Severe Moderate Delusions: Fracking Stupidity Edition

One of the things I like about this is that during the Bush administration, Vice President Cheney's energy task force made sure that the gas companies did not have to reveal what the chemicals were that were being pumped into the ground. Now, it's been reported that some are things like kerosene, benzene, urea, toluene... how many of those can I feed my toddler? Because it’s perfectly safe, right? ~ Stephen Colbert in a 6/9/2011 interview with former bush Homeland Security advisor and current natural gas lobbyist Tom Ridge.

Hydraulic fracturing is fracking awesome according to the self-proclaimed "Moderate" Willis V. Hart, but I say he is a fracking idiot. On 6/6/2013 Mr. Hart authored a post he called Oily Bed-fellows. In his commentary Hart trashed actor Matt Damon for his role in co-writing and starring in a particular Hollywood film...

Willis Hart: There are some things in life that are just so utterly delicious in their irony that you simply cannot pass them up. Take for instance this little factoid. DID YOU KNOW that one of the premium bank-rollers for Matt Damon's propagandist piece of shit hit-piece, "Promised Land" (a dramaturgical counterpart to Matthew Fox's anti-fracking HBO screed, "Gasland"), was none other that the royal family of the United Arab Emirates?

"Utterly delicious", huh? Well, recalling a certain climate change denying "scientist" he often cites, I view Willis' schadenfreude a wee bit hypocritical. I submitted a reply to Mr. Hart's post, although he has comment moderation enabled and has banned me from his blog, so the following most likely will not be published...

What about the "oily bedfellow" Dr. Richard S. Lindzen? According to this source... [1] Lindzen charged oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services. [2] His 1991 trip to testify before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels. [3] A speech he wrote, titled "Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus" was underwritten by OPEC. Yet Mr. Hart has no issues citing this individual whose motives could be questioned seeing as Big Oil is providing some of his funding. Fact is Willis frequently sings his praises, claiming that Lindzen's works are "well thought out". Yeah, I bet he thinks long and hard about how big of a check from Big Oil it will take for him to sell out.

This is the comment I would have submitted if I were not banned, even though it doesn't actually address the issue of Promised Land being financed by a company owned by the royal family of the United Arab Emirates, which it was. Obviously the purpose of the reply would have been to provoke Mr. Hart (and it could have comments like this that contributed to me being banned). But, heck I couldn't have helped myself, due to him describing this film as a "propagandist piece of shit hit-piece". It isn't that at all. It is a film based on the legitimate concerns and dangers that come with fracking.

Unfortunately the film did tank, as the Hartster points out. It made a little over 8 million on a 15 million budget. Why that happened isn't hard to deduce. The topic is not one the apathetic public really cares about, plus the movie isn't that good. I wanted to like it, but I watched it (I doubt Mr. Hart did) and give it a "C". Mostly because the film plays fast and lose with the facts. Not the facts regarding fracking, about which it does not go into a lot of detail, but the facts regarding how it is decided if fracking will be allowed to take place in any particular area.

An NPR review of the film points out that "in Pennsylvania, where this film was made, municipalities have very little authority over what happens [and that] they certainly don't get an up-and-down vote [as depicted in the movie]". And a town vote is at the heart of the movie. An environmentalist comes to town (played by John Krasinski) and the energy company representative (played by Matt Damon) gets worried that he may sway the vote against allowing the fracking to go forward. But that's all BS and not at all how it actually works in the real world.

And then there's the "switcheroo" near the end... I can understand why people didn't like it. Several reviews I read mentioned it (but didn't give it away, so I won't either). One reviewer said it "insults both the characters and the audience" and is "unforgivable". Yikes. I wouldn't go quite that far. IMO this "town vote" contrivance is more "unforgivable" than the switcheroo which didn't bother me nearly as much.

Regarding the film's financing... yes, that is troubling. They really shouldn't have jumped into bed with a company that could be seen as having ulterior motives for putting up the cash. Do a internet search on this movie and you'll find that the Right is slamming this movie because the Saudis would like it very much if we didn't frak so much (which is why they financed the movie). That way they could sell us more oil than if we took our foot off the breaks and started fraking like crazy.

So their financiers may have had, or probably had an ulterior motive, but what about the film makers? I say no. They probably knew this type of movie was a little more risky than another mindless action film, but they felt passionately that people needed to be informed. In any case, who financed the film is a legitimate criticism, just like it is valid to criticize the climate change deniers that are financed by Big Oil.

But I wouldn't say the criticisms are equal. I say it is MORE suspect that the Big Oil funded "climate scientist" Dick Lindzen says climate change is "no big deal" (he acknowledges it is happening to some extent), and that it is LESS suspect that the filmmakers had ulterior motives.

I say they didn't have any at all. Their financiers, yes, they probably did. But the filmmakers? No. And for that reason I most certainly would not call Promised Land a "propagandist piece of shit hit-piece". I'd call it an average (or slightly less than average) movie, but one where those involved (aside from the financiers) had the RIGHT motives.

OK, so Promised Land isn't that good, and is also light on facts regarding the dangers of fracking. If you want those facts I say you need to watch the superior documentary Gasland by Josh Fox (which I have also viewed). Here we get the in-depth low-down regarding the very serious problems that come with fracking. Problems that Mr. Hart totally denies with the following comment...

Willis Hart: ...when you find something that is a) plentiful, b) relatively safe (Obama's own EPA chief has said that there's never been a documented case of fracking causing well-water contamination), and c) relatively clean (gas has a hydrogen to carbon ratio of 2:1, coal a 1:2 ratio), you really gotta go for it (not without adequate regulations, I grant you), I think.

Adequate regulations? Are you kidding? I'm not aware of there being any at all! OK, I'm sure there must be SOME, but as Gasland points out... the 2005 energy bill pushed through Congress by Dick Cheney exempts the oil and natural gas industries from the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the CERCLA Superfund law, and about a dozen other regulations. Does that sound to YOU like there are "adequate regulations"? REALLY? And if fracking is "relatively safe" as Willis claims, why would the companies that do it need all these exemptions?

In Gasland director Josh Fox interviews EPA whistleblower Weston Wilson who discusses what happened after the bush administration pushed through the Halliburton Loophole...

Weston Wilson: All science, all data. Everything stopped. We were appalled that we were burying this secret, that [the fracking fluid] was known to be toxic. When the president says don't investigate, expedite things for industry. We do those things well too. We're still asleep at the wheel. Don't assume that since Obama was elected something has changed (yet) at the EPA in that regard.

Huh. That might explain why Obama's EPA chief Lisa Jackson said the EPA hasn't confirmed any contamination. You can't find what you aren't looking for. Mr. Hart frequently authors commentaries where he complains about how the government has gotten into bed with industry, but here he turns a blind eye to it. Wanna bet that if a commenter mentioned this on his blog he'd call it a "conspiracy theory"?

Things are slowly changing, however. It was on 5/24/2011 that Lisa Jackson said that, while no cases of contamination were proven yet, there are ongoing investigations. Where any particular pollutant came from and how it got there (in the water) is something that is hard to prove. Since EPA Chief (now ex-chief) Jackson made her comments there has been a report issued by the EPA regarding the possibility of groundwater contamination caused by fracking in Pavilion Wyoming. On 12/9/2011 the EPA released their draft finding for public comment and independent scientific review. In part the EPA report said...

...three years ago... two deep monitoring wells [were drilled] to sample water in the aquifer... [Tests indicate] groundwater in the aquifer contains compounds likely associated with gas production practices, including ... synthetic chemicals, like glycols and alcohols consistent with gas production and hydraulic fracturing fluids, benzene concentrations well above Safe Drinking Water Act standards and high methane levels. [Sampled water] in the private and public drinking water wells [revealed] chemicals [that]... include methane [and] other petroleum hydrocarbons... [The EPA's conclusion is that] the presence of these compounds is consistent with migration from areas of gas production.

In his film Josh Fox says fracking fluid is a mix of over 596 chemicals, some the frackers refuse to disclose... to others that are known carcinogens (ethylbenzene). Doing some rough math Josh estimates that [1] 1-7 million gallons of water is used per fracked well, [2] each well can be fracked up to 18 times, and [3] around 450,000 wells have been drilled in the US... which means that approximately 40 trillion gallons of fracking fluid contaminated water has been pumped into the ground.

We're supposed to believe that absolutely none of this contaminated water has made it into any groundwater, aquifer, lake or stream? I think you've got to be fracking stupid if you believe that.

Video Description: Former Secretary of Homeland Security and current natural gas lobbyist Tom Ridge repeats the now proven false Lisa Jackson EPA claim that there are no confirmed cases of fracking contaminating groundwater (at 3:09 minutes into the video). The Colbert Report, 6/9/2011. (6:20).

The Colbert Report
Get More: Colbert Report Full Episodes,The Colbert Report on Facebook,Video Archive

SWTD #164, wDel #28.

