Mr. Robot

"Mr. Robot" is a TV series airing on the USA cable channel.  It's second season aired last summer but I only got around to watching it in the last few days.  It is not for everybody so this is not a "go see it now" commercial disguised as a blog post.  But even though its appeal is limited I think it is worth talking about.

Mr. Robot conforms to a now popular model.  It is in effect a novel broken into one hour episodes analogous to chapters in a book.  In the old days TV shows consisted of a number of stand alone episodes.  That's not what's going on here.  Each episode advances the story.  To completely understand what's going on you have to have seen earlier episodes.  The most visible example of this sort of thing is "Game of Thrones", airing on HBO.  Game of Thrones is based on the "Song of Ice and Fire" books by George R. R. Martin.  Each season is a condensed version of one of the volumes in the series.  But in this case there is no book underlying "Mr. Robot".  So what's it about?

At one level it is the ever popular "David versus Goliath" story.  Instead of a single individual we have a small band of plucky nobodies taking on the large and powerful "E" Corporation.  At least from the point of view of the show, our band is the good guys and E Corp is the bad guy.  And oh boy does E Corp fit the role of villain.  They do pretty much every bad thing a corporate villain is supposed to do.  They are powerful and completely unscrupulous.  They literally kill people by poisoning the environment.  They buy and sell politicians.  And in true villain fashion they occasionally straight up assassinate people.

The case for our plucky band being heroic is mush less straightforward.  They seem like good people but they end up doing a lot of bad things.  In one case one of them actually kills someone on purpose.  They do other bad things because, you know, "the ends justify the means".  The moral ambiguity (to put it politely) makes for better drama and we definitely get lots of drama.

And you will probably be less than totally surprised to find out that there is a chief good guy.  His name is Elliot and he is played by Remy Malek.  And, this being a modern drama, Elliot is a hacker par excellence.  Season one revolves around the team's efforts to pull off a giant attack on E Corp.  BTW, the E Corp logo looks a lot like the logo for Enron.  The nickname for E Company in the series is Evil Company.  This nickname would have fit Enron very well.

In the show E Corp houses all the records on who owes money to who.  By wiping out E Corp's databases (and some other stuff that's necessary to make the plan work but is too complicated to go into here) our plucky band seriously injures E Corp.  But they also plunge the world (or at least the US) into chaos.  For reasons I never was quite able to figure out only cash and a Bitcoin-like payment service housed on smart phones continues to work after the attack.  E Corp somehow owns the phones but not the payment handling service.  But the payment service leaves digital tracks behind so anyone who has access to the right computer systems knows how you are spending every penny.

That's where season two starts up.  E Corp is wounded but still very much in business.  Lots of people are chasing after our band and it is obvious that "stage 2" is necessary to complete the job of defeating evil and raising up good.  I am mostly through the season and so far almost no progress has been made with respect to stage 2.  In a "behind the scenes" companion show one of the actors opined that the series might run 5 seasons.  So I will be very surprised if things are resolved by the time I finish watching the remaining episodes.  And if you want to know more about what happens you'll have to get your hands on the episodes and watch them.

But I want to step back form the twists and turns of a specific episode and look at what is happing at a more macro level.  "Mr. Robot" follows a pretty standard model, albeit in its own idiosyncratic way.  And the basic idea is that the "David" group exposes and documents the bad behavior of the "Goliath" group.  Then everybody recoils in shock and horror and the cops round up the perps and we all live happily ever after.

There is a specific example of this in season 2.  The good guys by nefarious means secure an audio recording of the bad guys doing bad things.  They, again by nefarious means, upload this audio file to the Internet then draw attention to it.  The audio is quickly copied far and wide so that the bad guys can't suppress it and everyone reacts in shock and horror right on queue.  Then the cops, or in this case a Senate committee, swoops in and starts reining the bad guys in.  This is pretty much standard stuff.

It happened that way in "Three Days of the Condor", a 1975 movie.  The last scene features Robert Redford in front of a The New York Times sign.  The implication is that he has provided all the information he has uncovered about bad behavior in the CIA to the paper.  They, in turn, will publish it and the bad guys will be punished accordingly.

And the poster child for all this is Watergate.  Dogged reporting, most prominently by Woodward and Bernstein, eventually exposed nefarious doings by the Nixon Administration.  Eventually Nixon was forced to resign and a number of people ended up in jail.  It is important to note that "Three Days of the Condor" came out only a few years after Watergate.

But the question that now haunts me is:  does this model still work?  The Nixon people worked very hard to keep their bad behavior out of the public eye.  They knew what they were doing was wrong and that even if it wasn't it would look wrong and that would be damaging.  But we have moved away from things working that way since.

Part of it has to do with the definition of what constitutes bad behavior.  In 1928 Al Smith was deemed an unsuitable candidate for President because he was a Catholic.  That rule held until Kennedy was elected in 1960.  In 1964 it was widely believed that Nelson Rockefeller was an unsuitable candidate for President because he had been divorced.  That rule held until 1980 when Reagan was elected.  In 1972 Thomas Eagleton was deemed an unsuitable candidate for Vice President because he had undergone certain treatments for a Psychiatric condition.  And then there's the whole Monica Lewinski thing with Bill Clinton.  President Clinton survived the whole impeachment process because the general public did not think that his behavior justified the punishment.

