According to a Washington Post article, the IT company that handled Hillary Clinton's server claims they never wiped her server, nor do they have any knowledge that it was wiped. The assumption here is that e-mails that had been deleted from the server could be recovered. Conservatives following this soap opera of a political story have been mildly giddy about this prospect. The belief is that she deleted e-mails with marked classified information or, much worse, evidence that she peddled her influence to benefit her non-profit, which provides income for her family.
Conservatives should not necessarily be excited by this revelation. There are several problems with the statement the company made concerning the server. The short story is, it could be manipulated to seem to prove that there was nothing deleted that would be incriminating.
Let's assume for the first case scenario that the IT company is lying. They wiped the server by using a simple program that writes gibberish on the entire hard drive multiple times. A "DOD" wipe overwrites it three times and would probably take about 5 hours, depending on the size of the drive. They could, then, reinstall the base operating system and whatever other programs and files, like the e-mails she never claimed to have erased. I would go one step further and actually load the truly innocuous personal e-mails and then delete them. This way, when the hard drive is being investigated they find the deleted e-mails and everything appears on the up and up. This is, in my opinion, a highly unlikely possibility. It gets a bit conspiratorial, and it only takes one person to blow it up.
Let's assume, this time, the IT company is telling the truth. They say they have "no knowledge of the server being wiped." This does not eliminate the possibility that a single employee, on their own or directed by the Clintons, was able to wipe the "empty" portion of the server, leaving the "used" portion intact. This is far more likely but possibly more easy to detect by forensics.
Another possibility is that the more sensitive information was wiped in the four months between Hillary's role as Secretary of State and when it was handed over to the IT company that handed it over to the FBI. During this time, the individual from State, whom she was paying personally, would presumably have access to it, and motivation to protect the Clintons. He would be most familiar with what's on it, how it is set up and how to delete it effectively. The fact that he will plead the 5th unless he receives immunity certainly makes it appear that this is a distinct possibility.
If any of these three possibilities actually happened, it will result in a statement that the server was not wiped, and all of the data contained were either turned over or show no evidence of wrongdoing. This statement will be used by supporters as proof that, while she was wrong in using her own e-mail server and may have been in the wrong for the classified information she did turn over, she did nothing criminally. It would actually be a smokescreen. If it was wiped effectively, with evidence covered up and misleading information deliberately placed on it, then she would have effectively used the right's own investigation to falsely prove that she's innocent.
In light of the statements from the IT company that stored the server, the results of the investigation should be taken with a grain of salt. Given the Clinton's history and reputation for hampering investigations and general shady behavior, there is even more reason to be skeptical.
Sunday, September 13, 2015
Tuesday, March 31, 2015
Jesus and the Prostitutes
So the Indiana legislature just passed their version of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and is seeing the expected amount of vitriol and hatred thrown at them. Virtually every reaction to it that I have seen has also been filled with misinformation or outright lies. Some of these people have no idea what the law would involve, others know but lie about it in order to further their agenda. This post is not about that law per se, but about a common retort by Christians sympathetic to LGBT issues. For what is, in my opinion, the best article explaining what the law actually means, and what the federal law signed by Bill Clinton here as well as the 19 other states who have similar laws, please go here.
I first saw the argument "Jesus ate with prostitutes" on Twitter, linking to an article on how some are using that argument against Indiana's RFRA. It brought back a flood of memories of people using that same premise to argue, in essence, the notion of sin in general or the sin being discussed at the moment is moot in light of the Gospel. Using Bing search, I quickly found two examples here and here. Most often, they point to Jesus' encounter with Mary Magdalene:
I first saw the argument "Jesus ate with prostitutes" on Twitter, linking to an article on how some are using that argument against Indiana's RFRA. It brought back a flood of memories of people using that same premise to argue, in essence, the notion of sin in general or the sin being discussed at the moment is moot in light of the Gospel. Using Bing search, I quickly found two examples here and here. Most often, they point to Jesus' encounter with Mary Magdalene:
John 8:2-11 2 But early in the morning he arrived again in the temple area, and all the people started coming to him, and he sat down and taught them. 3 Then the scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery and made her stand in the middle. 4 They said to him, "Teacher, this woman was caught in the very act of committing adultery. 5 Now in the law, Moses commanded us to stone such women. So what do you say?" 6 They said this to test him, so that they could have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and began to write on the ground with his finger. 7 But when they continued asking him, he straightened up and said to them, "Let the one among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her." 8 Again he bent down and wrote on the ground. 9 And in response, they went away one by one, beginning with the elders. So he was left alone with the woman before him. 10 Then Jesus straightened up and said to her, "Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?" 11 She replied, "No one, sir." Then Jesus said, "Neither do I condemn you. Go, (and) from now on do not sin any more."
