Parrot Cage

Bush fulfills campaign promise to harass John Kerry

As Bush campaigned in 2004, notably absent from any of his stump speeches was a truthful celebration of his accomplishments.  In fact there was rarely even a dishonest celebration of his accomplishments.  His handlers didn't even bother to offer "that vision thing" which Bush's father at least acknowledged was a necessary illusion.

Instead, at event after campaign event Bush slumped over the podium, stared blankly into the crowd and reeled off a litany of crazy things that John Kerry says and thinks and desires.  That famous smirk was the only sign of life in a robotic performance that didn't even need to punctuate the outrage that his crowds were there to bathe in.

What did this image tell us about a second term?  Had Bush lost that election historians would undoubtedly have inferred from his demeanor that his heart wasn't really in the fight.   With Bush defeated the lessons of history would be that the American people demand more from a candidate than dishonest bogeyman stories before they hand him the keys to power.  Turns out, the American people aren't that demanding.

Before the 2004 Democratic primary all the media parrots lined up to warn the Democrats that they can't win elections by just running down the President and his policies.  Americans won't vote out of animosity they all told us.  So the Kerry camp ran a remarkably positive convention.

And naturally these good parrots held no such comparable insights when the Republican Convention turned into a rabid hate fest.  No vision for the future, no accomplishments to be lauded, only contempt for John Kerry.

And that's how they won.  And that's how they govern.

When the election is over and all that you've told the American people is that your opponent hates the country he seeks to govern, what do people expect you to do in office?  You're in luck, because the people who voted for you obviously hold no expectations.

Seems the Republicans are fulfilling a campaign pledge of sorts and continue to make dogging John Kerry their number one priority.  Kerry has been an able punching bag; it's almost like Republicans kick him just to watch his painful reaction.

Republicans won't continue to hold onto power because the American people are horrified of John Kerry.  They'll hold onto power because otherwise thoughtful citizens will continue to steer clear of the ugliness of politics.

Nobody Left to Blame

Election Day is less than two weeks away.  Well since March we've been told by various pollsters and pundits that Republicans will be swept from power come November.  With all of the corruption and glaring ineptitude on matters of war and domestic welfare, with the free-wheeling and unprecedented spending, with the absolute unanimity of a government dedicated to securing wealth and power to the wealthy and powerful, with the destruction of New Orleans and with it any notion that we are a nation of equals, with all the known and unknown reasons why this is the worst Congress in at least a century, is the Republican stranglehold on the United States government really going to come to an end?

We think not.

Various public conservatives and Republicans have ran screaming from their sinking ship and are even suggesting that turning government back to Democrats will actually help Republicans in the 2008 Presidential race.  There is some Machiavellian logic here: the country is a mess, Iraq is a mess, the Constitution lies in tatters, and the Republicans have nobody to blame but themselves.  With the housing bubble bursting, the economy could well do a nosedive in the next couple of years--and more than anything, more than chaotic imperial wars, more than outright corruption, economic downturns are the only real guarantee that the bums will be thrown out.  After a looming economic collapse, who will be left holding the bag?

But Karl Rove is smarter than that.  Like an Orwellian villain, the White House knows that the only purpose of power is to retain power.  Everything they do, every decision they make, every soldier they send to die in battle, every word they utter, all revolves around the ultimate need to stay in power.

Which is why this dirty election is about to hit the fan.  This could be the ugliest election season ever for one simple reason.  The risk for Republicans of losing big in this coming election isn't simply the temporary loss of power.  No, this time they are fighting for their lives.  We suspect that the level of corruption oozing out of this Congress is way beyond anything we've seen so far, and we've seen plenty.  If a new Congress decides to actually investigate, there's no telling who will end up disgraced or jailed.  Republicans will not let that happen, and Americans will love them for it.

Perhaps the biggest distinction that one can make between the Republican and the Democratic establishments is that Republicans are willing to do whatever is necessary to win.  That is why Americans are more likely to trust them with power in a time of war.  Which doesn't make them particularly smart, just desperate and willing and amoral.

That may be enough to keep them in power; especially when their opponents offer little alternative.

Listening to the Generals

The Premise:  President Bush keeps repeating that he is listening to the generals in Iraq and taking their advice.  We've heard Lou Dobbs advocate the firing of several generals for not securing victory in Iraq, but nobody else seems to be taking up Dobbs' position, at least not publicly.

The Inside Information:  Many captains and majors are returning from Iraq with nothing but contempt for the generals running the show over there.  They see these generals as sycophantic Bush buddies who are using the lives of our soldiers for career advancement.  These generals are less interested in protecting their troops or of securing victory than in keeping their jobs and pushing promotions.  These veteran officers say that the generals are reluctant to seriously engage the enemy or do anything that might spike the American body count because that would also spike the discontent of the American public with this war.  And, these generals are also reluctant to address any form of withdrawal because their Commander in Chief will not allow it.

9-11 again and again

It is the five year anniversary of 9-11, and what have we learned?  Possibly nothing.  Here's our very incomplete list of what we should have learned by now:

The FBI may not have talked with the CIA...

and neither talked with the INS...

