Books That I’m Reading

Secrets of the FBI

The Secrets of the FBI, by Ronald Kessler: Although rather defensive over some the FBI’s mistakes, it starts with Hoover and goes over some of the good and bad points of each director peppered with many humorous anecdotal tales of FBI break-ins gone wrong, like when a cat escaped and they sent agents with night vision out to recapture it, threw it back in the house and wondered why the dog was flipping out over the cat only to find out the next day that it was the wrong cat. Or the time a bus was parked in front of a house to give agents cover for a target house they broke into, after which everyone piled in the bus and drove off, only to find two freaked out pedestrian passengers who boarded without anyone noticing and was now ringing the bus stop bell to be let off the bus filled with black-suited men bearing weapons.

Action Philosophers

The More Than Complete Action Philosophers, by Fred van Lente and Ryan Dunlavey: A hilarious graphic novel that provides good synopses on ancient, medieval and modern philosophers, including: Thales of Miletus, Anaximander, Anaximenes, Heraclitus, Parmenides, Empedocles, Lao Tzu, Plato, Aristotle, Diogenes, Epicurus, Epictetus the Stoic, St. Augustine, Bodidharma, Rumi, Thomas Aquinas, Mchiavelli, Isaac Luria: Rabbi of the Mystic Arts, Descartes, Hobbes, Spinoza, George Brekeley, Leibniz, Hume, “Oh no, Rousseau!” sitcom, Jefferson, Immanuel Kant: Epistemological Attorney (God hires him after being indicted as a “transcendental illusion”), Georg Hegel vs. Arthur Schopenhauer, Auguste Comte, Soren Kierkegaard, Marx, “You’re a Good Man John Stuart Mill” Charle Brown comic, Nietzsche, William James, Freud, Jung, Ludwig Wittgenstein, Jean-Paul Sartre, Joseph Campbell, Ayn Rand, “The Foucault Circus,” and Derrida the Deconstructonator.

Hitch 22

Hitch-22: A Memoir, by Christopher Hitchens: Turns out the priest Hitchens’ mother committed suicide with was an X-priest and they both had become initiated into a religious following by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, the “Beatles Guru.” This, combined with the the way he had to pay a priest who was grumbling about the sanctity of deterring a suicidal adulteress has made me even more confident that his, and the unabashed love he described for his mother — descriptions which bordered so much on Oedipal that I thought I was listening to D. H. Lawrence — has made me more confident in connecting this to his hatred of religion.

Another weird thing is that although a great deal of the book is dedicated to his protest against Vietnam and his first encounters with associates and books in the world Socialist movement. Yet the only reason he gives for being against Vietnam is because the U.S. was aggressively bombing an agrarian state, with no mention of WW2, the French colonies, China, the Korean War, the South Vietnamese, or anything to put the war in context. One could make the same argument he gives for Iraq. In other words, the book has more to do with what he did than why he did it. He does the same thing with Kennedy, completely blaming him solely for the Cuban Missile Crisis as if it had more to do with the United States’ desire to annex a “Banana Republic” rather than prevent a nuclear buildup on it’s front door. No blame whatsoever for the U.S.S.R. (A later chapter says that a review of his work showed that the word he used was, quite surprisingly, not “Banana Republic” but “perhaps”.)

Although he gives some reasonable explanations for being against of the Gulf War, such as the U.S.’s role in the Iraq-Iran war and Bush originally pledging not to defend Kuwait being a signal that Saddam was going to be allowed to take the oil fields but not the country,
the way he moves from goes from opposing the Gulf War with quiet reservations to hating those who support the Iraq War in the same chapter is mentally disjointed, even falling into the same tropes that he would have found to be disgusting propaganda had it been used for the Vietnam war. Had the Gulf War been expanded into a 10-year ouster of Saddam, he no doubt would have felt as vindicated (something he says is the definition of happiness) as if the Iraq War lasted as long as the Gulf War. As it so happened, his transformation from World-Citizen Socialist to American Liberal Hawk coincided with his supporting of a bad war in the guilt of not supporting a good war. Especially strange is the way he insincerely suggests that the Bush Administration and his good pal Paul Wolfowitz were criminally negligent for the massive power outage that hit Iraq and the lack of properly issued vehicale and body armor following Saddam’s fall, yet he nevertheless compares Rumsfeld’s quote about “going to war with the army we have” to his own unconvincing belief that he would have pushed for the Iraq War had Gore been president. Thomas Jones says it best:

More striking than the way in which the content of his opinions has changed, however, is the continuity in the manner in which he has held those opinions. He likes to think of himself as a rational sceptic, but he isn’t really: his views are more visceral than that, his lurches from one deeply held position to the next driven mostly by gut instinct. Fine orator and fluent writer though he is, he’s never been much of an analytical thinker, and his style of argument proceeds more by a series of emphatic, emotive and stylish assertions (he magnificently denounces Argentina’s General Videla as looking ‘like a cretin impersonating a toothbrush’), by appeals to common sense and common feeling, than by logical reasoning.

