Ian Welsh: "We are ruled by people who are what they have been conditioned to be" -- and look at the results

Insiders know stuff they don't want us outsiders ever to.

"These policies are insane, if one assumes a minimum of public spiritedness. They have not worked. They will not work.

"But they do work in the social sense: They create successful lives for the people who devise and implement them. They are rewarded with money and social approval, they receive feedback which screams, 'Continue!' "

-- Ian Welsh, in his post yesterday,
"The Political Consequences of Mental Models"

by Ken

In the above quote pulled out of Ian Welsh's post yesterday, I realize I've left out which policies "these policies" refers to. Really, it almost doesn't matter. It should be clear that the reference is to policies promulgated by people in a position to set policy, and the model Ian proposes works for pretty much any policies such people are likely to promote.

Still, for the record, here are some of the instances Ian had just cited:

• "the repeated use of force in situations where force has failed to work over and over again."

• "the inability to tolerate democratic governments of opposing ideologies despite the fact that destroying them, after a period of autocracy, generally leads to worse outcomes than simply working with them. (See Iran for a textbook case.)"

• "the belief that the US needs to run the world in tedious detail, that regular coups, invasions, garrisons, and so on are necessary -- along with the endless, sovereignty-reducing treaties described in 'free trade deals.' "

These are policy choices dictated by conditioning, beliefs that people believe because they've been conditioned to, usually according to mental models developed in their minds through processes that have little -- if anything -- to do with actual thought. Ian had begun by pondering the question of whether Western leaders have deliberately destabilized the Middle East. Which landed him in an age-old conundrum:

Q. "Stupid or evil?"
A. "Both."

DICK CHENEY: MAKING THE WORLD A BETTER PLACE

By way of illustration in this post, called "The Political Consequences of Mental Models," Ian offered this case:

I know someone who worked with Cheney and believes that Cheney honestly thought that removing Saddam would make the world a better place. Also (and the person I know is a smart, capable person) that Cheney was very smart.

But smart in IQ terms (which Cheney probably was) isn’t the same as having a sane mental map of the world. Being brilliant means being able to be brilliantly wrong and holding to it no matter what. Genius can rationalize anything.

Which prompted some thoughts on the human "thought" process (and here I would stress that "thought" is being used in its broadest possible sense, referring to not necessarily much more than "activity in the brain").

Human thought is mostly an unconscious and uncontrolled process. What comes up is what went in, filtered through conditioning. We are so conditioned and the inputs are so out of our control during most of our lives (and certainly during our childhood) that our actual, operational margin of free will is far smaller than most believe.

We interpret what we know through the mental (and emotional) models we already have. Thoughts are weighted with emotion, recognized and unrecognized, connotations far more than denotations.

Machiavelli made the observation that people don’t change, they instead react to situations with the same character and tone of action even when a different action would work better.
This doesn’t mean one cannot undergo ideological changes, it means character changes only very slowly, and that we have virtually no conscious ability to change our thinking, actions, or characters on the fly.

This is true for both the brilliant and the stupid, though the tenor of challenges for both is different.

"The science of conditioning," Ian wrote, "was strong from the late 19th century through to the 60s," but "has faded out of the intellectual limelight." However, "viewed through the lens of conditioning, much that makes no sense makes perfect sense."

Ian offered a classic example: the "insider" perspective vs. the "outsider" one:

Over fifteen years ago Stirling Newberry told me, “Insiders understand possibility, outsiders understand consequences”.

Insiders are rewarded for acting in accordance with elite consensus, and very little else.

Outsiders, not being part of that personal risk/reward cycle are able to say, “Yeah, that’s not going to work”.

They are both right and wrong.

"Conditioning," Ian wrote, "extends well beyond observable behavior and into thought, and the structure of knowledge."

Intellectual structures are felt, and each node and connection has emotional freight. This is true even in the purer sciences, and it is frighteningly true in anything related to how we interact with other humans and what our self-image is.

It is in this sense that the disinterested, the outsider, those who receive few rewards for acquiescence, are virtually always superior in understanding to those within the system. Outsiders may not understand what it “feels” like, but the outsider understands what the consequences are.

THE MYSTIQUE OF "INSIDE KNOWLEDGE"

Those of us who lived through the Vietnam war became accustomed to being told that opposition to it was based on inadequate knowledge, that the people who were making our policy, who were prosecuting the war, had all kinds of knowledge about the situation that we didn't, and they therefore had to be deferred to. Naturally they couldn't share this inside knowledge with us, because it was, you know, inside knowledge. It was secret, and therefore knowable only to insiders wise enough and security-cleared enough to possess such knowledge.

Eventually, of course, and still totally unbeknownst to us benighted outsiders, as inside an insider as Defense Secretary Robert McNamara, who had been as responsible as anyone for enmeshing us in the conflict, began to have doubts about the quality of that inside knowledge, which led to the Pentagon Papers, which still had to remain secret -- until they weren't, thanks to Daniel Ellsberg, with assists from the highest decision-making levels of the New York Times and the Washington Post, and others as well, not least the U.S. Supreme Court.

For his efforts Ellsberg was charged with assorted acts of espionage, theft, and conspiracy, which Wikipedia reminds us "carr[ied] a total maximum sentence of 115 years."



Not many people nowadays think of Ellsberg as a traitor, which is why the insiders who rose in righteous wrath against Edward Snowden had to go to such pains to distinguish Snowden's leaks from Ellsberg's. Unfortunately for them, Snowden's revelations turned out to be a gift that kept on revealing, and the more that was revealed, the more foolish the people who were denouncing him as a traitor came to look. This was all "inside knowledge" being revealed, and to the people who had previously had exclusive access to it, it was awfully important that it remain secret.

And it's very likely that some of them, at least, believed as sincerely as Ian's acquaintance insists Dick Cheney did that they were doing a wise and patriotic thing, helping make the world a better place, by both acting on and suppressing all that information. It's very likely too that many of them were confirmed in their beliefs by just the sort of conditioned "mental models" Ian was writing about yesterday.

Again, as Ian put it, "the disinterested, the outsider, those who receive few rewards for acquiescence, are virtually always superior in understanding to those within the system. Outsiders may not understand what it 'feels' like, but the outsider understands what the consequences are." And he concluded:

This is true far beyond politics, but it is in politics where the unexamined life, the unexamined belief structure, and the unexamined conditioning, are amplified by long levers to brutalize the world.

The last thing I. F. Stone wanted to be was an insider.

#

"Big Dick" Cheney denounces Congress for interfering with the president's Iran policy -- in 1987, that is

Those were the days: President Reagan with Rep. Bob Michel (left) and then-Rep. "Younger Big Dick" Cheney in 1988

by Ken

This is wonderful. Yesterday, as I was inviting one and all to play my beloved game of "If the shoe was on the other foot," with regard to these last two weeks' Congressional Adventures in Foreign Policy Encroachment, I didn't realize that Daily Kos's Jon Perr had done just that, in a Monday post called "Cheney: Congress must not interfere with the president's Iran policy."

What? "Big Dick" Cheney taking President Obama's side?