Bush may have ignored all warnings...

airport security may have been left in the hands of minimum wage temps to save the airlines some more money...

the Taliban may have harbored Al Queda within their tenuously secured borders of Afghanistan...

Osama may have drawn up the plans and given the orders...

...but, the 19 men who cooperated with each other to commit massive acts of terrorism are the ones most responsible for the events of September 11.

Understanding their motives could be the most important step in preventing future attacks.

However many religious maniacs believe their gods direct them to kill, very very few of these people actually follow through in maintaining the murderous directives of their psychotic gods.

Understanding this phenomenon could be helpful in preventing future attacks.

Giving guns and training and shoulder-mounted anti-aircraft rockets to radical Muslims in Afghanistan who were absolutely known to slaughter teachers for their book-learning and to torture and kill women for being women was, as it turns out, not preferrable to godless Communism.

Religion kills.

George Bush was in fact the only human being on the planet who, once he was told of the terrorist attack, didn't gasp and run to find out more information.

There are greater evils in the world than Presidents who freeze up in moments of crisis.

No matter how badly a politician or political party may clusterfuck the country, war wins elections.

The quickest and most sure way to effectively destroy any lingering worldwide goodwill towards your militant, prosperous country is to invade a defenseless third world country whose only source of revenue is its rich oil fields.

When the country who owns a significant amount of your national debt and floods your trade deficit with cheap goods is a corporate dictatorship who regularly threatens its neighbors and possesses and tests massive quantities of weapons of mass destruction, then nobody can take seriously any claims to democratizing the Middle East, one oil field at a time.

The blood of Iraq will not protect us.

Religious sociopaths won't stay bumbling and incapable forever.

The evils of religion will not be abated by more religion.

After the untold millions who have been killed intentionally or unintentionally around the world through the evil militarism and global strategy of the United States government's foreign policy in the last 100 years...

...3,000 dead Americans is still unforgivable.

Obligatory Lieberman comment

We don't much care for Democrats, and Joe Lieberman is pretty much the reason why.  Therefore, it comes as some relief that he lost his primary election.

Lieberman has enabled Bush to turn a flawed government into a nightmare.  He deserves to spend the rest of his days as a Fox News contributor.

He'll run as an independent, and he'll lose again.  And Ned Lamont will undoubtedly prove a disappointment to "liberal" Democrats and morph into Barak Obama (not in a good way with all that charisma, but in a bad way with all that fellating of business interests).

That said, we woke up to a truly bizarre reading of the Lieberman accusation that hackers took down his web site.  Amy Robach, bubble-headed MSNBC newsreader, apparently wanted to cast the "hacking" story in a direction other than the very obvious answer that Lieberman's campaign relied on a cheap web service that was unable to handle the traffic and subsequently shut down.

Robach's guest was Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal.  Her first belligerent question posed to the Attorney General was intoned as an indictment:

"Is there any doubt" that Joe Lieberman's web site was hacked on the eve of an election?

Richard Blumenthal was wise enough to respond that he was taking the charges seriously, but that yes, there was plenty of room for doubt.

Is this all part of MSNBC's attempt to snag some of that "trailer-trash pie"?  How else could you explain Ann Coulter's calling Al Gore a "total fag" to the amusement of Chris Mathews, whose response was to gush about how he couldn't wait to have her back.

"Our Being is Becoming, not stasis. Our Science is Utopia, our Reality is Eros, our Desire is Revolution"

Last week Murray Bookchin died.  Bookchin's work fills a good portion of our library and his disappearance from this world is a profound loss.

Bookchin was a prolific author and perhaps the most distinguished American anarchist theorist.  His introduction of social ecology into the philosophical landscape and political language will probably be his most lasting legacy.  We think Bookchin might appreciate our suggestion that he was the great Oracle of American anarchism.

Beyond his social theory, Bookchin was also a stellar historian, writing extensively about the rise of socialist-libertarianism in Spain throughout the 19th and 20th centuries before Franco's extermination.

For those unfamiliar with his writing we recommend an interview he gave to Harbinger.  And an informative tribute.

We noticed that the best compliment that the religiously capitalist libertarians at Reason Magazine could pay to Bookchin was to compare him to fucking Murray Rothbard!  We created a bit of a stir with Rothbard disciples when we mocked President Bush's solutions for post-Katrina New Orleans as more a tribute to Rothbard's chaotic capitalism than FDR statesmanship.  It's not that we don't appreciate Rothbard's contribution to libertarian thought and anti-authoritarianism, but ultimately the irrational faith which his brand of chaotic capitalism demands warrants the prefix "fucking" before every mention of his name (at least on this blog).  There are far worse people than Rothbard to be paired with, but the Bookchin/Rothbard comparison possibly maligns Bookchin's contributions.

The differences between left anarchists and right libertarians might seem trivial to those who share little with either, but to us lefties those differences are probably irreconcilable.  Bookchin didn't always think so; he may have even seen those right libertarians as possible allies in the struggle against the state.  Sadly, we aren't so optimistic.