We now have something called Borking.  Judge Bork was a well respected jurist.  He was nominated for the Supreme Court.  His nomination was eventually blocked because too many Senators felt that his positions were too far out of line with mainstream judicial thinking.  It has since been forgotten that two Democrats voted for Bork and six Republicans voted against him.  (He had been nominated by Reagan.)  On numerous occasions afterward Republicans have accused Democrats of "Borking"  one Republican nomination or another.  This has the desired effect of deflecting attention away from the actual substance behind any opposition.  This allows any opposition by any Democrat to any Republican nomination to be characterized as "political" and, therefore, unworthy.  It should work the same way for Democrats.  They should be able to "Bork" Republican opposition to Democratic nominees.  But that never happens.  This tactic is one of many that has resulted in the increased polarization of politics.

That's bad enough.  Democrats in the Bork case presented substantial evidence to back their contention.  But it turns out that unsubstantiated attacks can work.  The classic example is birtherism.  When Obama first threw his hat into the ring there was a legitimate question as to where he was born.  So in 2008 he released his "short form" birth certificate.  Republican government officials in Hawaii immediately confirmed that it was authentic.  Various news organizations were quickly able to confirm that birth announcements had appeared in the two largest newspapers in Honolulu.  This all happened in 2008.  That should have been the end of that.

But then the most unlikely figure took up the cause.  Her name was Orly Taitz.  Look her up.  You wouldn't believe a person with her background and expertise could be seen as a credible source of information on the subject but she was, at least by some.  She was able to put on a good enough performance to justify repeat bookings on conservative radio and TV shows.  She never came up with anything substantial but that didn't diminish her popularity on these shows.  That resulted in Obama going through all the hoops necessary to obtain and release his "long form" birth certificate in 2011.  That only resulted in a change in the cast of accusers.  Donald Trump took up the cause.

Was any new information unearthed?  No!  Trump at one point announced that he had sent investigators to Hawaii but never released any results from the "investigation".  Nor did anyone else turn up anything else.  And let me repeat.  The matter was definitively settled in 2008.  President Obama was born in Hawaii.  Yet the "birther" controversy persisted until a few weeks ago.  Donald Trump made a short announcement that President Obama was born in the US.  Will that finally put this nonsense to bed?  If past is prologue then the answer is a resounding no.  But the President is leaving office soon.  This will remove the actual reason for all this bad behavior.  So I actually expect the issue to finally die the death it should have died all the way back in 2008.

What all this has in common is the inability of truth to drive out nonsense in public discourse.  Truth can be made invisible and falsehoods can be made visible if enough people want to disbelieve the true thing or believe the false thing and if enough effort is put behind it.  In our fictional universe does Evil Corp have the resources and the ability to make truth invisible and falsehood visible?  They sure do.  And, unfortunately, I am very concerned that the real world analogs of Evil Corp are be able to do the same.

We are seeing the success the Oil industry is having at creating and maintaining over a long period of time the fiction that there is a controversy over global warming and the extent to which human activities are responsible for it.  There is a long, well organized, and successful effort by biblical literalists to convince people that Intelligent Design is a reasonable and scientifically valid alternative to Evolution.  It is neither.  The "birther" nonsense has proved completely impervious to any and all applications of fact for almost a decade.

Finally, in the interest of fairness let me list some areas where lefties are either the prime movers or active co-conspirators in this kind of behavior.  Many on the left believe that GMO crops are wildly dangerous.  There is no evidence to back this up, only suspicions.  There has been an active and well funded search lasting many years for such evidence.  But no one has come up with anything yet.  However, that failure hasn't stopped the anti-GMO people from acting like vast amounts of evidence of harm has been collected and confirmed.

Then there is the anti-vaccination movement.  Vaccines have literally saved millions of lives.  The current vaccines in general use are incredibly safe.  Yet a single small and poorly done study that has since been entirely repudiated was enough to set off a craze that continues to this day.  The result is millions of parents, mostly liberals, failing to vaccinate their children.  People have died as a result.  But the anti-vaccination movement, while diminished, continues to motor on.

The final item on my list is nuclear power.  I should probably do an entire post on this subject.  But here's the Cliff's Notes version.  Nuclear power is dangerous.  But so are all the alternatives.  So the appropriate question is:  how safe is nuclear power compared to the alternatives?  And the answer turns out to be remarkably safe.  Coal kills lots of people by giving them black lung disease.  Coal mining trashes large parts of coal country.  Coal creates incredible amounts of incredibly dangerous byproducts.  By comparison, nuclear kills and grievously harms far fewer people.  It trashes far less land.  And it creates far smaller amounts of dangerous byproducts.  But by comparing nuclear to a theoretically perfect alternative that doesn't actually exist liberals make it sound incredibly bad.

I am not going to connect the obvious dots at this point.  I think you can all do that without me.