Alas, even if you didn't catch the "catch" on your own, I'm afraid I've already blown it in my post title. The wrath of Big Dick was vented not over the current congressional interference with presidential foriegn-policy-making, but in 1987 over Congress's utterly legitimate exercise of a modicum of congressional oversight -- the very thing the Constitution encourages -- regarding President Reagan's mad-dog foreign-policy cowboying.

Here's the start of Jon's post (links onsite):

In less than a week, congressional Republicans have taken two unprecedented steps to undermine the foreign policy of a sitting American president. Last Tuesday, they offered Capitol Hill as a global stage to a foreign leader—Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel—to sabotage the U.S.-led nuclear talks with Iran. And this weekend, 47 GOP senators sent a letter to the leadership in Tehran warning the Islamic Republic that Congress—or the next president—could blow up any nuclear deal at any time.

But one Republican leader—Dick Cheney—furiously condemned congressional interference with the president's policy toward Iran. Condemned it, that is, provided the president was Ronald Reagan and the issue wasn't limiting Iran's arsenal, but enhancing it.

That's right. In the wake of the arms-for-hostages scandal that engulfed President Reagan in 1986, the minority Republican response to the congressional Iran-Contra investigation declared that Congress, not the White House, had done something wrong. Joined then by Utah Senator Orrin Hatch (who also signed this week's letter) among other GOP leaders, Cheney didn't just denounce the majority's findings as "clearly cast in such a partisan tone," but insisted President Reagan had the constitutional authority to ignore the congressional ban on aid to the Nicaraguan Contras:

"Judgments about the Iran-Contra Affair ultimately must rest upon one's views about the proper roles of Congress and the President in foreign policy. ... [T]hroughout the Nation's history, Congress has accepted substantial exercises of Presidential power -- in the conduct of diplomacy, the use of force and covert action -- which had no basis in statute and only a general basis in the Constitution itself. ... [M]uch of what President Reagan did in his actions toward Nicaragua and Iran were constitutionally protected exercises of inherent Presidential powers. ... [T]he power of the purse ... is not and was never intended to be a license for Congress to usurp Presidential powers and functions."

Yeah, right. Now, of course, when we have the clown princes of the "Crackpot 114th" Congress genuinely trying to usurp presidential powers, well, the shoe is clearly on some other foot.

#

Crackpot Utopia: The Year in Republican Crazy, Part 8

• Things to come: Forward into the past! (11 Presidential Dream Tickets)
• Crazyspeak of the Year nominee No. 9: Former republican VP nominee Paul "Crazy Eyes" Ryan
• Crazyspeak of the Year nominee No. 10: Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association


You Can't Make This Stuff Up Dept.: On FOX "News" for March 3, "America's Mayor" makes known his preference for Vladimir Putin over President Obama: "Putin makes a decision, and he executes it, quickly. . . . That's what you call a leader." (See Presidential Dream Ticket #2.)

Crackpot Utopia: A dream world as envisioned by republicans; a manifestation or expression of the deranged, warped alternate universe inhabited by republicans, at least in their minds. See also: Bachmannism, Boehneresque.

by Noah

1. Things To Come: Forward Into The Past!

In the last installment of "Crackpot Utopia," I went on about how the 2016 Republican Primary Freak Show has already begun in 2014 with the absolute nuttery of Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, a man who is so highly thought of in republican minds that he is considered presidential material and was once even given the honor of presenting the annual on-air rebuttal to President Obama's State of the Union speech.

Did you think that the last presidential election cycle's republican primary season was the biggest freak show you'd ever seen? Well, it seems that this event gets freakier every time, as many of the old faces, and some new ones, start jockeying for position.

Since it's already begun, I've decided to take the leap and take a guess at what the Crackpot Party and their media allies will be touting as their Ideal Republican Presidential Tickets and Slogans!

Are the following really all that far-fetched? Are they ravings of a fantasist, perhaps? Well, to understand crazy, it helps to adopt a bit of crazy and try to put your mind in the crackpot mode, so . . . always remember that to the republican mind, what you are about to read is completely rational and logical. These people are thought quite normal and are perfectly acceptable candidates for Leader of the Free World -- if and when you look through republican eyes. In fact, to republicans these Dream Tickets are the inevitable wonderful result of the entire 6000 years of human history.

Presidential Dream Ticket #1: Palin-Zimmerman
"Straight-Shootin' Common-Sense Solutions"


Begone, Joe the Plumber (already designated Crazyspeak of the Year nominee No. 5)! Now Sarah will team up with an even more appropriate "Country First"-er, George Zimmerman.

Sarah and George -- perhaps America's two biggest attention whores on one ticket! Secession meets "stand your ground." Nice conflict, eh? First campaign stop will be Jefferson Davis State Park in Kentucky. Last campaign stop will be the loony bin, if they don't kill each other first, although once they get an endorsement from O.J. Simpson, their campaign will be toast.

Presidential Dream Ticket #2: Vladimir Putin-Vlad the Impaler
"Bare-Chested Men of Action!"


Meet the man behind Dracula: Vlad the Impaler.

Think about it: Who better represents republican feelings toward gays and poor people? So many repugs, especially those on FOX, adore Putin; Rudy Juliandrews is on record as wishing he was our leader instead of President Obama. Yeah, I know that neither of the fine republican icons on Dream Ticket #2 was born in the U.S.A., but republicans will use their belief that President Obama wasn't either as a twisted precedent. The problem with Vlad the Impaler being dead for centuries? It's the thought that counts.

Presidential Dream Ticket #3: Cheney-Cheney
"Have a Heart? No, Really, Have a Heart?"


Smile, Dick 'n' Liz! Oh, you are smiling?

It's Dick and Liz! No, not Burton and Taylor. Something else entirely, and much, much crazier.

Presidential Dream Ticket #4: Bush-Bush
"Had Enough?"


Where's Marvin? L-to-r: Neil Bush, George W. Bush, "Poppy" George H.W. Bush, and John Ellis Bush (aka Jeb)

Jeb and either Marvin or Neil, the brothers behind the scenes. Could Jeb win Florida if all those crackers found out his real name isn't Jeb? More importantly, do countries and empires commit suicide? Yes, they do. Such things have been going on at least since ancient Egypt, the Romans, and a myriad of European monarchies. If America were to elect another son of America's biggest crime family, then history will have repeated itself yet again. Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Be forewarned.

Presidential Dream Ticket #5: Santorum-Mr. Rogers
"It's a Good Day in the Neighborhood!"

Rick and… does Mr. Rogers even have a first name? [Yes, it's Fred. -- Ed.] Can you tell them apart? I have to be honest. I can't. The only thing is that I've never heard Mr. Rogers talk about banning contraception. Imagine them in matching sweater vests replete with those nifty Seal of the Office of… badges. Can you say "Good morning Mr. President"?

Presidential Dream Ticket #6: Kelly-Hannity
"Santa's white; Jesus is white; anyone that matters is white"

Why not two of FOX's leading white supremacists, Megyn 'n' Sean? Is that a winning slogan or what? Such a ticket is the dream of the old, white "Get off my lawn" set. Expect former L.A. Clippers owner Donald Sterling to contribute big racist bucks to this one!

