Monthly Archives: August 2018

I Am Spartacus!

 

Image result for spartacus douglasThe most memorable scene in the 1960 Stanley Kubrick epic Spartacus occurs when Roman general Crassus (Lawrence Olivier) offers clemency to any of the rebel gladiators captured during their attack on Rome if they will identify their leader Spartacus (Kirk Douglas).  Instead, each responds by shouting, “No, I am Spartacus,” sharing responsibility for the insurrection, knowing they would be punished–death by crucifixion–for their insolence.  The words have come to be a powerful metaphor for camaraderie and loyalty.

The phrase has also become a popular and somewhat humorous meme.  The Urban Dictionary presents the following example.

Person enters chat room and types “I am Spartacus.”
100 other people in the chat room then respond with “No, I am Spartacus!”, “I am Spartacus!”, etc.

Yesterday, we observed an “I am Spartacus” moment following Donald Trump’s revocation of former CIA director John Brennan’s security clearance in a cowardly (unwilling to announce the action himself) and pitiful manner.  After directing communications shill Sarah Huckabee Sanders to inform the White House press corp the action was based on Brennan’s erratic behavior and threat to national security, Trump confessed to the Wall Street Journal it was really because Brennan had dared challenge the White House view of the investigation into Russian interference during the 2016 election.

I think that whole – I call it the rigged witch hunt – is a sham. And these people led it!  So I think it’s something that had to be done.

The first “gladiator” to come to Brennan’s defense was retired Navy admiral William McRaven, who oversaw the 2011 Navy SEAL raid that took out Osama bin Laden.  In a public statement akin to “I am Spartacus,” McRaven addressed Trump in a Washington Post opinion piece.

I would consider it an honor if you would revoke my security clearance as well, so I can add my name to the list of men and women who have spoken up against your presidency.

Last night, 12 additional senior intelligence officers joined the chorus, issuing a joint statement characterizing Trump’s action as follows.

…the president’s action regarding John Brennan and the threats of similar action against other former officials has nothing to do with who should and should not hold security clearances — and everything to do with an attempt to stifle free speech.

The signatories included six former CIA directors, five former deputy directors and former director of national intelligence James Clapper, all of whom served in both Democratic and Republican administrations.

Compare these comments to those of Republican Louisiana Senator John Neely Kennedy, who has no military or intelligence experience and does not sit on either the Armed Services Committee or the Select Committee on Intelligence.

I think most Americans look at our national intelligence experts as being above politics. Mr. Brennan has demonstrated that that’s not the case. He’s been totally political. I think I called him a ‘butthead’ and I meant it. I think he’s given the national intelligence community a bad name.

I, for one, will not be surprised if, in the coming days, there is a cacophony of Trump apologists who start a new meme, ” NO, I AM JUDAS!”

FOOTNOTE:  The screenplay for Spartacus was penned by  Dalton Trumbo, one of the Hollywood Ten, among others who were blacklisted during the McCarthy era.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP

 

The DNA of NDAs

 

Image result for omarosa

The latest episode in the daily White House soap opera involves the release of the tell-all book Unhinged: An Insider Account of the Trump White House by 13-year Donald Trump associate Omarosa Manigault Newman (alias The Notorious OMN).  As one would expect, the White House and various Trump surrogates have vilified Omarosa both for the content of the memoir of her days in the West Wing and her behavior, for example, bringing a recording device into the Situation Room during her meeting with Chief of Staff John Kelly at which her employment was terminated.

I will leave it to the journalists and critics to determine the veracity of her claims.  Nor am I going to defend her violation of protocol using recording equipment in a designated Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility (SCIF).  Though one does wonder why a retired Marine Corps general felt it necessary or appropriate to use the Situation Room to handle a personnel matter, also highly irregular.

Instead, I would like to focus on the one action Omarosa took which ensured she could publish her book and publicize it.  Unlike Trump paramours Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal or personal bodyguard Keith Schiller, Omarosa chose NOT to sign the non-disclosure agreement (NDA) presented to her following her dismissal as a White House senior advisor.  To understand why this is significant one needs a basic understanding of the history behind such documents.

NDAs are relatively new.  The term first appeared in the 1940s in the context of maritime law.  Emerging technology companies such as IBM next adopted the instruments to protect the proprietary elements of their products.  Later NDAs began to included customer lists and financial information such as pricing and margins.  The first known instance of government usage occurred in the late 1970s when the House Select Committee on Assassinations forbade consultants working for the committee to acknowledge the very existence of the investigation.  Over time, they have become standard employment requirements in both blue and white collar industries.