Masterfully eloquent in his delivery, every appended anecdote scorched with dry British wit, it is very much worth the cost of not being able to interpret some of his phrases to listen to it on audiobook.

Catch 22

Catch 22, by Joseph Heller: I was given this book by a friend even though I wasn’t sure if I was going to read it, but was told by him that the book was so good he had a second copy just so he could lend one out. Apparently I took too long because the last time I was over at his place before the New Year, he announced (not to me specifically) that he had bought another copy of it. Haven’t gotten far in it but the theme of the WWII-set storyline seems to be that in a world gone completely insane, only those feigning illness to get out of the war are completely sane.

Fullmetal Alchemist

Fullmetal Alchemist, by Hiromu Arakawa: A story in a paralel universe where alchemy replaces science. Two brothers, Edward and Alphonse Elric, attempt to break alchemy’s ultimate taboo and use the art to bring back their dead mother. The act pulls Edward’s leg into another dimension while Alphonse is completely swallowed up. Waking up, Edward finds a tortured, half-constructed organ mesh where his mother should be and his brother gone. Using alchemy once again, he sacrifices his arm to anchor Alphonse’s soul to a body of armor. In grand steam punk style, his friend/love interest Winry then creates a metallic arm and leg for him, the first of which he often transforms into a blade using alchemy. Alphonse’s fearsome look is contrasted by his a polite, gentle character, and his disappearing memories later make him wonder if he really existed before he was transposed into the metallic body. Edward is shorter than average and a lot of comic relief comes from how extremely touchy he is about it, along with the running gag that everyone they meet naturally thinks that Alphonse is the “Fullmetal Alchemist.”

The manga reminds me a lot of Rumiko Takahashi, and she does say that Rumiko is one of her inspirations. Two different television series were born from the manga: the first one moves in a different direction once it catches up with the manga and the second one basically rewrites a bunch of the episodes for the first season and then continues with the manga telling of the story. I had watched the movie a couple of years ago even though and enjoyed it even though it acted as an ending for the first series. The movie was set in our own universe right before Hitler’s Beer Hall Putsch, with the plot involving the Nazi-connected Thule Society trying to open a portal into the other world.

As for the manga, it had a wonderfully massive ending that concluded the story. That is one thing I’ve always appreciated about the Japanese manga artist. They may have no problem carbon copying themes from every other manga/anime in existence (Negima!, for example, is a now-typical “harem” comedy about a 10-year-old magician with a talking ferret that has 31 schoolgirls “almost” kissing him, including: a ninja, a vampire, a robot, a ghost, a half-demon, a web idol, and a time traveling Martian). But for their lack of originality, the Japanese manga artist at least knows how to end a story and move on, whereas no cartoon in the U.S. can ever change anything on their last comic/episode on the chance it might get picked up again.

Hedge Knight II: Sworn Sword

Hedge Knight II: Sworn Sword, by G. R. R. Martin. Before writing the stupendous Song of Ice and Fire series, Martin wrote for The Twilight Zone and the CBS drama Beauty and the Beast. Hedge Knight is the story of a not-too-bright knight-for-hire and his younger, bald squire, the literate but still childish “Egg.” Like Game of Thrones, Martin does a great job immersing the reader into his world and the lushly colored art is spectacular. As always, even the most minor of characters is an interesting three-dimensional medieval personality and the plot has plenty of great plot twists.

The First Man in Rome

The First Man in Rome, by Colleen McCullough: This is the first in a series of extremely long novels, starting with the history of the Social War in first-century B.C. Rome and ending with Antony and Cleopatra. The first novel chronicles the lives of Gaius Marius, a powerful man without prestige, and Sulla, a nobleman without money or power before their alliance and eventual conflict, which eventually broadens out to the Social War between Rome and Italy, which in turn precipitates the Civil War between Caesar and the Republic. McCullough does a great job combining a character-driven novel with an amazingly immerse background in Roman history, complete with appended glossary. The immense novel lengths of McCullough is not the only thing she shares in common with George R. R. Martin. Like Martin, she gets the characterization right, masterfully blending modern psychological traits with ancient cultural mores.

The Great Derangement

The Great Derangement: A Terrifying True Story of War, Politics, and Religion at the Twilight of the American Empire, by Matt Taibbi: Working under Rolling Stone, the only magazine that will allow Taibbi to say “FUCK YOU” to Mike Bloomberg, Matt goes undercover, pretending to be both a Fundamentalist Christian in one of John Hagee’s Megachurch cells and a 9/11 Truth follower to show how modern politics has polarized political groups into conspiratorial cults. Probably the only author I know who non-nonchalantly referred to himself as a drug addict without any explanation or elaboration. Taibbi is also surprisingly bad at his undercover roles, explaining that at one point he told his fellow Megachurch supporters that his Dad had died in some clown-related incident… and that wasn’t even something he came up with on the spur of the moment. The undercover work actually seems to yield very little in damning material about the individuals he meets, who you end up feeling sorry for more than anything, and so most of the book is him extrapolating on conversations he had with them in order to explain his own points. Surprisingly dull for such a talented writer.

