Tuesday, May 31, 2011


I want to stake out some new terrain.  See something different.

Last week I observed in conversation that we are on the cusp of a Copernican-styled revolution in science and affected knowledge.

I commented that I noticed this first in the field of particle physics, where "acclaimed physics experts" are making up theories out of whole cloth, offering them as "explanations" of reality, and patting each other on the back for their brilliance.

I made the observation in response to a comment about how human thoughts can change the neuronal pathways of our minds.  I observed that I understand "brain science" to suggest this is happening, but also I understand that neuronal firings are not like troughs in the earth for intentionally directed irrigation of the soil... and instead are merely chemical reactions.

I observed that theoretical science is too full of itself and insufficiently humble.

This is the posture of one poised for a pratfall.

We like to think science infallible because of the Scientific Method.  Popper defended it mightily but was criticized by Kuhn, who said that sometimes the accepted truths produced by the Scientific Method are themselves based on erroneous assumptions.  Sometimes, said Kuhn (as feebly paraphrased by Ochstradt), the Method produces errors.

"Progressives," in particular, love to admire and perhaps even worship Science, treating it as something far more infallible and predictive than it actually is. This is a prideful thing, a method of segregating themselves from the hated religionists and especially the "christers" so frequenly derided by Avowed Democrat, Liberal and/or Progressive Pundits (amateur and paid, alike).

I am not a religionist or christer -- I believe in Science!

comes the proud Progressive.  While, incidentally, failing to note that the progress of knowledge --Science-- happens through skepticism, not through fanatical devotion to perpetual rectitude.

The Progressive fails to be properly skeptical about Science.


This point is noted by Libertarians and used to great advantage by the brand/stripe of Libertarian who wants a big Capitalist, Materialist Utopia Free From Governmental Intervention.  Such Libertarians like to mock global climate change data and theory on the ground that it lacks skepticism about the anthropogenic origins of the problem. Says the Libertarian, "it's probably just a natural cycle completely independent of industrial emissions, and if you were skeptical enough you'd agree with me."

The Libertarian rightly points out the lack of skepticism, but fails to see the purpose of skepticism:  to question, to doubt, to seek and require evidentiary support.

The purpose of skepticism isn't to gain advantage in tribal competition, and it isn't to obscure plain evidence and the logical correlations and connections that the evidence implies.

That's where the Libertarian goes wrong.


Here is an example of a premise widely held, but mistaken.

Water never disappears, it simply changes state from liquid to gas to solid.

This one underlays a whole lot of "development" in the West, where water rights used to be a big issue because water is rarer in drier climates.  Presently, Americans assume that if you suck the water out of a river or lake, there's nothing to be concerned about, because the water will eventually return to that river or lake through the "natural cycle" of water.  But I've watched streams, rivers and lakes get dewatered by use of the water they otherwise would contain.

The assumption is that "nature" intends to benefit mankind, so if mankind seeks to alter "nature" to mankind's whims, "nature" will continue to provide mankind with what existed before altering that aspect of "nature."

The assumption is that capitalism and its religion of eternally-growing consumerism-materialism are supported by "nature" and that "nature" will accommodate this man-made "economic" whimsy.

The assumption is that if you live in a valley where the river supports a population of 50,000 people and you invite 1,000,000 people to move there, the river will continue to support the population in the same manner with the same ease of access to water.

Water always returns somehow, right?

It's magic, right?

Science says so, right?

my friend Mr Nowens sez...

The more people hate Sarah Palin, the more I assume they are like Sarah Palin despite their "progressive" posture. They wish those aspects of their selves weren't so powerful. They wish that being loud about admiring Glenn Greenwald, or public about supporting Public Television and Public Radio were demonstration enough that they're not just like Sarah Palin, underneath their uniforms and poses.

They believe people should be less naked about their baser natures. Hence, Sarah Palin embarrasses them, deeply.

They'd like to think Palin is that way because she's a "christer" or suchlike. They don't realize that her "christer" pose is just like their "progressive" pose -- a uniform adopted for peer group identification purposes, to have a social totem/icon shared with others.