Probably Hannity won't like playing second fiddle to one of them female critters. But Republicans generally will be able to forgive the fact that Megyn Kelly is of the female persuasion and enjoy fantasizing of her baking nice warm cookies in the big white house. The party has proven that they will occasionally accept nonwhite males as long as they are even more out-to-lunch than the usual insane republican. Her "I'm a victim" card-playing is also just the kind of thing that tugs at the strings of their blackened hearts.

This ticket is also the logical end game of years of FOX insanity. For Hannity, with his audience dying off and his ratings spiraling down to earth like an old biplane with a dead engine, there's likely to be a job hunt coming soon. If he doesn't get the VP gig, he'll be left with a choice of cutting ribbons at Chinese auto factories or forming a cruise line called KKK Kruises and burning crosses on the high seas for the rest of his deranged, hate-filled days.

Presidential Dream Ticket #7: Hannity-Bundy
"Let Me Tell You About the Negro!"


Stephen Colbert sings "The Ballad of Cliven Bundy": "His land belongs to you and me. That's what he told Sean Hannity." (The video segment is below.)

Not to pick on Hannity too much, but actually I don't think that's possible. I have to say I'd rather see large birds picking at him in the hot sun of Death Valley instead of me, but why wait for that?

This already-paired ticket is a natural and may appeal to more Republicans than the team of Sean and Megyn, for many reasons, not the least of which is that Megyn Kelly is a, well, you know, as I said, one o' dem woman critters. Not to worry, in the republican house there are many racists. That Hannity and Bundy share a mutual love for the ages that even surpasses Cranky McCain and Lindsey Graham will help with party fanatics, but, even more than that, pairing a barely closeted white supremacist with the "Let me tell you about the Negro" guy should be downright inspiring to rebubbacans everywhere!



Presidential Dream Ticket #8: McConnell-Graham
"Let's Dress Up, America!"

Yeah, Ol' Cranky McCain will be the jealous, fuming odd man out in this triangle as Mitch walks down the aisle with Lindsey, but he'll always have the memories of those wonderful nights of Palin's pillow talk about secession and her bomb-making secessionist buddy Joe Miller.

Presidential Dream Ticket #9: Cruz-Perry
"Texas Squared!"

None other than the brilliant Glenn Beck regards Ted Cruz as the next Ronald Reagan. You can't get a better endorsement than that! Sure, most republicans would rather just dig up the real Reagan and reanimate him. After all, zombies are hot these days. As to putting Perry on the ticket? Well, if you're a repug, why not? Republicans like David Carney, top adviser to then-candidate (now-Texas Gov.-elect Greg Abbott) thought Abbott's opponent, Harvard-educated lawyer Wendy Davis, was "too stupid to be Governor." So they must think Perry is a genius who was elected and reelected to the position.

Presidential Dream Ticket #10: Robertson-Robertson
"Who's on Top?" (this one is interchangeable)

The only question: Would Duck Dynasty's Phil, who says among other things that AIDS was sent from God as a punishment, and also believes the old republican chestnut about being gay being the slippery slope to bestiality, be the top, or would geezer Reverend Pat be? (Republicans sure seem to spend a lot of time thinking about sex with animals, don't they?)

Does it matter which Robertson tops this ticket? Either way it's "A Dynasty of Robertsons." This ticket is a match made in republican heaven and normal people's hell. Republicans consider both men to be godly and nonjudgmental men. Newtie once said of Phil Robertson:

He talks very specifically about not being judgmental toward anybody. . . . There's sections there [in his sermon] where he sounds like Pope Francis.

Duck Boy is not judgmental? Well, Newtie's cheese fell off the cracker long ago. Seeing certifiables like Rudy Giuliani, Herman Cain, and Rick Santorum get more love from republican primary voters probably pushed him off the final precipice. Not judgmental? Yeah, coulda fooled me. Here's Duck Boy preaching from the pulpit of the dark heart:



Sounds and looks more like bin Laden to me. Maybe I should just do a bait-and-switch on Duck Boy and make him run with Pat from Saturday Night Live instead of Pat Robertson. The confusion and consternation about his new running mate would make him explode.

And last, but certainly not least:

Presidential Dream Ticket #11: Rand Paul-Darrell Issa
"Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi to the End of Time!"

If this ticket wins, one day President Rand Paul will mysteriously disappear. It could happen in one of two ways. Either the presidential limo will be stolen with him in it, driven to New Jersey and pressed into one of those shiny metal cubes, or the White House will be burned to the ground, under very suspicious circumstances. Ladys and Gents, meet President Issa.


2. Crazyspeak of the Year nominee No. 9: Former republican VP nominee Paul "Crazy Eyes" Ryan, who has his own "Let me tell you about the Negro" moment:

We have got this talespin of culture, in our inner cities in particular, of men not working and just generations of men not even thinking about working or learning the value and the culture of work, and so there is a real culture problem here that has to be dealt with.

Oh yeah, there's a culture problem all right. It's the culture of being a republican and the innate racism that goes with that. Paul "Crazy Eyes" Ryan adheres to that old "lazy, shiftless Negro" meme. They even use it on President Obama whenever he takes a vacation. How many days a year do you and your lazy-ass, do-nothing congressional colleagues work, Paulie? Congress worked a grand total of 135 days in 2014, with no productivity to show for it. Of course, work to people like Ryan consists of badgering people for handouts of free campaign cash. They do panhandling on a galactic scale for "a living." Who the hell are you to talk, a-hole?


3. Crazyspeak of the Year nominee No. 10: Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association

The bottom line is that if Hillary Clinton becomes president in 2016, she will not only be our first female president, she could be our first lesbian president.

Well, yeah, I guess since all the other presidents have been men the chances of any of those particular presidents having been lesbians is way down. So, if a woman does get elected, the chances do increase somewhat.

Glenn Beck went even further with this notion of a lesbian in the Oval Office.


Sez Glenn: "Hillary Clinton will be having sex with a woman on the desk in the White House if it becomes popular."

Republicans sure get all riled up about this sex stuff. It's some sort of republican OCD thing.