Griftopia

Griftopia: Bubble Machines, Vampire Squids, and the Long Con That Is Breaking America, by Matt Taibbi: A must-read for those looking into a non-partisan explanation of the financial crisis of 2008. He explains how the Tea Party was “top-down media con” initiated by CNBC’s Rick Santelli when he denounced not the huge bailout of the banks but rather the relatively small bailout for people facing foreclosure. (The name goes back to Ron Paul’s 2007 Boston Tea Party fund raising commemoration, but that’s like comparing the commercialized rape-fest of Woodstock ’99 to its original). He describes Alan Greenspan as an economist who became famous for being famous, a social ladder climber who got in with Ayn Rand to help himself get into elite circles and then abandoned her Libertarian philosophy to join the Federal Reserve as a corporatist. Taibbi explains how the banks repackaged securitized loans as Collateralized Debt Obligations (and in the process took the loan originators off the hook), then cut these bundled loans into “tranches”, convinced the rating agencies who depend on the banks for their living to give them a Triple A rating, and then insured them through credit default swaps so that neither sellers like AIG needed capitalization, nor buyers needed to own the insured assets.

Prey

Prey, by Michael Chrichton: Nanomachines that are evolving into hive behavior begins killing the scientists who created them. The protagonist, an out-of-work scientist who helped develop the nanomachines but now a stay-at-home Dad, goes to the Nevada desert lab where his wife works to help bring them under control while at the same time worrying about whether his wife is having an affair with his former friend and team leader. Decent novel. Follows a kind of horror movie format. The science seemed well researched, as opposed to say, Timeline, where Chrichton emphatically maintained was based on parallel universes and NOT time travel before ending the story with the protagonist changing the past in his own timeline.

Next

Next, by Michael Chrichton: This is the last novel that was published before Chrichton died. This story is about transgenic animals being given the powers of human intelligence and speech. Genetic companies wage legal and covert battles. One of the main characters, a biotech researcher, is forced to adopt a child-like chimp that has his genetic material and his wife creates a fictitious genetic disease on Wikipedia to explain his appearance at school. The family must deal with bullies and the genetic corporation trying to eliminate him to destroy evidence of unauthorized experiments. There are several other plot threads, some which run into the main one, and others that go nowhere and just die out, and Chrichton explains in an interview appended to the audiobook that he did this to emulate the way genes themselves evolve.

Rethinking the Gospel Sources

Rethinking the Gospel Sources: From Proto-Mark to Mark, by Delbert Royce Burkett: This book has been nothing short of revolutionary for me. I had of course, long believed that there was more than one earlier prototype for the Gospel of Mark, but Burkett’s theory made me change my mind on two things that I never would have believed possible: that the Griesbech Hypothesis was partially true and that Jesus’ resurrection appearance at the end of Mark’s gospel, which most modern Bibles now mark off as a late addition, is actually the original ending.

The Griesbach Hypothesis is a very old rival to the Two Source Hypothesis saying Matthew and Luke had used Mark. The theory instead argued that Mark’s gospel is actually a combination of Matthew and Luke. There was no shortage of evidence against the Griesbach hypothesis: Mark’s language was cruder, it’s plot less grandiose, and tons of gospel content would have had to have been exercised from Matthew and Luke for no discernible reason. I had studied the Griesbach Hypothesis for my thesis and wrote against one Griesbach author who had tried to show that Mark had been switching back and forth between Matthew and Luke as he went along. By looking at some of the examples, I showed that the “alternations” were ethereal: every instance of “Mark copying Luke” had some Matthean language in it and every instance of “Matthew copying Mark” had some Lukan language in it. But I rememeber thinking how weird it was that Matthew and Luke always seemed to take a different verse from Mark than the other.

As it turns out, that is because both the Two Source Hypothesis and the Griesbach hypothesis are true: Matthew and Luke had respectively copied from two different versions of Proto-Mark, called Proto-Mark A and Proto-Mark B, but Mark’s gospel itself was born of the incestuous union of those same two sources. The effect was that while Matthew and Luke had much longer gospels than Mark because they combined different stories, Mark had longer stories than Matthew or Luke because he combined verses from different versions of the same story. It was hard to believe at first: I typically assumed gospel variants expanded like branches on a tree: generally moving apart from one another, but this hypothesis showed that Proto-Mark had been expanded by two different authors and then later recombined back into Mark.