That Annoying Absence of Faith: The Pat Tillman Investigation Gets Even Stranger

Mike Fish at ESPN is doing some great follow-up on the investigation into Pat Tillman's death in Afghanistan.  We've openly speculated about the possibility that Tillman was deliberately fragged due to his non-traditional political views and opposition to the war in Iraq.  The circumstances as presented by the Amy seem plausible enough, but the stench of coverup just grows fouler.

And then you get a taste for what kind of men were in command of Tillman's life and it just reinforces any suspicion that Tillman's death is far more murky than what we've been led to believe.  Tillman was an atheist, and so is his family.  This fact is being used as a convenient tool of obfuscation.  Lt. Col. Ralph Kauzlarich, the regiment Ranger executive officer in Afghanistan can barely contain his disgust for the Tillman family's lack of Christianity and it's difficult to imagine that his prejudice hasn't either tainted the investigation, or possibly contributed to Tillman's murder.

"But there [have] been numerous unfortunate cases of fratricide, and the parents have basically said, 'OK, it was an unfortunate accident.' And they let it go. So this is — I don't know, these people have a hard time letting it go. It may be because of their religious beliefs."  

In a transcript of his interview with Brig. Gen. Gary Jones during a November 2004 investigation, Kauzlarich said he'd learned Kevin Tillman, Pat's brother and fellow Army Ranger who was a part of the battle the night Pat Tillman died, objected to the presence of a chaplain and the saying of prayers during a repatriation ceremony in Germany before his brother's body was returned to the United States.  

Kauzlarich, now a battalion commanding officer at Fort Riley in Kansas, further suggested the Tillman family's unhappiness with the findings of past investigations might be because of the absence of a Christian faith in their lives.  

In an interview with ESPN.com, Kauzlarich said: "When you die, I mean, there is supposedly a better life, right? Well, if you are an atheist and you don't believe in anything, if you die, what is there to go to? Nothing. You are worm dirt. So for their son to die for nothing, and now he is no more — that is pretty hard to get your head around that. So I don't know how an atheist thinks. I can only imagine that that would be pretty tough."  

Asked by ESPN.com whether the Tillmans' religious beliefs are a factor in the ongoing investigation, Kauzlarich said, "I think so.   There is not a whole lot of trust in the system or faith in the system [by the Tillmans]. So that is my personal opinion, knowing what I know."  

Asked what might finally placate the family, Kauzlarich said, "You know what? I don't think anything will make them happy, quite honestly. I don't know. Maybe they want to see somebody's head on a platter. But will that really make them happy? No, because they can't bring their son back."

These are the types of idiots running this investigation and, for that matter, running our military.  Never forget that faith is the shield of tyrants.

To even further complicate this investigation, all individuals associated with Tillman's death have been sworn to secrecy under a confidentiality agreement allegedly required of Rangers.  The Army has ensured that there can be no independent investigation into Pat Tillman's death.

So again, we raise the question: was Pat Tillman deliberately murdered?  If not, why did the Army lie about the circumstances surrounding his death?  Why did they destroy all physical evidence, including Tillman's extensive war diary?  Why did Lt. Col. Kauzlarich, among others, recommend that Tillman receive a Silver Star for getting killed by his own troops?  And why is Kauzlarich so annoyed that this atheist family won't just let it go, like any good Christian family would?  What does this motherfucker have to hide?

Not All CEO's Go To Heaven

The press is reporting that former Enron CEO Ken Lay just died of a massive coronary.  We mourn all deaths, but are reluctant to celebrate all lives.  And Kenny Boy's life was certainly not one worth celebrating.

Ken had been awaiting sentencing for the many crimes he committed as the CEO of a company whose great contribution to the world was the rigging of trade markets.

We are nothing if not cynical, so let's be the first to say that this death seems awfully convenient.  Lay has avoided the prospect of becoming his cellmate's special somebody, and now there is little hope of ever recouping the untold millions which he ripped off.  Also, Lay's family will survive quite handsomely.  Lay transferred much of his tainted wealth into annuities and life insurance--which are specifically immune from civil and criminal legal action in Texas.  The annuities are expected to generate about an annual million dollar income for the Lay family next year.  The life insurance... well, that's likely to be a very sweet payoff.  And, let's be honest, this "death" has helped Ken Lay's good buddy George Bush dodge an inevitable and awkward pardon.

Forgive our suspicions, but has anyone actually seen the body?  We noticed that the Lay family chose church members to make the announcement--undoubtedly anticipating credibility issues. We've also noticed that Lay's behavior hardly pegged him as much of Methodist, let alone a Christian. How hard would it be for someone as obscenely wealthy as Ken Lay to fake his own death?  Having personally greased many a politician over his lifetime, Lay made a lot of friends in high places.  As Kenny Boy knew, in America money can make your wildest dreams, and most outrageous crimes, come true.

There's also the possibility that he really is dead, and perhaps his death was orchestrated to avoid spending the rest of his life biting pillows as prison gangs reaped his assets.  How convenient, that such a well-timed death occurred under terms that would make his massive life insurance policy fully payable and will possibly scuttle future judgments against his estate.

