear.
• Especially powerful closing statements by Buttigieg, Warren, and Bernie.

As to everyone else in the debate, I thought that Rep. John Delaney spoke the best, and offered the best arguments against Bernie and Warren.  But I didn't agree with him.  And as for the rest, well, I look forward to not seeing them on stage in the third debate, in September.

See you here tomorrow night.

See also Second Democratic Presidential Debate, Part 2 of 2: Winners and Losers

Minor Quibble with Kamala Harris: The Opposite of Science Fact is not Science Fiction

Although it's at most a minor quibble with Kamala Harris's superb performance in this past Thursday's Democratic debate - see my assessment of that over here - I thought, as a past President of the Science Fiction Writers of America (1998-2001), that I ought to weigh in on a concern which has made it all the way to The Washington Post.

The concern arises from Harris's point made during the debate that our response to climate change needs to be based on "science fact not science fiction".   Unfortunately, this contrast, likely the product of one of Harris's writers not what she herself may think, shows a woeful misunderstanding and ignorance of science fiction.  Anyone who has read any of Asimov, Heinlein, and Clarke, not to mention Verne and Wells, would know that science fiction does not deny or belittle science.  To the contrary, the essence of science fiction is to use science as a foundation to explore dramatic situations, including global catastrophes, and predictions of the future.

As a science fiction author myself - of novels and short stories - I have had the majority of my short stories (some 17) published in Analog Magazine, aka Analog Science Fiction and Fact Magazine.  Over the years, newer writers have asked me what I would recommend for enhancing their chances of getting published in Analog.  My answer: get your science right, and make sure it plays a decisive part in your story.

The fundamental connection between science fiction and science fact has been recognized by scientists such as Marvin Minsky, who said Asimov's robot stories inspired Minsky's life-long work in AI, and by Nobel Laureate Paul Krugman, who cited Asimov's Foundation series as inspiration for Krugman's work in economics.

And, to get back to Harris's inapt comparison, it's not that hard to find suitable opposites to science - pseudo-science, fantasy, conspiracy theory, all would have worked well in Harris's formulation.

But, as I said, this is a minor quibble, and now that I've gotten it of my system, I can return to thinking about who is the best candidate to beat Trump.  Harris's performance on Thursday makes her a major contender.

First 2020 Democratic Presidential Debate, Part 2 of 2: Winners and Losers

I thought the second part of the first 2020 Democratic Presidential debate was better than the first part - on yesterday - in that more of the ten on stage had standout moments.   My assessment follows, in descending order of what I thought were the best performances:

Harris was clearly outstanding and the best tonight.  She was powerful and eloquent on health care and immigration.  She was strong on the need to curb racism, including an attack on Biden for working with Southern racist Senators.  I liked her intention to take executive action on banning assault weapons (though Swalwell was even stronger on this issue), and she had the best closing statement.

Gillibrand did a lot of good for herself on the need to curb gun violence, and on the danger of compromising on women's rights.  I think she'll rise in the polls as a result of tonight's performance.

Among all the crucially important issues that beset us, I put reducing gun violence, aka gun control, at the top of the list.   I therefore agree completely with Swalwell putting gun control at the top of his list.  His plan to buy back assault weapons makes good sense, and he captured the stakes in this issue well with his observation that we need to "love our children more than our guns".

Bennet was correct to speak about Nazi concentration camps in his denunciation of the camps for immigrants at our Southern border, and he was right to stress the need to win back the Senate in the 2020 election (as Booker did last night).

Sanders had a strong closing statement, and he was passionate as always on the need to equalize wealth in America.

Buttigieg was powerful and articulate on the need to end police racism, but Swalwell did him one better by challenging him to fire the Police Chief of South Bend.

Biden took a long time to come alive - too long - and responded pretty well to Harris's attacks (but he should have kept talking).   He was excellent on the evil of putting children in cages, strong on the need to get our troops out of Afghanistan, and right to hold gun manufacturers responsible (but why let the NRA off the hook?).  His closing statement was ok - which is about the best you could say about his overall performance.