TOMORROW IN PART 9: Pompous Blowhard of the Year Award: Bill O’Reilly; FOX "News" announces new spinoff: The FOX Benghazi Shopping Channel!; Crazyspeak of the Year nominee No. 11: DiGiorno Pizza

NOAH'S 2014 IN REVIEW --
Crackpot Utopia: The Year in Republican Crazy

Part 1: Princess Liz Cheney tries for the Smoothie of the Year Award; "Miss Beck regrets" -- Crazyspeak of the Year nominee No. 1: Glenn Beck; and the Crackpot Party reacts to President Obama’s State of the Union speech [12/19/2014]
Part 2: Republicans wonder why normal people call them racists; Sean Hannity wants to self-deport; and the First Annual Mr. Burns Award, to ABC "shark" Kevin O'Leary [12/20/2014]
Part 3: Using fear, loathing, and paranoia to sell stuff; Arizona legalizes crack!; and Crazyspeak of the Year nominee No. 3: Bill O’Reilly [12/21/2014]
Part 4: A celebration of Michele Bachmann: Pray away the crazy?; What "War on Women"?; and the "Obama angle" on Malaysian Flight 370 [12/22/2014]
Part 5: The GOP and the kiss heard 'round the world; Crazyspeak of the Year nominee No. 5: Joe the Plumber [12/23/2014]
Part 6: A word about South Carolina; Pat Robertson and his magic asteroid; and I'll have a pack of Twizzlers and an IUD to go, please [12/24/2014]
Part 7: And so it begins: The running of the buffoons; Crazyspeak of the Year nominee No. 7, George Will has no idea what rape is; and Crazyspeak of the Year nominee No. 8, Rick Wiles calls for a coup [12/29/2014]
Part 8: Things to come: Forward into the past! (11 Presidential Dream Tickets); Crazyspeak of the Year nominee No. 9: Former republican VP nominee Paul "Crazy Eyes" Ryan; Crazyspeak of the Year nominee No. 10: Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association [12/30/2014]
Part 9: Pompous Blowhard of the Year Award: Bill O’Reilly; FOX "News" announces new spinoff: the "FOX Benghazi™" Shopping Channel!; Crazyspeak of the Year nominee No. 11: DiGiorno Pizza [12/31/2014]
Part 10: Newsmax -- Beyond Drudgery; and Crazyspeak of the Year nominees Nos. 12 and 13: Michele Bachmann, Kimberly Guilfoyle [1/1/2015]
Part 11: GOP and FOX whip up the hate over a POW exchange; and Crazyspeak of the Year nominee No. 14: Iowa asylum escapee Rep. Steve King [1/3/2015]
Part 12: Arizona Republican protests busload of YMCA campers; Crazyspeak of the Year nominee(s) No. 15: the Impeachment Variations (group nomination); Crazyspeak of the Year nominee No. 16: NM Rep. Steve Pearce [1/4/2015]
Part 13 (and last): TV for Dummies: Sarah Palin launches her own channel; Crazyspeak of the Year nominee No. 17: Arizona schools superintendent John Huppenthal (rhymes with Neanderthal); and the final Crazyspeak of the Year nominee -- and also the winner! [1/5/2015]

NOAH'S 2013 IN REVIEW --
A Prayer to the Janitor of Lunacy

For listings and links, see Part 1 of this year's series.

#

Crackpot Utopia: The Year in Republican Crazy, Part 1

• Princess Liz Cheney -- 2014's Smoothie of the Year?
• "Miss Beck regrets" -- Crazyspeak of the Year nominee No. 1
• And the Crackpot Party reacts to President Obama's SOTU

The Curious Case of the Princess and the Senator (see No. 1)

Crackpot Utopia: A dream world as envisioned by republicans; a manifestation or expression of the deranged, warped alternate universe inhabited by republicans, at least in their minds. See also: Bachmannism, Boehneresque.

by Noah

1. Princess Liz Cheney tries for the Smoothie of the Year Award

Since we're talkin' about crazy crackpot folks, why not start back in early January with the Cheney Princess, Liz, and her surprising -- and then surprisingly brief -- candidacy for the office of U.S. senator from Wyoming, the old home state of her Dr. Strangelovean Daddy Dick. Liz coulda been a contenda, or at least she thought so . . . at least for a while.

First, for purposes of frame of reference, here's a sample of Princess Liz speaking the crazy via Twitter:

Rarely do I disagree with best VP ever* but @SarahPalinUSA is more qualified than Obama and Biden combined. Huge respect 4 all she's done 4 GOP.
-  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -
* "Best VP ever" = Daddy Dick -- Ed.

You see, incumbent republican Sen. Mike Enzi (there are only republicans in Wyoming) was thinking of retirement. All Dark Princess Liz had to do was be gracious, courteous, and professional, or even just one of those three, and go ask him if the rumors were true and say that, if so, she would like to run for his seat. If he said that yes, he wanted to retire, she could ask for his blessing which those in the know say would have come.

But nooo! The arrogance apple doesn't fall far from the tree. She just called Senator Enzi and let it be known that she was going to run against him in the republican primary. That didn't sit well with the senator, who went all "Nobody's gonna push me out -- screw you!" on Princess Liz's royal ass. Strike One!

Now, the citizens of Wyoming happen to like Old School things, such as respect for elders, class, and earning your stripes, so Liz's bull-in-a-china-shop approach just didn't play in her state, especially when it turned out that Wyoming wasn't even really "her" state. That became clear when she thought she'd put a veneer of "local" on herself and apply for a Wyoming fishing license. She also bought a $1.9 million mini-castle in Jackson Hole, a place that real Wyoming folks regard as Hollywood East. She even bought brand-new boots and squeaky brand-new blue jeans to "look the part," and claimed to be a resident, but it turned out that Beltway Liz hadn't lived in Wyoming enough to claim resident status. She got fined $220 for her untruthfulness (another family trait!). Nothin' like finding new ways to say "I'm a carpetbagger!" Oh well, at least she didn't go and shoot one of her friends in the face on a fake bird hunt.

Princess Liz did manage, however, to wish death upon the local media when they didn't bend to her will and ran with the fish story. Now, who works in the local media? Local voters, that's who. She later said that she was referring to the liberal national media. Strike Two!

Then there was the open-range dispute with her gay sister Mary over marriage equality. The battle flew all over social and cable media. The princess mouthed the usual "marriage is between one man and one woman" crapola. It got ugly, and if you turn on your own family, why should Wyoming voters think you'll always have their back? Strike Three!

Tanking polls! You're out! Even FOX "News," trying desperately to give her some sort of gravitas, could not save her. Mike Enzi is still senator. He ought to thank Liz for making him look good by comparison. Back to the Beltway, Princess Liz!

Next time, the Cheney family might want to consider running Princess Mary the Gay. She's actually less of a princess than Liz. She's a little better-adjusted, and maybe her party could make an exception and back an openly gay person for national office. Hey, I'm not sayin' this would be sometime in this decade, but maybe in 30 years or so. Her dad will still be around due to his 15th pacemaker, an artificial liver, plenty of Depends, a jet-propelled wheelchair, and a suit made of nicotine patches. Mary's campaign slogan could be: "Wyoming, I Just Can't Quit You!"


2. "Miss Beck regrets" --
Crazyspeak of the Year nominee No. 1: Glenn Beck



Also back in January, eternal misanthrope and conspiracy theorist Glenn Beck put on a faux hairshirt and went on Faux News to confess to Mistress Megyn Kelly about his role in polarizing the United States Of America better than Tokyo Rose ever dreamed.

I remember it as an awful lot of fun and that I made an awful lot of mistakes, and I wish I could go back and be more uniting in my language. . . . I think I played a role, unfortunately, in helping tear the country apart and it's not who we are.

I'm moved, I tell ya. I'm moved! Why, this is almost like little Idi Amin saying he's sorry he ate all those people!

Will Beck be giving back some of the millions he's made in the service of evil? What's next? Charlie Manson says he regrets that hot August night at Sharon Tate's? Too harsh? OK, maybe Beck was just trying to chat up Mistress Megyn by showing a "sensitive side."