So, do we issue a solemn rest in peace or the advisory don't forget the suntan lotion down in Belize?  Either way, he's headed for a warm climate.

Asshole It Is: Ellison Withdraws His Donation

To follow up our previous post about Larry Ellison, he has now officially withdrawn his proposed $115 million donation to Harvard, thus resolving our query.  He's not a flake, he's an asshole.

Ellison's people are trying to say that his donation was withdrawn due to the ouster of Harvard President Lawrence Summers.  If you think this is even a remotely plausible explanation, the implications suggest that Larry Ellison is an even bigger prick than anyone could have conceived.  Ellison is suggesting that he was more enamored of the Harvard President than he was devoted to the study of world health--or worse, Ellison is more interested in tweaking the Harvard faculty (who won't shed any tears over Summers' departure) than in finding solutions to the world's health crises.  How seriously should any thinking person take this?  About as seriously as anyone should take non-thinking people.

No, we're still of the opinion that Ellison simply doesn't have the money to pony up--certainly not in combination with his other obligations (see below).  Besides, his proposal already earned him much praise and adulation as a philanthropist; why bother writing a check when you can simply make proposals?

Not coincidentally, yesterday he settled his insider-trading lawsuit by agreeing to donate $100 million to his own Ellison Medical Foundation.  Get this, his punishment for betraying stock holders is to donate money to his own self-promoting foundation, where he can also reap the rewards of heavenly tax deductions--which inevitably means that we taxpayers subsidize his lawsuit as well as his self-promotion.  We suspect that Ellison wasn't expecting anyone to accept his "donating to my own foundation is punishment enough" crap and was stringing Harvard along as a contingency plan.  Never forget, it's a rich man's country.

Not to totally piss on the super rich, we congratulate Warren Buffett in his decision to use his money for good while he's alive rather than pass it on to his progeny who will inevitably use their riches to fight off estate taxes.  Naturally, Buffet's choice of charity makes him a target for the ultra-nuttiest white-ringers.

The Threat of the Homegrown Jihadi Heart

The Justice Department has scored some serious jail time in their War on Terror at home.  Mind you, almost everyone serving time under terrorism-related charges since 9-11 has copped to plea bargains, thus sparing the Justice Department the effort of actually having to prove their cases.

In Lodi, where the Justice Department won their case against a young Muslim immigrant, they based their prosecution on his "Jihadi heart" rather than any real evidence against him.  And even in that case, a juror came forward and said that she was intimidated into voting for conviction by jurors who wanted to hang the accused even before the trial had commenced, and engaged in other misconduct.

And lest we forget the biggest feather in Bush's domestic terrorism-prevention cap, the 18 Middle Eastern men who were convicted for, in some ways, trying to purchase licenses to transport hazardous materials.  Even the prosecutors in those cases no longer pretend that it had anything to do with preventing terrorism.  The men, most of whom are on probation now, were mostly refugees of the first Gulf War and thought of America as their sanctuary.

So it should come as no surprise that the Justice Department has arrested seven members of a "terrorist cell" in Miami for allegedly plotting to blow up the Sears Tower.  Actually, the non-surprise lies in the apparent lack of anything much incriminating about the seven individuals other than the testimony of an informant in regard to their "Jihadi hearts".

Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez has admitted that the suspects lacked any weapons, explosives, knowledge of their supposed target, or even a basic strategy.  Justice Department officials have even balked at confirming whether or not their informant wore a wire, or if they are simply making arrests based on the informant's word.  In case anyone has forgotten, the Bush people have an abysmal history with their sourcing.

Of course, the Justice Department should be doing all it can to prevent terrorist attacks.  We just wish they were smarter, and more interested in preventing terrorism than making headlines to boost their dismal poll numbers.

Limp Republicans

Everyone's favorite drug-addled Republican Rush Limbaugh was briefly held at the Palm Beach Airport to verify that the prescription drugs he was traveling with were in fact his.  One of those drugs was Viagra.

Of course, this presents the opportunity to pose some meaningful questions about the plague of sexual inadequacy amongst male Republicans:

• Do the policies of war-making, imperialist ambition, class dominance, pornographic materialism, and religious chauvinism naturally interfere with healthy sexuality? 
• Or rather, does sexual dysfunction cause one to pursue the obliteration of humanity?
  

Other questions regarding the personal life of the ever-pious Limbaugh should also be explored.  The man is unmarried.  After three wives left him--and the last one held out just long enough to score some serious alimony for her efforts--Limbaugh is, once again, an unmarried man.  Do chaste men need Viagra?  Limbaugh has been dating CNN news reader Daryn Kagan for a couple of years.  Surely Rush practices the abstinence outside of marriage which he and his ilk demand for the rest of the population. 

When Limbaugh was held up at the airport he was returning from a vacation in the Dominican Republic.  Since they broke up in February, we suspect that Daryn Kagan was not the beneficiary of Limbaugh's Viagra consumption; however, as the Dominican Republic is one of the poorest nations in the Western Hemisphere there are more than a few women willing to fulfill the amorous desires of rich Americans.  Yes, prostitution is prevalent and very very cheap in the Dominican Republic.  Anyone else notice that the Dominican Republic happens to be the closest port of major prostitution to Rush's home in Palm Beach Florida, and the epicenter of sex tourism in the Western Hemisphere?  Sounds like a Republican dream vacation to us--so long as the Viagra is well stocked.