The other three either outright crazy (Williamson), too focused on a single issue (Yang), or nothing special (Hickenlooper).  I don't expect any of them to be on stage for the next debate.

But I'll be back here with another review.

See also First 2020 Democratic Presidential Debate, Part 1 of 2: Winners and Losers



Joe Biden does become President in this 2014 novel

First 2020 Democratic Presidential Debate, Part 1 of 2: Winners and Losers

I thought the first Democratic debate - the first of two - was excellent and inspiring.  Here are my thoughts on the winners and losers:

There were no outright gaffs by anyone - the closest was Ryan saying the Taliban were responsible for 9/11 (the Taliban did support Al Quaeda) - so I'll share what I thought were the strongest moments.  If I don't mention someone, that means in my opinion she or he did not do very well.   The following is in descending order of what I thought were the best performances:

I thought De Blasio made the greatest number of excellent points, beginning with his opening statement on the soul of the Democratic Party.  He followed with a powerful denunciation of the greed of health-insurance companies, and the need to replace them with Medicare for all.  He later  made the astute point that Americans have lost their jobs not due to immigrants but the actions of big corporations.  He was also eloquent on the need to do more about police victimization of minorities, and on the need for Congressional approval of U.S. military actions.  And I liked his answer on the biggest threat to the U.S.: Russia and its interference with our elections.  (Given the number of times that the 2-hour MSNBC broadcast was interrupted by blank screens, I wonder if the Russians weren't hacking some of MSNBC's computers.)   All in all, I thought De Blasio established himself tonight as a passionate and articulate candidate.  Given his low standing in the polls, his performance was the biggest surprise.  As someone who works in NYC, and lives close by, I'm happy to see this.

Booker was excellent, too.  He was right on about health-care insurers profiteering, and on ICE and their Nazi tactics (my word not his).  I also liked his vision of the Democrats not only winning the Presidency but both Houses of Congress in the next election.  And it was good to hear him talk about the need to protect LGBQT communities.

Warren started out great on the need for healthcare for all, and for Roe vs. Wade to be enacted by Congress into Federal law.  But she wasn't strong enough on gun control, and was silent or didn't say enough on some major issues, including immigration.  Given that she is pretty high up in the polls, her performance was not as good as expected.

Klobuchar, on the other hand, was better than expected.   I liked her brief for a sane foreign policy, and she was excellent on kids leading the charge for better gun control.   I think she came out a lot better than she went in on this debate.

Castro was likable and very effective on ending the criminalization of illegal immigrants (those violations should be civil offenses).  And he was 100% right when he said the tragic drownings of a father and daughter in the Rio Grande today should not only break our hearts but "piss us all off".  I think his performance tonight made him much more of a contender.

And ... that's it.  No one else made much of an impression, including Beto O'Rourke, whose weak performance tonight might be the effective end of his campaign.

See you here tomorrow after Part 2.

See also First 2020 Democratic Presidential Debate, Part 2 of 2: Winners and Losers

In Final Debate: Trump Says He Might Not Abide by Results of Presidential Election

It's pretty astonishing, even for Donald Trump.  He's said this in speeches to his supporters.  But to tens of millions of Americans watching the third debate, he flatly said he'll have to see what happens in our upcoming election - he'll have to see what happens - before he decides whether to abide by the results of that election.

As many political commentators have been saying, and as Steve Schmidt just said on MSNBC, that statement of non-support for the very essence of our democracy is "disqualifying".

Trump has said many awful and outrageous things.  But this is the worst.   This brutal, abusive person - who has verbally attacked immigrants, disabled people, women, and has physically attacked women, too - now has doubled down on this contempt for and abuse of our very electoral process.

It will be a real relief not to ever have to see or hear this spiritual ugliness ever again.  Trump will lose, but he and his supporters will keep pushing their poison.  But it will be a relief not to have to worry that somehow this monstrosity might, against all odds, get into the White House.