This passage rightly is the model of how we must forgive and not offer judgement. By Mosaic law, Jesus could have had her stoned. His followers probably would have justified such a decision by acknowledging he had no legal choice. Jesus shows in this act that the law which man lays down is transitory and must conform to God's will. I know, I'm getting too much into natural law here, but bear with me.
The problem with those who reference or quote this passage is they ignore the end of his statement to the woman. They all stop at "neither do I condemn you." They completely ignore "go and from now on do not sin any more."
That last part is so vital. Yes, Jesus ate with sinners and prostitutes. Jesus also called on them to stop sinning, make restitution and follow him. Just look at Luke 19:1-10, Matthew 21:28-32. Also, when Jesus reprimands those criticizing him for eating with sinners in Matthew 9:10-13, Mark 2:15-17 and Luke 5:29-32 he uses the analogy of the physician and the sick. People forget that the physicians job is to remove the sickness from the body. Jesus is to remove sin from us, but not without our repentance. The words repent and repentance are used 44 times in the New Testament. The meaning of the word repent means "to feel such regret for sins or crimes as produces amendment of life." I'm thinking we need to work on changing our sinful habits if we want Jesus to forgive us.
Tuesday, January 20, 2015
The Obsolete Man
In season 2, episode 29 of The Twilight Zone there is a major treatise of the value of man and how the state can be his worst enemy. The episode titled "The Obsolete Man" very directly addresses totalitarianism, but in a way that transcends the two freshest examples of the day; Hitler and Stalin. I see in this episode lessons that can be applied today. From here in the U.S. to China and most everywhere in between, the nasty lessons and warnings of this episode can be applied.
For those who aren't familiar with this episode, I'll summarize as briefly as possible. The state, headed by a chancellor, has put on trial a librarian for being obsolete. Obsolescence is determined by a lack of practical function to the state. In this state, books have been destroyed, therefore there is no need for a librarian, just as the state has proven God to not exist, so ministers are obsolete. The punishment for being obsolete is death. This librarian, however, tricks the chancellor into a near death experience, exposing his cowardice on live television while the librarian bravely faces his death. The chancellor is then determined to be obsolete in the end.
This episode speaks beyond the literal warnings against totalitarianism. I believe Rod Serling realized society and technology would advance far beyond what they could imagine, and so kept his admonitions general. His opening monologue says that this is "not a future that will be, but one that might be...It has patterned itself after every dictator who has ever planted the ripping imprint of a boot on the pages of history." In his closing statement, he says "any state...any ideology that fails to recognize the worth, the dignity, the rights of man, that state is obsolete."
Looking at the obvious, we see parallels with the current states of China, Iran, Venezuela and other similar regimes that have sought to outlaw truth. I'm not even talking propaganda, but the elimination of media and material that runs contrary to what the state wants. In today's world, it isn't just print media. Television and the internet are severely censored in these countries. But why? Simply put, if the people are allowed to explore ideas alternate to what the state dictates, they are a threat. There can be no differing opinions. Anyone who thinks against the state, goes against the state, and that is treason. Hitler and Stalin put these people to death, or ran them out of the country. In one note of irony, Stalin was about to purge many physicians at the end of his life, which no doubt contributed to his death from stroke.
I believe there is a real distinction, however, in the purpose for persecuting different groups. Here, the librarian represents the thinker, the intellectual, religious, humanitarian. These people are threats to the state because they don't help the state, they help individuals or ideas. Just words, just an imaginary man in the sky. The other persecuted or oppressed, such as the sick, differing race, sexual orientation, disabled, are not threats, but are outsiders or deviants and so are a burden on the state.
This brings me to another point. Today, in most countries, we have abortion on demand. So much so, if a mother receives a prenatal diagnosis of certain disabilities, she is at the least offered the chance, at worst encouraged to abort that child on that basis alone. The medical field has determined, with the help of the state, that a fetus is not a person unless the mother says so. Humanity has been redefined. But this episode screams to the contrary.
"The state has proven there is no God!" "You can not erase God with an edict!" Truth, you see, is truth, regardless of what we think of it. We can ignore it. We can say the opposite. No matter what we do, the truth is still there. We can not bestow humanity on an unborn child any more than we can wish God away or say the sky is green and water is dry.
Faith, intellectualism (seeking truth for the sake of truth) and humanitarianism fulfills our humanity. We are more than our function, and so can not be dismissed once we stop being useful. Books, thoughts, ideas, kindness, faith are what separate us from the animals. When we take those things away, we begin to act like animals.
On a final note, in the penultimate scene, the librarian bravely faces his fate, juxtaposed in the same frame the cowering chancellor scrambling to save his life. This illustrates what makes us truly noble humans. Totalitarianism, to whatever degree, strips us of that.