Coulter the Deadhead

Does Ann Coulter's love for the Grateful Dead betray her as a mercenary con?  Well, if you haven't figured out that she's a walking Springer show, and a very rich one at that, then you might be disturbed by this interview in which she speaks lovingly about Deadhead culture.  And we're supposed to believe that Ms. She-wolf of the SS never toked up?  Naw, it's all about the music, ain't it?

Larry Ellison: Eccentric Flake or Rich Asshole?

After committing $115 million to Harvard, Oracle CEO Larry Ellison doesn't appear to be following through.  Like Jonah Goldberg on prom night, Harvard is anxiously sitting by the phone, crying a permanent stain all over a ruffled baby-blue rayon tux.

Ellison's proposed donation for the Ellison Institute for World Health should have kicked in about 10 months ago.  In the competitive nature of rich techies, Bill Gates has set a high bar in his charitable contributions.

And Larry's a competitive guy, no doubt about it.  The Oracle CEO has already won a fleeting victory in the race of high-tech billionaires to build the most ostentatious yacht.  At $200 million, Ellison's yacht may not cure cancer, but it pisses off Paul Allen and is one sweet ride.

In the middle of that tech stock meltdown in 2000 Ellison briefly surpassed Bill Gates in net worth and became the world's richest man.  And like Gates, Ellison didn't acquire that wealth without taking more than a few short cuts and a generous dose of ruthlessness.  Beyond his hostile nature, Ellison's actual executive skills have been questioned by many.

As an Ayn Rand devotee, he is prone to justifying his lack of philanthropic activity as a moral statement:

... it is not very popular to think that commerce is more important than politics, but it is. It is not very popular to think that Ford Motor Company did more to help humanity than the Ford Foundation ever did, but it did.

A few years back, when Time Magazine devoted an issue to celebrating the philanthropy of the super rich, they didn't miss an opportunity to idolize even those billionaires who hadn't actually bothered to philanthropize.  Larry Ellison's little blurb, in a parade of do-gooders who actually bother to write checks and set up foundations, was this Orwellian title: He Gives Best by Investing.  Ellison repeated his little Ford Foundation v. Ford Motor Company chestnut to earn a hallowed seat amongst the charitable elite by simply equating business with benevolence.  Indeed, that title, and that entire issue, told you all you ever needed to know about Time Magazine's class interests.

Much like his buddy Steve Jobs (the enlightened megalomaniac), Ellison's social leanings are not especially conservative:

I am a Democrat.... There are no Republicans in California; they're just middle-of-the-road Democrats.

He was even rumored to play a role in fund raising for Bill Clinton's Presidential Library--though one can be assured that whatever Ellison's own contribution, it must surely be linked to the Clinton Justice Department's dogged pursuit of Oracle's arch-enemy Microsoft.

Again, seeing how Larry has never been especially charitable, why did he propose the donation in the first place?  The Financial Times hints at his real motives:

...after exchanging draft contracts, drafting a press release and saying the money would arrive in days, Mr Ellison's advisers last autumn began linking payment to final settlement of an insider trading suit brought by Oracle shareholders, which was to include a substantial donation to charity.

So it looks like Ellison may have simply set up his "donation" to negotiate his way out of a lawsuit.  And for a multi-billionaire looking for tax deductible write-offs, it's a hell of a double-play.  This kind of thinking reminds us of what separates the Prime Movers (in Randspeak) from the rabble.

Harvard's problem could now be that, given the way Ellison spends, he may not actually have the money to give Harvard.  But that's always been the Ellison/Oracle way, big on promise slow on delivery: like the first release of highly problematic Oracle software, which was designed to lock in customers rather than serve them.  Salesmanship over quality product every time.

There is an unusual amount of focus in the philanthropy of tech gurus towards "health" issues.  Now, health issues should be a predominant focus of anyone focused on the betterment of mankind.  However, to let our reasonable and cynical instincts run wild for a moment, as Silicon Valley legend and founder of both SGI and Netscape Jim Clark realized a few years back, the "health" industry is potentially the biggest financial jackpot of all.  Health care is the one industry that every human on the planet is likely to engage many times in their lives, and at no small expense.  Let's see, that's about 7 billion people multiplied by the costs of health care in a lifetime... well, that's about just enough money to satisfy a tech billionaire.

Also, health issues are a sneaky way of foisting intellectual property enforcement on underdeveloped countries with little need for copyright protection but an enormous need of medicine.  Every sizable donation of medical supplies and technology by a major industrialized country is explicitly tied to protecting pharmaceutical copyrights.  Until a country has developed an infrastructure to protect copyrights they are not a desirable market for the software and high tech industry.  Therefore, devotion to "health" issues could be less about sick people than it is about opening tech markets.

