HBO's Vice Reporting on The Cold War 2.0

I recommend that you all give this episode a view. It is important. Not only because another round of cold war brinksmanship isn't any more advisable now than it was 30+ years ago, what we claim we are going to the brink for, or in defense of, has gotten a good deal more complex.

Let us start out, however, by being clear on one thing right away. Most, if not all, of those states that made up the so called Warsaw Pact have no desire to go back to the harsh collectivism at the point of a gun that the Soviets of the time occupied them with. No one in their right mind would want to go back to that. One wonders, however, if they are really all that clear on what our brand of commercialized democracy might leave them with. Everything has a downside after all.

Sure, the one thing that they've been denied for so long, the real material improvement that the west has enjoyed for decades, has obvious appeal. It would to anyone who had gone through the kinds of deprivation, as well as bureaucratic corruption, and repression that Soviet occupation left in its wake. In that context, even if you knew you weren't going to get an idealized Democracy, having to settle with a commercialized one, real material gain is still real material gain.

We must ask ourselves, however, now that someone like Donald Trump might become president; knowing that our brand of the governance by the rule of law has questionable application precisely because of the corruptive power of money; and knowing as well that it is also our cost based form of economy that makes addressing all of the pressing ecological issues for the planet as a whole so difficult; knowing all of this are we even sure what we're pushing back on the Russians for? Freedom is a good word if used in the right context, but are we certain of whose interests are making the most pressing demands for freedom of action in Eastern Europe? Certain enough to risk putting the bullet we dodged in Cold War version 1.0 back into the cylinder, giving the cylinder a good spin and then daring either side to blink or pull the trigger?

It certainly doesn't help that Putin is doing a pretty good imitation of the Soviet Strong Men of old. Many of the old repressive methods have been reinstated and, though they like to call themselves a Democracy, nobody would mistake it for even a bad version of our commercialized Democracy. The fact is, however, a lot of things might be going on there, of which "Putin is a power strutting idiot" might only be one. They are a proud people after all and the fall of the old Soviet Union didn't do that much good. Having the baltic states wanting to embrace Nato so openly cannot have been much aid for that either. And now they are also having their economy embarrassed as well. The thing we need to remember is that gloating over these facts while Nato grows stronger, and closer to their actual borders, is an easy formula for making bad leaders, desperately bad leaders, and a population that might not ordinarily support them, desperately thankful for a strong man. And lest you think we can ignore that at our ease just remember this: Germany was treated much differently after World War Two precisely because of the lessons learned of the harsh treatment dealt out at the treaty of Versailles, ending the first World War.

The bottom line here, it seems to me, is that, in asking these questions honestly, we ought to be able to come up with compromises that leave enough wiggle room for everybody to not only save face, but to be guaranteed enough freedom, as well as increased material well being, to make everybody at least a whole lot less desperate, no matter what you call the organizational methodologies that actually get set up. And after all, shouldn't that be the whole point in the first place? Along with the free flow of information so that nobody gets left out in the cold at all any more?

Cold War 2.0 (VICE on HBO: Season 3, Episode 14)

Drug Side Effects and the Politics of Social Pain

These two stories are a juxtaposition all their own. On the one hand you have the ongoing problem of "commercialized fixes," causing even more things that need to be fixed, and on the other stupid social policy, and the pain it causes, trying to address one group's problem with the sexuality of others; with a woman legislator trying to fix that fix with some pain of her own.

The first instance has always been a pet peeve of mine, emphasizing as it does the vicious circle of abstracted, mechanized life. Let us review.

This sort of life is inherently stressful and inhuman. As such it causes quite predictable results to the human body and psyche, of which, of course, stomach problems of all sorts are but one group. Depression is another, and speaking from experience here, a good number of the fixes to that problem also have the wonderful side benefit of not only low libido, but significant difficulty in getting wood where you want it at all. But hey, no problem right? Spiffy Stiffy products are now wonderfully abundant. And who cares about brain damage there? All of the blood's supposed to be drained out to the nether regions already isn't it?