3. The Crackpot Party reacts to President Obama's State of the Union speech

On January 28th, President Obama gave the annual State of the Union speech. Several republican voices, including foaming-at-the-mouth talk-radio wacko Mark Levin and Judicial Watch's Tom Fitton had encouraged republican senators and representatives to boycott the speech over such issues as "amnesty," the president's "luxurious travels," and of course (say the magic word!) Benghazi. Feeling that a boycott of the speech was appropriate, Fitton said:

Imagine if half the chamber is empty.

Well, for one thing, no goofballs would be mouthing: "You lie!"

The medication-free Mark Levin went even further over the top:

Since these men and women will not use the U.S. Constitution to defend this nation, since they will not use the Constitution to confront a lawless President, worse yet, since they're funding his activities with these omnibus bills filled with all kinds of crap, what the Republicans should do is boycott the State of the Union . . . so half of the House floor, because that's where they meet, is empty.

The immensely reality-challenged Levin rambled on semi-coherently with phrases like "threatens the Republic" and "liberty and tyranny" -- all the usual republican insanity.

Seems to me that if President Obama were half the tyrant these people think he is, they wouldn't have their radio shows, columns, etc. But hey, playing the victim card can rile up the critical-thinking-challenged disciples and rake in piles of money.

In the end, just about everybody,other than far right "Supreme" Court Justices Alito, Thomas, and Scalia showed up, but republican Rep. Steve Stockman did indulge in his version of Crackpot Theater when he got up and walked out halfway through the speech, saying he did it over the usual perceived abuses of the Constitution, Obama's not mentioning Benghazi, Obama's alleged "wholesale violation of his oath," "failed policies," blah, blah, blah. He's from Texas, so say no more -- except, well, he did bring the rockin' racist Ted Nugent as his date. (More on Ted in the next installment of "Crackpot Utopia.")

Another one of Texas's finest, Rep. Randy Weber, tweeted out something about Obama being the Kommandant-in-Chef. Chef? There go those Texas schoolbooks again. But who ever said you needed to know how to spell in order to go into politics? As outgoing Gov. Rick Perry says, it's not an IQ test.

The media reactions were just as bad. FOX's Erick Erickson blanched at the thought of equal pay for women in a tweet during the speech, while Bush's brain Karl Rove reached all the way back to 2005 to find something to whine about on his Twit account.

The man who threatened the full faith and credit of US now lectures congress on the issue.

The biggest media farce, though, occurred the very next day on FOX-Lite CNN, where republican shill Wolf Blitzer was seen tossing soft and fluffy questions to one of his most favorite guests, Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA), who had given one of the not-the-historically-usual-one-or-even-two-but-three SOTU rebuttals that the laughably called "liberal media" had afforded their republican friends. On his day-after show, Wolfboy asked Cathy if she supported "equal pay for equal work."

"Absolutely!" came the response. She blathered on and on about how the GOP supports pay equality for women in the workplace, etc., etc., blah-blah-blah. Did Wolfie the bearded wonder shill then ask her why she has voted against equal pay four times? Nope, but hey, that's not what he's there to do. He just plays a journalist on TV.

I wonder if McMorris Rodgers handed her interviewer a bag o'cash after the show. "Keep up the good work, Wolfie! Reince loves you! Kiss, kiss!"

•     •     •

Well, that's it for Part 1 of "Crackpot Utopia." And I'm not even done with January yet!


TOMORROW IN PART 2: Republicans wonder why normal people call them racists; Sean Hannity wants to self-deport; and the First Annual Mr. Burns Award

NOAH'S 2014 IN REVIEW --
Crackpot Utopia: The Year in Republican Crazy

Part 1: Princess Liz Cheney tries for the Smoothie of the Year Award; "Miss Beck regrets" -- Crazyspeak of the Year nominee No. 1: Glenn Beck; and the Crackpot Party reacts to President Obama’s State of the Union speech [12/19/2014]
Part 2: Republicans wonder why normal people call them racists; Sean Hannity wants to self-deport; and the First Annual Mr. Burns Award, to ABC "shark" Kevin O'Leary [12/20/2014]
Part 3: Using fear, loathing, and paranoia to sell stuff; Arizona legalizes crack!; and Crazyspeak of the Year nominee No. 3: Bill O’Reilly [12/21/2014]
Part 4: A celebration of Michele Bachmann: Pray away the crazy?; What "War on Women"?; and the "Obama angle" on Malaysian Flight 370 [12/22/2014]
Part 5: The GOP and the kiss heard 'round the world; Crazyspeak of the Year nominee No. 5: Joe the Plumber [12/23/2014]
Part 6: A word about South Carolina; Pat Robertson and his magic asteroid; and I'll have a pack of Twizzlers and an IUD to go, please [12/24/2014]
Part 7: And so it begins: The running of the buffoons; Crazyspeak of the Year nominee No. 7, George Will has no idea what rape is; and Crazyspeak of the Year nominee No. 8, Rick Wiles calls for a coup [12/29/2014]
Part 8: Things to come: Forward into the past! (11 Presidential Dream Tickets); Crazyspeak of the Year nominee No. 9: Former republican VP nominee Paul "Crazy Eyes" Ryan; Crazyspeak of the Year nominee No. 10: Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association [12/30/2014]
Part 9: Pompous Blowhard of the Year Award: Bill O’Reilly; FOX "News" announces new spinoff: the "FOX Benghazi™" Shopping Channel!; Crazyspeak of the Year nominee No. 11: DiGiorno Pizza [12/31/2014]
Part 10: Newsmax -- Beyond Drudgery; and Crazyspeak of the Year nominees Nos. 12 and 13: Michele Bachmann, Kimberly Guilfoyle [1/1/2015]
Part 11: GOP and FOX whip up the hate over a POW exchange; and Crazyspeak of the Year nominee No. 14: Iowa asylum escapee Rep. Steve King [1/3/2015]
Part 12: Arizona Republican protests busload of YMCA campers; Crazyspeak of the Year nominee(s) No. 15: the Impeachment Variations (group nomination); Crazyspeak of the Year nominee No. 16: NM Rep. Steve Pearce [1/4/2015]
Part 13 (and last): TV for Dummies: Sarah Palin launches her own channel; Crazyspeak of the Year nominee No. 17: Arizona schools superintendent John Huppenthal (rhymes with Neanderthal); and the final Crazyspeak of the Year nominee -- and also the winner! [1/5/2015]

NOAH'S 2013 IN REVIEW --
A Prayer to the Janitor of Lunacy*

Part 1: Take a bow, Repugs! (*including Nico's "Janitor of Lunacy") [12/30/2013]
Part 2: Remember when Reagan cut funds for insane asylums? (Storms, guns, bombs, free stuff, and the secret gay life of Obma: Some top Republican lies of 2013) [12/31/2013]
Part 3: No Cruz control (Rafael "Ted" Cruz in his own words) [1/1/2014]
Part 4: A great anniversary approaches! (plus more "Quote of the Year nominees") [1/2/2014]
Part 5: Everyone's a critic, including me -- Some people really try my patience (Bill-O, Howie Kurtz, E. W. Jackson, et al.) [1/3/2014]
Part 6 (and last): In the words of Dan Quayle, "What a waste it is to lose one's mind" (Exploiting tragedy for a buck; Miss America's not American?; "Quote of the Year" winner) [1/4/2014]