The second miracle, convincing me that both Proto-Mark and Mark actually had a resurrection appearance sequence at its conclusion, came from showing that Mark’s ending had material that came from both Proto-Mark A/Matthew and Proto-Mark B/Luke, meaning that either it came about from Mark’s combining process or it coincidentally went through the same exact process at a later date. I had already known that Mark’s ending referenced Luke, but that only made me assume that the ending was an attempt to harmonize the earlier gospel with Luke’s Presbyter tradition. Instead, it seems a later editor cut out Mark’s resurrection sequence, something I had only seen Biblical literalists believe. The absence of a resurrection appearance made sense for Proto-Mark because early Christians probably would have believed the resurrection would happen at the upcoming Apocalypse, not before it, or so it seemed. Burkett even showed that textual parallels within Mark’s second, shorter ending with the earliest version of Proto-Mark proved that it based on Proto-Mark’s ending, basically meaning BOTH endings involving the resurrection appearance are authentic.

Proto-Mark -> Proto-Mark A & Proto-Mark B -> Mark -> Mark with Deleted Ending -> Mark with Proto-Mark’s Ending

Proto-Mark A -> Matthew

Proto-Mark B -> Luke

But why would a Christian cut out the resurrection appearance and leave Jesus’ tomb empty at the gospel’s conclusion? I thought that the most likely explanation was that it was edited by a Gnostic since the Gnostics generally eschewed apocalypticism, perhaps as a reaction against the messianic failures of the Bar Kohba Revolt. And, as it turned out, I had already accepted the plausible explanation from Helmut Koester that Morton Smith’s Secret Mark was a third-generation gospel edited by a baptismal sect since both Matthew and Luke lacked a verse from Mark making a literary connection between baptism and martyrdom. I even built on Koester’s hypothesis: Secret Mark had a story very similar to the resurrection of Lazarus from John’s gospel following the bathing narrative and the Gnostic-themed second layer of John appeared to be Valentinian. There was a branch of Valentinians known as the Marcosians, named after their leader Mark, who also happened to teach about a second baptism of Christ for perfection apart from the baptism of Jesus for the forgiveness of sins. Who better to write a Gnostic version of the gospel centered on baptismal resurrection under the name Mark?

But it was not to be. Burkett dismissed the existence of Secret Mark for lack of evidence and an insufficient amount of material. I went back and started to review Secret Mark with a mind to contradict him, but as it turned out, a writing expert had recently determined it to be a forgery and an old Da Vinci Code-like novel had since been discovered telling of plot involving a forged “lost gospel” that had been “discovered” at the Mar Saba monastery near Bethlehem, the same monastery Morton Smith had “found” the letter supposedly written by Clement of Alexandria quoting Secret Mark. Ironically, I had originally been skeptical of Secret Mark, even writing to a Biblical scholar that the dishonesty and cynicism in the letter didn’t seem to reflect the personality of Clement (one of the few theologians I kind of liked), but got a reply that it did reflect him. The fact that “Secret Mark” made Jesus look gay and that Clement’s letter mysteriously disappeared soon after Smith “found” it also made me skeptical, but I started to question that skepticism when Bart D. Ehrman claimed to have talked to someone from the monastery who said they had seen it and knew how it disappeared (although Ehrman himself remained unsure). I finally accepted Secret Mark as real when I read Koester’s argument dismissing Smith’s assumptions that the resurrection story was historical and linked to actual homosexual magical rituals used by Jesus. Although Burkett didn’t even mention it, an examination of his work on Proto-Mark also destroyed one of the main pillars of Secret Mark: the scene of Jesus entering Jericho and then leaving the city without doing anything inside it, long assumed by Bible scholars to prove the story in Jericho from Secret Mark was edited out, which is shown by Burkett’s work to be a byproduct of Mark combining his two sources. Thus, a late layer of Mark is disproven by the same process proving no less than three earlier layers of Mark.

Panarion

The Panarion of St. Epiphanius, Bishop of Salamis, translated by Philip R. Amidon, S.J. (Jesuit): Driven by jealousy for not making Barkett’s discovery myself, I attempted to prove that Marcion’s “Gospel of the Lord” constituted an editorial layer in between Proto-Mark B and Luke, but came up with mixed results. Before I knew about Epiphanius’ quotations from Marcion’s gospel, I had gone through Luke and bracketed out what I thought was an earlier Marcionite gospel that was canonized into Luke. Although I did find a few examples from Epiphanius of what I think are verses that pre-date Luke, a lot of the content missing from Marcion actually appears in Mark and Matthew, leading to troubling conclusion that some verses really were “cut out” as Tertullian and most biblical scholars assume, and not only that but cut out for no good reason (as even Epiphanius mentions). Weirdest of all is that Epiphanius’ version has the physical resurrection of Jesus after he himself said Marcion only believed in a spiritual resurrection.