My Message From The Afterlife

Frisbeetarianism is the belief that when you die, your soul goes up on the roof and gets stuck -- George Carlin (5/12/1937 to 6/22/2008) stand-up comedian, social critic, satirist, actor, and writer/author who won five Grammy Awards for his comedy albums.

I would have paid for my gas using the credit card scanner located on the pump, but a sign said "out of order, please pay inside". While inside I decided to grab a 32 ounce soda from the fizzy drink dispenser (despite Mr. Bloomberg's warnings). After adding a minimal amount of ice to my cup, I filled it to the tippy-top with the possibly diabetes-causing caramel-colored liquid. I approached the cash register to pay when I noticed a man brandishing a firearm. He was pointing it at the frightened clerk manning the counter.

The robber hadn't seem me yet, so I wondered if I should try to be a hero. "Empty out the register", the ski-mask-wearing thief demanded. I was considering whether or not I should tackle him when the man suddenly pivoted to the side, keeping one eye on the clerk he waved his gun around, alternately pointing it at me and the frightened attendant. "Get over here", he yelled, indicating I should move toward the counter. "Don't try to be a hero", he warned.

Realizing I was in a situation in which I could very well lose my life, my hands started shaking. As I moved in the direction the thief commanded I suddenly fumbled my soda, spilling it all over him. Thinking I was making my move, the robber panicked and fired his weapon. Then everything went dark. I knew I was lying on the floor, but could not feel my body. Opening my eyes, I was surprised to see myself prostrate in a pool of blood.

I saw the robber grab the cash and run out of the store. The attendant behind the counter picked up a phone and dialed. "Hello, 911?" she said. "I was just held up by a man with a gun! Send an ambulance quick, a customer was shot!". "I feel just fine" I tried to tell her, but she did not seem to hear me. It was then that I felt myself drifting toward the ceiling. It occurred to me that I must be dead, but instead of panicking a odd sense of calm came over me.

"Now I know for certain there is life after death" I thought. And it appeared as though no shadow demons like in that Ghost movie starring Patrick Swayze were going to show up either, which was a good thing. I continued to float toward the ceiling, and then through it. Before I knew it I was hovering over the roof of the gas station. A bright light appeared in the sky and I involuntarily moved toward it. Clearly it must be the portal to Heaven. I found that if I resisted I could move in any direction I chose, but decided to allow whatever force was guiding me to move me in the direction of the light.

Soon I was there, and found I was correct about it being a portal, but the white light was so intense that I could not see what lay beyond. Whatever force was guiding me nudged me toward the lip of the portal. "I guess I enter the light and see what happens next". And so I did. Instantly I was propelled forward at what must have been a great velocity, although I only deduced that from the visual cues. If not for those it seemed as though I was not moving at all.

I moved rapidly though the tunnel of light... it was very much like how travel though a wormhole as depicted on the television series Stargate SG1 starring that MacGyver dude, Richard Dean Anderson. After what could have been either a few minutes or a few hours, I reached my destination and was ejected from the tube of light. Looking back I saw the tube fold in on itself, forever sealing off the route by which I had arrived here. "Where was here, exactly?" I thought, taking in my new surroundings.

Apparently I was up among the clouds, although this couldn't possibly be the sky above earth, as everything was much too white. White clouds moved against a white background. There appeared to be a solid surface beneath my feet, but I could not see it. I was reminded of that Warren Beatty film, Heaven Can Wait. I hoped an angel didn't appear and tell me I wasn't supposed to be dead... that I had been removed from my body by mistake and was going to be sent back in someone else's body. I wasn't sure I would like that.

Off in the distance I saw a figure moving in my direction. As the figure got closer I saw it was a angelic looking woman who was floating toward me on a beam of light. "I am a representative of the Creator", the angelic green-eyed brunette intoned, her voice sounding almost musical. "Hello", I replied nervously. I considered asking her what the 411 was, but decided against it. Then the angelic woman spoke again, saying "You may call me Monica". No, her voice wasn't musical I decided, instead it sounded like she had a faint Irish accent.

"Someone called Jerry told you that the Ancient Aliens TV program is no less believable that the Bible. The Heavenly Father wants you to know that simply isn't the case. Most of what is said on that program is far from the truth, while the opposite is true when it comes to the Bible" Monica said. "How odd" I thought. Odd that God would want to impart to me some information regarding a TV show. Also odd that most of it is far from the truth. Which must mean that some of it is close to the truth? "That is correct" the woman said, obviously reading my mind.

Something else suddenly occurred to me, so I decided to ask her about it instead of pursuing the Ancient Aliens mystery any further (at least not now). "Aren't my dead relatives supposed to be the ones who greet me?", I inquired. "Usually that is the case", Monica confirmed, "but you are not here to stay. You were not supposed to die in the gas station convenience store". "So you're sending me back", I said, barely believing my Heaven Can Wait guess was accurate.

"No, this isn't like Heaven Can Wait", Monica said, correcting me. Nor is it like Touched by an Angel, despite my name being Monica. "Huh?" I replied. "I've never seen that particular program. I've heard of it, but never watched even one episode". "Sorry" I added, thinking she might be offended that I wasn't a viewer of a program about angels. Monica explained... "by coincidence the main character of that program and I have the same name". But she reconsidered going into further detail. "Never mind. It isn't important".

"You're to be sent back in the body of a canine, like in the Chevy Chase film Oh! Heavenly Dog". "Really?" I incredulously replied. "No, that was a joke", Monica said, laughing. "You are being sent back in your own body. As for why... it just isn't your time. You were supposed to heed the advice of the mayor of New York and pass on that Big Gulp". "I was thirsty" I protested. Monica silenced me with a wave of her hand. "There is more you must know before returning", Monica said before pausing briefly.

"What the extraterrestrials told you is accurate. Your destiny is to play a small but not insignificant role in the salvation of humanity. Now, before that bit of information causes your ego to swell, let me emphasize the word SMALL. Your blog will convince a few MORE important individuals that they should get politically active and support Progressive causes. They will go on to play a greater role in the eternal struggle of good versus evil".

"Also, a warning" Monica said with a very serious look on her face. "There are those who want to stop you. That is why you decided to buy that large soda. A suggestion was planted in your head by those who wish you ill. These dark forces cannot manifest themselves in the physical world, but there are other methods by which they can influence events in the mortal realm. You must learn to identify when they are attempting to intervene and cause you harm, and ignore their suggestions in the future. Just listen to your gut and you should be OK".

"I will be not be permitted to help you again", Monica said. "At least not this ham handedly. I know you have many more questions, but that is all I can tell you. Now it is time for you to return". As Monica finished speaking a bright light appeared behind her. "This is the portal back to the world of the living" she explained, turning to face a brightly glowing disc. "But, I have so many more questions", I almost protested, but could not as Monica rudely shoved me into the portal before I could speak again.

A blindingly bright light engulfed me, and I expected I would soon be whizzing along a Stargate-like wormhole once again. Instead an overhead light appeared, and I realized I was flat on my back. A man wearing a surgical mask touched a electrical paddle to my chest, shocking me. "His heart has resumed beating" a nurse said. "He's back", the doctor confirmed, sounding relieved.

 swtd-163. mes-2.  Previous. Next.

Tea Party Groups Allowed To Hide Donors Real IRS Scandal

...what 501(c)(4) law actually says, which is none of those people should have had their applications approved, and in fact none had them denied ~ Lawrence O'Donnell of MSNBC's The Last Word, referring to the IRS "scandal" of Tea Party groups receiving "extra scrutiny" when applying for 501(c)(4) status on the 6/4/2013 edition of his program.

The real scandal concerning the IRS "targeting" of Conservative Tea Party groups that applied for 501(c)(4) status? It isn't that they were "targeted", it is that they were all given exactly what they asked for. I'm not talking about exemption from taxation, but another benefit that comes with the 501c4 status (I'm going to drop the parenthesis for the rest of this commentary). That benefit being complete anonymity for contributors.

Turns out there is another tax exempt status they could have sought, known as 527. Wikipedia notes that "a 527 group is created primarily to influence the selection, nomination, election, appointment or defeat of candidates to federal, state or local public office". However, while 527 organizations must disclose who it's contributors are, 501c4s can keep that information secret.

501c4 status is only supposed to be granted to groups who are exclusively engaged in social welfare. That's what the law says, but the IRS (along with all government agencies) has leeway "to interpret the law and to take words that are vague and to give them meaning". And that is what the IRS did... in 1959 the IRS "interpreted" the law by adding the following sentence to it's code: "To be operated exclusively to promote social welfare, an organization must operate primarily to further the common good and general welfare of the people of the community".

Obviously exclusively and primarily don't mean the same thing at all. On the 5/13/2013 edition of MSNBC's The Last Word with Lawrence O'Donnell, Lawrence refered to this as a "magic trick". His guest Rep. Eleanor Holmes Norton pointed out that what the IRS did not do was interpret the meaning of a vague word; instead they "changed the plain meaning of the law", which is a power no agency has.

Holmes Norton also referred to the IRS "interpretation" as a "disaster waiting to happen". "What was it waiting for?" Citizens United. This is the Supreme Court ruling that declared "the First Amendment prohibits the government from restricting political independent expenditures by corporations, associations, or labor unions".

That is a bunch of bullpucky, of course, as the Bill of Rights protects the rights of individuals and not the rights of groups. The First Amendment DOES NOT APPLY to "corporations, associations, or labor unions". The Citizens United case was wrongly decided by the Conservative partisans on the court who wished to give plutocrats free reign to spend unlimited sums of money to influence our elections (i.e. buy them).

But the plutocrats were worried that spending vast sums of money on ads designed to tilt elections in favor of the politicians in their pockets might reflect poorly on them. Why would they be concerned regarding what the "little people" (those who didn't fall for the propaganda in their ads) thought? Two reasons... first, consumers might take exception and boycott the corporations owned by the plutocrats running the ads, and secondly... some of the plutocrats didn't want to spend their own money, but money belonging to the corporations they ran. That could create a problem if shareholders objected.

The solution to both of these problems? Funnel the money though a 501c4, thus removing their fingerprints from the purchasing of our elections. Also, after being laundered through a 501c4, it could then be re-donated to a SuperPac. This is why Karl Rove had two groups... The SuperPac American Crossroads (a 527 group that was legally required to disclose it's donors), and their money launderer Crossroads GPS (the 501c4 that did not have to disclose).

So the IRS changed the meaning of the law all the way back in 1959, but it wasn't until Citizens United that the plutocrats could REALLY take advantage of this "loophole". Previously there were limits on how much they could donate, but with Citizens United that limitation was removed.

According to a 5/23/2013 article from Politicus USA titled "Republicans Claiming Tax Exempt Status May Have Conspired to Hide Illegal Donations"...

The application for recognition as a social welfare nonprofit, 1024 Form, explicitly asks a group whether it has spent, or plans to spend, "any money attempting to influence the selection, nomination, election, or appointment of any person to any Federal, state, or local public office or to an office in a political organization".

A 5/29/2013 article from AllGov titled "Hiding Political Donors Is Key Reason IRS Applicants Sought Tax-Exempt Status" gives a few examples of Tea Party groups who committed perjury when they applied for 501c4 status and answered "no" when asked if they planned on politicking...

...CVFC, a conservative veterans' group in California [spent] nearly $8,000 on radio ads backing a Republican candidate for Congress. Another group, the Wetumpka Tea Party from Alabama, sponsored training for a get-out-the-vote initiative dedicated to the "defeat of President Barack Obama". Yet another tea party outfit, the Ohio Liberty Coalition, complained about the scrutiny it was getting from the IRS, in spite of the fact that it engaged in a pro-Romney email campaign and organized statewide anti-Obama protests that "demand[ed] the truth about Benghazi". The group's president claimed that his lawyers told him "it’s not political activity".

Still think the IRS was wrong in "targeting" these groups? I say NO and agree with Lawrence O'Donnell who says all the applications should have been denied. But the IRS never should have changed exclusively to primarily to begin with... although that was an action taken by the IRS way back in 1959. Given the fact that this erroneous "interpretation" of law has been in effect for so long the IRS couldn't simply reverse themselves now. No, once something like this becomes accepted practice it takes extraordinary action to reverse course. I think an act of Congress is in order. Congress could simply instruct the IRS to follow the law AS WRITTEN.

Currently there are some Democrats who are advocating for just that course of action. Question is, will they prevail? Given the fact that Republicans desperately want to hide just who is funding these organizations... I very seriously doubt it. And that will be an even bigger scandal, in my book. Because it will show just how corrupt and how much in the pockets of the plutocrats the Republican Party is.

Update, 6/25/2013: A White House.gov petition has been created to address this issue. I strongly urge my readers to sign this petition ASAP. 100k signatures are needed by 7/6/2013. The petition reads as follows...

We Petition The Obama Administration To: issue an Executive Order nullifying IRS "regulation" re: 501c4's and mandating the original statute be enforced. Honorable Barack H. Obama, President: The replacement by the IRS of the word "exclusively" in the original and still-extant pre-1959 501c4 statute, with the word "primarily" in the procedural 'regulation' manual,simply put, violates the law. At whatever cost to those who have ridden this loophole to the absolute corruption of our political system by money, the original wording of "exclusively social welfare" needs to be enforced.

SWTD #162

My Message From The Extraterrestrials

When it talks about the sky people, how everyone comes from the sky and how the Pyramids were used for star observations, it's too much for me. It all seems to connect the dots. It's blowing my mind -- Katy Perry (dob 10/25/1984) as quoted in a 6/22/2011 Rolling Stone article during which Perry discusses her obsession with the History Channel show Ancient Aliens.

Someone recorded an episode of Ancient Aliens on my DVR. Another individual in the household who has an interest in this type of nonsense. I know I surely did not record it, as the message of the program is that aliens have been guiding humanity throughout our history... keeping us on the right path and nudging humans in the right direction from time to time, mostly thorough "unearthly inspirations compelling ordinary people to perform extraordinary acts". According to the show the aliens "thought it best to use members of the human population to communicate their message".

I decided to watch the program, despite my extreme skepticism. In the last 20 minutes of the hour-long program the narrator said, "in the Bible's book of Genesis, God instructs Abraham to kill his only son". Then the narrator asked, "but was this command really given by God?". An on screen "expert" theorized that "Abraham received multiple messages from more than one being", and that this explained why Abraham received contradictory messages... one message instructing him to kill his son and another telling him to spare his son's life.

It was because two different groups of aliens were feeding him messages. These two contradictory messages were given by representatives of two warring civilizations, or tribes of aliens who each wanted something completely different for humanity.

The people who came up with the Ancient Astronaut theory must be completely nuts, right? The Wikipedia page for the show says detractors have criticized the theories presented on the program as pseudoscience and pseudohistory. Another critic says "Ancient Aliens defies all ability to suspend disbelief for the sake of entertainment". Finally, a science writer for the Smithsonian website "characterized the show as some of the most noxious sludge in television's bottomless chum bucket".

Wow. That is pretty damning, right? You'd have to be pretty stupid to even entertain for one second that any of the theories presented in this program are remotely plausible. So imagine my surprise when I realized that I was one of the ordinary humans compelled to perform extraordinary acts! Yes, watching this program triggered a repressed memory of the time I was abducted by aliens from another planet and instructed to spread their message... a message designed to guide humanity along the right path, so that we might reach our true potential.

But the show said many people chosen to carry this message might decide to keep quiet due to fear of being branded as crazy. And that is exactly what happened in my case. I told the aliens to find someone else to relate their message to the world. But then they explained that all I needed to do was start a blog with which I could educate the public regarding the virtue of Progressive politics. We must all come together and help one another my alien friend explained. That is the only way humanity can move forward. If we chose the wrong path it would lead to our extinction at our own hands he told me.

What is the wrong path?, I asked. The wrong path is the one presented by Conservatives, a tall lanky gray-skinned extraterrestrial informed me via mental telepathy. I starred into a pair of large black eyes in an even larger egg-shaped bald head. The alien next informed me that some humans are finding their inspiration from another group of ETs who they are engaged in a centuries old conflict with. After eons of war resulted in an unending stalemate the two warring groups got together and worked out a method by which they would resolve their differences without any further bloodshed.

Humanity, they decided, would serve as their proxies. Both groups would try to guide humanity down the path they thought would bring them (humanity) prosperity. The two alien tribes were of the same species, but each held very different beliefs. The first group are a brutal and nasty lot who strongly believe in the theory of "survival of the fittest". This alien tribe became known as "Conservatives". The second group of ETs are peaceful and caring. They believe they are their brother's keepers. These aliens are known as "Progressives".

My Progressive alien friend told me that the Conservative ETs gave their "unearthly inspirations" to humanity in an attempt to persuade them to follow the Conservative path. In America those who have subscribed to these inspirations are known as Republicans. If the Republicans won the Progressive aliens would also lose and the government on the alien home world would be turned over to the Conservatives... as they had agreed when they consented to this proxy war.

However, as my alien friend explained, going down the Republican path would also lead to the destruction of America. This is where I came in... my place in this conflict would be to spread the word of Progressivism. My medium would be the internet, where I was instructed to start a Left-leaning blog.

Then the alien erased the memory of our encounter from my brain, leaving nothing but the seed of an idea behind. It was that seed which became this blog. I had forgotten it until now. That night I felt compelled to go on a moonlit stroll. Suddenly I saw a bright light in the sky. Looking up I saw a saucer-shaped craft hovering above. The craft slowly descended and landed a few yards away.

I did not run in fear. Instead a feeling of extreme calm and peace overcame me. A familiar lanky gray skinned being descended a ramp from the ship. "I sent you a subliminal message via that television program", the Progressive ET informed me via telepathy. "I saw the posting on your blog in which you contemplated quitting".

You must not quit, he said. Or I perceived him to say that, as he did not speak. I only heard his words in my head. "All this time you have spent writing has been in preparation for what is to come. Your writing is not yet strong enough to attract a large following, but soon it will be", the alien assured me. "How much longer will I have to go on writing posts that no one reads?" I asked. The alien told me I must not lose hope, because soon I would attract a enormous readership... although he could not provide a specific time-frame in which that would happen.

I was further informed that the Progressive postings on my blog were only a small part of the plan, but a vital one... which is why I had to continue. The Progressive ET said this time he would not wipe my memory. Dark days are ahead and the knowledge of what I was fighting for (and my importance in the alien plan to save humanity) was needed to keep me going. The alien told me the "dark days" that were coming were endless hearings concerning bogus scandals of the Obama administration.

That I must refute these phony scandals were among the final words the friendly ET imparted. Should I keep my alien encounter a secret? "That would probably be best", the gray-skinned being said, but I could write it up as a work of "fiction" if I so desired. And so I decided to do just that... present the completely true events exactly as they transpired as a story pulled from my imagination.

History professor Ronald H. Fritze says stories about aliens have a "periodic popularity in America", which explains why Ancient Aliens has been on for five seasons and 54 episodes. The viewing public likes it even if it is "noxious sludge", so me writing a post summing up my experiences might attract some people who are into that kind of thing. If some of them read my other writings (on Progressive politics), all the better. Whether or not they believe that I actually encountered extraterrestrials from another planet or not isn't important.

Video: "E.T." is a song by American singer Katy Perry from her third studio album, Teenage Dream (2010).

 swtd-161. mes-1.  Next.

Brookings' Intellectually Honest Analysis Of Romney's Tax Proposals Got Me Banned

Romney says he is going to balance the budget, cut taxes, raise defense, protect Medicare, and preserve all the institutions of the federal government that we need from the FBI to the FAA. You can't possibly do all of those things. That was my problem. How does the math add up? To me, he's still at war with math ~ Tom Friedman (b. 7/20/1953) NYT columnist and self-identified Republican, on the 9/2/2012 broadcast of BC's Meet the Press.

Preface 1: This is a old post. I originally intended to publish it in September of 2012, but never got around to finishing it. I wrote most of it, but never actually completed it for some reason. I was recently looking for things to delete from my computer and found this... and decided to dust it off, finish it, and publish it. Why? Because it explains MY SIDE of a debate that lead to me being banned from the blog Contra O'Reilly.

I've authored a number of highly critical posts over the last few months that take aim at the proprietor of that blog, a Mr. Willis L. Hart (who I refer to as "PA" below). This post explains why. He banned me over a stoopid disagreement over former presidential contender Mitt Romney's tax plan (a plan that was never explained in detail, therefore making assumptions necessary if anyone wished to critique it).

Preface 2: What follows is my original post which my records say I intended to publish on 9/1/2012...

According to Wikipedia Harvard ethicist Louis M. Guenin describes the "kernel" of intellectual honesty to be "a virtuous disposition to eschew deception when given an incentive for deception".

Definition-wise, Wikipedia states that Intellectual Honesty is: [1] One's personal beliefs do not interfere with the pursuit of truth. [2] Relevant facts and information are not purposefully omitted even when such things may contradict one's hypothesis. [3] Facts are presented in an unbiased manner, and not twisted to give misleading impressions or to support one view over another. [4] References are acknowledged where possible, and plagiarism is avoided.

Regarding "Intellectual Honesty", I certainly do not try, nor have I ever tried to deceive with any of my posts, although I'm not going to claim that my personal beliefs never interfere with the pursuit of truth. They do. Facts here will sometimes be presented in a "biased" manner... from my Democrat-Liberal-Progressive point of view, that is. That is my bias. I don't deny it, but I do deny that I am the most intellectually dishonest person Willis Hart this particular as*hole has ever had to deal with.

The particular as*hole (PA) who levied this insult (and then banned me from his blog) did so because I defended a report from the Brookings Institute and the Tax Policy Center that said the Romney tax plan would raise taxes on the poor and middle class (see my previous post on the subject). Regarding Brookings' determination "...that a revenue-neutral individual income tax change that incorporates the features Governor Romney has proposed... maintaining all tax breaks for saving and investment... would... increase the tax burdens on middle and/or lower-income taxpayers", PA asserted that, "this study was done for one purpose, and one purpose only, to make frigging Romney look ridiculous".

Because Romney has put forward very few specifics, Brookings was required to make a number of assumptions in order to do the analysis at all. One of the things they assumed was that because Romney has said he favors "maintaining all tax breaks for saving and investment" that items that fall into this category are "off the table".

So just what deductions is Mitt Romney talking about? In their analysis Brookings/TPC says, "offsetting the $360 billion in revenue losses necessitates a reduction of roughly 65 percent of available tax expenditures. Such a reduction... would require deep reductions in many popular tax benefits ranging from the mortgage interest deduction, the exclusion for employer-provided health insurance, the deduction for charitable contributions, and benefits for low and middle-income families and children like the EITC and child tax credit".

No way says PA. PA thinks it is much more likely that Romney would lower taxes as he has described, while keeping these deductions and allow the deficit to rise. Do I think Romney would actually put forward a budget that did this? I doubt it, but, AGAIN, he has proposed a huge tax cut that also "maintains all tax breaks for saving and investment", and that simply is not possible unless many or most tax expenditures are reduced or eliminated. This is another reasonable assumption... in my opinion.

But because of these assumptions PA determined that the Brookings analysis was BS. Why? Apparently because the American Enterprise Institute, the Wall Street Journal, and the Manhattan Institute (all Conservative) made that exact criticism. Even though Brookings concluded that "maintaining all tax breaks for saving and investment" meant taxing these items would be "off the table".

But PA says the report's assumptions are not reasonable, and when I continued to insist they are, PA flew off the handle declaring, "what an absolute piece of shit you are". Why? Because I was claiming (according to PA) that "[Brookings] included it by not including it". No. They looked at these items and determined that they were "off the table" because they fell into the category of "tax breaks for saving and investment".

So, why MUST these items be "on the table" according to PA? Because Mitt Romney has never said they were off. In other words, because Romney has not put forward a detailed tax plan, ANY analysis of a possible Romney tax plan (taking what Romney has said and making some assumptions) is completely invalid. Or any analysis that doesn't include reducing or eliminating tax deductions for "municipal bonds and life insurance savings" is invalid. Why? Damned if I know.

I do know, however, that I'm "intellectually dishonest" for agreeing with the Brookings determination that these things would be "off the table", and was banned for that reason. PA authored a post that said, "You're done. I don't want you to comment here anymore". OK by me. This guy is clearly a lunatic. Why we can't simply disagree on what is a "reasonable assumption" is beyond me.

Finally, regarding the comment from PA that the Brookings/TPC report was done, "to make frigging Romney look ridiculous"... PA says Brookings (one of the preeminent Think Tanks in the country) is LYING because they are a "Liberal" organization. He bases this on an article from US News & World Report that points out that from 2003 to 2010 most of Brookings political contributions went to Democrats (97.6% to Democrats and 1.2% to Republicans).

The US News & World Report article identifies Brookings as a "Liberal" Think Tank. However, in an article titled "Brookings: The Establishment's Think Tank", Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) points out that "much of Brookings' top brass has come from Republican administrations". FAIR says labeling Brookings Liberal is "a victory of Right-wing think tanks" and that "to this day, Brookings is commonly, and inaccurately, dubbed liberal... It's called centrist almost as often, but never conservative, though that label would be more accurate than liberal".

SourceWatch says Brookings was "initially centrist... [but] since the 1990s it has taken steps further towards the Right in parallel with the increasing influence of Right-wing think tanks such as the Heritage Foundation.

Wikipedia states that the Tax Policy Center was formed "in 2002, [by] tax experts who had served in the Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and Bill Clinton administrations [with the objective of] providing unbiased analysis of tax issues".

Now, FAIR and SourceWatch are both progressive/Liberal organizations, but who better to determine what organizations are "Liberal" than other Liberal organizations? So why all the donations to Democrats? I say it is because that is where all the Moderates are. PA describes himself as a "Moderate", and has (previously) identified as a "Blue Dog" Democrat. So who are these Moderate Republicans he thinks Brookings should be donating to if they were really (in PA's estimation) a centrist organization?

With the ascendance of the Tea Party and Mitt having to adopt positions contrary to those he used to hold in order to secure the nomination, how can any sane person deny the Republican Party has moved to the Far Right? Beats me, yet the Hartster does just that, in agreement with his Conservative buddy dmarks who contends that Brookings is a "well known leftist group".

But articles can easily be found via Googling that correctly state that Republicans of yesteryear would not be welcome in the Republican Party of today, including Richard Nixon and the Repub saint Ronald Reagan.

In a recent Fox News interview conducted by Chris Wallace former Senate majority leader Bob Dole said he "doesn't think he could make it in today's Republican Party". Wallace referred to Dole's "generation as Eisenhower Republicans, moderate Republicans". These are the Republicans that by and large no longer exist, so how the hell can Brookings donate to the re-election campaigns of moderate Republicans when there aren't any (or hardly any)? The answer to that question should be self-evident, I say.

But I disagreed, and that was another of several reasons the "Moderate" proprietor of Contra O'Reilly asked me to leave his blog and never return (and that he'd delete my comments if I did). This is a frigging stoopid reason for a banning, IMO. What it really shows is this Willis Hart fellow is really not all that Moderate.

Afterword: On 2/10/2013 PA (AKA Willis Hart) authored a post titled "The Silence of the Lefts" in which he criticized the political Left for it's "silence" regarding specific actions taken by the Obama Administration that are very similar to actions taken by the prior administration. Specifically drone strikes, reauthorization of the PATRIOT act, indefinite detention and rendition of terror suspects, and the president's kill list.

For the record I actually AGREE with PA. Both with his objection to these policies, and with his criticism of the Left in it's acceptance of Obama continuing these policies (when they were severely critical of bush when he did the exact same things). Willis does, however, slip in one lie. According to him Democrats in Congress were "seemingly" briefed on waterboarding. He is one of those who thinks Nancy Pelosi lied when she said the CIA never briefed her on the fact that they were waterboarding. Pelosi told the truth about not being briefed about EITs (enhanced Interrogation Techniques) AKA waterboarding, as her House colleague Bob Graham confirmed.

Also, while the Left (voters and politicians) are much too accepting of these policies just because a Democratic president is in office, there are voices of Progressive disagreement. I would have told Willis that if I had been allowed to comment (and I did tell him I disagreed with these policies prior to my banning). I am actually in agreement with the 26 members of the Progressive caucus (the real Left) who sent a letter to President Obama "demanding greater openness on all aspects of its counterterrorism-related targeted killing program".

I am also in agreement with Progressive host of The Young Turks, Cenk Uygur, who says the problem isn't with drones, because drones are just a tool. The actual problem is how we are using this tool. The three problems identified by Mr. Uygur are that... [1] We have used drones to execute U.S. civilians without a trial, [2] Most of the drone strikes are signature strikes where we have no idea who we're killing, and [3] We often do double taps where we kill first-responders and the people trying to help the wounded.

I am absolutely in agreement with Mr. Uygur on all three points. With these three concerns addressed I'd have much less a problem with the Obama administration's use of drones. But because they are not addressing them, and are in fact killing innocent civilians - I say they are creating more "terrorists" than they are killing... by angering the relatives of the innocents we are killing, who then join up to fight against the United States [1].

As it currently is utilized I strongly oppose the administration's use of drones. I am not silent in this regard. Also, in regards to the uninformed (Lefty) voters, Mr. Uygur says, "the great majority of Americans have no idea what we're doing with these drones. They think we're only targeting high level terrorists". He is correct. There are uninformed voters on both the Left and the Right. Here the Left is "silent" (in support of the drone program) because they don't understand how the drone program works.

In concluding his post PA says, "I'm beginning to think here that the Left wasn't so much anti-war as anti-Bush", but I say he is a fibbing (as well as displaying his fervent anti-Left bias). He has a point (so I don't say "lie"), but to not mention (at all) that there are those on the Left who are against these policies - the same as when bush was president - is a little dishonest. Only "a little" because I'm sure there are some on the Left who only complained about drones when bush was president because bush was president. Now they support the use of drones because it is a Democratic president doing it.

But for PA to suggest the Left is entirely silent? The progressives (that Willis dislikes with much intensity) ARE speaking out. That he ignores this fact is as dishonest as PA's characterization of me as "the most intellectually dishonest person [he] has ever had to deal with". That is way over the top and a huge distortion of reality - a reality in which I AGREE with him on some topics but disagree with him on others. The problem PA actually had with me was that, when I disagreed I wouldn't end up caving when he kept insisting he was right.

Footnote
[1] AKA blowback, which is a concept the idiot Willis, while he criticizes Obama for his drone policy, does not agree with. According to dope, the idea that all the murdering via drone that we're doing (of mostly innocents) causes anyone to seek revenge "ultimately fails". The US, in his mind, is blameless, in other words. Sounds like something a jingoist fear mongering warmongering MIC-stooging Republican would say. (Note: This footnote was added on 7/19/2015).

Video Description: Cenk Uygur of the Young Turks speaks out against Obama's use of drones.

SWTD #160, wDel #27.

Where is the Adulation I Deserve?

As blushing will sometimes make a whore pass for a virtuous woman, so modesty may make a fool seem a man of sense ~ Jonathan Swift (11/30/1667 to 10/19/1745) an Anglo-Irish satirist, essayist, political pamphleteer, poet and cleric who became Dean of St Patrick's Cathedral, Dublin. Swift is remembered for works such as Gulliver's Travels and A Modest Proposal (among others).

The end is near. Not the end of the world, but the end of this blog. Or the end of any hope I had that this blog might possibly attract even a small number of readers who comment. Back May of 2007 I authored a post titled, "This Blog isn't dead. Or is it?". Obviously, being only my 9th post, it might have been absolutely was premature to give up so soon. But now that 6 years have passed and still my posts get comments from two people (at most) is, I think, a greater indication that I'm wasting my time.

The last few commentaries have received zero responses. Given that reality, I'm thinking now may be just the right time to call it quits. Or quitting may actually be something that is long overdue. Some may say I didn't attain the "adulation" I was seeking. This speculation came to me via a fellow left-leaning commenter on another blog. I was informed that "whatever your bliss, do it for sun or fun; but doing it for an audience, for adulation, for hits [is] not worth it, my friend".

Easy for him to say... this is an individual who has a successful blog (which I am not going to link to here). He also said it was "bad form" to plug your own blog in a comment on the blog of another. He referred to this as "blog whoring". Blog whoring? I think it is entirely appropriate that, if you've happed to post on the same topic on your blog, to write a comment giving your opinion on the topic at hand, then direct anyone who is interested back to your blog for your further thoughts ON THE SAME TOPIC.

I've done it before without realizing how very rude I was being. If I'm offending everyone with my "blog whoring" I probably should stop, as I've never had that much success linking back to my blog in a comment on another blog anyway.

In any case, should I call it quits or should I continue? Also, now that I've asked will anyone reply? Also, what is up with me having 14 followers, zero of whom ever comment? Some of them commented once or twice, some of them never. I think people added me to their followers list and then never returned. Why do that? Maybe they couldn't figure out how to remove me from their following list? I removed myself from a list once, and it was a little tricky to figure out.

Whatever the reason you are reading this post - if you have gotten this far (it's almost the end) - PLEASE respond. Let me know why you're here, and, if you were here before, why have you never commented? Getting people to read and comment is the whole point of blogging, in my strong opinion. If I wanted to write something nobody would read I could keep a journal. That way, I could be sure nobody ever read it. Or, I could post whatever I decided to write online... that also seems to be a good way to be sure nobody ever reads.

Anyway, in regards to this "adulation" I was accused of desiring... I'd have given up long ago if that is truly what I wanted... because I clearly am not getting it.

SWTD #159

The Inceptrix Revealed

The whole of life is just like watching a film. Only it's as though you always get in ten minutes after the big picture has started, and no one will tell you the plot, so you have to work it out all yourself from the clues -- Terry Pratchett (dob 4/28/1948) an English author of fantasy novels best known for the Discworld series of about 40 volumes, as quoted in the tenth entry, Moving Pictures.

Everything was a little hazy. I had been dreaming, and my dream was remarkably similar to a movie from 1987 starring Billy Crystal and Danny DeVito. How odd, I thought. It seemed quite real, but couldn't possibly be.

"He's coming out of it", I heard a familiar feminine voice say.

Looking up, I saw a familiar face. It was the nurse who had put me under for transport to the prison hospital. Currently I was strapped to a gurney with an IV stuck in my arm. The gurney was in the back of an ambulance that was currently in motion, transporting me to jail, presumably. The ambulance driver turned around and glanced at me. To my amazement it was my friend Jed.

"Jed?" I asked, strongly disbelieving that my friend had returned again.

"Yes, that is your friend Jed", the woman confirmed. "My name is Jennifer Garafellow, and I'm a friend as well".

"You can trust her, Dervish", Jed said, not taking his eyes off the road this time.

"What's going on?" I asked.

"We are transporting you to the prison hospital along with a police escort", Jennifer explained. "But we are going to do our best to make sure you're diverted from that destination".

Exasperated, I cried, "I still don't understand!"

"He can't wrap his brain around what you told him", Jennifer observed. "It is just too unbelievable" she concluded.

"You got that right", I acknowledged. "I must be nuts, because I am positive I saw Jed disintegrate before my eyes", I added, certain that was the crucial evidence that proved beyond any doubt I was completely insane.

"Disintegrate?" Jed said, laughing. "No, Dervish, I simply disconnected from the Inceptrix".

"What the frick is the Inceptrix", I naturally inquired.

"The Inceptrix is what we call the virtually reality program we are all currently plugged into. It's like The Maxtrix from the film of the same name as I explained to you previously. Truth be told, you are very much like the Neo character portrayed by Keanu Reeves in that movie".

"Yeah, right", I said. "Me being completely insane makes a lot more sense".

"Come on Dervish", a frustrated Jed complained. "I've just about had it with your refusal to accept the truth. Remember there was only one scene in The Maxtrix where Neo refused to believe that what Morpheus was telling him".

"I remember", I said. "Neo threw up, passed out, and then, when he woke up he accepted his situation. But that was after being removed from the Maxtrix. Don't I need to choose the red pill first?"

"No", Jed answered. "This is the Inceptrix, NOT the Matrix. I told you that already. Things work a little differently here".

"So how does it work?" I asked.

"First we have to get you to accept the truth. Only then can you be disconnected and physically removed. If your mind is not ready to accept reality as it is outside the Inceptrix there is a strong possibility you'll go crackers".

Crackers? Certainly Jed must mean that I could go insane. Question is, how did I know that did not already happen?

I was about to ask him that very question when Jed spoke again, interrupting my thoughts.

"We're coming up on our turn", Jed said. "This is where we deviate from the road to the prison. As soon as we turn the cops following us will know something is up".

"Is it that rogue cop who killed you?" I asked.

"Indeed it is. You can think of him as the Agent Smith character".

"So he's a computer program?" I asked. "No, he is an alien in human form", Jed said, correcting me.

"Hold on" he added, taking a sharp right turn. As soon as he did the cop car behind us turned on it's lights and sirens, giving chase as Jed accelerated.

The ambulance entered a tunnel, and what transpired next was very much like the car chase scene from the 1998 film Ronin starring Robert De Niro.

Jennifer unstrapped me from the gurney and helped me into the front seat. I fastened my seat belt as we wove in and out of traffic, causing multiple collisions which resulted in the deaths of numerous innocent motorists.

Jenny removed a gun from her waistband and shot out one of the rear windows. Then she commenced firing on the pursuing police vehicle. We emerged from the tunnel and were forced to swerve to the left. A steep incline with the sea below was on our right.

The police vehicle overtook us and pulled alongside. "Pull over immediately!" the cop in the passenger seat screamed.

When Jed did not comply the cop started firing, spraying the ambulance with bullets, one of which hit Jed. When the bullet struck Jed swerved, coming dangerous close to the edge.

The cop car pulled up closer, bashing into the side of the ambulance. Suddenly a tire blew and Jed swerved out of control, crashing into the railing separating us from the sharp drop off. Ricocheting off the guardrail Jed hit the cop car again, this time much more violently.

The cop car careened off the road (to the left) while the ambulance swerved out of control to the right, crashing right through the guardrail and over the edge. I was too weak to scream, otherwise I would have. The vehicle plunged several hundred feet, hitting the water below with great force.

The ambulance quickly began to sink as water gushed in the (shot out) driver's side widow. With in seconds the ambulance was completely submerged and sinking to the bottom.

I struggled with my seat belt but it seemed to be stuck. Before I knew it my lungs filled with water. Unable to free myself I stopped flailing and accepted my fate. I would not be becoming the savior of humanity as a real life Neo; instead I would drown and sink to the bottom of the ocean. This ambulance would serve as my coffin in a watery grave.



 swtd-158. ti-5.  Previous. Next.

The Man in the Hat Kills the Other Man in the Hat

Seeing a murder on television can help work off one's antagonisms. And if you haven't any antagonisms, the commercials will give you some -- Alfred Hitchcock (8/13/1899 to 4/29/1980).

Larry was a aspiring novelist who taught a creative writing class for adults at a community college. One of his students was a short balding man named Owen. Owen wrote a story in which a man in a hat killed another man in a hat for no other reason except being insane. Larry read the story and told his student that the murderer in the story would get caught because he had no alibi.

Larry suggested that Owen see a movie by Alfred Hitchcock. A movie that would show Owen the importance of writing characters that were believable, in that if one of them murdered the other one, it wouldn't be because the killer was insane. The killer must have a motive, and attempt to get away with the murder by establishing an alibi. Those, Larry informed his student, were the keys to writing a good mystery.

Owen took his instructor's advice and saw Strangers on a Train. After viewing the movie Owen had an idea. On a prior occasion he overheard Larry say that he hated his ex-wife and wished she were dead. Owen had a similar problem with his mother. Owen's mother constantly belittled him and called him names. Owen decided that his life would be a lot better if his mother was not around anymore.

"Criss Cross", Owen told Larry, and explained to him his idea that he would kill Larry's ex-wife if Larry would kill Owen's mother. They would exchange murders just like the two characters in the movie. And each of them would then have an alibi when the murder they had a motive to commit took place. That way neither one would get caught.

Larry said he thought Owen's idea was not a good one. He explained that he did not really want his wife dead, but had only said he did because he was very angry at the time. This did not seem to sink in with Owen, and he left his meeting with Larry determined to kill Larry's ex-wife.

The next time Owen saw Larry he told Larry that he had killed his ex-wife. Larry was shocked, both by the news that his ex-wife was dead and by the realization that he did not have an alibi. At first he thought Owen was lying, but on the TV he saw a news report that said his ex-wife was missing. His ex-wife was on the news because she was a famous novelist, unlike Larry. That is why Larry hated her so much. Not only was she a successful writer while he was a failure, but it was his writing that she was famous for -- his ex-wife had stolen his novel and published it as her own!

"The police will think I did it!" an angry Larry informed a clueless Owen. "I don't have an alibi for the night you murdered my ex-wife". It was then that my friend Larry contacted me and explained his problem.

"I'll be your alibi", I told Larry, suggesting he tell the police that he and I spent the night together at my place playing cards and watching movies. I decided Larry was telling the truth because, in my estimation he was not capable of murdering anyone.

"Thanks, Dervish", Larry said, looking relieved.

"Come over to my place right away so we can discuss in detail what we did on the night your ex-wife was killed", I said, recognizing the importance of getting our stories straight. Larry agreed with my plan and we came up with a fictional account of what we did that night. Later, when the police questioned Larry our stories apparently matched up to their satisfaction, as they let Larry go.

"We're not out of the woods yet", Larry remarked when we met up later.

"Right" I said, agreeing.

"This Owen fellow is a weak link. That is why we have to kill him", Larry said, shocking me. "We murder him, make it look like a suicide, and then plant evidence in his home to make it look like he was obsessed with my ex-wife. He was a crazed stalker who read her book -- the one she stole from me -- and decided to kill her".

"How about we break into his house and look for evidence first?" I said, trying to talk my friend out of murder.

"OK", Larry said, thinking it over. "We can try that first".

And so we did. I spent hours surveilling Owen's home in order to learn his comings and goings, though I never saw the mother Larry told me Owen lived with. After surveilling Owen's house for two weeks I told Larry I had observed him leaving his home every Thursday night carrying a bowling ball bag.

"That is when we will go then", Larry concluded. "You keep a lookout while I break into his house and look for evidence".

But I disagreed, telling my friend that I thought he should be the lookout while I looked for evidence. I was worried what Larry would do if Owen came home unexpectedly, given the fact that he had previously suggested we murder Owen. And so it was I who entered Owen's house that evening at dusk. Given the fact that I was a private detective, I was able to easily pick the lock on the back door.

"I thought you worked at a Progressive think tank", Larry said, not believing I was a PI.

"Yes, I work at the think tank, but I am also a PI", I informed my friend. It was true that I hadn't done any private investigative work in a while, but my license was current.

Where would Owen hide evidence of the murder? I decided to look in the basement. After a short search I found what I deduced was the right door, but when I tried it I found it was locked. No problem. I took out my tools again and opened the lock in short order. Creeping down the steps I was surprised by the sound of someone mumbling.

I was about to run (thinking there was someone there) when I saw a person tied to a chair. I flipped on the light and was surprised to see a woman who looked exactly like a young Kathryn Janeway, the captain of the Starship Voyager. But, no, it was Larry's ex-wife Maggie. I remembered thinking she looked just like Janeway the last time I saw her, sometime before the divorce.

Quickly I removed her gag.

"Dervish?" she said, recognizing me. As I loosened her bonds she explained to me that she had been kidnapped and held here by a crazed stalker she knew as Owen.

Just then I received a call on my walkie. "Owen's car pulled into the driveway!" an alarmed Larry hissed.

A few seconds later the door at the top of the steps flew open and a short man in a fedora appeared, brandishing a gun.

"Who the hell are you and what are you doing in my house?" an angry Owen demanded to know.

Owen held the gun on me as he descended the stairs.

Suddenly Larry appeared behind Owen and bashed him in the head with a 2X4. Owen lost his footing and tumbled head over heels down the steps. A loud snap could be heard as he landed face first on the concrete. Owen lay there not moving, obviously dead.

"I think I killed him!" Larry exclaimed. Then he saw his ex-wife. "Maggie, you're alive!" Larry cried, overjoyed. He ran down the steps, jumped over Owen's body, and embraced his stunned ex-wife.

"I'm so happy to see you", Larry sobbed. "The police thought I killed you", Larry added, still hugging Maggie tight.

Then a shot rang out. I looked and saw Owen lying on the floor, a smoking gun in his extended hand. He had used his last bit of life to shoot Larry. Owen died immediately after firing the bullet that killed Larry; the shot to his head blew his baseball cap (as well as a large portion of his head) clean off.

"The man in the hat killed the other man in the hat", the shocked Maggie whispered.

"What's that?" I asked.

"It's a story Owen kept reading to me over and over", Maggie explained. "He told me that Larry didn't like it, but that he didn't trust Larry's opinion and wanted mine. Given the fact that I'm a published author while Larry was a loser who taught creative writing at a community college. That's why he said he kidnapped me -- to get the opinion of a real writer. And for revenge against the man who belittled his abilities".

"Makes sense", I concluded. Owen had killed Larry for no reason other than the fact that he was insane... and Larry had insulted his writing ability. I called the cops on my cell and they showed up a short while later. Maggie and I were held for questioning, but released a few hours later.

Also, it turns out Owen killed his mother some time ago. The cops found her body buried in the basement, so in the end things turned out far differently than anyone might have expected. That is, given the similarity between how things began and a certain movie from 1987 in which it was suggested the mother character be killed by throwing her from a train.

 swtd-157. ti-4.  Previous. Next.

Yahoo Going Nooz Route In Aggregating Glenn Beck The Blaze Right-wing Nuttery

By the skillful and sustained use of propaganda, one can make a people see even heaven as hell or an extremely wretched life as paradise ~ Adolf Hitler (4/20/1889 to 4/30/1945) dictator of Nazi Germany from 1934 to 1945. Hitler was at the center of Nazi Germany, World War II in Europe, and the Holocaust.

The Yahoos at Yahoo News appear to be at it again. If they aren't hiring Fox Nooz butt kissers like Dylan Stableford, then they're cozying up to Right-wing nutjob Glenn Beck's The Blaze. "Scandals Have Snowballed Through the Obama Years and More May Be Coming" is the nooz story I discovered a link to prominently featured on the Yahoo home page. Did Yahoo News pay for this Obama bashing tripe by "assistant editor" (and former Paul Ryan staffer) Christopher Santarelli, or are they just conferring to The Blaze some legitimacy by aggregating their nooz?

"Nooz" as I define it (and I think many on the Left would agree here and use the word similarly) is Right-wing propaganda masquerading as actual news. The term is (of course) in reference to Rupert Murdoch's Fox News, otherwise known as Fox Nooz or Faux Nooz. Now, I have noticed that on this occasion (as well as others) Yahoo News is going the "nooz" route, in that they seem to be catering to the far-right with one-sided news (or "nooz") stories authored by "reporters" actually employed by Yahoo, or by aggregating nooz from far-right sources, as is the case with this article from The Blaze.

Following are some excerpts from The Blaze story in which Glenn Beck employee Christopher Santarelli interviews writes about an interview of TN Representative Marsha Blackburn by Mallory Factor (Blaze contributor and not a woman despite the feminine name). Blackburn, one of the nuttier members of the House, believes the Affordable Care Act (AKA ObamaCare) to be "a government run, government ensured, government financed, government delivered healthcare system" (it isn't), and that it might include death panels (it doesn't).

Santarelli: Rep. Marsha Blackburn says the growing controversy involving HHS Secretary Kathy Sebelius trying to raise money from companies that her department regulates ranks among the major scandals that are plaguing the administration. The funds raised would go to nonprofits that help people enroll in and get excited about Obamacare.

My Commentary: According to Steve Benen of the Maddow Blog funds are needed to promote the health care law. The more people that sign up, the larger the pool and the lower the costs per person... but the Republicans won't provide any funds for this necessary promotion, so Sebelius has been soliciting "private-sector health executives and non-profit organizations" for some cash to fund the promoting. It's all quite legal so long as there is no quid pro quo.

Santarelli: "A lot of people have said it sounds like Iran-Contra - to me, I think it's probably a little bit worse", Blackburn said in a video interview with TheBlaze contributor Mallory Factor.

My Commentary: No, it isn't "a bit worse". You only think that because you're a nutter. The two situations are actually not comparable in the least. With Iran-Contra individuals in the Reagan administration were raising money via the sale of weapons to Iran to fund Nicaraguan rebels. It was all very illegal, while Sebelius asking for donations to promote the health care act is totally legal. One was a scandal that should have resulted in Regan going to jail, while the other isn't a scandal at all.

Blackburn does, however, appear to be on the same page as the other Tennessee Rs. Regarding the fundraising, Senator Lamar Alexander says "the legal analogy with Iran-Contra is strong", and that it "should cease immediately and should be fully investigated by Congress". Fu#k you Lamar. Intelligent people recognize this as yet another Republican attempt to undermine the president's health care legislation. Also, shame on the voters of Tennessee who elected these far-right kooks (a group that does not include me. I live in TN, but didn't vote for either of these dumbasses).

Santarelli: Blackburn told TheBlaze that scandals have "snowballed" through the Obama years, now coming to a head with... Benghazi, the Department of Justice caught surveilling lawful media outlets like the Associated Press and Fox News, the IRS targeting conservative groups, and this latest controversy with Sebelius and the HHS. Blackburn told TheBlaze that she has even heard of more whistleblowers set to step forward regarding scandals at the EPA.

My Commentary: That Republicans cut funding for protecting our embassies and consulates is a valid concern and should be addressed. The real scandal regarding the IRS "targeting" conservative groups is that they were all approved, even though the law says 501c4's "must operate exclusively for the promotion of social welfare" and not allowed to "specifically endorse any political candidate".

So the IRS found that no tea bag group was violating this rule? What bull. In any case, the real reason groups like these want the 501c4 status is so they can "avoid having to reveal their contributors". I agree with Senator Ron Wyden who says politically active groups (like the tea party groups that were "targeted") "ought to be 527 organizations [that] must disclose their donors" (they would still be tax exempt).

As for the Justice Department seizing of AP phone records, concern over that is right and just, but Republicans have previously opposed a media shield law, while it has broad support from Democrats. Republicans simply want to have their cake and eat it too in regards to this issue; i.e. criticize the administration but not "hamstring" future (Republican) administrations when it comes to going after the media's reporting of White House leaks. What is needed here is some serious reforms to ensure freedom of the press, and it does not appear as though (the hypocritical) Republicans are willing to go far enough.

Regarding Blackburn's assertion that individuals within the EPA are going to whistleblow, I'm not sure what she is referring to. However, given Blackburn's abysmal voting record when it comes to Oil/Energy/The Environment, she's probably referring to the EPA's attempt to regulate CO2... that is, actually do something about Global Climate Change given the fact that Congressional Republicans refuse to do a damn thing to address this serious problem.

Santarelli: Blackburn said that along with colleagues in Congress she will investigate these cases methodically and responsibly, subpoena individuals when necessary, and "make certain power grabs like this don't take place".

My Commentary: It isn't responsible to exploit non-scandals for political advantage Marsha! It isn't that I think Congress should ignore these issues, as I am a believer that it is the role of Congress to provide oversight, but that isn't the Republican goal here. The goal is to embarrass the Obama Administration, use these "scandals" for political advantage (in the upcoming midterms and in the next presidential election) and to stymie the Congressional Democrats and President's agenda. Proof of that will be their failure to pass any meaningful reforms.

I predict that the IRS scandal will open the door to further abuse of 501c4s. These groups will now be able to openly politick and hide who their donors are (which is what the Repubs want). The AP/Fox scandal might result in some legislation that provides some protections to reporters, but passage of the media shield law the Dems want is unlikely. The Benghazi hearings might lead to better protections for our overseas diplomats, but I haven't actually heard any talk of restoring any of the cut funding.

Finally, in regards to the "little bit worse" worse than Iran-Contra issue of funding for the implementation of ObamaCare... the Repubs object to the use of funds from outside sources, but they won't approve any government funding (thus eliminating the need of the administration to rely on donors), because the goal here is to sabotage it (the implementation). My prediction here is that nothing will happen - the Repubs won't stop Sebelius nor will they restore funding.

In other words, the Repubs will fail utterly to make any of these faux scandals stick. Although I'm sure some of them know that, but will press ahead anyway due to the fact that regardless of the outcome they will achieve their primary objective of obstructing. And that, folks, is why this recovery has been so weak, and we get ignorant Keynesian-bashing comments such as the following...

Willis Hart: There have only been 2 sharp economic downturns in U.S. history that haven't been followed by a sharp economic recovery; the Great Depression under Hoover... and FDR and this current malaise under Bush and Obama. I would strongly argue that it (the fact that both were responded to via an interventionist government) is hardly a coincidence (5/5/2013).

No. I'd argue the problem is not enough intervention. With this idiotic statement Mr. Hart completely ignores the fact that the Republicans have been working hard to stymie a recovery via actual sabotage. That is the REAL intervention that is taking place here... intervention by the Republicans aimed at making the economy worse!

So what we have here, IMO, is far-Right propaganda coming from a individual who presents himself as "Moderate" and from a supposed "news" organization which some might mistake for unbiased straight reporting. But who really gives a crap what one deluded individual thinks (Willis Hart), or even one deluded individual with a small audience (Glenn Beck) thinks. I find it far more troubling that Yahoo News is lending it's legitimacy to this type of extremist nuttery. I've never seen a MSNBC story on Yahoo.

Also, don't forget that Beck was fired by Fox for, among other things, claiming that the president hates White people. Fox has more legitimacy IMO than Beck, and remember I made the case earlier that Fox traffics in Right-wing propaganda. The Blaze is loony-toon paranoid propaganda which should be shunned by all of us normals (both on the Left and on the Right).

Just as Dish Network adding The Blaze to its channel lineup was a very bad idea, so is Yahoo adding it to it's news feed a bad idea. Both these companies need to rethink these decisions. Glenn Beck may be able to make a buttload of money catering to far-Right nuts, but that doesn't mean anyone else should even acknowledge the existence of The Blaze. I'm not saying search engines should censor their results as I do not support censorship, but placing stories from The Blaze alongside stories from legitimate news sources (and thereby lending The Blaze credibility) is, I think, a little troubling.

SWTD #156

A Decidedly Non-Auspicious Adventure, Part 2

Fortune and misfortune are two buckets in the same well -- German Proverb.

After checking for traps, the halfling thief Letta the Lucky flipped open the top of the first of a dozen or more heavy wooden chests. Everyone gasped when they saw the thousands of gold and silver coins contained within.

"I'm rich", William the Moderate gasped, a huge grin spreading across his face.

"This is many more times the value of Artemis' family farm" Suri Cruz, the group's mage guesstimated. "We should be able to pay off his parent's mortgage easily".

"Farming is for the little people", William scoffed. "Suri can give them a portion of her share and they can forget about farming and live the good life".

Suri ignored William and turned her attention back to Letta who was inspecting a second chest.

"No traps on this one either", she declared. "Just a simple lock I can pick lickety-split", she said, picking the lock in no time and flipping open the top. This chest was filled with hundreds of sparkling gemstones. Green emeralds, red rubies and white diamonds of small to intermediate size sparkled and shown.

"This will buy me a mansion with servants to cater to my every whim!" William exclaimed.

Rutger the burly fighter went down to his knees, sobbing. "With this incredible wealth we could easily purchase resurrection magics to bring back my brother Abel".

"Now hold on", William retorted. "That's all fine, but you do realize that Able lost his share of the treasure when he died, right? Now, if you want to spend some of your share to have him brought back and then split what you have left with him... with that I've got no objection. But this treasure is only being divided five ways as I see it".

"Now is not the time for greed", Joshua the half-eleven cleric lectured.

"Indeed", Suri agreed. "There is more than enough treasure to go around. Although I would argue that everyone that began this quest should receive a full share. Or their kin should receive their share. However, if these other chests are filled similarly I sincerely doubt we'll be able to lug all this treasure out of here".

"What have we here?" a quizzical Leeta pondered. She opened a third chest, removed one of multiple smaller boxes, opened that box, and found a number of small metal vials inside.

"My guess would be magical potions", Suri said, kneeling down next to the wooden chest to inspect what Letta had found.

"More valuable than gold, but probably not worth as much as the gems", William reasoned. "We should load up on the gems first". Then, putting a bit more thought into it he asked, "are any of them healing elixirs?"

"The vials don't seem to be labeled", Suri responded, holding one with her fingertips by the cap and spinning it around.

"There are some markings inside the lid of the box", Leeta said. "Although I do not know what the language is".

"Then move on to the next chest", William commanded. "We need to determine which items are the most valuable, take them, then come back for the rest later".

"I concur", Rutger agreed. "But do not burden yourself to heavily with treasure William", Rutger cautioned. "We need to be able to carry out my brother's body".

"Me?" William asked. "I am sincerely sorry Rutger, but I'm carrying out treasure, not bodies. Perhaps we can cover him with some rocks and get him on another trip".

"No. That is not acceptable", Rutger replied. "The longer we wait, the more difficult it will be to revive him".

"That isn't true", William lied. He knew what Rutger said was factual, but there was no way in hell he was carrying out a body instead of booty.

Rutger was getting very angry. Suri could tell due to the grimace on his face and the way he was clenching his fists. A fight was about to break out in her estimation.

Suri put her finger to her lips and said "shhh. I think I hear something".

"What the hell are you talking about?" William yelled, his anger at Rutger bubbling over. William's yell attracted the attention of something, as all the remaining companions could clearly hear the sound of many pairs of feet moving quickly in their direction, obviously attracted by the sound of William's shout.

"By the Gods, William! You dunce, what have you done?" Suri remarked, looking afraid.

She considered extinguishing her light, but it was clearly too late for that, as whatever William had attracted the attention of arrived. Several green skinned humanoids with anuran heads and bulging eyes entered the room, quickly noticing the companions. The slimy-skinned monsters began hissing and jabbering angrily in a foreign tongue while menacing the humans (and half-human) with their stone tipped spears.

"A bunch of backward savages", William almost scoffed. Though he was clearly at least a little nervous. "Let us dispatch them quickly".

Suri recognized the frog-like humanoids as an evil race of under dwellers know as the Caecilanoids or Croakers. Reasoning with them was out of the question. Clearly a fight was about to commence. Suri noticed that, despite his bravado, William shrunk back, retreating into the shadows.

The Caecilanoids struck first, advancing and thrusting their spears while croaking their battle cries. Rutger swung his sword slicing into the chest of one of the humanoids. A spray of green blood erupted from the wound. The monster cried out in pain and sank to its knees, fatally wounded.

This appeared to greatly anger the fallen Croaker's compatriots, several of which ran at Rutger in unison, spears extended. Rutger swung his sword, chopping through one of the spears and sweeping the monster aside. Two more bore down on him and Rutger was skewered through the belly by both of his attacker's pikes. Rutger attempted to scream in agony, but only managed a gurgle as a stream of crimson passed between his lips.

The creatures pushed forward, plunging their weapons through the large warrior's midsection. He fell back and the spears snapped in half. Rutger lay on the stone floor, unmoving.

Meanwhile, Suri completed the casting of a spell, which resulted in a bolt of energy which sprang from her outstretched palms. A stream of white-hot electrical energy shot across the room, forked, and struck two of the Croakers squarely in their chests. The blasts left gaping and smoking holes in the midsections of their Caecilanite foes, causing them to promptly drop dead. Joshua swung his mace, bashing one of the creatures in the head.

Leeta stuck her short sword into the abdomen of an attacker, pulling the weapon to the side as she withdrew it, gutting the creature. It died, but not before spitting a vile substance in her face, blinding the halfling. Luckily the two remaining Caecilanoids decided they had enough and retreated from the room, leaving the bodies of their six slain brethren behind.

"We have won!" William cried triumphantly, emerging from the shadows.

The other three companions were unsure if William had done any fighting at all. Did he hide in the dark the entire time? Everyone (except William) had been fighting for their lives and so were not sure what his contribution had been.

"I dispatched that one", William said, pointing to a dead Caecilanoid lying on the ground, a sword wound in it's back.

But Joshua paid William no heed. He was already attending to their fallen friend, Rutger.

Suri approached Joshua. "Does he live?" she asked.

"No", Joshua said simply.

Image: Numerous Caecilanites, known colloquially as "Croakers" advance. These frog like humaniods have been alerted to the presence of intruders.

 swtd-155. wtm-6.  Previous. Next.