#

Do we really and truly believe that in-the-trenches defenders of freedom can never bend the "rules"?

by Ken

At Daily Kos, Shaun King yesterday put up a fine little post called "Midtown NYPD commanding officer posts, then immediately deletes, outrageous tweet," which is pretty startling in its own right but also raises interesting questions. Here's what Shaun posted:

NYPD commanding officer Edward Winski decided to post something inspirational on Twitter for Motivational Monday, but quickly deleted it. [Note: This link will take you to a age that says, appropriately enough, "Sorry, that page doesn't exist! -- Ed.] The quote is from Jack Nicholson, playing Col. Jessup in the movie A Few Good Men, a scene with Jessup testifying regarding two privates he ordered to kill another soldier. In the current climate of protests in New York City that the commanding officer chose to post this to the verified Twitter account of the precinct for motivation is just flat-out tone deaf and shocking, if not revealing.

Son, we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Lt. Weinburg? I have a greater responsibility than you could possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago, and you curse the Marines. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know. That Santiago's death, while tragic, probably saved lives. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives. You don't want the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall, you need me on that wall. We use words like honor, code, loyalty. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said thank you, and went on your way, Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon, and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you are entitled to.

Mind you, this quote is given by Col. Jessup just seconds before he admits that he did the unthinkable and ordered the "code red" to have a fellow soldier killed. What in the world was Edward Winski thinking?

This is a good question -- what was Inspector Winski thinking? -- but it's also a complicated question.


ON THE MOST OBVIOUS LEVEL, WE DO HAVE TO
WONDER WHAT THE INSPECTOR WAS THINKING . . .



. . . in posting such an inflammatory quote in a public place. I have no clue here, except that obviously he didn't think, and it didn't take long before either he did finally think or somebody in the NYPD thought for him, with the result that half an hour later the post was unposted.


ON THE LEVEL JUST BELOW THIS, THERE'S THE
QUESTION OF WHY THE INSPECTOR THOUGHT . . .

. . . this was suitable inspirational material for his troops. And here I have to guess that the inspector hasn't actually seen A Few Good Men, and in fact doesn't know anything about it except this quote, to which he relates because he feels that cops are in this same position of doing a dirty job that somebody's got to do, and they're the somebodies.

If in fact Inspector Winski is familiar with any of the context that Shaun provides (and I would say that the more you know about the situation, the more disturbing the context is), and nevertheless thinks the ruminations of Colonel Jessup provide fit inspiration for our men and women in blue, then some sort of commission of inquiry needs to be chartered to look into the command structure and promotion practices of the NYPD. Rising to the rank of inspector is a pretty arduous matter, and if the system is promoting people who believe such things, then it's even scarier than I for one thought.


WHICH STILL LEAVES THE QUESTION OF THE BASIC
PREMISE BEING ARGUED HERE BY COLONEL JESSUP

I mean the premise that what are thought by namby-pamby outsiders who "have the luxury of not knowing what i know" to be "rules" of conduct for front-line enforcers, "rules" by which an organization like a large metropolitan police department operates, aren't actually rules but are more like guidelines that are honored up to a point but of necessity give way whenever they clash with a reality known and understood only by those front-line defenders who "have a greater responsibility than [we] could possibly fathom."

•     •     •

OBVIOUSLY THIS ISN'T A NEW ISSUE

Most topically, it underlies the torture discussion we're sort of having at the moment. There are a lot of people, including no doubt many of the people on the inside of our security agencies, who agree unhesitatingly. For them, we can talk all we like about genteel conduct but when it comes to the nitty-gritty of their job, they do what they have to do, and they have neither the time nor the inclination to explain themselves to people who rise and sleep under the blanket of the very freedom that they provide, and then question the manner in which they provide it. And yes, they would rather we just said thank you and went on our way.

The question clearly also applies to war generally, and the view undoubtedly held by a lot of military people and their cheerleaders that the very idea of "rules of war" (cf. the Geneva Conventions) is an absurdity, that when push comes to shove, warriors do what they have to do, and no further explanation should be required to people who really and truly don't, or at least shouldn't, want to know what is being done, has to be done, in our name.

Now I think that for a lot of Americans this is no problem at all. They cheer when they watch national-security porn like 24, to cite an example we were just talking about. They really have no problem with the idea that in-the-trenches freedom fighters do whatever they have to do. And, probably, with the idea that by and large we're better off not knowing the details, in much the same way that we're frequently advised not to look behind the scenes at the way our sausage is made, just eat and enjoy.

Which brings us back to one of the recent torture-related posts of Ian Welsh's I referred to last night, "The Ethics of Torture 101," in which Ian distinguishes between the ethical and pragmatic arguments against torture -- the ethical argument being that "torture is evil and should not be engaged in," the pragmatic argument being that "torture doesn’t work, or does more harm than good. Because if you really and truly believe that torture is wrong, period, it really doesn't matter how efffective it is.

This is a wild oversimplification of the discussion Ian gets into, and I find it hard to imagine anyone who wouldn't benefit from engaging in that discussion. But for our immediate purposes, I throw it out just to raise the question of how many of us really and truly believe that Colonel Jessup is just plain across-the-board flat-out wrong? And maybe we'd just rather not know about what people like the colonel and like "Big Dick" Cheney do.

Of course, I suppose a potent argument against this idea is that it leads to people like Colonel Jessup and Big Dick. And Big Dick isn't even fictional.

#

To torture or . . . um, what was the other option again? Oh, right, NOT to torture (ha-ha-ha!)

"I’d do it again in a minute."

-- "Big Dick" Cheney ("The Biggest Dick of Them All"),
Sunday on Meet the Press

by Ken

Let's table for a moment the question of what exactly the "it" in question is in this pithy quote. After all, I imagine it applies equally well to every dastardly deed done and every monstrous policy advocated and implemented in the entire squalid, life-denying and -destroying career and life of "Big Dick" Cheney, aka "The Biggest Dick of Them All." This is a creature who would leave no stone unturned, no decent person unscrewed in pursuit of his life's goal of turning everything he touched, or even looked at, into shit.

Before we proceed, we must remember that Big Dick doesn't consider waterboarding torture, or for that matter anything else done by the squads of torturers he energized during his years of quasi-executive authority. You always wonder how he would feel if any of the varieties of torture he champions were done to him -- not for show, mind you, where you know that it will end, but for real, where you don't know, and where, if the rest of us get lucky, Big Dick might have been turned into the Carcass Formerly Known as "Big Dick" Cheney.