What would Obama look like if he didn't posture and preen and pose and pontificate, but instead spoke directly, like Palin, and wore his aims and goals as openly as Palin?

I think he'd look a lot like the creature from Alien (& sequels).

Ripley, I created this Patriot Act to protect you.
You have nothing to fear from me.

Monday, May 30, 2011

how we tell ourselves it's not that bad

A favorite topic of mine for internal meditations on the tendencies of American human societies is the collection of ways in which the rural-simple-humble is replaced with the suburban-luxurious-arrogant.

I watched this happen first in the region of my grandparents' house, as a young driver licensed at 16.  They lived in a quiet neighborhood off NH Ave in Monkey Co MD.  The "development" where they lived (it wasn't called that because most of the neighborhood's original houses were built in the first half of the 20th C, not after the Vietnam War) contained houses on decent sized parcels of land and there wasn't a lot of uniformity in house design, driveway design, or landscape.  There were no sidewalks and no curbs.

As time passed, NH Ave's northern reaches saw more and more sprawl.  More farms were subdivided with grotesquely large houses on tiny plots.  Roads were widened and got fresh new asphalt, thereby ensuring that drivers would travel at least 10-15mph faster on them.  Some roads went from 2-lane to 4-lane and some 4-lane roads grew so wide they looked like highways.

What I noticed from all this "development" was that it resulted in people being more hurried, more impatient, more anxious and generally more aggressive in their desire to prove to their fellow MD residents that they were superior -- by dint of house size, car cost, or "lifestyle" adopted and displayed.  The new "developments" made from former farmland and/or open space were easily distinguished by the more expensive cars in their fancier driveways.  It looked to me as if there were an unspoken formula at work:
As you go through life you should always move farther away from your place of work, to an ever-nicer, ever-larger, ever-costlier house.  You should "upgrade" houses at least 2 or 3 times in your adult life.  Each "upgrade" should put you in a more "exclusive" neighborhood with fancier houses, driveways, cars.  
What I noticed about the people in these "upscale" neighborhoods was that they tended to be less friendly, and tended to treat every human encounter as a competition of sorts.

"Where did you go to school?  I went to Sidwell Friends, then Yale, then Harvard law."

"Where do you work?  I'm a M&A lawyer with Sullivan and Cromwell, and I'm finishing up an acquisition of a software company."

"Where do you go for vacation?  We just got back from a week in Aspen.  I took a lesson for expert mogul runs and now I can't ski at the mid-Atlantic because it's just too easy for me."

"What kind of car do you drive?  You can see my daily driver, a BMW 745i, right here.  In the garage I've got a Porsche Carrera and a Range Rover.  Whatever the driving experience, I've got the best tool available."

"What club do you belong to?  I've been a member at Congressional for over 10 years now."

"Did you get out to Wolf Trap to see John Prine last Saturday?  We sat on the lawn and had a wonderful picnic dinner with an exquisite wine and cheese selection.  Binky brought some foie gras that was to die for."


When I first visited Missoula in 1995, I found a place that was pretty much opposite that hyper-competitive, super-yuppie Hell that I grew up in.  It was the first place I visited in my adult life where it seemed the people were living at a pace, in a manner, that I found familiar.  The super-yuppie Hell never really felt familiar to me, it felt alien -- the people and their motives were always unfamiliar to me, though I was surrounded by them constantly.  I felt as a stranger in my own environs, until I visited Missoula.

Eventually, 3 years later, I moved here.  The town was still small.  The people at the burrito shop knew my name and what kind of burrito I liked.  The people at the bakery knew what pastry I preferred.  Even the bike shop employees were friendly -- and you should ask any serious cyclist how often that happens.

There was no car traffic to speak of, ever.  When a signal went from green to red, at most 3 or 4 cars would line up behind it before it went back to green.  Usually it was a car, or two.  "Rush hour" was never an issue. The only time traffic ever was marginally noticeable was on Saturdays when the Univ MT's Griz were playing a home game, or during the week of summer when the fair was at the county fairgrounds.  You didn't even hear the roar of cars on the highway -- ever.  Ever.