However, there are two major and highly significant differences between the overwhelming majority of NDAs and those prepared by Trump legal counsel.  First, individuals are usually presented with the terms of the NDA prior to exposure to any sensitive information.  In other words, the employer justifiably claims, by virtue of becoming an employee of an organization, you will have access to information of a confidential nature.  Therefore, under penalty, you are expected to maintain the integrity of such material.  In the cases of the Trump-related NDAs of which we have now have knowledge, the individual is asked to sign the NDA only after he or she has heard or witnessed something the Trump team thinks might be damaging.

Second, most NDAs do not include additional cash payments or other compensation post employment.    This provision is usually included in a section of the document called “Survival.”  A generic version is provided below.

This Agreement shall govern all communications between the parties.  Recipient understands that its obligations under “Non-disclosure and Non-use Obligations” shall survive the termination of any other relationship between the parties.  Upon termination of any relationship between the parties, Recipient will promptly deliver to Company, without retaining any copies, all documents and other materials furnished to Recipient by Company.

NDAs have a legitimate purpose.  Individuals and corporations have a right to legally protect their intellectual property from being disseminated by a disgruntled employee or someone looking to make a fast buck.  However, the signatories to an NDA also deserve legal protection.  Just as the Whistleblower Act of 1989 safeguards federal government employees from any retaliatory action for disclosing information of a dishonest or illegal nature, there should probably be a similar law related to NDAs.  The potential legislation would relieve anyone subject to an NDA from retaliation in instances where the individual has knowledge of a crime or has material information related to a civil or criminal lawsuit.

In the tradition of the “Whistleblower Act,” perhaps it will become known as the “Trumpet Act.”

POSTSCRIPT: The Magic Number

If nothing else, we at least know exactly the going price for silence in Trump World.  Keith Schiller accepted and Omarosa was offered $15,000 per month for positions with vague job descriptions at the Republican National Committee.  Moreover, rather than spend his own money to silence potential critics and/or witnesses (in Schiller’s case), Trump is relying on his corporate sponsors and voter base to underwrite these NDAs.  Can you say, “SUCKERS!”  I knew you could.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP

 

OurSpace

 

Throughout my career, I have had the honor and privilege of leading several organizations.  One of the principles I applied during my tenure in each position was the right of those under my supervision to disagree with or challenge anything we did.  However, it was incumbent on those who voiced disapproval to also provide an alternative.  I thought about this management approach when my wife responded to my last post by saying, “You were pretty hard on Facebook.”  She was right.  What was my solution for the 1.4 billion daily users whom I had urged to cancel their Facebook accounts?

If you have not figured it out by now, many of my posts are grounded in analogies, comparing the sujet du jour (topic of the day)  to a totally unrelated reference.  Enter the 16th president of the United States Abraham Lincoln.  If the 2016 election and its association with groups like Cambridge Analytica were the “Gettysburg of the on-line era,” how would Honest Abe have honored those who were swept up in this monumental battle between a desire to build a sense of community and the right to privacy.  With apologies to the Great Emancipator…

Eight score and 13 months ago, Harvard students brought forth a new computer program, conceived in their dormitory room, and dedicated to the proposition human beings need a forum on which they can expose and share every aspect of their lives which marketers and politicians will use against them to promote useless products and divisive discourse.

Now we are engaged in a conflict, testing whether that application, or any application so conceived and dedicated, can long endure.

The world will little note nor long remember what the pundits said about how so many individuals were “zuckered” into believing shareholders would put our collective appetite for community before their personal gain.  It is for us, with the benefit of experience and hindsight, to be here, dedicated to the task remaining before us–a better application of the users, by the users and for the users.

Thus the proposed name “OurSpace,” an application not only populated by the users, but wholly owned and operated by those same individuals.  Here is how it might work.