We'll have that satisfying moment in just a few weeks, when Hillary Clinton is elected our next President. Tonight, Trump gave yet another reason to fervently look forward to that night next month.

Trump Does Better in Second Debate than in First, But Hillary Was More Presidential

Donald Trump did better in his second debate with Hillary Clinton than his first - a very low bar - but Clinton commanded the stage with her calm and rationality, and was more Presidential.

And you if look more carefully at the debate, it turns out Trump lied repeatedly - again.  He indeed voiced support for our Iraq War at the time, but repeated tonight that he did not.  He made the wild claim that our slain ambassador in Libya appealed for help "600 times" before he died.  He said Hillary Clinton was responsible for Obama not respecting the "red line" he drew in Syria, when in fact although Clinton was Secretary of State when Obama drew it, Kerry was Secretary of State when Obama did not enforce it. Trump and the truth continue to have the most fleeting of relationships.

And he was over the top lots of times, as when he said, incredibly, that he would put Hillary in jail if he were President - a statement that has been aptly decried by many as "banana republic" (no offense to the clothing chain).

Trump showed some style only once, at the end, when he said, in response to naming one thing he admired about Hillary Clinton, that she was a fighter.  She showed class, too, in her answer - that she admired the job he had done with his kids - and throughout her generally positive debate tonight, with fewer attacks on Trump than he rightly deserved.

Also worthy of praise were Anderson Cooper and Martha Raddatz, who easily were the best debate moderators so far, in this very contentious presidential season.

Look, I would've like to have seen Hillary Clinton lacerate Trump on the stage tonight, but I'm more than content to wait for election night in November for that to happen, and Hillary did a good job in making that more likely tonight.

Hillary Clinton Mops the Floor with Donald Trump in 1st 2016 Presidential Debate

I'm a Clinton supporter, so may be a little biased, but I've never seen such a wipe-out in a Presidential debate as what Hillary Clinton did to Donald Trump tonight.

She was clear, calm, logical, powerful, smiling - in contrast to Trump, who seemed beleaguered, tired, defensive, even incoherent at times, especially in foreign policy.  He was rude in many exchanges, even snapped at the moderator Lester Holt, and seemed rattled.  On several occasions, he resorted to bragging about his properties and accomplishments.

And she bested him, point by point, on such issues as

• ISIS, which Trump said Hillary had been fruitlessly fighting her "entire adult life"
• Trump's taxes, which Holt and Clinton both successfully pressed him on not releasing  - at several points, Trump even seemed to admit that he had never paid any taxes
• racial profiling, which Trump said he supported, despite its unconstitutionality
• Trump's birtherism and lifelong racism
• Trump's lies about never supporting the war in Iraq and the attack on Libya, which Holt also called him on
• Trump's ignorance of NATO, which he said he would relate to as a "business man"
• stamina, which Trump, clearly out of steam and almost haggard, said Hillary didn't have, while she stood there smiling, energized, almost radiant

In short, there was not a single issue on which Trump succeeded, while Hillary displayed mastery of all of them. Trump's job, in this debate, was to appear Presidential.   Instead, he appeared far less than Presidential than in previous weeks.

Can Trump survive this?  His supporters will continue to support him.  But it's hard to believe anyone on the fence won't want to jump off and run the other way.

Hillary Clinton Strong in Second Democratic 2016 Presidential Debate

Well, first of all, I have to say that it was good to have a dose of sanity in the second Democratic debate just on CBS - sanity in comparison to much of what we've been seeing in the GOP debates.