On the other hand, though, you really have to take a moment to appreciate the irony of not only making planned parenthood under funded, but making abortions extremely more difficult to come by as well, as your response to supposed immorality. If you had left well enough alone, the depression our society causes alone makes it so a good number of us can't fuck, or at least can't afford to fuck (have you priced Spiffy Stiffy pills lately?) in the first place. And of course, if you are hard charging enough so that you can afford it, the other symptom counteractants you must take will only increase accordingly; thereby making it a near certainty that one bad side affect or another will end up doing you in.

One can only wonder, then, why the lady legislator would have had any criticism at all, let alone the shock and awe she's probably been getting. I mean, who cares about the unwanted side affects of unwanted children, right? And wouldn't you want to make it more difficult to have a spiffy stiffy in that context? Unless I missed something important in facts of life 101, stiff is intimately involved when it comes to stuffing it to her.

But herein lies the real rub. If it were only lady legislators in charge of legislated morality said previous legislator would have been hailed as a hero. Put a few good ol boys into the mix, however, and you'll soon see just how inconsistent some folks can be with their personal application of morality. And then you have to add the kinds of money involved with spiffy stiffy products to really see how much worse it can get.

The bottom line for me here is that fixes to fix the fixes are a self perpetuating form of insanity. Not only do they do nothing to address the real issues causing the symptoms, they make it nearly impossible to even see the causes in the first place. I do have to admit, however, that certain clever applications of satirical fixes couldn't make things much worse than they already are, and might actually open a eye or two.

Popular Heartburn Drugs Linked to Dementia Risk, Study Shows

 

Kentucky Lawmaker Wants Men to Swear Fidelity on Bible Getting Viagra

Let's Let Tump Pick Our Next SCOTUS Justice

Things have gotten so crazy here that I think it's time we embrace what we really are. Let's let Trump win the Presidency, and then demand that he pick Dr. Phil, because God knows we could use a televised intervention.

And lest you scoff at this too little, let me remind you that the good doctor was brought to the attention of Opera because of the legal consultancy he was part of in Texas (Courtroom Sciences, Inc); this in conjunction with the Amarillo Beef trial, and her need for help in preparing for her testimony.

Can you think of a more fitting way for two larger than life egos to adjudicate the problems of our propensity for mass delusion? And what better way to leverage finally getting cameras into our highest court?

Just think of it. Dr. Phil could not only have Brittany Spears as one of the guest commentators sitting in the audience, he could balance that with the Donald ready to shout out "You're Fired." to any of the other Justices risking a ratings buzz kill by trying to talk about the facts of a case. Then think about how good this new dynamic duo could make us feel about ourselves by humiliating whoever the litigants were. It would be a ratings bonanza ready to sell us on whatever the two of them thought we ought to be sold on.

SCOTUS Analyst: Loretta Lynch 'Most Likely Candidate' to Replace Scalia

More Not so Stealthy Battles Within the Economic Theatre of Operations

Not only is there still ongoing controversy over who should have been awarded Air Force's new bomber contract, the bomber crowd as a whole is poised to take on the money stealing justification of the F35 Joint Strike Fighter; just as that crowd plans its own counter offensive.

As I have said many times before, lost in this will be any rational discussion of what actually threatens us globally, and then the integrated strategy one might employ to meet those threats. In this, of course, is the inherent need to prioritize threats so that whatever integrated strategy is finally settled upon can use all of the crossover leverage possible in those solutions offering best combinations of practicality, flexibility, and overall bang for the buck.

The thing is, however, that some of these threats must surely be those issues that cause war, as well as those that simply offer the theatre of operations for diplomacy by other means. Will there be the same kinds of money spent on getting rid of oil as a fuel, as there will be on building any more manned aircraft? Another article in D.O. suggests that all nations will have armed drones within the next ten years. Are multi hundred million dollar manned platforms the best bet against what might become swarms of unmanned platforms whose price might only be in the multi ten K price range? A mute point in any case if we could use a 100 billion dollar program towards liquid hydrogen as a comprehensive alternative to entice the Chinese to join us, contributing what they could, but getting an equal share of the fuel benefit?