Of course, the religion of capitalism will tell us therein lies the beauty of capitalism: underdeveloped countries will ultimately benefit from the cynical motives of capitalists.  So, why then do we call it "philanthropy"?  And better still, why must their capital investment in the form of non-profit institutions be reimbursed by the rest of us in the form of tax deductions?  That's right, because it's not really capitalism after all.

Larry Ellison seems to exist to make Bill Gates look appealing.  Hey, it's working.

That Trembling British Mouth

If you thought Christopher Hitchens' musings on American foreign policy were creepy, try stomaching his ode to blowjobs.  Hitchens reveals his primary fondness for America, which may explain everything:

...when any sweet American girl smiled at me, I was at once bewitched and slain by the warm, moist cave of her mouth, lined with faultless white teeth and immaculate pink gums and organized around a tenderly coiled yet innocent tongue.

Much like his vision of Iraq, ew!  What's the use of stereotyping Brits as sexually repressed when they can't seem to hold it in?

The Obligatory Coulter Response

Yeah, we're a little late to the party on this one, but in the latest Ann Coulter promotional whirlwind we noticed that nobody seems to understand what she's really telling us.

Coulter's latest book attacks the 9-11 widows whose tireless efforts produced the 9-11 Commission.  Then, in her publicity tour she further elaborated her disdain for the widows on the Today Show.  And on and on, from one talk show to the next.

Those programming directors of newsish networks see Ann Coulter as a godsend: Oh, isn't she outrageous!  The programming day practically writes itself in the wake of a Coulter rampage.

So what is Ann Coulter really telling us?  That she hates 9-11 widows?  Big deal.  Her persona hates everyone, that's the character she plays.

No, Ann is telling us that, as a pundit, the greatest threat to her profession is credibility.  And for once, she's actually right.

In addition to 9-11 widows, there's a whole bevy of threats to Coulter's profession:

...there's Cindy Sheehan. There's Joe Wilson. Can't respond, can't point out that his wife works at the CIA. There's Max Cleland, there's Murtha. I mean it goes back to Caroline McCarthy, the congressman from Long Island whose husband was shot on the Long Island railroad. It's always -- and Christopher Reeve, arguing for stem-cell -- embryonic stem-cell research -- not adult stem-cell research.

She bemoans the fact that it is difficult to win an argument against someone who actually has a stake in that issue.  In fact, her profession is jeopardized by the very stark contrast between someone with actual experience and a personal investment on very serious issues to someone with no experience or expertise in anything.  Ann is not just mindlessly barking insults, she's desperately defending her entire class. 

Coulter, like most pundits, has no serious professional experience in anything other than as a member of the commentarian elite.  And even in that profession she's been fired multiple times for not living up to even the minimum standards of opinion peddling.  We remember when lazy talk shows would introduce her as a "Constitutional Scholar."  Apparently that was based on her membership in the white-ringer legal organization The Federalist Society.  The strange and dishonest methodology of research for her books suggest that she couldn't possibly be a scholar of anything.

Coulter is, as Andrew Sullivan calls her, "a drag queen impersonating a fascist."  But underneath all that overworked venom is a serious thought: credibility challenges the non-credible.  Should the public ever choose to become informed, the pundit class and parrotocracy could crumble into nothingness.

The question arises, is Ann Coulter more dangerous on TV or working the streets?  She already gets paid to fuck people in the ass, perhaps it's time she fucked over some willing recipients.  Looks like we have a cash-paying john anxiously lubing up over at Time.  May his rectum squeal like the sound of truth dying.
 

Inconvenient Truths and Convenient Lies: The Moral Flaws of Mr. Science Easterbrook

We just got back from seeing Al Gore's new film An Inconvenient Truth.  Yes, we loved it.  And yes, Gore is more appealing as a leader when he doesn't have a gaggle of flacks telling him what to say and do--and when he doesn't have to suffer the indignities of a bored press corps who felt free to malign him because he didn't pamper them on the campaign bus.  Gore's message about Global Warming is urgent and necessary; fortunately, his message is also fact-filled and easy to comprehend.

We had been anxiously anticipating this film for a while, but when we read Gregg Easterbrook's strange review of the film in Slate last week, we couldn't wait to respond.  Of course, the review sounded craptastic when we first read it, but after seeing the film it makes even less sense.  That is, until we did a little research on just who the fuck Gregg Easterbrook is, and more importantly, who he isn't.

The title of his article is Ask Mr. Science, The Moral Flaws of An Inconvenient Truth.  We read the Mr. Science part as a snide reference to Al Gore's professorial tone in his presentation.  We certainly wouldn't confuse Gregg Easterbrook for a scientist.  Funny, because Easterbrook seems to confuse himself for a scientist.  In fact, Easterbrook has landed himself a cushy gig at the Brookings Institute as an "expert" on Global Warming and Environmental Issues.  All this without an advanced degree in anything beyond journalism--you know, the art of writing much while saying little.  But then again, they also list him as an "expert" at professional sports, without ever having been an athlete, or a coach, or much more than a fan with a journalism degree.  Don't get us started about his "expertise" in Christianity... (more on that later).  He seems to fit the very definition of a modern pundit: that knowing little about anything makes you a highly paid expert in everything.