That said, as Amy Davidson notes in a new newyorker.com post, "Torture in a Dick Cheney Minute,"

Cheney’s “do it again in a minute” line came, remarkably, in response to [Meet the Press host Chuck] Todd’s question about the finding, in a Senate Select Committee on Intelligence report released last week, that twenty-six out of a hundred and nineteen known inmates in the C.I.A.’s secret prisons were wrongfully held. Todd mentioned a number of cases of outright mistaken identity—“They were released, no apologies, nothing”—and wondered what those people were owed. “Twenty-five per cent turned out to be innocent. … Is that too high? You’re O.K. with that margin of error?” Todd asked. Yes, Cheney was O.K. with that. “I have no problem as long as we achieve our objective,” he said. A couple of minutes later, as if the exchange about mistaken detentions had not taken place, Cheney said of the prisoners, sweepingly and unequivocally, “They are unlawful combatants. They are terrorists.” He spoke approvingly of the decision not to read them any Miranda rights.

How can you not love that "as if the exchange about mistaken detentions had not taken place"? Is that Big Dick in a nutshell or what? Once the man has settled on his preferred lies and delusions, fuck any facts that attempt to get in his way.

Amy notes Chuck Todd's vain attempt to get Big Dick to tell us just what he considers torture, and could only get the opposite: a category of activities he considers not torture: anything "specifically authorized and O.K.'d" and "blessed by the Justice Department." As best she can work it out from the Dickman's puzzling utterances:

Basically, in Cheney’s world, nothing Americans do can be called torture, because we are not Al Qaeda and we are not the Japanese in the Second World War (whom we prosecuted for waterboarding) and we are not ISIS. “The way we did it,” as he said of waterboarding, was not torture. In other words, it was not really the Justice Department that “blessed,” or rather transubstantiated, torture; it was our American-ness. Is there an argument that could degrade that American identity more?

Alas, though, there are cadres of stand-by torturers who don't fit the gargantuan-cartoon mold of Big Dick.

It would be comforting to dismiss Cheney as a historical oddity, to picture him sitting in the dimly lit room of a motel, changing the pitch of his voice to pretend he wasn’t alone. But he’s got company, and it’s dangerous. The way that many, including the present and former directors of the C.I.A., have responded to the Senate report has been shameless and sordid. (There have been exceptions, as Jane Mayer notes.) They have spent a lot of time complaining that the Agency hasn’t been sufficiently praised. The word “torture” upsets them.

Those intelligence officials talk, too, about what they think they learned from torturing people, scrounging for something to put in the moral balance. (It’s the wrong currency, and not exchangeable.) Brennan said that it was “unknowable” whether the same things could have been learned another way; what is knowable, based on the report, is that false information given to us by prisoners who were tortured was then used to justify the torture of other prisoners.

One rhetorical trick has been to say, as Brennan did last Thursday, that most of what was done was proper, apart from a few cases when interrogators went beyond what was authorized—“went outside of the bounds,” as Brennan put it. He argued that what everyone else did “should neither be criticized nor conflated with the actions of the few who did not follow the guidance issued.” A rational person, hearing stray, awful details in the press reports, might be reassured, assuming that “outside of the bounds” included shackling a person for extended periods in “stress positions” as he soils himself, slamming him against a wall, nearly drowning him, keeping him awake for days, or putting him in a cold cell, stripped of most of his clothes. (That last one happened to a prisoner who was wrongfully held; he died of hypothermia.) But those “techniques”—acts of torture—were part of the policy. Brennan is essentially just admonishing Americans not to “conflate” putting hummus in a person’s rectum with locking him in a box the size of a coffin. (“Confinement boxes” were an approved measure.) Thirteen years after 9/11, there’s surely more to think about. It’s not enough to call the rule-breaking abhorrent, when the rules were abhorrent, too.

John Brennan works for Barack Obama. As Jane Mayer writes in the magazine this week, the President, when it comes to torture, has preferred avoidance to accountability. Obama looks back in sorrow, and seems to think that everyone else does, too. But if this past week has proved anything, it’s that the legacy of torture is not quiet repentance but impunity. This President has told his agents not to torture, and Brennan says he can work with that, while the C.I.A. waits for instructions from the next one.

SPEAKING OF TORTURE --

Ian Welsh, who a few days ago offered a beautiful consideration of "The Ethics of Torture 101," distinguishing between the pragmatic (it doesn't work) and ethical (it's for God's sake wrong) cases against torture, follows up today with an anguished post called "America's Depraved Leadership Has Created a Depraved Population":

A majority of Americans thing torture is justified.  They are split on whether the Torture report should have been released.  And they think Torture prevented attacks."

According to the American people, torture is justified, and it works.

Every demographic has at least a plurality for torture: men and women, young and old, white and non-white.

The only good finding is that a plurality of Democrats believe torture was not justified, though, within the margin of error, they do believe it was helpful.

Before Bush, most Americans were against torture.  The endless drumbeat of propaganda and the need to justify what America does (America is good, therefore America does not do evil), has had its effect.

I will make an ethical judgment: people think torture is justified are bad people. Depraved people.  A society where a majority thinks it is justified is a depraved culture.  (And remember, 51% think it was justified, but 20% don’t have an opinion.  Only about a third of Americans are opposed.)

Sounds reasonable to me.

#

Re. the Great CIA Grape Scandal: What would "Big Dick" Cheney have done about those "grapes"?

The Great CIA Grape Scandal: 
A Typographical Reenactment


How long do you suppose it took President Putin to find out about the CiA's grape scandal?

by Ken

Say, you remember the good old days at the CIA, when Vice President "Big Dick" Cheney, the man who put the "vice" in "vice president," used to hang out running roughshod over the boys and girls, knocking heads and breaking arms to make sure that all the "intelligence" and analyses incorporated "Big Dick's Favorite Fables," especially about Iraq? Man, those were the days, when lies were lies, and intelligence came out of Langley properly cooked.

Now CIA cooking has come into question, and Big Dick's bloated carcass must be spinning, or at any rate blubbering. That's right, the lid has been blown off the CIA cafeteria. Washington Post reporter Abby Phillip has the story, by way of the merry muckrakers at MuckRock. (Note that in Abby's original report the points from the FOIA revelations are accompanied by what appear to be reproductions of the actual comment cards. Because of their width there was no way I could reproduce them in our format, so I've worn my fingers to the bone retyping them. This is serious business.)

In the Loop
Russian menus, grapeless Jazz Salad and other top-secret cafeteria complaints from inside the CIA

By Abby Phillip

Ever wonder what secrets lie in the Central Intelligence Agency’s cafeteria? Of course you have.

It turns out that some of the nation’s top intelligence officers are aggressively insisting on quality control in their office cafeteria. Thanks to a 2010 Freedom of Information Act request  recently surfaced by the open-source FOIA experts at MuckRock, we now have a rare glimpse into what exactly life is like in Langley.

The FOIA request was for the “feedback” messages sent by CIA’s employees to cafeteria managers; the messages received in the government’s 2011 response were as good as you would expect. Names are, of course, redacted.

1. Attitude everywhere: In addition to the fact that the CIA’s Burger King doesn’t offer a “dollar menu” (the horror!), the employees at that location apparently need an attitude adjustment. “Why can’t there be nicer food handlers?” wrote one person. “Attitude every day.”

Subject: Burger King
Feedback: Why doesn't the BK facility here offer the "dollar menu" as the outside facilities. Why can't there be nicer food handlers? Attitude every day.