A give a way you say? Or might it be merely chump change compared to the cost of a another scarce resources war.

And let us be clear here. A real discussion of what threatens us will undoubtedly still include the need to preserve an ability for armed response. No. what we are really talking about is not a choice between arms or not arms, it is about whether those who are already making a great deal of money on same should be so intimately involved in defining what is threatening in the first place, let alone what would be the best response to that threat. That is what you ought to mean when you say a rational, and objective, view of the facts of what threatens us.

The other side of the human equation should be considered as well, however. Let us never forget that there can be a moral component, as well as the obvious suffering going on in so many places, that also contribute to the tensions that create the human capacity for state sponsored butchery. Which is only to say that the tendency to declare war can hinge on things other than strategic geo-politics. This is where even immigration issues are only the symptoms of past stupidity; the results of colonial greed, insane anti communism, and even more insane wars on drugs. However you create the instability for failed states, and the consequent surge of desperate people seeking to escape that horror, you not only create the possibility for new enemies, you create a place for them to gather, fester and plan their revenge.

And last, but least here, is what a profit motivated, state of permanent war does. A war that pretends to be fought on the cheap, without actual war declarations, against ambiguous enemies who share only the label of terrorist. Which is not say that terrorism doesn't exist. Only to say that it can become too easy to endlessly add to that list when, under the guise of keeping it low cost (both in lives and dollars) you conduct remote control conflict. And as imprecision as to what who associating with who might mean in one village or town after another, the list can grow with a great deal more collateral damage than even the smartest of bombs can correct for.

So. This repetition of a battle in the Economic Theatre of Operations will occur. The bottom line, however is that who wins and loses will have little to do with what actually threatens us, or that it really applies to the best solution to that threat. The only thing of real consequence will be that more money will be made by pretty much everyone in the arms community, and more things will be done in our name that will not only make less safe, but will actually raise the probability of declared war.

The Coming Dogfight Between the F-35 and the New Bomber

It's a Wrestle Mania Smackdown of Epic Proportions

You know, it's just a wonder to me why Trump doesn't come on stage in spangled tight trunks, an outlandish fur Robe, and a mask made of the finest, treated bull scrotum skin; perhaps with a hat adorned with the silkiest of virgin pubic hair (anything would look better than what he sports now).

God only knows what the rest of them would wear but you can bet on one thing for sure. Their costumed personas wouldn't even begin to match the sheer audacity of outrageousness his would. Any more than their pre-fight smack talk would even ruffle the air around him.

This is, as Bill Maher has said, a con man of the first order who knows how to work a crowd of rubes. He's even got his own version of rope a dope down so pat that he's got his fellow Republicans calling him a closet Liberal now. Pure gold when he finally goes up against Hillary or Sanders, perhaps providing just enough misdirection to gain more of the so called "independents."

The fact of the matter, of course, is that there is nothing of real substance inside this man. Other than, perhaps, an ego bigger than Texas, and the underlying assumption that making the rubes by into your own inflated view of yourself will always mean more brand marketability further down the road. I say this because I have this feeling that he couldn't care less if he actually wins the presidency or not. He might, in fact, not want that job at all. It's a lot of actual work after all, and no matter what you might accomplish, assuming anything has actually occurred to him to try accomplishing in the first place, a good portion of the nation will end up being fed up with you, and your brand.

The thing is, nobody expected him to get this far. How much is he going to lose whoever the Democrats put forth. The system's rigged. He didn't really have the full support of the Republican Party, etc, etc. The face saving outs will be a dime a dozen for an ego like that, and the brand will go on being famous because he is famously fond of staying well branded. And boy does he know how to keep his core audience of rubes spell bound.

Sparks Fly at Rowdy Republican Debate in South Carolina

Justice Isn't Blind When She Weighs the Objective Facts of Any Matter Before Our System of "The Rule of Law"

This is probably a cliche of the first order here. Who in their right mind still thinks justice is blind here? If it were why would ideological affiliation of any judge matter, let alone the masters of the appeals system?