As to who on stage did best and worst, and when -

• Hillary came out strong on what happened in Paris yesterday.  Bernie, in contrast, quickly segued to economics, which seemed beside the point in the shadow of the ISIS attack.  Again, later, Bernie stood by the claim he made in the last debate, that the biggest threat to our national security is climate change.  That's a little too clever, especially on the day after people were gunned down in Paris.  Climate change, uncontrolled, may kill us eventually.  ISIS is out to kill us now, and needs an immediate response.
• Also on this issue, O'Malley's correction of Hillary that the fight against ISIS is not "solely" American was unnecessary and supercilious - that's obviously what Hillary meant when she said this is an American fight.   (His critique of Hillary for using the "boots on the ground" phrase was similarly much ado about little.)
• But if was good to hear O'Malley call out Trump again as a "carnival barker".
• In the best exchange of the debate, Bernie attacked Hillary about being too close to Wall Street. Hillary's response, which in effect pointed out that Wall Street is part of America - and indeed was attacked on September 11 - was unexpected, powerful, and to the point.
• On gun control, whatever Bernie now says, he shouldn't have voted against even one gun control bill - and Hillary was 100% right to call him out on this.
• Hillary and Bernie were both strong on black lives matter - but Hillary was better in citing some of the many African Americans who have lost their lives to guns, and Bernie was especially strong in calling out cops who murder innocent people.

So, all in all, it was an excellent debate for Democrats, especially for Hillary Clinton.

Fourth GOP Presidential Debate: Rand Paul Scores

Herewith my assessment of the just-concluded fourth GOP 2016 Presidential debate, as always with the proviso that I've only voted Republican once in my life - for John Lindsay, for Mayor of New York City, in 1969 (because he was against the Vietnam War) - but I do try to call these debates as objectively as possible.

I think Rand Paul made by far the most lucid and logically sound points tonight, on a variety of topics, and contra what some of the other Republicans were saying.  His single best moment was countering Marco Rubio's and just about every other Republican's assertion that we need huge military expenditures - Rand correctly explained that such expenditures are not only contrary to conservative fiscal policy, but unlikely to keep us safe, especially if they undermine our economy at home.   Rand also punctured Donald Trump's posturing about China and the trade bill, observing that trade with the Chinese was not part of the territory covered in the massive bill.   And he made better sense than anyone else about the U.S. carefully considering its military policy in the Middle East and towards Putin, rather than just rushing in.

I'd rate Jeb as second best tonight.   He spoke truth to Donald Trump and his inhumane and unworkable deportation policy.  John Kasich spoke well on this point, too.

The rest, I thought, were unremarkable.   Obviously, a lot of people currently support Donald Trump or Ben Carson, but it's hard - at least for a progressive like me - to see how either of them will go on to win the nomination.   Trump continues to have a good sense of humor - though little of it came through in the debate tonight.  And Carson is a complete enigma to me - or, at least, why anyone would support him.

The best point I saw about Carson tonight came from my Fordham public relations colleague Gina Vergel, who observed on Twitter -

Third GOP Presidential Debate: Participants and Bystanders

Back with a review of the third GOP Presidential debate tonight, as always with the proviso that I've only voted for a Republican once in my life - for John Lindsay for Mayor of New York City decades ago - and no doubt won't be voting for any of the Republicans up on the stage in Colorado this evening.

But, that said, who did the best and the worst?

I think Chris Christie had the single best moment, when he said he did not deny climate change - as do many Republicans - and would do what he could to improve our climate by supporting private alternate energy enterprise.  That's an enlightened anti-government position on this issue.

The best exchange was between Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio, who both came across well in Bush's attack on and Rubio's defense of his poor attendance record in the Senate.   In general, both Bush and Rubio had a good night, with Rubio somewhat better.

Cruz had a strong moment with the perennial Republican chestnut of attacking the media in general and the questions being asked of him and his colleagues in the debate.  But that was about Cruz's only moment.

Kasich started strong then all but disappeared.  Rand Paul gave some good answers but looked tired and bored.   Huckabee was unmemorable - except for his proud admission about wearing a Trump tie - and Fiorina was the dullest I recall seeing her in any of the debates so far.

Carson and Trump, the two front runners, were both ok, sometimes pretty good, but they often seemed more like bystanders than full-fledged participants in this economic debate.   Someone tweeted - I think it was Farhad Manjoo - that if "if you knew nothing about the polls and watched this you wouldn’t believe Trump and Carson were leading."  I've got to agree.