Another conclusion I came to from the comparison is that I believe Proto-Mark did in fact have a copy of the Sermon on the Mount but chose to pepper his action-oriented gospel with a few references rather than copy the whole thing down. Most scholars, including Burkett, believe the Sermon comes from Q, but the “Blessings and Curses” from it are very different from the Cynic Wisdom teachings that make up Q, plus both Matthew and Luke place the sermon in the context of a mountain, proving that the Sermon’s source was not a “sayings gospel” like Q.

    Games That I am Playing

New Super Mario Bros. Wii

New Super Mario Bros. Wii

This game is amazingly challenging for the Wii era of the casual gamer, not to mention a game that could be essentially classified as a “party game” since it can boast 4 players, but having multiple players in a Mario game is the very pinnacle of nostalgic gratification. Having a second player can prove advantageous since you can cooperate a times, such as jumping on your partner’s head to gain altitude, but it also often trips you up as players run into one another and accidentally killings are very common. Given that the challenge level is so high, one would expect Princess Toadstool/Peach should have been one of the four main characters, but opting to keep the nostalgia centered completely on Super Mario Bros. 1 (rather than 2), Player 4 is just a second clone of Toad in another color, which is pretty pathetic given the expanded array of Mario characters– even Luigi has a princess girlfriend I think. The final battle against Bowser is also engineered to bring back nostalgic memories of the original castle-battle of SMB1 where Mario had to run under the jumping Bowser and flip a switch that dropped him into a pool of acid below, though it is spiced up with a final final battle against a magically-enlarged King Koopa. The game is played with the WiiMote held sideways to emulate the controller of the 8-bit NES. However, the decision to do this is met with a massive design flaw:

Wiimote design flaw

The A button puts your character in a bubble, which is useful if you make a mistake and are about to die, but is excruciating when you accidentally hit it and are the only one alive on the screen, because it automatically takes you back to the beginning of the level with whatever power-ups you had lost. It’s also easy to accidentally hit the power button, which causes everything unsaved up to that point to be lost. Either one button or the other got pushed accidentally dozens and dozens of times and usually at the worst possible times.

    Music That I Am Listening To

The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo Soundtrack

The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo: by Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross.

I had heard that Trent Reznor had gotten involved with another band called How to Destroy Angels, but I didn’t really like the grating, demonic noise that indeed seemed designed to rupture the conscious mind of some ethereal beings. As it turned out, Trent had gotten married and the project was centered on his Filipino wife, Mariqueen Maandig, who quit her band West Indian Girl and joined her husband and Atticus on creating “Angels.” As if Trent getting married wasn’t shocking enough, he also has a son. Like Devin Townsend, Trent seemed to have lost some of his inspiration with With Teeth and Year Zero when he decided to get sober, but then he teamed up with Atticus Ross to create the four-cd instrumental epic, Ghosts I-IV, my favorite Nine Inch Nails album to date. Although he had talked about making a sequel to Year Zero and Ghosts, Trent eventually decided that NIN should “go away for a little while” and went on his “Waving Goodbye Tour.” However, the two soundtracks he has done with Atticus Ross, The Social Network, and the 3-cd behemoth, The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo, are just sequels to Ghosts with another name on it. Beginning with a cover of “Immigrant Song” by Led Zeppelin and ending with a cover of the Bryan Ferry song, “Is Your Love Strong Enough?”, under the moniker of How to Destroy Angels, the movie is bound to bring Reznor and Ross far more commercial success than had it been released as a Nine Inch Nails album.

Hitchens on Endless War

Hitchens in Syria

One thing I noticed about Hitchens that has completely confounded the Left is his so-called “conversion” from Liberal to Neo-Con, exemplified by his “betrayal” of Sidney Blumenthal to get at Clinton during his impeachment, and his support for the Iraq War.

Certainly it can be proved that, disregarding these two controversies, just about every position Hitchens has taken, including his approval of Sweden, can be placed on the Left side of the political axis. I think the problem with this is that almost everyone gets caught up in the Liberal vs. Neo-Con fight, it’s easy to forget that he was never very interested in the predominate cable news battles and typically limited himself to matters of foreign affairs. When the domestic agenda is one’s primary focus, it’s much easier to defend Clinton as a means of stopping a Republican takeover of politics.

I think it’s pretty easy to figure out the reason for his focus on world affairs: he was neither a Liberal nor a Neo-Con but rather never stopped being a Trotskyist. While Liberals and Neo-Cons both saw in Iraq a rematch of the same generational conflicts brought on by the Vietnam War, Hitchens’ belief that the North Vietnamese were not our enemy caused him to completely dismiss the parallels, so that he continued pushing for charges to be brought up against Henry Kissinger even as he made friends with certain Bushites like Paul Wolfowitz who many Liberals would rather have seen arrested. His single contribution to the state of the economic crisis was an article named “The Revenge of Karl Marx.”

Although his book, “No One Left to Lie To” managed to convince me that Clinton was in fact a mass-murdering rapist, his arguments in “A Long Short War,” based on the assumption that the Iraq War is a continuation of the Gulf War (which he ironically opposed at first), appeared to me to be sourced in the revolutionary desire for instant change over the more progressive strategy of gradual improvements (typified by the failed attempts to force regime change through sanctions). This belief was confirmed by a recent article of his called “In Defense of Endless War.”

As Glenn Greenwald snarkily put it: “Chris Hitchens last week: Endless War is good… Now: when’s Obama going to get our enemy Pakistan?”

I often wonder why no one ever asked him, “Exactly how many people would have to die for you to admit that the war was a mistake?” I think the answer to this is that he was less interested in the end-results of the Iraq War, which even many heard-headed Republicans have started to realize is indefensible in terms of lives and money lost, and instead saw it more along the lines of the “Big Picture” that the Saddam regime had to be removed — no matter the cost — as part of the world-wide ongoing transition from tyranny to freedom. He gave a similar answer that Lenin’s Communist Revolution, which killed millions, was necessary. Whereas Liberal Progressives are so-named because of their idealization of slow, non-violent change being the hallmark of civilized politics, Hitchens was closer in embracing the founding figure of the Democratic Party in saying that “Rather than [the French Revolution] should have failed, I would have seen half the Earth destroyed!” Having written a book on Jefferson and used Jefferson’s war on the Barbary Pirates as a precedent for the War on Terrorism, I would not be surprised if he held similar beliefs about the Iraq War. Another example would be the American Civil War that Karl Marx supported, which slaughtered more human beings than it freed from the bonds of slavery, but is nevertheless assumed to an entirely necessary step in the evolution of human freedom.

This belief that the ends justifies the means, working under the assumption these battles against tyranny are absolutely essential for the greater war against World Totalitarianism, is what I think drove his support for the War on Terror. Whereas Neo-Cons attempted to use America’s ignorance of history to argue that Saddam needed to be taken out due to the millions of Iranians and Kurds he slaughtered while forgetting to mention that the U.S. was supporting him at the time, Hitchens went the other direction to say that our prior support of Saddam made us all the more responsible for the fate of that country. For him, it was never about the danger Saddam posed to us but the danger his regime posed to the surrounding states of the future. Of course, the problem with this is assuming winning the battle justifies the losses and that winning the war justifies the battles, when it seems more likely that violence just begets more violence until the country simply erupts into chaos and everyone loses.

Although I think he has made some very compelling cases against the Pope that others may find extreme, his anti-theism has often been placed in the context of this same war against Totalitarianism: that the belief in God can be compared to a “celestial North Korea,” as he very often put it. But that comparison has never had any more force with me than Richard Dawkins’ pathetic simile for God being as realistic as a flying spaghetti monster. Working under the Freudian assumption that one’s parents often provide a massive subconscious influence, I can’t help but think that the suicide pact Hitchens’ mother made with a priest played a large part in his “anti-theism,” which if one parses the words, can be interpreted as an intellectual redefintion of hating God.

I could be wrong. Like most Liberals, I assumed that Bush’s desire to invade Iraq could be at least partially traced back to the belief that Saddam had tried to have his father assassinated, but began to have my doubts that Bush was emotionally involved in wanting Saddam dead when I heard that he had decided to sleep through the dictator’s hanging.

But for me, the thing that I will always remember Christopher Hitchens the most for is when he got into a street brawl with Syrian neo-Nazis after going up to a sign with a “cylone” swastika on it and scribbling, “No, no, Fuck the SSNP.” As Hitchens said, “My attitude to posters with swastikas on them, has always been the same. They should be ripped down.” Not many people can truly claim to have been in a fist fight with fascists. After his ass kicked and barely escaping with his life, his friend Michael Totten told him, “The SSNP is the last party you want to mess with in Lebanon. I’m sorry I didn’t warn you properly. This is partly my fault.” While I think most people would be berating themselves for their own stupidity, Hitchens’ reply best sums up his own combination of principle and ballsiness:

“I appreciate that. But I would have done it anyway. One must take a stand. One simply must.”

Family Guy Writer Suffers Nerve Damage From LAPD During Occupy Protest

unified message

One of the writers of the Family Guy told of the abuse he and other protestors took from the LAPD:

It was horrible to watch, and apparently designed to terrorize the rest of us. At least I was sufficiently terrorized. I unlinked my arms voluntarily and informed the LAPD officers that I would go peacefully and cooperatively. I stood as instructed, and then I had my arms wrenched behind my back, and an officer hyperextended my wrists into my inner arms. It was super violent, it hurt really really bad, and he was doing it on purpose. When I involuntarily recoiled from the pain, the LAPD officer threw me face-first to the pavement. He had my hands behind my back, so I landed right on my face. The officer dropped with his knee on my back and ground my face into the pavement. It really, really hurt and my face started bleeding and I was very scared. I begged for mercy and I promised that I was honestly not resisting and would not resist.