  1. OurSpace would be established as a 501(c)(6) non-profit corporation (similar to a chamber of commerce or professional association).   All revenues would be used for administration of the program..
  2. There is no such thing as a free lunch.  OurSpace would be funded with a one-time $10 membership fee.  If it attracted just 10 percent of the current 2.1 billion Facebook accounts, this would generate a  permanent capitalization totaling $2.1 billion.  If invested with even a modest 3.0 percent return, the corpus would generate $63 million annually.  This would be the application’s sole source of revenue.  No paid advertising.
  3. Employees would be compensated based on a schedule commensurate with other non-profits.  It could even use the federal GSA grade designations.  In this case, even the CEO would be limited to a salary of $400,000/year equal to that of the president of the United States.
  4. The board of directors would consist of paid members and be representative of the user base.
  5. The board would establish criteria which governed what constituted acceptable material members could post to the site.
  6. A compliance review committee, again made up of paid members, would review cases where users may have violated the acceptable material criteria.
  7. Under no circumstances would user profiles or other information be shared with third parties.

All of the tools (e.g. crowd sourcing sites) to create OurSpace already exist.  All that is missing is one or more individuals who have the commitment and energy to prove the ability to connect people on-line can be achieved without having to sell out the users.  If only I were 20 years younger.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP

 

The Great American Face-Out

 

Lately, I have started my posts by mentioning a creativity tool or technique which I used to develop and flesh out the content on the topic du jour.  Today’s article again draws on Carl Jung’s concept of “synchronicity,” the ability to see connections where none seem to exist.  The observation which triggered today’s topic was the July 26, 2018 story on CBS Moneywatch, “Facebook stock suffers largest one-day drop in history, shedding $119 billion.”  The decline was based on data in the company’s most recent quarterly report :

  • The number of active users grew more slowly than estimated.
  • Imposition of new privacy laws by the European Union.

CEO Mark Zuckerberg took a one-day personal loss of $15.9 billion.  For the record, that is more than the market capitalization of Coors ($14 billion) and Macy’s ($12 billion).  No tears shed by me.  The company which promised to “Give people the power to build community and bring the world together (actual Facebook mission statement),” is nothing more a human version of crowd-funding where the currency is personal data instead of dollars.  And worse, they have lured each of us into doing their heavy lifting.

Facebook is an addiction.  A February 6, 2018 article on The Motley Fool website reported the average daily user, of which there are 1.4 billion, spends 41 minutes per day on Facebook.  No wonder Facebook is in the cross-hairs of those who want to understand how social media was such a major force in the 2016 presidential election.  Just imagine if voters had spent those 41 minutes reading a newspaper or magazine, learning more about the state of health care in America or facts about immigration.

Image result for the great american smokeoutWhich brings me back to Carl Jung and synchronicity.  How do organizations which fight other addictions make the habitué and public aware of the impact of dependency?  Perhaps the best example is “The Great American Smoke-Out.”  Since 1974, when editor of the Monticello Times (MN) Lynn R. Smith first proposed the idea (then called Don’t Smoke Day), the third Thursday in November each year is designated as a challenge for smokers to eschew their habit for at least 24 hours.  At the same time, media is flooded with helpful hints and tools smokers should consider to aid in permanently ending their desire or need for nicotine.

In the same spirit, I now declare May 14 (Mark Zuckerberg’s birthday) of each year to be “The Great American Face-Out,” a 24 hour period during which Facebook users give their thumbs a rest and keep the pictures of their children, pets, latest meal or vacation to themselves.  Which begs the question, “What do I do with all that time?”  The obvious answer is pick up a major national newspaper or magazine and learn something new about what is actually happening in the United States or around the world.  But I have a better idea.  Read something you normally would never read.  Here are a few suggestions.

  • Pick up a copy of The Liberty Amendments: Restoring the American Republic written by conservative talk show host Mark Levin.  It is the Koch brothers and Tea Party manifesto.  Proposed amendments include returning election of U.S. Senators to state legislatures (not by popular vote per the 17th amendment), allowing states to amend the Constitution without Congressional involvement in the process, limiting early voting, permitting two-thirds of the states to nullify federal laws and restricting judicial review by federal courts.
  • Spend 30 minutes on 4Chan, the website whose patrons have come up with the QAnon conspiracy theory and believe they are being manipulated by an international cabal of pedophiles including Tom Hanks.
  • Spend a few minutes on The Daily Stormer, the self-proclaimed “most-censored site on the Internet.”  Would the most censored site on the Internet start a story about a school play which explored the parallels between Anne Frank and DACA recipients by opening with the following.  “The only people that go to watch plays are homosexuals, housewives and the sons/husbands they manage to drag with them.”  Or a whole section called the “Jewish Problem.”