And so it goes.   Trump will have a chance to rekindle some of his fire on Saturday Night Live this weekend.   He'll need that, because he certainly didn't have all that much tonight.

PS: I thought Lindsey Graham was far and away the best in the junior GOP debate tonight, and was better than at least half the contenders in the main debate tonight.

Edward Snowden at the Hannah Arendt Center at Bard College

I spent an extraordinary few hours earlier today, seeing Edward Snowden, live from Russia via Google Hangout, address and answer questions at the "Why Privacy Matters" conference that took place at the Hannah Arendt Center at Bard College in Annandale, New York (thanks to my friend, author David Brin, who delivered a lecture at the conference yesterday, for the invitation to this event).  The day was beautiful and cool, the Fall foliage peak, but what made the day truly exceptional was what Snowden said - the kinds of things that, well, offer grounds for a little hope for our species after all, or, if you already had such hope, a little more.

There were lots of quotable moments.  Snowden thinks all the candidates in the first Democratic debate on Tuesday, save the one (Lincoln Chafee) who didn't want to see him brought before our criminal justice system, lacked political "courage".  Yet he was heartened that, unlike in 2013, when many politicians were quick denounce him as a "traitor," no one on stage uttered that word on Tuesday.  Snowden (of course) spoke approvingly of the new drone leaks ("The Drone Papers"), and correctly sees that far more incursions on our privacy have occurred under Obama than during George W. Bush's administration.   And he was unafraid to call out his host, Russia, for its own violations of human rights.

But what most struck me about Snowden, and made this event so memorable, was his philosophic depth. In a phrase, he thinks that human values, decided upon by individuals, can be more compelling of our loyalty than any laws.  Yeah, I know this can push us down the slippery slope of anarchy as everyone does what they want to do regardless of the law. And I know that such a principle can easily be used against a progressive law that we support, such an anti-discrimination ruling or statute. But the general principle still holds.  The government, which already holds so many cards, including a monopoly of power (as Snowden also aptly noted), cannot always be the ultimate authority in our lives.

Certainly our right to some small bit of privacy, a piece of our lives not available to governmental scrutiny, would be one place in which human judgement should be superior to governmental fiat. Snowden's leaking of classified information was designed to expose our government's massive incursion on our privacy.   He committed an illegal act to lay bare our government's activities which, legal or not, are intrinsically at odds with one of the very bases of our humanity, our need to have at least a little time off the screen.

Should Snowden come back to the United States to stand trial for this?   He allowed that he would, if he could explain in open court what the government was and is still doing to its citizens.  I admire his willingness to do this but don't know that I would do the same, were I in a similar position.  I've always been a firm believer in the precept that a government which acts immorally loses its claim on us to follow its laws. Had I been visited by Crito on the eve of my death sentence in  Ancient Athens, I would have jumped on that ship in the harbor in a New York minute, and left the hemlock to those who immorally sentenced me to drink it, democracy or not.

In some ways, we've come a long way since then.   We not only are constantly surveilled by the government, but have an increasing power to turn the lenses back on the government, record what it might be illegally doing, and therein begin to hold it to better account.  David Brin has been talking about this kind of "sousveillance" (viewing from below) for years - I'll in effect be talking about it at Annenberg in Philadelphia in December in my Eye in the Sky in the Hand: How Video Cameras in Smart Phones are Finally Beginning to Bring Police to Justice lecture -  and it's part of Snowden's optimism about the future.

Whether it's police killing innocent African-Americans, or the NSA attempting to erase our privacy and therein killing our freedom, these governmental activities deserve our peaceful but staunchest opposition. Hats off to Edward Snowdon for stepping up and acting on this, and articulating the profound issues embedded in his action so eloquently today.

  privacy vs. national security

 
what was Socrates' real motive?

#SFWApro

Hillary Soars in First Democratic 2016 Presidential Debate

Hillary Clinton was outstanding in the CNN Democratic Presidential Debate (the Democrats' first) - better than she was in any of the 2008 Democratic debates, far better than Bernie Sanders on just about every issue tonight, and easily better than the other three candidates on stage.