Easterbrook has been an editor of The New Republic, which isn't quite as shitty as it was under Andrew Sullivan (they should really start using that phrase in their marketing to boost circulation).  Although Easterbrook tells others, and possibly himself, that he's a liberal, he seems to be of the cross-dressing mercenary variety that land top jobs at The New Republic on the sheer moral courage of their confusion.  And about that confusion....

We are relieved that, as the resident non-scientific expert on Global Warming at the Brookings Institute, Easterbrook has, after much resistance, come to the realization that Global Warming is real.  For years Easterbrook has made a comfortable living arguing against the existence of Global Warming from his vast experience as a non-scientific expert on matters of science.   At least when he was arguing in favor of Creationism it was ostensibly as an expert in Christianity rather than as a non-scientist science expert.*  Easterbrook's status as an anti-environmental shill--also known as an "ecorealist"--culminated in his book A Moment on the Earth: The Coming Age of Environmental Optimism.  Apparently, the trick to earning money as an ecorealist is to play the environmentalist who attacks environmentalists for being, well, environmentalists.  His book was so fraught with error that it required at least two serious scientific rebuttals from the Environmental Defense Fund.

We think this passage sums up the Easterbrook science party perfectly: (from Media Matters)

(A) review of Moment of Earth in the August 1995 issue of Natural History, Pennsylvania State University professor Jack C. Schultz wrote that the book "contains some of the most egregious cases of misunderstood, misstated, misinterpreted, and plainly incorrect 'science' writing I've ever encountered."

In his review of Al Gore's presentation, Easterbrook pulls out all the stops to be Stosselian (a not very bright or very honest contrarian-for-pay).  Media Matters has probably the best critique of Easterbrook's Mr. Science hit piece.  But a couple of things really stood out to us. 

First, the issue which Easterbrook calls "a wacky side-trip into a conspiracy theory".  The film points out that Phillip Cooney, who was a lobbyist for the American Petroleum Institute, was appointed by Bush to be Chief of Staff for the Council on Environmental Quality.  In his role, Cooney altered material in a report on Global Warming which would have demanded action on behalf of a responsible government.  Cooney was a non-scientist (like Greggo) who clearly tried to hamstring any semblance of responsible environmental policy.  Once his actions were exposed, he resigned his post and took a job with Exxon the next day.  The only thing wacky about this story is anyone who doesn't find such action, or the placing of such individuals into positions of power, as anything short of a betrayal of the American people.  Easterbrook is right to find common cause with Cooney.  Perhaps some day he can directly partake of that sweet sweet oil money.

Secondly, Easterbrook's grasp of filmmaking is about as enlightening as his grasp of science:

When Gore isn't being applauded, Guggenheim (the director) presents him as alone and melancholy: walking alone, musing alone, standing alone in a darkened barn. The scenes are meant to convey our inability to imagine the burden the former vice president bears.

No, you fucking Philistine!  The context of Gore being applauded--which accounts for so much of the film that one could miss it in a blink--is within the course of his demonstration; there are no special cut-aways for effect.  There are multiple shots of Gore, which were clearly used as a bridge to stretch the film to a theatrical time length.  The solo shots of Gore tell us much about him: that he is technologically savvy, immersed in all the high-tech gadgetry he can get his hands on, and that he is contemplative--given our current President who doesn't seem to have a coherent thought in his head, the contrast is painful.  Only an ass would purse his lips and sarcastically bemoan: poor Al!   

Easterbrook's original claim to fame was in decrying the space shuttle program before it was launched.  When the Challenger exploded six years later, some thought Easterbrook prophetic.  He wasn't.  In fact, his powers of prophecy of late border on the hillarious.  Consider his contention in 2004 that George Bush would lead the charge in reversing Global Warming--which apparently was about the time that Easterbrook started to think that Global Warming might be a legitimate problem after all.

Less hilarious was Easterbrook's anti-Semitic rant in a condemnation of Quentin Tarrantino's Kill Bill (ever the film critic).  It was all in the calling of a good Christian who needed to know why the Jewishness of Michael Eisner dictated that he must bankroll violent unchristian films.  Consequently, the Disney company decided to fire Easterbrook from his gig writing Tuesday Morning Quarterback for ESPN.com, where his non-athletic football expertise was in much demand.  This extra time freed Easterbrook to ruminate on beliefnet (which is where you really want to quarantine your garden variety anti-Semites).  Check this mind-numbingly stupid gem in which Easterbrook suggests that the declining rates of teenage pregnancy throughout the nineties was the triumph of moral values peddled by fundamentalist Christians.  Never mind that those Christian abstinence programs have become breeding grounds for porn stars, Easterbrook was on the mend and after two years will resume his role writing about football from a non-scientific perspective.

Easterbrook isn't the worst that the parrotocracy has to offer.  He's just a gun for hire--who doesn't actually own a gun, but has read extensively about gunowners and can cross reference their testimonials....