Skiing was pretty amazing -- the longest lift line I stood in was 10 minutes on an absurdly Summer-like day one Spring Saturday, most people were there just because it was so absurdly sunny and warm, it seemed.

MTB trails were empty and narrow and primitive.

And there was only one bar in town that got crowded, and it only got crowded with college students on Friday and Saturday nights, and only because the bar let in everyone no matter whether they were 21 years old and didn't care about debauched moron lunkheads.

Cops were invisible -- you'd think there wasn't a police force, and you'd think there wasn't a need for them.


In the meantime things have changed radically.  Missoula now reminds me of the most obnoxiously crowded and pretentious parts of New Jersey.  The driving is just as aggressive and selfish.  The "shops" in town are as absurdly over-expensive and stocked with ridiculous Image Trinkets of the type that sell well to self-impressed "professionals" everywhere in America.

Skiing is now a clusterfuck on any day except when it's rained recently, or hasn't snowed for more than 2 days. When there's more than 6" new, prepare to wait in 30 minute to 1-hour lift lines.

"Development" continues at an aggressive pace, overwhelming the roads and causing infrastructure strain, which the town doesn't know how to handle except to say, "growth is inevitable" and to spend as if Missoula needs to compete with Aspen or Vail or Sun Valley for luxurious "accoutrements".

The tenor of the town's citizenry is what bothers me most of all.  Now it seems the town is full of Young Professional Hipsters who compete with each other on clothing (must be "outdoor lifestyle" and very expensive), on trinkets (cars, skis, bikes, kayaks, and racks on cars to carry those things), and on "new restaurants."

Early last Winter, a new "brewpub" opened with $5.50 pints.

Basically, Missoula has become Short Hills NJ.

It's well past fucking time to leave.  Well past.

I stay because my house needs about $15,000 in improvements and I'm unemployed and therefore unable to afford the repairs.  My house has become a prison.

When I was in my 20s I remember telling my esteemed mother that I didn't really ever want to own a house because I hate yard work, I hate upkeep, and I just want to be able to come and go as I please and leave on short notice.  Of course E.M. thought this absurd:  the point of adulthood in America is to OWN YOUR OWN HOUSE, and if you don't do that you don't matter -- might as well off yourself, as that's basically the amount of respect and deference and fair treatment you'll get if you never OWN YOUR OWN HOUSE.

Most other people I knew were the same: organizing an adult life around OWNING YOUR OWN HOUSE and for some of my friends, UPGRADING TO A NEWER BETTER HOUSE was as urgent as the first HOUSE OWNERSHIP step reached.

My friends tried to convince me that their slavery to a dwelling was great.  They wanted to give me tours of their magnificent abodes.

I always wondered: why do you want to show me your house, why do you think I care?

I didn't care.  I wasn't impressed.

This hurt their feelings, probably.


My friends in Missoula have grown more distant from me over the past 5 years.  More of them are yuppifying and growing comfortable with that status.

They try to convince me that my perspective is flawed.  They try to convert me to their way of seeeing.

"Dude you can still do an alpine ride from your house, you don't have to drive.  Where else can you do that?," they ask, as if the only locale on Earth for such an experience is Missoula.

What they want me to ignore is that the alpine ride that used to rejuvenate me --because it was primitive, technically difficult, and remote-- is now nothing more than a ride among pretentious self-promoters who have widened and smoothed the trails, taken GoPro footage of their ride, Internet-posting GPS data on the waypoints, and are angling for a Starbucks at the trailhead parking lot.

They are trying to ignore the bad, and see the good.

Here's my point:

The bad exists BECAUSE people ignore the bad while trying to see the good.

RELATED:  RSA on Ehrenreich on The Religion of Positive Thinking

pwoggy woggy doo dah day

Jim Kunstler's glaring blind spot well on display today: he compares Sarah Palin to Hitler. Notice this same author lovingly adores Barack Obama, who has much more power and authority over Americans than Palin ever will.