Why would I recommend this?  Because it is the source of much of the drivel that is spread, in sanitized form, on Facebook.  The source material puts the Facebook versions to shame. So, if you’re wondering why I cancelled my Facebook account,  it is not because I’m not interested in your lives.  I have email and you are welcome to share anything you want with me.  The real reason?  I stopped checking Facebook for a few days and guess what?  I can live without it.  Furthermore, in the real world I do not monetize my friendships.  Why would I want to be an accomplice to someone who does exactly that in the virtual world and can lose $119 billion and not have to turn to flipping burgers at McDonald’s?

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP

 

Schtick It to ‘Em

 

The Second City Hollywood improv pop up performance In the business that makes up my other life, we teach clients how to promote and facilitate creativity in teams by employing the same techniques improvisation theaters use to entertain their audiences.  To design this training module, we did a lot of research about improvisation which changed our understanding of this art form.  Foremost was the knowledge improv is not always improv.  A typical performance is half rehearsed skits and half ad lib based on audience input (e.g. “Give us an occupation.”)  It was the origins of the prepared material which I found most interesting.  In many cases it is a honed version of an improv experience which drew a positive response from the audience.

I thought about this approach to performance art twice this week.  First, while watching clips of Donald Trump at campaign rallies in Florida and Pennsylvania.  Second, during  an exchange between CNN’s Jim Acosta and White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders at Thursday’s daily briefing.  In the first instance, it is clear Trump has become a one-man improv troupe.  The first time he did the “I could be presidential but boring” routine there may have been a level of spontaneity.  But when you see the same bit night after night, you know that is no longer the case.  And I understand why his fans at each of these rallies continue to laugh.  In effect, it is no different from when you and I watched a Johnny Carson Tonight Show anniversary special and could not wait for the replay of Ed Ames throwing that tomahawk.  In other words, a Trump rally may as well be called, “The Donald’s Greatest Hits.”  When is he going to do Lock Her Up, Rigged Witch Hunt and of course Build That Wall?

Even if you consider his behavior at these events “unpresidential,” one can argue any campaign rally is half politics, half entertainment.  After all, Trump’s reincarnation following the collapse of his real estate business was based on the phrase, “You’re fired!”  It would not surprise me in the least if, during an episode of PBSFinding Your Roots, host Henry Louis Gates, Jr. revealed Donald had been adopted by Fred and Mary Anne Trump after he was abandoned by his true father P. T. Barnum.

If only we could sit back and enjoy the show.  But yesterday it took a much uglier turn.  On Thursday morning during an interview with Axios‘ Mike Allen, first daughter Ivanka laughed when asked if she believed the press is the enemy of the people as if she could not understand why anyone would even ask the question.  Caught off guard, without the benefit of Daddy’s coaching, Ivanka replied, “No, I do not.”

CNN’s Acosta, the target of recent personal attacks by Trump and his mouthpiece Sean Hannity, could not resist the opportunity to ask Sanders whether she sided with her boss or Ivanka.

It would be a good thing if you were to state right here, at this briefing, that the press — the people who are gathered in this room right now, doing their jobs every day, asking questions of officials like the ones you brought forward earlier — are not the enemy of the people. I think we deserve that.

Did Sanders answer the question?  Did she even look Acosta in the eye?  No.  Instead, she began reading from a prepared statement.  What used to be a Q&A between the press and the White House spokesperson is now something entirely different.  It is a hybrid of the two sides of improvisation.  The question is ad libbed. “Give me a topic.” But the response is not an extemporaneous answer.  It is a well-honed, pre-rehearsed statement.

Sadly, this was just the final act of a matinee performance of White House schtick.  The press briefing began with statements by the five senior representatives of the U.S. intelligence community confirming the Russian threat to our election system was real, it was on-going in 2018 and they were committed to doing whatever was necessary to prevent a replay of 2016.  We were told Trump personally asked them to appear at the briefing.  In the post-briefing analysis, MSNBC’s Nicole Wallace (former advisor to George W. Bush) asked the panel, “Is there any chance the president will undercut his director of national intelligence, CIA director, FBI director, NSA director, secretary of homeland security tonight at his rally in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania?”  The pundits’ response, “Why not.  He’s done it before.”  Right on cue, just hours after his security team affirmed Russia’s attack on American democracy, Trump whined his efforts to build a relationship with Valdimir Putin “are being hindered by the Russian hoax.”

It’s quite clear Trump and his minions, have adopted a bastardized version of Helen Keller’s adage, “We can do anything we want if we s(ch)tick to it long enough.”

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP