Trump Gags Scientists

My FaceBook feed is lousy with people who keep telling me to chill out. He’s our president now. Let’s give him a chance. Well, you know what? I did. And he took only one day to prove that he’s going to be bad news for everyone who isn’t already super rich.

I mean, it all started when his picks for top cabinet positions started to come through. Those were bad enough. A who’s-who list of Captain Planet villains. Cartoonishly evil people with about as much genuine concern for the American people as a hurricane.

So what’s the straw here? What’s evidence of his vileness that I’m going to wave in your face today?  It’s this. Scientists are gagging on Trump. Is that too crass? Probably.

I mean, how are we supposed to take this news? These are organizations that exist to protect us. To keep our air clean, to keep our food supply safe, to regulate the sorts of things big corporations claim make it just so hard for them to make money. Boo hoo hoo.

So he’s not stopping them from doing sciencey stuff. Or publishing peer-review articles. But they can’t talk to journalists and news outlets. In short, the science that we pay to have done can’t be communicated to the organizations that keep us informed. It’s our science. And we can’t have it.

And it’s not hard to see exactly what’s going on here. What other possibility exists except that we have elected a fascist. Honestly, I’m actually a little bit scared to even post this for fear of the new millennium’s gestapo busting down my door a year from now.  The statement is simple. Trump is saying: “Free speech is for me and no one else. The only truth is what I say is the truth. You can’t be trusted.”

There is no other way to interpret this.  Ya dig?

Weekend At Bernie’s

Source: Google Image Search

Source; Google Image Search

Bernie Sanders is running for president. This is one of those really special things that fills certain kinds of liberals with all sorts of cognitive dissonance. The thing is, we want Bernie to run for president. We want Bernie to win the nomination. We want that m-fer to be the m-fing president!

But we know it won’t happen. Or at least, we have this little pit in our centers that tells us that it will never happen. But then we remember that the reason it will never happen is because we tell ourselves that it will never happen. The reason one person can become president is because enough people just sort of assume it’s going to happen and everyone who doesn’t like that person just decides not to vote. It’s democracy by attrition and disillusionment.

Everyone wants a representative democracy in which the representatives and the represented can communicate and agree on things and get shit done. And the thing is, this is totally possible. The people could totally elect Bernie Sanders president! It’s perfectly legal to elect someone who isn’t an evil, corrupt, vicious, warmongering, sycophantic, liar pants. But we don’t! Why is that? There are tons of reasons for this, of course. Corporate-controlled media. Corporate-controlled political parties. The Koch Brothers. Lots of reasons. But the one I’m more interested in here is this self-defeating feedback loop that occurs whenever something that is good and pure and worthy of fighting for doesn’t get fought for simply because of a sort of ideology-wide depression. The far left are so utterly disenfranchised that we even convinced ourselves that voting for a center-right president like Barack Obama was the right thing to do. Can you believe that?

It’s like we need permission from a sort of critical mass of our peers (in this case, the people of this country) in order to feel hopeful about anything and actually put some force behind someone liek Bernie. Even right now, there’s a part of me that wants to say that I know perfectly well that Hilary Clinton will get the Democractic nomination. But the thing is, I don’t know that. If we can give ourselves permission to really be hopeful (it’s only 2015; the election is more than a year away), it is actually possible for us to build the steam necessary push this thing forward.

Bernie is the real deal, folks. In almost every respect, he is, in fact, the guy we want. I mean, right off, let’s face it, any candidate that the GOP fields is going to be one of two things: a complete corporate shill or an amoral warmongering satanist (I mean this literally, but it would take me a while to explain and it’s outside the scope of this post). And the Dems…they have Hilary. And I suppose Elizabeth Warren who wouldn’t be a bad running mate for Bernie honestly. Hell I’d vote for a Warren-Sanders ticket too, probably. But other than that, there’s really no one to rally behind.

And so what are we to do? How do we somehow make it actually possible to elect Bernie Sanders president? What’s the strategy? What’s the game plan? I think the first step is pretty much just to convince ourselves that he has a chance to win. Simple as that. We already know that he, in every way that counts, is the guy we want. He’s the man for the job. There’s no one else. He’s the guy. (Except maybe Elizabeth Warren) Thus: if he’s the only candidate in the field that is worth electing, we actually have a moral obligation to push for it. We should make this the first real grassroots, internet campaign. We need to push back against corporate media. We need to grab this election by the balls and shake it until it says uncle. We need to caucus, vote, and campaign. Debate your relatives. Your friends. Your dog. Don’t commit voter fraud or anything like that. That just encourages Republicants to push for more discrimination nonsense voter ID laws and other discriminatory practices. But do everything that’s legal to make this shit happen! Do not let yourself be disillusioned until after the primary/caucus season. Let’s think that he has a chance until we’re proven otherwise. Let’s support Bernie Sanders.

Also, if you happen to read this an you’re a either a libertarian or a republican, then there is practically nothing I can say that will convince you that you’re wrong (which you are). This post is not for you. It’s for my boy Bernie. He’s the man. He’s going to be president.

Affluenza Is A Misdiagnosis


I do not mean to compare the actions of a teenager to those of a centuries old dragon who essentially committed genocide. Or do I? In a way, maybe I do.

Let’s put on our imagination caps for a moment. Imagine you’re a great dragon growing up in middle earth, doing all those dragony things that dragons do when they’re young. Burning down villages, stealing gold and jewels, eating dwarves and humans, causing a ruckus and whatnot. Now imagine that, as a dragon, there is, in all likelihood, no one in any way capable of standing up to you. There are, in effect, no negative consequences for your actions. We assume that dragons have no intrinsic sense of justice here. Indeed, there is only positive reinforcements for all your dickery. Lots of loot, people grovelling, making offerings so you won’t burn the town down and such. And then, what? Centuries go by. Eventually, you hoard all your gold in a mountain and go to sleep for a while until a murderous little halfling comes by and bests you. Oh, the indignity.

Centuries unopposed. Done in by a fat, hairy-footed burglar. At least, that’s how it might appear to Smaug.

Let’s spin this out a bit more, since that’s what we do here. I propose to you dear, readers, that, in the case of Ethan Couch the the right thing happened.

You heard me. Justice was, in fact, served. Well, I might have made some minor tweaks to his punishment, but, all in all, I do not think that punishment was too light.

I know what you’re thinking. In fact, it seems like most of the internet is eager for blood on this one. They want to see the boy strung up by his toes, flayed alive, perhaps even executed. At the very least, they want to send a 16-year-old boy to prison. This, I think, would be a fantastic miscarriage of justice. And I’ll tell you why.

He’s sixteen years old. That’s it. He’s a kid.

I don’t give two shits if he’s rich or poor. He’s a kid. I am well aware of the fact that this same judge sent a 17 year old to grown-up prison for manslaughter. It just so happens that this kid was black and poor and not rich. And that was, in fact, a miscarriage of justice. That was wrong. That kid was also just a kid. That kid should also have been sentenced to probation and sent to a cushy treatment facility on the taxpayer’s dime (since it seems unlikely that he would have been able to afford their program on his own).

You see, Couch doesn’t suffer from “affluenza”. That’s a goddamned made-up word. That’s a bunch of gold-plated bullshit. It’s very clever bullshit, but it’s just utter nonsense. He suffers from being 16 years old. I’m a substitute teacher and you know what I’ve found out about 16-year-olds? They are idiots. Most of the time, they are benign idiots just discovering what it’s like to try on different personas, just starting to have opinions about stuff, but for the most part have not actually accrued anything resembling real world knowledge. I posit that no 16-year-old truly understands the consequences of his/her actions.

I sometimes find myself wondering, while talking to some idiot 16-year-old, “How can you be such an idiot?” but I have to remind myself that every generation is a bunch of new idiots. And every generation has to learn all the lessons I learned the hard way. No generation of kids is ever going to learn just by you telling them what’s what. They don’t care what you think and won’t until well after they learn the hard way. They are going to screw up and do completely stupid, moronic, possibly downright offensive stuff. Some of them will learn. And some of them won’t. But all of them are still figuring this stuff out.

Now, to be honest, I would not have sent the kid to some posh resort with horseback riding and yoga. I would have sent him to a hippie commune with farming and yoga. That kid would spend every summer vacation until college growing his own food without a car or a credit card. He would be put in a position to learn what it is to work. And he would be a better person for it. Maybe. I also would have done the same thing with the poor black kid who ended up in prison.

But there’s a problem with this. The American justice system is not built on these principles. In fact, this sort of punishment would not serve the actual function of the American criminal justice system. What is that function you ask? It’s to maintain a hierarchical society. Couch didn’t go to prison because he’s rich. He did the same idiotic thing that the poor kid did, but because he’s rich, he didn’t go to prison. I don’t even think the judge was bribed (though I did, I admit, initially knee-jerk in that direction). I don’t think the judge needed to be bribed. Maybe he even saw a bit of himself in the boy. He saw someone of his own class (because you don’t get to be a judge without being affluent yourself).

The fact that practically the entire internet thinks this kid should be in prison like the poor black kid speaks volumes about our blood-lust society. Everyone is saying, “He should be treated as badly as me.” No one is saying, “I should be treated as well as he.” Everyone wants to drag others down. No one wants to elevate anyone.

I have a radical theory that the truly morally correct way to reduce recidivism in youth crime is to take that gang member or rich drunkard and separate them from their peer group, isolate them in a safe, comfortable place like a farm, or research station, or poor village in Africa. They will grow vegetables, help do science, or pass out food and medical aid. That is how you fix the problem. It even pads the resume rather than blemishing it.

If a person is an adult and robs a convenience store, should you put him in jail? No. You should give him an interest free loan to go to school, learn a trade, start a business, or whatever, until that person can pay back the person that he wronged. That’s how you handle crime.

But, you say, won’t that encourage crime? I don’t think it would. Poor people, by and large, commit the most crimes (excepting the mass atrocities committed by world governments or corporations). If you elevate those people, rather than send them to prison, they will stop committing crimes. Most crimes are committed out of desperation, not out of evilness. Even murders are often acts of desperate people.

The problem is that we, as a country and civilization, are more interested in punishing and degrading than we are in understanding and elevating. And it isn’t working. The statistics support this.

Couch got what was coming to him. I just want to see everyone get the same kind of punishment.

“It is said that no one truly knows a nation until one has been inside its jails. A nation should not be judged by how it treats its highest citizens, but its lowest ones.”
? Nelson Mandela

An Exploration of What it Means to be a “Big Bank”

I want to talk politics a little bit.  I had a revelation the other night when I was up too late and I had one of those serious conversations with and old friend.

As a liberal, one of the things that you wouldn’t expect from me is a defense of the bank bailouts.  And you aren’t likely to either.  My parents (very conservative folks, mind you) raised me to accept the consequences of my actions.  Of course, like any good American, I say that I believe in accepting consequences, but often resent it when I screw up and someone calls me on it.  Usually, afterward, I can acknowledge the justice of the situation, but I still have that good old American sense of entitlement.

That said, let’s look at the bailouts in as objective a light as possible.  Bear in mind that most of this is based on information that I got from a friend who is far more informed about things like this than I am.  I am not an economist.  He is.  I don’t trade on the stock market.  He does.  I asked him what he thought of the bank bailouts because, let’s face it, like many Americans, I am all too aware of my lack of true understanding of the nature of this issue.  I will talk a big talk about how “too big to fail” is bullshit and people should accept consequences.

The first thing he told me–and my fact-checking seems to support this claim–is that the vast majority of the bailout loans have actually been repaid.  The big banks and the big auto companies in particular have already paid off their bailout loans and, indeed, the government seems to have made money on the deal.  This was a shock to me.  I thought we, as the taxpayers, had just given them a bunch of money without expecting anything in return.  Weird.  I think this is a crucial point that neither Obama nor anyone else has really brought up yet.  In fact, I don’t understand why Obama hasn’t stressed this fact.  An often very potent defense of a questionable action is to say, “See?  Look how it all turned out!  It’s like we didn’t spend that money at all!”

Let’s keep this point in mind as we continue here.  I think next we want to look at the very idea of “too big to fail.”  What exactly does that mean?  A lot of people called bullshit on this phrase, but just how big are these companies?  Well, a quick web search might tell us that Goldman Sachs, one of the biggest investment banks in the world has 33,000 employees (that’s 33,000 people who likely would have lost their jobs had they been allowed to buckle under).  They have $923 billion in assets.  And they’re nothing compared to the size of a behemoth like JP Morgan Chase, with total assets of $2.3 trillion and 260,000 employees.

Note: To be fair, JP Morgan did not need TARP money and was the first bank to pay back the bailout dollars.  In fact, they were browbeaten into accepting the $25 billion that they did receive–honestly, this makes me wonder where they’d be as a corporation had the TARP never happened.  But still, plenty of other banks did need TARP money to stay afloat.

Let’s ignore for the moment the question of whether these banks deserved the money–we’ll return to it shortly.  And let’s just consider the possible consequences of one or more of them failing.  Entertain with me the question of what would happen if a huge Wall Street bank just up and vanished.  First and foremost, thousands of people would lose their jobs.  Possibly hundreds of thousands.  Those are, for the most part, just working Americans.  Bank tellers, check processors, maintenance workers, janitors.  Not to mention the small businesses like restaurants that would all fail when a huge chunk of their clientelle (bank employees often go out to lunch at local nearby restaurants–I know this from personal experience).  Lots of smaller businesses depend on those banks being around for their well being, a fact that is not often considered.

But there’s more to this than just that.  Consider, my friends, what these banks actually do.  In the big scheme of things, what does a financial services/investment bank do for America?  The most important piece of information that people seem to neglect to take into account is the fact that the US is not an insular country.  It’s not just the American economy that would be affected.  Goldman Sachs is a global bank.  It’s based in New York, sure, but it’s got assets and works on a global scale.  The economy isn’t just the American economy (and this is something that is very important to think about whenever you talk about the economy).  America can do everything right, but if the world economy falters, there isn’t much we can do.  The fact of the matter is, these banks facilitate the flow of money world-wide.  For good or ill.

And not only that, but you remember the ongoing housing crisis?  All those people losing their homes because they lost their jobs and the housing market sucks?  Consider the phenomenon of  toxic assets.  Your small town bank couldn’t afford your loan so they sold it to a bigger bank.  This was happening for years before the bubble popped–this happened because for all of human history, American real estate never did anything but go up, so that shit was worth lots of money.  If huge banks started failing, the question of who owned your house would become very complex very quickly.  The housing bubble pop might just have been even more violent had those stable–if mind-bogglingly corrupt–banks hadn’t been there to facilitate all those foreclosures.

If Goldman Sachs or JP Morgan Chase or Wells Fargo ceased to exist, or indeed collapsed violently, the entire world economy would be upset.  These entities are very integral to the way the global economy works.  If the Obama administration had allowed those banks to die, if the Fed hadn’t infused them with trillions of dollars–and honestly this was a WAY bigger deal than TARP anyway–just think of what might have happened.  Objectively.  The idea might very well appeal to you.  You might say, “Fuck ’em.  I say take the consequences.”  But really consider what that would mean.  I don’t think anyone knows exactly what would happen, but I think we can make some educated guesses.  If our big banks were allowed to fail, like dominoes, so would many other banks in Europe.  The global economy would grind to a halt.  Unprecedented unemployment rates would likely be seen.  For several years, the entire world would be…just fucked.  There would literally be NO economy.  Perhaps it would bounce back.  Maybe.  But how many people would suffer as a result?  China’s economy is doing just fine, so they would likely become the super power, and the US would flop around like a dying fish for a while, still trying to convince itself that it’s number one, when sadly that’s no longer (and never again will be) the case.

How many might just die as a result?  Unrest, unemployment, starvation, riots.  Maybe I’m being alarmist here, but isn’t it feasible?

So okay, the global economy–as it’s currently structured!–does, in fact, depend on these organizations to a certain extent.  Let’s concede that fact.  Maybe they do have too much power.  But I ask you, who controls that bulk?  Who steers the inertia that these corporations have?  Are these just a few bloated, wealthy individuals?  Or is there something else going on here?

Okay, let’s put together a picture, shall we, of corporate life at a huge investment bank.  Of the major officeholders at Goldman Sachs, only 3 men have had their jobs for more than like six years (since 1999, actually).  Like half of their top-tier executives have been there since barely 2008.  Several have only been there for a year.  Think about that for a moment and ask yourself who controls Goldman Sachs.  The turnover rate for top-tier executives is very high.  This is an absolutely vital fact to consider.

The career of your typical Wall Street bank executive is a constant Darwinian struggle to the top.  Any individual executive will take any and every opportunity to rise through the ranks.  They will throw anyone under the bus.  The person who makes it to CEO or CFO or President or Chairman of the Board is a person who is ruthless, intelligent, and has not the slightest amount of empathy for other people.  And the thing we all have to realize is that Goldman Sachs is kind of like a factory producing an endless stream of sociopaths.  Does the CEO of G-S have any real power to direct the corporation?  Nope.  If the board put him in that office and he showed even the slightest inclination toward morality, toward doing “the right thing,” you can bet your ass that he would be gone quicker than you can say, “corporate responsibility.”  The only reason this never happens is the fact that the corporate ladder is really a corporate filter, destroying the humanity of the people that rise to its peak.  By the time you hit the board of directors of a huge investment bank, you either have no humanity left or there was none in you to begin with.

A few people with morals sometimes manage to slip through the cracks, get fairly high in the hierarchy, and then become disgraced and write a book about corporate greed and corruption, but selling a few books is really just a consolation prize as you try to make your millions as quickly as possible before retiring at 40.

The simple fact of the matter is, however, that no one controls these companies.  An executive’s lifespan, if he’s really, super lucky, is to rise through the ranks, display a ruthless efficiency, make it as far as possible, socking away as much money as possible in the meantime, and eventually getting booted out the other side, hopefully with a fat severance package to retire on.  These companies aren’t family businesses.  They are uncontrollable entities of such massive bulk that they cannot be steered.  They have their own inertia and it is enormous.

Many executives talk big, but have no more control over the future direction of the corporation than a snail.  Their only hope is to perform adequately and efficiently and make a whole lot of money before being replaced.  That’s the simple fact of the matter.  Goldman Sachs doesn’t have an identity as a company.  It’s  a…thing.  A force.  It doesn’t have a face or a conscience.  It’s like a hurricane.  It cannot be controlled by anyone.

The take-away lesson here: global banking companies are very large and very powerful, but ultimately completely uncontrolled and uncontrollable.

Also, I would like to point out that these companies wield their power very differently than privately own corporations like Koch Industries and their ilk.  I think they are beyond the scope of this particular essay.

And this situation is never going to change either.  At least, not from within the system.  The government can’t break up these banking monopolies because unlike Ma Bell, these are global companies.  It’s almost impossible to regulate a global corporation.  How would you do it?  One of the reasons the governments of the world don’t do anything about these monopolies is the fact that they literally don’t know what can be done.  The other reason is much more obvious, however: corruption.

People talk about big government and how much they hate it.  Nobody likes the government, but think for just a second about what a government–or at least a democratic one–is supposed to be.  “Of the People, by the People, and for the People.”  It’s the social contract.  We are going to give up some of our freedoms in exchange for security and stability.  The government is supposed to represent the will of the people.  The government is supposed to be us.  That’s an important thing to consider when one thinks about governments.

But what does it take to become a major political player in one of the only two potent political parties in America?  What does it take to be the CEO of Goldman Sachs?

The same sort of sociopaths are the people who manage to rise through the ranks of political parties as corporations.  And let’s face it, political parties are where the real government lies.  These compromised entities, these monopolizers of politics, control this country.  I’m not sure what their eventual goals are, but I really don’t believe that Republicans and Democrats actually have different goals.  They both exist to create a false conflict in American politics.  They exist to give us the illusion of choice.  If we look back far enough, it wouldn’t surprise me in the least to discover that it’s the same sorts of people pulling the strings of both parties, profiting on the fact that half of America hates the other half and vice versa.

We do have to consider that some politicians are actually decent.  But this is only because government is not nearly as efficient a filter for ruthless sociopathic tendencies as corporate culture is.

So let’s put it all together.  The too big to fail companies were bailed out because if they hadn’t been, the consequences may very well have been disastrous.  I don’t like it, but Obama just might have had no other option when it came to the TARP.  Those same companies ARE immoral and sadistic forces of nature, entities of uncontrollable power but there’s neither the will nor the ability on the part of US government to do anything about it.

We are stuck in a very tricky situation here, folks.  It’s almost an unsolvable problem.  You might be inclined to say, “Revolution!” as I was when I was talking to my friend.  But always remember: we live in a global society.  If the people of the US did manage to rise up, overthrow its government, and dismantle Goldman Sachs and the other bloated, malignant, cancerous entities that call themselves banks, what would happen next?  Once you take it all apart, you’ve got to put something useful back together again.  A new social contract needs to be established.  Who’s going to take responsibility for that?  When America had its first revolution, it was the rich people who did that (granted they were almost all romantics at heart and many were philosophers themselves).  It’s safe to say that whoever has the resources to do so is going to be in charge of that whole process.

And then remember one other thing:  if the US government falls, its military will likely dismantle itself (if no one’s paying them, they’re probably going to go home).  We will have no military power and if the US dollar is backed by anything, it’s back by missiles and drones and bullets.  If the US dollar ceases to have value, consider what other countries will do.  We owe a lot of countries a lot of money.  Are they going to idly sit there while we figure out how to rebuild our country?  Are they going to sit there and watch us, defenseless, and let us get back on our feet?

Will China?

It’s a very tricky situation.

“Macht ist sie, diese neue Tugend; ein herrschender Gedanke ist sie und um ihn eine kluge Seele: eine goldene Sonne und um sie die Schlange der Erkenntniss.”
                -Friedrich Nietszche

Obligatory Santorum Joke. Gross.

A few months ago I was completely convinced that Romney had the Republican nomination all wrapped up and that he was just going to casually waltz into GOP-NatCon2012 and delightfully feign surprise as they handed him the gilded nomination certificate, made of the finest Swiss Alps calf-skin vellum, imprinted with the ink of an endangered octopus that only exists off the coast of Madagascar and absolutely must be handled only by the hands of virgin boys from a very specific tribe of shamanistic slave people called the M’Klurdu.

Somewhere along the line, he fucked it all up. To think that both Newt Fucking Gingrich and Rick Fucking Santorum and even Ron Fucking Paul have all outscored him on one caucus/primary or another is utterly bizarre. I did not think it possible. I really thought the graying wizard was going to clean up.

Don’t get me wrong; I hate Mitt Romney. He’s rich and doesn’t understand what that means and that makes him very dangerous in political office. But he’s a closeted Keynesian (for what that’s worth), and he isn’t insane except insofar as he’s a Mormon. Honestly, Mormons are actually somewhat more trustworthy than your work-a-day Christians because I truly believe that every Mormon, deep down inside, knows–really knows–that his religion is looney toons. And I think that, in a way, this leads to far more rational behavior than…well…Rick Santorum.

Gingrich is, of course, not actually a Christian. He’s one of those guys that says he is because people like that sort of thing. No. Gingrich hasn’t done a Christ-like thing in his entire life and the majority of Americans understand this fact. He won’t get the nomination and even if he does, he will never be president.

No, my friends, the only good man that ever stepped up to the plate was Jon Huntsman. Yes, it’s true, he is also a Mormon. But you know how I feel about that. Huntsman truly is a good and intelligent man. A conservative, sure, but a decent human being with a good head on his shoulders and, from what I could see, he was really pro-science. That’s big from my perspective. He just ran a terrible campaign and Americans didn’t give shit. So it goes.

I’m not going to talk about Ron Paul here. It’s too much. There’s just…too much to say.

So I don’t know. I do not know what’s going to happen. If I had a gun to my head and someone told me to accurately predict the outcome of GOP-NatCon2012, I’d still bet on Romney, but I would be sweating bullets from now until Con Time.

My real confusion with this whole fiasco of an election cycle is this: what the hell is wrong with Americans?

The fact that both Gingrich and Santorum have a fighting chance of getting the nomination certificate boggles my mind. I don’t even really have words to express my confusion over this issue. It is absolutely ludicrous. Santorum isn’t a nice person. Gingrich is worse. Romney is clearly the best of the three. I cannot even conceive of a passable argument for either of those two other hateful motherfuckers.

I know why people like them: because people are hateful motherfuckers. But I don’t understand why perfectly decent American people like them more than they like Romney. It’s weird. I mean, Romney’s rich. He fucking loves business. He would have sex with business through a hole in the sheet, he loves it so much. He’s kind of a social conservative but he doesn’t really push the issue, which is appealing for moderate conserv-oes. So aside from the lunatic fringe of the right, why does anyone like these other two nutjobs? Can someone adequately explain this to me? Because I can’t figure it out.

Please tell me it’s not that America is populated with crazy people.

Alles Gute zum Geburtstag, Herr Präsident.