No, where we really start getting into the Twilight Zone of our loosely based notion of political reality is that your vote counts now because the ideology of the guy at the top spot will determine the ideology of the monkeys flinging the feces of what has become of our appeals system. And it gets even better. The guy currently sitting at the top spot has no right to nominate a replacement because there is only x number of months left in his current term of office.

And what do the idollators of the ideology not currently holding the top office say? He has no right to do such a nomination with a new election so close; his previous entitlement to representing the will of the people having gone more or less stale now that another vote is drawing near. And of course, even if he does have the right, those that hold their own, potentially stale, majority mandate in the Senate deem it their right to tell the President to stick that nomination where the sun don't shine; and all without any cause determined from the due diligence of hearings of substance on a replacements qualifications. Nice.

This might least give some, however meager, reaffirmation of the importance of voting were it not for the further consideration that, despite the protestations of both major parties of their differences, they serve at the behest of the same general community of "Big Money." Vague though both parties try to be on how they will actually govern once in office, they will give major lip service to one or more hot button cultural issues because "Big Money" generally doesn't give a shit about those. They are not usually where the levers of power pivot from so why should they? You do, however, and throwing you that bone costs them dearly only on occasion; something they can pass along to you as increased costs most of the time in any case.

This is also why, when hearings on court appointments do occur, the potential judges questioned also remain fairly vague on how they might view various aspects of both cultural, as well as economic, issues are concerned. They can claim independence from the ordinary cliches of Liberal or Conservative this way while still being ideologues underneath it all.

The bottom line here is that your vote can, at times, make a difference on the balance of ideological power that gets expressed via the judges in our major courts of law. The perniciousness of what's going on in parallel, however, remains obfuscated. This is so because you are, in effect, also voting to accept the fact that we are exactly not a nation ruled by the rule of law. It is in fact rule by those most clever in making sure their ideology holds sway at ever level of not only the creation of law, its bureaucratic administration, but its system of settling disputes in deciding interpretations of both the agreements made under it, but also in adjudicating all aspects of when the rules are broken outright.

Battle Begins Over Whether Obama Or Next President Should Fill Scalia Seat

The Movie Truth

I just had a chance to watch this movie today. It's the big screen rendition of Mary Mape's book "The Press, The President, and the Privilege of Power."

It is an interesting contrast to watch this movie, and then read the various critical reactions to it. I personally found the movie to be quite entertaining, as well as a bit disheartening.

I get the point made by some of the critics of the movie that it tries to gloss over the essential point that the documents were subject to a good deal of doubt, and this was an error Mapes and Rather should have been more sensitive to. The corroborative evidence, however, surrounding the facts of Bush's supposed service in the Air National Guard were pretty solid; especially with the several officials who actually spoke on camera about it (other than Lt. Colonel Bill Burkett's testimony) .

These were seasoned reporters who had to have had a good grip on what made a story valid and truthful or they wouldn't have gotten to the position of respect that they had attained prior to this. And there was a lot that was valid, at least as far as the essential point of the shenanigans that took place to give Bush that cushy out from actually serving his country in Vietnam.

The disheartening part of this is how easy it can be to use one aspect of a body of truth to obfuscate the rest of it. Were the documents manufactured as bait precisely so as to make the reporters jump prematurely? Who knows. Maybe, maybe not. Don't forget that one of the officers involved who wouldn't appear on camera did validate the general thrust of what the disputed documents contained. From my perspective its just damned hard not see the air guard appointment as anything other than privilege at work. And let us also not forget that Bush would have been disgraced enough to lose the election for his second term if something hadn't come up to cast at least some doubt on the charges.

Even more disheartening still, however, is the basic fact of what has happened to information, and how it now is automatically held in suspicious contempt as far as any link it might have to "truth." This is so because in today's world everybody has an angle to work, or an ax to grind, in what they let go forth into the infosphere as information. Truth used to be the first casualty of every war but now we are in the business of permanent war. As such truth is just another theatre of operations to conduct that constant conflict in, and information the main weapon. How convenient for the powerful.