On gun control, Hillary was much stronger than Bernie, who needed to renounce his opposition years ago to the Brady Bill, and other gun control legislation, in order to gain any kind of equal ground on this with Hillary.   Bernie was also wrong when he said that going to war in Iraq was America's worst war decision - the Vietnam War, with 50,000+ American soldiers killed, started with no previous attack on America at all, surely was worse.

Bernie's best moment was when he lashed out at the GOP for its obsession about Hillary's emails. He was also excellent in his attacks on Wall Street, and domestic policy in general.   But in foreign affairs, he seemed over his head at times.  He cited "climate change" as the greatest  threat to national security - it's a threat, to be sure, but not involving what is usually meant by national security. Hillary's response to this question - nuclear proliferation - was much more on target.  Bernie was strong on domestic not foreign policy; Hillary was strong on both.  My hope: President Hillary Clinton appoints Bernie Sanders Secretary of Health and Human Services.

I didn't agree with everything Hillary said - complete agreement with any candidate is the stuff of fantasy in politics.  She thinks Edward Snowden should be tried for his crimes.  I think he should be brought home as a hero - for unmasking illegal activities of the American government. Lincoln Chafee was the only candidate with this view - though Bernie was a little better on this than was Hillary.  Bernie was also a little better than Hillary on the legalization of marijuana.

Hillary, Bernie, and Martin O'Malley (who was more impressive than Jim Webb and Lincoln Chafee, for whatever that's worth) were all excellent on the black lives matter question - they stressed the often deadly injustice that African-Americans are accorded by American police.   Jim Webb's answer that all lives matter missed the point (and Lincoln Chafee wasn't given a chance to answer).

Hillary's very best moment - and there were many - came in her impassioned support of family leave, and her apt denunciation of the GOP for opposing government spending, except for programs and policies they support.    Such attacks on rife hypocrisy are what successful campaigns are made of.

There's still a long way to go, but Hillary was poised, powerful, relaxed, and in charge tonight.   It's hard to see how anyone else could do a better job than she of getting the Democrats into the Oval Office again, even if Joe Biden does enter the race.

Second GOP Presidential Debate: Trump Fails on Immunizations

I'll preface my analysis of the second GOP Presidential debate - three hours, just concluded on CNN - that I'm not a Republican, and this undoubtedly influences my views of who scored and who did not in a Republican debate.   Nonetheless -

It seemed to me that Trump did not do all that well tonight.  He was more conciliatory, true, and perhaps that helps him, but he once again spoke only in generalities.  And at times - for example - in the discussion of immunizations and autism - he seemed outrightly ignorant, insisting there was sort of a connection, even though Ben Carson, an MD, patiently and repeatedly explained that there was not, or none statistically and scientifically demonstrated.

As Trump does on most of these issues, he conflated at least two different issues - one, whether immune injections cause autism, and, two, whether the immunization shots can be spaced out, or not given all at once.   Drs. Carson and Paul may agree with the latter, but not the former - and Trump tried to sweep his ignorance under the rug by saying he, too, agreed with that, but somehow that still meant there was a connection between immunizations and autism.

The other candidates, with varying styles and intensity, all talked knowledgeably about a variety of issues.  Rand Paul was especially good on the dangers of unconstitutional wars, and Chris Christie on the opposite side of that argument, on the need for a strong and aggressive defense.   These two also spoke very well on opposite sides of the recreational drug legalization issue (I agree with Rand Paul).

Christie was also good in his denunciation of the personal skirmishing between Trump and Fiorina.  I thought Jeb and Fiorina were both strong and articulate in taking Trump on.    But of the two - Jeb and Fiorina - I thought Jeb had far more substance in his positions.

We'll see what the polls say in the next few days.  But I'd be surprised if there wasn't some slippage for Trump - a dangerous prediction, I know.

First 2016 GOP Presidential Debate: My Ranking of the Performances

Continuing my tradition of reviewing the Republican Presidential Debates (and Democratic Debates), which goes back to 2007,  here's my take on what happened on Fox News in Cleveland tonight.

First, as a preamble, I thought the 5pm appetizer debate, consisting of the seven contenders whose polling numbers didn't qualify them (by Fox's standards) for the main event, was one of the most boring political debates I've ever seen.   Sad to say, that debate made pretty clear why those seven candidates polled so poorly.

But on to the debate of 10, which took place from 9 to 11 tonight, I'll appraise this by ranking the performances from worst to best, on all the issues:

10. Ben Carson, neurosurgeon was amiable enough, but clearly out of his depth.  I'll be amazed if his polling numbers don't dip below one percent in the weeks ahead.

9.  Gov. Scott Walker, who was seen in reaction shots agreeing enthusiastically with whatever Carson was saying, didn't do very well himself.   I can't think if a single surprising or memorable point he made.

8. Sen.  Rand Paul came on strong with an attack on Trump at the beginning, and had a few good moments, but let Gov. Christie get the better of him in an exchange about hugs - Paul slammed Christie for hugging Obama, Christie responded that the hugs he most remembered were those of 9/11 victims.  This reprised, in effect, the exchange about national security between Ron Paul (Rand's father) and Giuliani in 2007, except tonight Christie did much better than Giuliani.

7. Gov. Huckabee had some strong moments - his best his joke at the end, in which he talked scathingly about someone leading in the polls with no valid ideas, whom we expected to be Trump, but turned out to be Hillary - but for the most part Huckabee looked and sounded tired.

6. Sen. Ted Cruz was clear and dynamic, but I can't think of an original or commanding idea expressed by him.

5. Christie had a surprisingly good debate, getting the best of Paul, as I said above, but also making powerful points about his success as Governor of New Jersey (and, fortunately for him, no one brought up Bridgegate).

4. Gov. Jeb Bush, as second in the polls after Trump, had more than anyone other than Trump to lose. He accounted well for himself  - spoke well, and came across as the compassionate conservative, especially on immigration, which is where he wants to be.

3. Sen. Marco Rubio came across as the man of the future - showing an understanding of the digital age - as well as compassionate and savvy on a variety of issues.   He was well-spoken, genial, and incisive.

2, Donald Trump held his own, including even in his answer to Megyn Kelly's question about the vicious and demeaning things he's said about women, and later defending his declared bankruptcies in response to a question from Chris Wallace.   For someone with zero experience debating and running in elections, Trump, whatever you may think of his views, stood strong up on that stage.

1. Gov. Kasich was the biggest surprise of the night.  He was powerful without being belligerent, and like Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio displayed what seemed like a real compassion for humanity.

So there you have it - an honest appraisal, without reference to my own political views, which are mostly in disagreement with everyone on the stage (I voted twice for Obama).

On Last Night's Obama Triumph in the Third Presidential Debate

And so the books are closed - or, better screens - on the third and final Presidential debate of 2012.  The President did poorly in the first debate, dominated in the second debate, and did even better in the third debate.

Romney offered little but weak agreement with Obama, and a customary stream of misleading statements and lies.   As in the second debate, Obama did well in challenging these statements, and urging people to go to the record for the truth.

A prime example last night concerned Romney's claim that he didn't want American car companies to fail, but rather wanted the government to shepherd them to health through a "managed bankruptcy".  When Obama correctly called Romney on that, indicating that Romney had never wanted any government money to go to car companies, Romney said Obama was misrepresenting his position.  Romney said people should "look up" what he in fact had written.  Obama said people would.

