Apple refuses to help the FBI to hack into the phone of the San Bernardino terrorists.  Is Apple the protector of our privacy?  Well, I can understand their protests of government invasion of our privacy.  But I am not so sure their sincerity.   Eventually, Apple is going to lose in the courts even though it may go all the way to the Supreme court.  Personally, I don't see the difference between a phone or any place that you may hold something private.  The government can get an order to search your house, you work place, your safety deposit box, your mail etc.  So I don't see a criminal can keep anything private.  Apple has cooperated with China in the past under the notion of national security so I don't see why they wouldn't cooperate with our own government.  I think Apple is going to play their hand to the end because it gives them good publicity.  It is more self serving than being savior of our privacy.

I can't believe that Trump claimed that he doesn't know who David Duke is or anything about the white supremist movement.  He is either lying or he is too ignorant to be president.  If his opponents cannot make him pay for these remarks, he will become the GOP nominee.

My next blog was going to  be about officer Peter Liang.  But since LBOAYM brought it up, I decide to write about it now.  It deserves a separate blog and not just a comment from me.  In my opinion, if we never give a police officer the benefit of the doubt in a dangerous situation in the past, then Liang deserves to be tried and convicted.  But as has happened so often in the past, police officers have done much worse than Liang and got off free, then I find it hard to believe that Liang was charged and convicted of manslaughter. 

This shooting occurred in a dark staircase with no witnesses and video.  The bullet had bounced off a wall and hit the victim.  Yes, it was negligence but also bad luck.  Certainly, Liang had no intention of shooting the victim.  Compared that to recent cases where a cop can be seen on video shooting or choking somebody intentionally in broad day light.  I think there is no doubt that the prosecution tried to make this case as an example that they are no longer trying to help the cops.  If this is a true turning of the page for the justice system then the sacrifice of Liang maybe a good thing in the long run.  But since this happened in 2014 and since then I can't think of one white cop being convicted in 2015 for uncalled for shooting, I doubt this is a turning of the page.

I have said it before:  If these unjustified shootings or beatings are occurring in this age of widespread use of cell phone cameras, then can you imagine how often the cops were beating or shooting people in the past?  Well, in this case, there was no video and no witness.  So I would have to ask:  If Liang was white, would he have been prosecuted.  I think not.  Most likely the police would have said that the cop felt danger in the dark and shot a warning shot which bounced off the wall and killed the victim.  That would seem more acceptable to the white community than some of the other shootings.  So I don't think a white cop would have been even prosecuted.

I compare this to the collapse of Wall Street in 2008.  The only big shot from Wall Street who went to jail was a South Asian guy.  Well, unless you count Bernie Madoff.  But even then I say Madoff had to go to jail because he ripped off rich white people only.  Interesting enough the prosecutors in the South Asian's case were South Asians.  This way they claim that he was not tried because of his ethnicity.  Similar to the Rosenberg spy case where the judge was Jewish, Liang's fate is going to be decided by an Asian judge.  I see a pattern here.

I think the Asian community in NY did not start the protest early enough.  The big protests should have occurred way before the trial.  Asians also should have shown more support for Black Lives Matter.  Asians also should show more sympathy to the victim of this case.  One possible consequences of this is that it may decrease the number of Asians wanting to join the police.  Asians are way underrepresented in most police forces and this case will not help the recruitment of Asians into law enforcement.

So now we are down to Kasich vs Rubio in the establishment division of the Republican conference with the winner going up against Cruz of the Evangelical division and Trump of the anti-establishment division.  On the Democratic conference, Clinton is opening a solid lead over Sanders although that conference race is not over by any means.  Bush dropped out after another poor showing in SC.  I think now that his whipping boy Bush is out, Trump will attack Rubio because he doesn't think Kasich will be much of a threat.  Rubio is Trump's biggest threat since Cruz cannot even carry the evangelical heavy SC.

Trump actually backed down a little in his verbal fight with the pope.  I guess he doesn't want to lose the Catholic vote.  I agree with what the pope said about Trump.  But I am wondering if the pope is saying building a wall is not christian like, what about the wall around the Vatican.  Is the Vatican taking in any refugees from the middle east now or in the near future?  Isn't the church's policy against birth control help increase the population in third world countries and thus increase poverty and migration?  But overall, I like pope Francis and I think will make changes that will benefit the church and its followers.

The death of Justice Antonin Scalia must send shock wave to the GOP.  Scalia and Thomas are the two most reliable conservative votes in the Supreme Court.  If Obama is able to get someone through the Senate to replace Scalia, the liberals will be the majority in the Supreme Court.  So the GOP has to do everything to prevent Obama's nominee from getting confirmed.

The GOP does control the senate and so can prevent an Obama's nominee from getting confirmed.  But there is a big risk in this.  Most likely, Obama will nominate someone who had been confirmed with GOP votes in the past for appellate court.  This will force the GOP to renounce someone they had voted for in the past.  If there is no action from the GOP then the court will operate with just 8 justices for the year.  If there is a 4-4 vote then the decision from the lower court will stand.  This means that cases that would have been reversed if Scalia was still alive will not be reversed.  So the conservatives will lose some cases they would have won even if there was no new justice. 

The Democrats will denounce inaction on the part of GOP not to confirm.  GOP voters will be on the side of no action so that would seem to be a wash.  But I think the majority of independents will see the GOP as obstructionists here.  To go a whole year without taking action is just wrong to neutral observers.  Even if the GOP does not lose independent votes, the big fight over this is sure to get heavier voter turnouts in the election.  Since heavy turnouts usually favors Democrats as demonstrated in big turnouts in 2008, this will be problematic for the GOP.  With more GOP senators up for election than Democrats, a heavy turnout can possibly throw the senate to the Democrats.  I am sure Obama and his party is not counting the chickens before they hatch, but the possibility of losses in all 3 branches must be frightening to the GOP today.

Nice for Peyton Manning to probably end his illustrious career on top with a Super Bowl championship.  He must give thanks to his defense and to the Panthers for making all kinds of mistakes. 

The race for the presidency is like football playoffs.  In order to get to the finals, you have to win your conference.  And in order to win your conference, you have to win your division.  So basically Christie, Bush, and Kasich have to beat out Rubio to win the division of the establishment in order to have a chance to beat our Trump and Cruz for the Republican conference.  So with Rubio ahead, the other three are attacking him rather than Trump and Cruz right now.  So will see if that makes a difference in the NH primary this week.  Sanders and Clinton are in the Democratic conference finals already.

I am no fan of Fiorina but I think she should have been allowed to be in the last debate.  She would have been in the JV debate if not for Huckabee and Santorum dropping out.  I mean, if a JV team doesn't have enough players, it stands to reason that the one left over player should be moved up to the varsity.  It does not seem fair that we had 10 debaters before in the main event and now they can't accommodate a seventh debater.