The theme in Pwogosphere continues:

It's glaringly obvious that Obama & the Noble Democrats are as totalitarian, authoritarian and blood-lusting as the worst of the Third Reich's architects and actors.

Thus, the solution is to point fingers at Evil Rethuglicans, and imply that things would be much worse if we didn't have Noble Donkeys to stand as buffers between us and the Evil Rethuglicans.

Consume as usual, and blame the Rethugs!

It's a brand new day!

Friday, May 27, 2011

Dwarves and Royalty

On the slick game skate.'s soundtrack is a song by Dwarves called "Massacre." In that song is the following lyric:

This is dedicated to Queens of the Trust Fund. You slept on my floor, and now I'm sleeping through your... ...records.

I don't know if they sleep on floors still, or whether Josh Homme's trust fund is flush or empty, but I know QOTSA make a hell of a tetrahydrocannabinol groove!

nytaper got them live here--

QOTSA, May 25, 2011 at Terminal 5

Thursday, May 26, 2011

The pogo

The Mockery Award, the Fraudulent Club & the Gullible Cheering Crowds

This is not an isolated case. This is how most think-tanks and advocacy groups in DC operate -- as fascia, not as detached critical observers.


Where I live certainly has become more citified in the 13 years I've lived here, but there's no excuse for police sirens to run loudly for extended periods of time at least 5x per day.  Most occasions it's multiple sirens.

We don't have that much crime.  What are they doing?

Trying to make us sound like a war zone?

Deep, knowing strategies of the Progressive

When the real criminals are running the state and federal governments, your best bet is to find a completely powerless minority and talk them up as the greatest threat to mankind.

In this way you mirror the power that you admire (Wise Meritocrats Playing at Puppeteer; see Barack Obama and the Democratic Party), while pretending to notice that there's a problem or two with those nasty, Republican-imitating Bad Apple Democrats.

This works especially well when your romantic alliance with The Noble Donkey reveals the actual lack of nobility in that equine bastard.  You know, like the reinvigoration of The Police State Act... I mean, Patriot Act.

Shame that it takes a GOP rookie "teabagger" like Rand Paul to stand against the Act, and a whole fleet of Noble Bastard Horse-Mule Offspring to stand in favor of the Act.

Thus, you'd better find some IGGG-nerr-int "christers" or the like to blame for what's wrong.  It surely can't be those Donkeys.  At worst there's a few Bad Apple Democrats and they're not The Real Democrats who will run America when Obama wins his 2d term and pulls his big reversal.

A halfway-house move is to align yourself with a fake-critic like Medea Benjamin, whose stumping on behalf of invading Afghanistan was pitched as "protecting women's rights."  What a worthless piece of shit she is.  Naturally a critical voice should align with her, to show real "feminist" alignment, which assures support from "progressives" who, as always, reduce all issues to gay rights, abortion rights, women's rights.  Hooray for reductio ad absurdum!

reality is in an XBOX 360 console

Asked recently, "Ochs, what do you spend your day doing?"

Replied, "Drink yerba mate gringo, play video games, read Toobz blather, hammer on keys, lament an inability to fit into modern socioeconomic trends."

To which, "What? Playing video games? At your age?"

In response, "Closer to the reality I know. That's all."

Hence, "What game?"

Retort, "Fallout: New Vegas."

From which point I commence to describe the game's setting and how it's played. Which you can find all about here, here, here.

And then extemporate I do, on the point of wishing humanity in America were reduced to a post-nuke setting without All Modern Conveniences, to see how many of my fellow Americans would be able to handle a non-modern post-modern anti-modern setting.

To see how they like the inevitable endpoint of the "luxury" they love and covet so well.

Never mind my skin.  I'm voiced by Danny Trejo.

Wednesday, May 25, 2011


in case you hadn't noticed

The 2011 equivalent of wearing wide-wale cords, surcingle belt, pinpoint plum-colored oxford, dirty bucks, and argyle socks (you know, what David Brooks has been wearing since 1984) is reading Salon and most especially, endorsing its sociopolitical slant on things.