Here is the applicable sentence in Romney's "Let Detroit Go Bankrupt" op-ed in the November 18, 2008 New York Times - the only sentence that talks about government financial guarantees:  "The federal government should provide guarantees for post-bankruptcy financing and assure car buyers that their warranties are not at risk."  Clearly, the "guarantees" that Romney is talking about are to consumers - car buyers, not car companies - to make sure "their warranties are not at risk".  Such guarantees offer no government assurances of post-bankruptcy support for the car companies.   Romney's idea was to let the car companies fail, but make sure consumers were not left holding the bag.   This was admirable regarding consumers, but Obama realized that consumers and the nation would be better served not by letting the car companies fail and then rebuilding them, but doing something to keep the car companies afloat long enough to recover.

And indeed, if we continue to the concluding sentence of the op-ed, we get Romney's summation of his argument: "In a managed bankruptcy, the federal government would propel newly competitive and viable automakers, rather than seal their fate with a bailout check."  But, in fact, Obama's transfusion of funds, which allowed the car companies to meet their debts and remain viable, did not "seal their fate," and to the contrary served as a springboard to their becoming the most successful car companies in the world today.  Obama's "bailout check" has been totally repaid - literally and figuratively.

Obama bested Romney is just about every exchange last night. (Obama remains vulnerable to Romney's observations about what has not improved in the economy in the past four years, and will remain so until Republican obstruction in Congress is cited by the President).  In the nonverbal realm, Romney looked tired, pasty, out of his element, and far worse than Obama did in the first debate.  But will winning this third debate be enough to win the election in two weeks?   So far, Obama's success in the second debate has perhaps stopped the pace of Romney's surge, but has not put the President clearly back on top.

The election in two weeks should help answer the complex question of the impact of the debates, and well as the related and much more important question of who will be President for next four years.

See also On Last Night's Obama Disappointment in the First Presidential Debate and On Last Night's Biden Success in the VP Debate and On Last Night's Obama Triumph in the Second Presidential Debate

On Last Night's Obama Triumph in the Second Presidential Debate

The British have a great expression - "face like a well-slapped arse" - which describes Mitt Romney's face to a tee at the end of his debate last night with Barack Obama.   Romney looked tired, drained, flustered, slightly desperate.   As well he should have after his 90-minute encounter with Barack Obama, back in top form, getting the best of every encounter with Romney, and looking much better in the bargain.

In the first debate, Obama let Romney have the last word in almost every exchange.  Not so last night, as Obama challenged just about every one of Romney's distortions and lies, with zest, power, and style.  A signal moment came when Romney tried to badger the President to admit that he and his administration took 14 days to recognize that the attack on the US consulate in Benghazi which killed our ambassador was a terrorist attack.  Romney brazenly challenged the President on his statement that he mentioned terrorism the day after the attack.  Obama coolly let Romney finish his rant, then calmly let moderator Candy Crowley school Romney on his error - Obama had in fact mentioned terrorism in a Rose Garden statement the very day after the attack.  This was also an honorable, admirable moment for Crowley - it couldn't have been easy for her to correct Romney, and the American people owe her a debt of gratitude.

Obama's mention of terrorism was not the only aspect of foreign policy in which he schooled Romney before the American people last night.  Obama took the discussion of the Libyan attack as an opportunity to show how foreign policy should be conducted during an election - not as an occasion to make political points, as Romney and the Republicans sought and are still seeking to do, but as a time to stand up for our people in the field.

Romney tried again and again last night to dominate the discussion with his deceptions and distortions.  And again and again, Obama stopped him cold.   When Romney appealed to moderator Crowley, she schooled him on what was his proper time to speak during the debate.  In the first debate, Romney walked all over moderator Jim Lehrer, as Obama just looked on.  Last night, Crowley as well as the President stood up to Romney's bullying.  You could see and hear the result, as Romney's started whining about his time to speak, and as he reverted to Romney-speak with his talk about "binders full of women".

So now we have a split in the Presidential debate results, with one more to go.   Obama has now done a good job highlighting the differences between him and Romney of most domestic issues, including health care, women's rights, immigration, and the economy.   The exchanges on Libya last night promise a good third and final debate this coming Monday as Obama and Romney discuss foreign policy.

See also On Last Night's Obama Disappointment in the First Presidential Debate and On Last Night's Biden Success in the VP Debate