For those who aren't familiar with this episode, I'll summarize as briefly as possible. The state, headed by a chancellor, has put on trial a librarian for being obsolete. Obsolescence is determined by a lack of practical function to the state. In this state, books have been destroyed, therefore there is no need for a librarian, just as the state has proven God to not exist, so ministers are obsolete. The punishment for being obsolete is death. This librarian, however, tricks the chancellor into a near death experience, exposing his cowardice on live television while the librarian bravely faces his death. The chancellor is then determined to be obsolete in the end.
This episode speaks beyond the literal warnings against totalitarianism. I believe Rod Serling realized society and technology would advance far beyond what they could imagine, and so kept his admonitions general. His opening monologue says that this is "not a future that will be, but one that might be...It has patterned itself after every dictator who has ever planted the ripping imprint of a boot on the pages of history." In his closing statement, he says "any state...any ideology that fails to recognize the worth, the dignity, the rights of man, that state is obsolete."
Looking at the obvious, we see parallels with the current states of China, Iran, Venezuela and other similar regimes that have sought to outlaw truth. I'm not even talking propaganda, but the elimination of media and material that runs contrary to what the state wants. In today's world, it isn't just print media. Television and the internet are severely censored in these countries. But why? Simply put, if the people are allowed to explore ideas alternate to what the state dictates, they are a threat. There can be no differing opinions. Anyone who thinks against the state, goes against the state, and that is treason. Hitler and Stalin put these people to death, or ran them out of the country. In one note of irony, Stalin was about to purge many physicians at the end of his life, which no doubt contributed to his death from stroke.
I believe there is a real distinction, however, in the purpose for persecuting different groups. Here, the librarian represents the thinker, the intellectual, religious, humanitarian. These people are threats to the state because they don't help the state, they help individuals or ideas. Just words, just an imaginary man in the sky. The other persecuted or oppressed, such as the sick, differing race, sexual orientation, disabled, are not threats, but are outsiders or deviants and so are a burden on the state.
This brings me to another point. Today, in most countries, we have abortion on demand. So much so, if a mother receives a prenatal diagnosis of certain disabilities, she is at the least offered the chance, at worst encouraged to abort that child on that basis alone. The medical field has determined, with the help of the state, that a fetus is not a person unless the mother says so. Humanity has been redefined. But this episode screams to the contrary.
"The state has proven there is no God!" "You can not erase God with an edict!" Truth, you see, is truth, regardless of what we think of it. We can ignore it. We can say the opposite. No matter what we do, the truth is still there. We can not bestow humanity on an unborn child any more than we can wish God away or say the sky is green and water is dry.
Faith, intellectualism (seeking truth for the sake of truth) and humanitarianism fulfills our humanity. We are more than our function, and so can not be dismissed once we stop being useful. Books, thoughts, ideas, kindness, faith are what separate us from the animals. When we take those things away, we begin to act like animals.
On a final note, in the penultimate scene, the librarian bravely faces his fate, juxtaposed in the same frame the cowering chancellor scrambling to save his life. This illustrates what makes us truly noble humans. Totalitarianism, to whatever degree, strips us of that.
Sunday, January 18, 2015
Reboot
So...I haven't written in a long, long time. What I have discovered is my desire to write a blog and my time and motivation don't quite match for my previous vision to work. As a result, I have decided to completely wipe my previous blog site. I figured there wasn't much there to begin with and didn't really have many followers, so it shouldn't be a big deal.
Instead of a long treatise, submitted in tiny installments which requires more focus and energy than I can afford right now, I'm just going to post as things strike my fancy. The only consistent theme throughout, I hope, is viewing these topics through the lens of a classic philosopher, which is my preferred viewpoint. I believe it to be the most objective, rational and detached viewpoint.
Please be patient with me, and feel free to offer topics for consideration. One note on suggestions. My desire is not to delve too much nor too deeply on controversies and hot button topics. In many respects, I'm more interested in process than who's right or wrong for the sake of this blog. I have discovered within myself a lack of desire for conflict, but at the same time, desire truth in all things, with a detachment from emotion. That does not mean I will avoid all such topics, I just will be slow and deliberate to pick them up. Thanks.
Instead of a long treatise, submitted in tiny installments which requires more focus and energy than I can afford right now, I'm just going to post as things strike my fancy. The only consistent theme throughout, I hope, is viewing these topics through the lens of a classic philosopher, which is my preferred viewpoint. I believe it to be the most objective, rational and detached viewpoint.
Please be patient with me, and feel free to offer topics for consideration. One note on suggestions. My desire is not to delve too much nor too deeply on controversies and hot button topics. In many respects, I'm more interested in process than who's right or wrong for the sake of this blog. I have discovered within myself a lack of desire for conflict, but at the same time, desire truth in all things, with a detachment from emotion. That does not mean I will avoid all such topics, I just will be slow and deliberate to pick them up. Thanks.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)