For example:

Glenn Greenwald = constitutional law scholar
Elizabeth Warren = noble protector of consumers doing battle against Evil Corporations
All Republicans = enemies of well-encultured people everywhere
Technology = the savior of all American sociopolitical ills
Fine Dining = a genuine indicator of personal value
Choice Literature = true culture, shared by the Truly Cultured**

There's also a slant which suggests that upper-middle-class professionals are superior to everyone else, especially if they know good wines, fine dining, expensive and luxurious bed&breakfast weekend getaways.

Basically, the average Salon reader is like the average NPR/PBS listener/viewer -- assured of his/her superiority by virtue of what he/she consumes, either as a "purchase" or as an ingestible.

The air inside Salon is still, close and very noisome.

But Salon assures its readers:  in truth, it's an exotic perfume.


**Note that in each instance, Salon suggests that The Salon Perspective is what is True and Good.  Reading Salon is like getting the secret decoder ring.  Discussing what one read at Salon is like sharing the secret code, speaking in the secret code, with others who also have the ring.  It's exclusive, it's elite!

Tuesday, May 24, 2011

it's almost funny, it's pretty sad too

Thanks to my e-buddy BDR I have been caught up on Phillip Roth-related hubbub, hullaballoo, hilarity, hagiography, hierarchies of hate, homilies, harangues, hipness, highbrowedness and other related aitch-ness.  It appears from my past days' skimmings of the links at BDR's place, ol' Phil got himself nominated for the Man Booker Prize, some sort of Euro literary award.

Personally I'm unfamiliar with the writing of Phillip Roth although my memory tells me Goodbye, Columbus and Portnoy's Complaint were well-regarded among the adults I was exposed to while growing up in the 60s and 70s.  But I couldn't tell you whether the adults were talking about the movie or the novel in either case, since the movies and the novels seemed to share prominence in my youth.  In any event, I've never read Roth nor seen his work as translated into movies.

I'm aware Roth was born in and maybe spent some of his life in Newark NJ, a place where I spent 3 of the 10 years in my 20s.  I'm not a city guy and I don't like the Eastern US very well so I don't have many favorable impressions of Newark, but I will say that the restaurants of Newark's Ironbound section had good, cheap food and Bill Scully ran a hell of a bar at McGovern's when I was going there during that 3-year period.  The bus system is good, the train system is good.  I can say that too.

I got to Newark as a mid-20s adult so I wasn't shaped by it as much as I was an observer of its workings.  I remember its politics were like those of any Eastern US city -- corrupt, mechanized.  The large businesses located in Newark and its Essex County environs called the shots; a pro-corporate Black dude named Sharpe James was the Mayor when I was there -- he reminded me of JC Watts.

I don't know what any of that has to do with my original trigger here, Phillip Roth, other than as a ramble on where my noggin leads when Roth's name pops up.

After reading the entry and comment thread found in today's BDR link to something about Roth, I realized why, after a youth of intense reading and a young adulthood of lots of the same, I never went into literature as an academic pursuit, nor as a financial one.

The saga --and believe me, it's a seriously drawn-out tale of epic deceit, sweeping human emotions and bitterly felt betrayals, so I'm not overplaying it by calling it a "saga"-- concerning Roth's Booker Prize is ripe for all kinds of satire.

Apparently there's a judge for the Booker Prize who recused herself from the vote as a "protest" concerning certain aspects of Phillip Roth's persona -- some of them having to do with Roth-as-human, others having to do with Roth-as-writer, and apparently somewhere in the judge's encyclopedia of complaint are a few quarrels with the quality of Roth's work.

Out of this bubbling morass a writer for Salon observes, in query:

Is it just about political correctness and feminism?