*Our incessant reminder of Easterbrook's lack of scientific credentials rests almost solely in sympathy with our dear sister who toiled for many many years acquiring a doctorate in the very studies for which Easterbrook claims expertise.  The pay for serious scientific study of environmental matters is grossly overshadowed by the salaries and honoraria commanded by dilettantes who dance on a string.

The Jobs Americans Aren't Allowed To Do

A little article in Fortune Magazine caught our attention in regards to the whole immigration debate.  They warn that the housing market may collapse since contractors have relied on illegal labor to drive prices down.  Fortune estimates that illegal labor comprises about 40% of employed home builders.

Now, the complexity of our position on the immigration issue can be summarized in a two part solution: 

1. Embrace immigrants, naturalize them ASAP
2. Jail and fine the pants off of employers who violate labor laws

If 40% of all home builders are actually illegally employed laborers, this fact absolutely demolishes the argument that immigrants are performing jobs that Americans won't do.

Carpentry and construction are respectable professions which have brought millions of Americans without a higher education into the middle class.  These well paying jobs didn't just happen, they were fought for by unions.

And how do you bust a union?  Scabs.  We don't like to tar illegal immigrants with such an ugly name, but clearly many corporations in this country are using them as such.  We understand that immigrants are just looking for a better life for their families--leave them alone.  The guilty parties are these sleazy contractors who have built their businesses on the piss-poor wages they pay these replacement workers.

We suspect that Fortune Magazine, which only exists to protect its class interest, is merely reflecting the scare stories which their kind has peddled to politicians who fear that a crackdown on illegal employers will sink the economy.

Just a reminder to so-called liberals and radicals: in this immigration debate, if you ignore how corporate America is using immigrants to crush the working class you have no business calling yourself a lefty.  We know many lefties who look at how the working class has consistently voted against their own interests in the last few years and say 'fuck 'em.'   But if Democrats are unwilling to defend their interests in these very obvious ways, why should the working class vote for them anyway?  Might as well vote on gay marriage. If you can't earn a living wage and Democrats are willing to create "guest worker" atrocities, voting on your squeamishness over two dudes kissing is at least voting for something with real results.

If Democrats could abandon their absurd "guest worker" solutions--which benefit nobody but the corporations--and actually concentrate on how to create good jobs and good lives for Americans, they might someday have the opportunity to govern and orchestrate a progressive society.

Yul Love It

Know the standard Hollywood movie trailer formula by heart?  Try entering the simple equation into a classic Cecil B. De Mille campfest and you have the perfect promo:  10 Things I Hate About Commandments.  Brilliant.

Meat Without Murder

William Saletan of Slate has written an interesting article which foresees sources of meat grown in labs rather than butchered in slaughterhouses.  The science is already progressing in that direction, but the fascinating part of Saletan's article is how he reads this technological development as a moral solution to hunger rather than a pragmatic one. 

As non-evangelical vegans for two decades, we tend to overlook the fact that just because many people scarf bacon doesn't mean they aren't troubled by their actions.  Without any self-congratulatory intentions, we know that it takes an iron will to eschew meat and animal products in a society whose rabid consumption offers few other options.  In the last twenty years, it has gotten better.  And living in Silicon Valley helps.

We are most definitely the kind of vegans who crave meat.  It is a constant and occasionally painful struggle.  But what Saletan and many non vegetarians apparently don't know is that while our biology may have a definite taste for meat, the biology also works the other way.  Veganism has become much easier knowing that any deviation into animal consumption will be violently rejected by the body which has adapted and grown quite comfortable with its vegetarianism.

We have mixed feelings about the whole homegrown meat experiment.  We like that animals are taken out of the equation.  Vegetarianism for us is a moral choice.  Our all-purpose ethical postulation which defines our vegetarianism is relatively simple:

If I can survive, and even thrive in health, without eating meat then why should I?  For all the many reasons why I should not eat meat (health, animal welfare, environmental destruction, human safety), there is only one reason why I should: yummy, yummy, yummy.  Therefore, is my lust for meat more important than the life of the animal, any animal?  The only moral answer to that question has to be "no".  And that ain't an easy "no", it's a reluctant, gut-wrenching, and ethically honest "no".

For those of us who crave meat, yet retain the moral fortitude to reject the violence inherent in that mouthful of tasty, laboratory meat sounds like a godsend.  Laboratory meat eliminates the pain and death to a fellow animal with a central nervous system.  So why are we skeptical?

Perhaps it's because bioengineering is still a new science whose potential for infinite human good is overshadowed only by its potential for apocalyptic disaster.  Perhaps it's because this new science is largely in the control of corporations: totalitarian entities devoid of ethical judgment by design.  Perhaps it's because we should not become dependent upon laboratories for our food sources.  Perhaps it's because the will to kill animals, and with it the will to kill humans, might still be a necessary survival impulse in humanity.  And perhaps mostly it's because those who have moral reservations about eating meat should just stop eating meat and not wait for scientists to solve your fucking moral dilemma for you!

When Aruba just isn't enough

Time magazine finally gets around to covering the war in Congo which has killed an estimated 4 million people in the last 8 years.  It may have taken them a while, but kudos to Time for actually covering an enormously tragic human story which the rest of the American media have ignored.