My hands were then zipcuffed very tightly behind my back, where they turned blue. I am now suffering nerve damage in my right thumb and palm.

NewScientist reports that an analysis of the relationships between 43,000 transnational corporations has identified a relatively small group of companies, mainly banks, with disproportionate power over the global economy. There is continuing evidence that economic inequality harms socieites. Both sides are taking in major donations from Wall Street, and Politifact points out that “a large majority” of candidates with the most money wins and the U.S. is the 6th most unequal country on the planet.

Yet support for redistribution has actually plummeted during the recession. Scientific American attributes this to a fundamental psychological loathing for being near or in last place, called “last place aversion,” a fear that can lead people near the bottom of the income distribution to oppose redistribution because it might cause those they identify as being lower than them to catch up or even pass them. Naomi Klein attributed it to the “the shock doctrine”: using the public’s disorientation following massive collective shocks – wars, terrorist attacks, or natural disasters — to achieve control by imposing economic shock therapy. I think there is something to that in Irving Kristol’s suggestion that Neo-Cons force Democrats to “tidy up” after them. The Republicans destroy the deficit with tax cuts and destroy the economy with deregulation then they get to sit back and alter between screaming at Obama to fix the economy and fix the deficit just as Bill Wilson was masturbating to the thought of forcing Obama to choose between paying social security or the armed forces. All the while Fox News-addled baby boomers start looking in desperation to terminate all the government departments that neither Perry nor the Republican base know enough to list on one hand to save money since “we’re broke.” Even Reuters is getting in on the act of blaming Occupy Wall Street on George Soros.

The economy and the deficit spending has done a lot better since Obama took over. Ezra Klein points out that a lot of the deficit comes from assumptions that we won’t let tax cuts expire. Paul Krugman plots out how nonresidential investment is a pure demand story.

Stock trader Alessio Rastani told how stock traders were looking forward to the possibility of a second big recession: “For most traders, it’s not about – we don’t really care that much how they’re going to fix the economy, how they’re going to fix the whole situation,” he said. “Our job is to make money from it.” And even when the inflation and long-term interest rates that people like Alan Greenspan predict don’t show up, they lament that, “This is regrettable, because it is fostering a sense of complacency that can have dire consequences.”

David Frum wrote a really interesting article about how the unbelievably horrible roster of Republicans is based on future shock:

This year we had a GOP figure candidate rise to the top of some polls by claiming that Obama was born in Kenya. He was replaced briefly by someone who has accused the President of trying to set up mandatory, Communist-style re-education camps for youth. She’s been replaced by a guy who calls Social Security a giant fraud.

Something has changed. Facts are elitist. Credibility is evolving into a liability and crazy has become a tactic.

Maybe we are in the process of redefining sanity. We have an abundance of reliable information to help us separate what is from what isn’t. But we are also being overwhelmed by shiny distractions. And it’s not just our omnipresent entertainment that is weakening our hold on what’s real. This wealth of accurate information is available inside an atmosphere in which reality is becoming perilously complex. Even the most common tools and devices that are woven into the fabric of our daily lives are now wonders beyond simple credibility.

With all the attacks on Republicans lately, some people have wondered why Frum still calls himself one. He gives a list of reasons, none of which are very compelling.

Paul Krugman suggests the reason Cain “is not an accident” is because you have to either be totally cynical or totally clueless to meet the basic G.O.P. requirements for running for president. Mitt Romney is a total cynic but a bad actor, so it becomes a perpertual runoff between him and those who are clueless enough to actually believe the stupid shit they’re saying.

A relative of mine recently sent me an article written about Jim Rogers, an American investor who shills for the free market theory of the Austrian School of economics. It read:

>President Barack Obama has tried to spend the economy back into recovery, which never helps, Rogers told Newsmax.TV in an exclusive interview.

Oh yeah, NewsMax. The leader in Obama birth certificate conspiracy news.

>”We cannot quadruple our debt every four or five years. We cannot print staggering amounts of money every four or five years. So there’s going to come time when we’ve shot all of our bullets, and it’s going to be a big mess.”

Obama has not quadripled the debt. Reagan tripled the debt then Bush tripled it again. Why is it Republicans are allowed to overspend on tax cuts when there’s no reason to believe super-rich corporations need extra money to invest, but Democrats aren’t allowed to spend money on people who need it when the economy is depressed?

>Japan refused to let troubled financial institutions go under in the early 1990s and as a result, spent two decades mired in sluggish recovery.