Naturally with the environment being Salon, some more-feminist-than-a-woman while dude-ish-and-yet-not commenter eventually writes, in response:
I'm a (straight) man and I'm still appalled by Roth's treatment of women in general and female sexuality in particular. In his novels, women are either withholding coquettes or repressed feminists who feign lesbianism as a means of repressing their biological desire to be pounded by a real, male penis. He writes about vaginas as things a man is drawn to, even as they repel each of his senses. I don't call Roth's work sexist out of political correctness, but rather because his hostility toward women offends me on the same visceral level that the female organ apparently offends him.

This whole line of criticism is bullshit pandering to victimized-feeling women, women who have been sexually traumatized or abused, and/or women who simply cannot bear to hear about a man's innermost thoughts regarding a woman's body and his desire to do certain things with and/or to that body, sexually.

Our esteemed commenter seems to be denying that he ever could have such ...what, what exactly are they, anyway?  non-loving?... thoughts or impulses towards his wife's pussy.  Or that he might even imagine himself calling her vagina a "pussy."  Because that would be ... sexist.

I'm sorry as hell for all the women and girls out there who have been sexually traumatized or abused by anyone -- man or woman, hetero or homo, gender-norm or hermaphrodite or transitory, whatever -- but I'm not going to deny that human beings have feral, primal and yes, Felicity, even uncouth and bestial urges which betray our pretense at mannerly civilized society.

If you don't like the way Roth portrays women in his books then don't fucking read Phillip Roth.

If you need a vehicle from which to launch a campaign of proving that despite your hetero male professions you are more feminist than any woman, I'd suggest you avoid using an author's work of fiction as "proof" that he hates women, means to disempower women, or generally fails to properly respect women.

The world is full of men who behave like randy selfish jerks, women who behave like randy selfish jerks, women who behave toward men like teasing coquettes, men who tease husband-shopping women with sex but no commitment, et cetera.  Showing this in a work of fiction is not endorsement of the greatness or superiority of cruel treatment of others.

Does that really need saying, in a discussion about works of fiction, or writers of fiction?

It would be a legitimate avenue of criticism if Phillip Roth were under review for a tenured position teaching Women's Studies at an all-women's college with heavy feminist leanings, yes.

But it has nothing to do with whether Roth's work merits a Man Booker Prize.

Nothing at all.


There's one comment which observes the recusing-herself Drama Queen judge for the Booker is the leader of a publishing house and is friends with one of Roth's ex-wives, who has been known to complain of Roth's "misogyny."

That brings to mind The 48 Laws of Power.

It also would suggest the whole show of recusal is some form of social payback.

But then, prizes such as the Booker might be seen as social payback of another type.

And the whole thing could be seen as petty divisiveness, which serves as a huge irony when viewed in light of the criticisms of Roth's supposed misogyny and how it's manifest in his work.


OCL, tripping over his own conceptions of government:
Indeed, the Congress -- from top to bottom -- is now structured to avoid any actual democratic debate and instead ensures the resolution of all matters in secret. In response to last night's 74-8 cloture vote on the Patriot Act, the always-superb, hyper-informed commenter pow wow -- in a comment that I highly recommend everyone read -- explained perfectly how this works. Citing the joint efforts of both parties' leadership to block any debate over authorization of the war in Libya, he explained: "the Party (= fundraising) organizations and their leadership [] operate almost entirely off the public record and out of public view. Their objective at all times: avoid unpredictable democratic floor action, and the accountability of public debate."
It isn't now structured to avoid real democratic function. It's always been structured that way, OCL.


Your fond romanticized view is exemplified by your "UPDATE" in which you quote YooVeeAyyBoy for a dualism that is oversimple at best, and childish self-appeasement at worst.

Try being poor for a while, OCL. If you dare.

I doubt you would dare, though.

Monday, May 23, 2011

gosh! ...and gee whillikers!

This absurdly confused person actually thinks there might be some flaw, however miniscule, in The Noble Endeavor of Blessed Information-Sharing... I'm talking about commenter "Beverly" at Black Agenda Report:
Public broadcasting has shown its poser colors big time for the past several years. If they lose their funding, good riddance. The posers are worst than a Fox network because of their cunning and ability to present State propaganda as if it were the real truth. NPR listeners think they are the smartest folks in the room but they are as ignorant and brainwashed as the Fox news viewers they love to mock.
The closing (bold, italic) comment is about as insightful as I've seen on the Toobz, bro-hambleton.

I salute Beverly.

ground chuck, roast-able if you like

The ghost of Oxtrot remains integral to the machine.

Chucky says, "tell the stupid fuckers to check out Dmitry Orlov's presentation."

Wednesday, May 11, 2011

Tuesday, May 10, 2011

appearance of criticism, substance of affinity

All of those views -- Democratic Party orthodoxy a mere three years ago -- have become relegated to the fringe under the Obama presidency by virtue of the President's adoption of what were once purely GOP/right-wing positions. But it's worth recalling that they were indeed the backbone of the Democrats' once-vigorous opposition (at least in rhetoric) to the Bush/Cheney worldview of using war and battlefield theories to fight Terrorism and to erode core Constitutional and civil liberties.
Interesting, eh?

Thankfully I know a lawyer who was able to provide a translation, which comes in the form of an Agreement between OCL and his reader base:


Whereas, during the past decade Glenn Greenwald, Esq. consistently has argued for more, better Democrats under the theme of A Few Bad Apples Don't Ruin the Bushel,

whereas, this argument has been well-reasoned and mainly so because it was his argument and he's Our Constitutional Lawyer,

whereas, a few things have come to Our Constitutional Lawyer's attention recently which suggest He could have been mistaken in stumping for More, Better Democrats, and

whereas, His ego is massive yet fragile and therefore vulnerable to collapse if He were to admit any errors in facts and in reasoning,

Therefore, it is hereby agreed that:

All reasoning and factual errors of Glenn Greenwald, Esq., a/k/a Our Constitutional Lawyer, have been overstated and henceforth shall be ignored, because the Democratic Party has been co-opted by Its Mortal Enemies, a/k/a the GOP, and therefore they are not the same Democrats He has argued for nor are they anything other than an entire Bushel of Bad Apples, presently; consequently, Our Constitutional Lawyer and We in the American Donkeybot Nation shall continue to support Democrats because the True Democrats are not running the Democratic Party now and, eventually, they will regain control.

And in any case no person with a functioning mind ever supports a Republican.

Agreed on this 10th day of May 2011.

Glenn Greenwald, Esq.
Glenn Greenwald, Esq.
Your Constitutional Lawyer

American Donkeybot Nation
American Donkeybot Nation
A tribal gathering of robotic humanoid entities

Sworn to and signed before me this 10th day of May, 2011.

Nadariel Person
Nadariel Person
Notary Public for the District of Columbia

I have it on good authority...

...that the following scenario is a Big Victory for Seriously Reasonable People Everywhere:

Imagine a workplace where the Boss has 25 employees and pays them all the legal minimum wage in a contractual employment stated at 40 hrs per week.

The workplace is known as The Job.

Boss started The Job in 2005 and 20 of his 25 employees have been with him since the start.  The employment contract has been as stated (min wage, 40 hrs/wk) for the whole duration.

The accountant for The Job is aware that The Job has been profitable for Boss, increasing its profit margin every year in each of the past 5.

The overall growth in The Job's profit is:

2005:  17% profit
2006:  19% profit
2007:  21% profit
2008:  28% profit
2009:  34% profit
2010:  23% profit

After the 2008 work year, several of the employees noted that the revenue was fatter than prior years and asked Boss whether a raise was possible.

Boss said "No, we're still recovering the start-up costs" -- then left on his mid-day break to go buy himself a new $80,000 euro luxury sports sedan.

He never returned to work that day.

The next day some employees noticed the new car.  Began wondering about "recovering start-up costs" and the purchase of the expensive new car.  Employees know Boss isn't independently wealthy, not enough to pop for an 80k car out of his pocket change.  One employee realizes Boss is lying, and suggests as much, with explanation to doubters, at lunch with the gang of fellow workers.