Their Lost Decade comes from policies that were too-little-too-late, not from spending too much. When our stimulus came around, Krugman argued it was too little. The response was we can always get another stimulus if we need it, but Krugman responded that no, if the stimulus didn’t completely recover the economy, then that would be used as proof that the stimulus failed. Sure enough, that’s what happened. The bipartisan fact-checker Politifact has shown that the stimulus did work for the money that was put into it. The non-partisan CBO also says we need to spend more money. The economic basis goes back to Keynes, who correctly predicted that if the Germans were forced into austerity for reparations by France during the Depression that it would open their politics up to radicalism. Keynes was also right that by spending tons of money on WW2, it stimulated the economy enough to get us out of the Depression.

>Scandinavia took the opposite approach when it ran into an economic downturn and today is healthy, Rogers points out.

You know an argument is full of crap when they tell you to look to Sweden, Norway, and Denmark are models of right-wing economics!!! Scandanavia is one of the few places on the planet that doesn’t have a huge gap between the rich and the poor because of their extremely high tax rates. So yeah, they didn’t need to pay for a stimulus because 1) they did the right thing from the beginning and 2) the safety net was already there!!! I’ve supported Sweden’s bailout model since I first heard about it 3 years ago. The important thing to know is they didn’t let the banks get away with it. The government took over the banks and they took their pound of flesh from the stockholders. The banks actually had to write down their losses and issue warrants to the government. The people pushing this “no-stimulus” stuff like Newsmax are the same ones who say the banks were forced to lend money to minorities when the fact is they were really trying to hide how much of these loans went to minorities from the government.

>On top of hundreds of billions of dollars in stimulus measures the administration has rolled out, the Federal Reserve has pumped $2.3 trillion into the economy via quantitative easing, which are asset purchase from banks that critics describe as printed money with little backing that in the end threatens to push up inflation rates.

I agree that we shouldn’t use QE. It does expand the economy, but it also increases the wealth gap, which has been a major part of the problem since 1978. The problem isn’t that banks don’t have money to loan, it’s that they see no way to profit since they are the only ones who have any money now.

Media Matters also has a short story about Larry Summers. He once brought up a story about talking to a girl who was protesting the World Bank’s annual meeting, saying : “And so I asked the girl: ‘What is this new system that you want? Tell me about it!’ And the girl had nothing. Nothing! She had no fucking clue what this magical new system was supposed to be. No one is saying that there aren’t problems with the world economy the way it is today. But these kids out there — they don’t know what they want!”

Zack Exley, a political and technology consultant, the Chief Community Officer at the Wikimedia and Co-Founder of the progressive New Organizing Institute, replied: “Mr. Secretary. You’ve got 50 economics PhDs in this room who pretty much run the world economy. And you’re asking that girl for a better system? Aren’t the solutions your job? You admit billions are living in hell, but it’s up to that girl to fix it?”

Jon Stewart did a great piece on how the pilgrims were better informed about the pagan history behind Christmas than Fox News anchors.

But let me end on Joe Arpaio, the self-proclaimed “toughest Sheriff in America”, who in the past made headlines for his hard-line stance toward immigration. He’s recently admitted that his office’s botched investigations of over 400 sex-crimes cases. One might think that it came from spending too much time helping Steven Seagal kill a puppy and hundreds of roosters by driving a tank into a home for…. what was it again? Oh yeah: animal cruelty.

That’s the actual headline:

Actor Steven Seagal Sued for Driving Tank into Arizona Home, Killing Puppy

The story reads:

Seagal told a local radio station that animal cruelty was one of his pet peeves, and since the bust was an animal cruelty bust – which apparently requires the use of several armored cars, a tank, and dozens of sheriff’s deputies in full riot gear – Seagal decided to go along for the ride…and kill hundreds of roosters and a puppy in the process.

Seagal is being sued for $100,000 by the illegal immigrants. Merry Christmas, everyone.

Keynes vs. Hayek

“These days, you constantly see articles that make it seem as if there was a great debate in the 1930s between Keynes and Hayek, and that this debate has continued through the generations. As Warsh says, nothing like this happened. Hayek essentially made a fool of himself early in the Great Depression, and his ideas vanished from the professional discussion.

So why is his name invoked so much now? Because The Road to Serfdom struck a political chord with the American right, which adopted Hayek as a sort of mascot — and retroactively inflated his role as an economic thinker. Warsh is even crueler about this than I would have been; he compares Hayek (or rather the “Hayek” invented by his admirers) to Rosie Ruiz, who claimed to have won the marathon, but actually took the subway to the finish line.” –Paul Krugman

Milton Friedman would probably be a better choice for the right-wing equivalent of Keynes, but he more-or-less added on to Keynes rather than completely opposed him (“In one sense, we are all Keynesians now; in another, nobody is any longer a Keynesian”). But now that the far right is embracing economic policies that are over 40 years old, they have to go further back and find someone who completely opposed him.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0nERTFo-Sk[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTQnarzmTOc&feature=relmfu[/youtube]