This one employee, who goes by the nickname "Hopi" at work because most of the employees are not Democrats and grew tired of his Obama-support during the 08 election season, is determined to improve life for all the employees.

Hopi asks Boss for a sit-down.  Boss grants sit-down.  Sit-down occurs at mid-morning.  By lunchtime the sit-down is over and Hopi is in the break room with the gang.

"Hey fellas, I fixed things for us.  I got Boss to agree to pay us 1.0125% of our hourly wage whenever we work more than 60 hours/week."

"But Hopi, most places people get time-and-a-half for overtime, and it starts at 40 hours."

"Well screw you then!  Obviously you don't care about breaking out of poverty!"

Thursday, May 5, 2011

the ouija speaks

a recent communique from Mr Oxtrot, transmitted via ouija board --


Hey Karl you ignorant fuckhead, here's what I want you to say:

1) Holy shitfuckingpisschrist... stupid fucking americans don't realize bin Laden wasn't killed by US forces, not before and not recently, because the bin Laden created for infotainment media purposes in the dark days following the horrific assault on Our Most Noble ImperiumFN is a distinctly different person from an heir to a large family business enterprise that has engaged in business dealings with the Bush family.FN2  The former is a fabrication created to make dipshit americans think they were being threatened by a terrorist mastermind -- and one distinctly other than the Bush/Cheney Crime Syndicate's various masterminds.

2) The purposes served by the bin Laden "takeout" include the following points, each of which is meant to suggest the intended effect on that portion of the US populace who take their Proper Thoughts and Necessary Perspectives from the major infotainment purveyors:

* make the US Navy SEALs, and by extension the entire US military, seem heroic and capable and worth every US taxpayer penny spent on/for them, or in payment of contractors who profess to be serving our noble servicepeople (and not themselvesFN3)

* further solidify The Burly and Effective Chief-Commander aspect of The Noble Obama's well-manufactured and regularly-manicured-and-groomed image, weakening the inroads made by Crimson Necks Who Call Obama A Marxist

* reverse the inroads made by The Dastardly And Fully Evil Rethuglicans in the 2010 elections, by showing how The Noble Obama isn't a gelding but rather is Spartacus, the ideal warrior embodied, and therefore among the Crimson Necks it is expected the Saintly Democrats will be seen to maybe just deserve support normally saved for rough-and-tumble veterans like Angry McCain or Mitch "The Southern, meaning Kentucky and not Moroccan, Mole" McConnell FN4

* re-affirm the need for those wishy-washy soft moralizing progressives to stay true to the cause of Fighting Terrorism Everywhere (for the sake of humanity of course) and remind them that whatever you may have thought of Bush & Cheney's warhawk jingoism, you were right to believe there would be Hope and Change with The Noble Obama, who keeps our troops in harm's way only when it's necessary to progress humanity forward, past these terrorists who put obstacles in America's path to greatness.  Through the War Against Terrorism, we will remove all obstacles to giving Impoverished And Oppressed People Everywhere the same happiness, joy and civil liberty-blessed existence known to We Great and Grand Americans.

* give people another reason to celebrate bloodlust under cover of doing something Good For Humanity.

* remind everyone that Governments Keep Us Safe, and do their best job when we give them lots of money for defense and homeland security spending.

Tell 'em to get off their asses, Karl.



FN - September 11, 2001.

FN2 - The "Bush family" here would mean POTUS41 and POTUS43 but presumably could be extended logically to Silverado Boy and the WTC Security Honch as well.

FN3 - At least, I mean, they're not paying themselves not any more profit than The Market Would Bear, thank The AlmightyFN Dollar.

FN - Or at least what once appeared to be so.

FN4 - Ahhh... the "Mole"... old Mitch --whose Machiavellian turns I greatly respect, and whose slithery unctuous moves resemble reptile more than vole predatory behavior-- is not a tough battle-hardened former POW but more a veteran of the types of dirty wars overseen by suit-wearing Legislators.


Well, that's it -- footnotes and all.  Plus he scribbled this link.