2. Bring back the ketchup: When you’ve got international terrorism to worry about, the last thing you should have to concern yourself with is the condiment situation in the lunchroom. One lengthy complaint laid out all the (many) reasons why individual ketchup packets are better than the “pump box” dispensers that they were replaced with.

“Please put back the individual packets of ketchup, mustard & mayonnaise,” wrote [name redacted]. “The large pump boxes of these items are not convenient to use, causing frustration & are not liked by many people.”

Subject: Main Cafeteria at Headquarters
Feedback: Please put back the individual packets of ketchup, mustard & mayonnaise. The large pump boxes of these items are not convenient to use, causing frustration & are not liked by many people. Two times this week I heard folks make comments about these pump boxes. There were no containers to put ketchup and mustard in. We have to find someplace to put down our food & drink, put the condiments in the container & put the lid on the containers. If people are taking their food back to their office they will need a bag from the cashier to juggle all these items. Comments have been made indicating this process is cumbersome, a pain in the neck & is causing frustration to some people. For those & I'm sure other reasons, it would be appreciated by many to put out the individual condiment packets. Thank you for considering this suggestion.

3. Locally brewed tea only, please: CIA employees have high standards for their iced tea. Really high standards. They will not tolerate this poor tasting “processed tea” flowing out of dispensers with “pipes coming out of the back.”

“Please consider reinstating the previous dispensers or with something that brews the tea close by.” Kthanksbye.

Subject: Iced tea in OHQ Careteria
Feedback: I noticed that the previous Brewed Iced Tea dispensers have been replaced with different dispensers with pipes coming out of the back. This new tea tastes terrible as does most processed tea. Please consider reinstating the previous dispensers or with something that brews the tea close by. Thank you. By and large the cafeteria does an excellent job.

5. Russia on the menu: Someone tried to be “cute” with the Russian themed cuisine in the cafeteria and it backfired spectacularly.

“First of all, to try to be cute with substituting a backward R, a ‘Ya’, for an R, is tacky,” wrote one employee. “Please recognize that many of us have really traveled to these countries and when you provide food like you did today, it causes me not to support this kind of cuisine in the future.”

Subject: Today's Russian Menu
Feedback: I had the Russian meal today and am disappointed. First of all, to try to be cute with substituting a backward R, a "Ya," for an R, is tacky. I feel that someone tried to "Americanize" the food so it is palatable to Americans. Please realize that many of us have really traveled to these countries and when you provide food like you did today, it causes me to not support this kind of cuisine in the future. I feel that for example Beef Stroganoff is more American than Russian.

6. A lesson in chicken portions: For those uninitiated, a quarter chicken portion must include the whole breast and the wing. Anything less is unacceptable:

Subject: Senor A's
Feedback: I recently purchased the 1/4 White Chicken Platter at Senor A's. However, I was surprised to see that the portion was not actually 1/4 chicken. I noticed that a portion of all of the breasts had been cut off and whole breasts were not served. As with the 1/4 Dark Platter being the leg and thigh, the 14 white should have been a whole breast and a wing. This needs to be corrected. Thanks!

YOU'LL NOTICE THAT WE'VE SKIPPED NO. 4

This would be the Great CIA Grape Scandal, which we've in fact seen at the top of this post. To refresh your memory:

Subject: Jazz salads in Cafeteria
Feedback: Hi - I've sent comments about the jazz salads being misadvertised before, but yesterday takes the cake. The Jazz Salad was supposed to be a Sonoma Grape and Proscuitto salad. This was advertised on the on-line menu, and on the sign above the salad (sometimes they are different). This is one of my favorites, so I stand in line and notice there are no grapes. Grapes are in the title of the salad. I asked about them, and the server pointed to the cherry tomatos, said they were red grapes. I said, "no, those are tomatos, sooooo should I just get grapes from the salad bar". She didn't really give an opinion - but I did get grapes from the salad bar, and I did tell the cashier about it (she asked me to write a note - I hope you got the note). I do not condone putting salad bar items into a Jazz salad (I have been known to get a separate container for salad bar items to add to my jazz salad) but felt justified in this case.

However, when an item is in the title of the Jazz Salad, please make an effort to include this item in the actual salad. Thank you.

This seems to me to raise any number of questions, which clearly need to be addressed in the interest of national culinary security. Just off the top of my head:

• "Jazz Salad"???

• With regard to the alleged history of misadvertisement of Jazz Salads, has there been any follow-up?

• The CIA advertises its salads online??? Where any commie muslim terrorist can access the information? (And while we're on the subject, with reference to No. 5, the CIA cafeteria is serving Russian meals? Maybe Mitt Romney really was right about the Russians. Does President Putin know about the CIA's beef stroganoff?)

• About the note that the writer claims to have left re. unilaterally adding grapes from the salad bar to the Jazz Salad: The writer writes, "I hope you got the note." Has any trace of this note in fact been found? (It could matter.)

• Were the grapes unilaterally appropriated from the salad bar in order to remedy the grape deficiency in the Sonoma Grape and Prosciutto Salad in fact Sonoma grapes? If not, is it known what sort of grapes they were? Does the Sonoma Grape and Prosciutto Salad in fact work equally well with other varieties of grape?

• Has "the Server," who you'll recall "didn't really give an opinion" about the unilateral appropriation of the salad-bar grapes subsequently been identified and interviewed? Has he/she now expressed an opinion?

• At the time of the unilateral salad-bar-grape appropriation, did the writer, in addition to writing the note specified by the cashier, turn in the counter-indicated grape-impersonating tomatoes?

Cherry tomatoes at left, grape tomatoes (big ones) at right

• Were the tomatoes in question really cherry tomatoes? Or were they perhaps grape tomoatoes? This might go at last some of the way toward clearing up the confusion.

And I don't know about you, but I'm pretty confused. One thing I know is, if there was any shot at embarrassing the president with the Great Grape Scandal, then Darrell "The Unembarrassable" Issa would already have issued one of his Mad Libs-style fill-in-the-blanks subpoenas.

#

#2 Most Powerful Man In North Korea Was Executed. Dick Cheney… Still Off The Table

I'm a big fan of accountability-- especially for people who society rewards with positions of trust, honor and generous livings. Cheney, for example, committed treason against the U.S. Constitution, but his crimes were taken "off the table" and there was never a trial or justice. That encourages others to repeat his behavior. Not so in North Korea, an odd place to hold up as a paragon of… anything.

Jang Song Thaek was the Cheney of North Korea. He was the top advisor to the relatively young North Korean hereditary ruler. (They don't call it a king or a monarch there but that's what Kim Jong Un is. Jang Song Thaek was also his uncle.) Last weekend, he was dragged out of the equivalent of a North Korean cabinet meeting, tried for treason by a military tribunal, found guilty, and summarily executed. His "confession" was classic: “I was going to stage the coup by using army officers who had close ties with me. It was my intention to… become premier when the economy goes totally bankrupt and the state is on the verge of collapse.” He was accused not just of planning a coup, but also of being corrupt, being a drug addict, being a womanizer and… wait for it, being "a trickster." The official text from the Korean Central News Agency is pretty mind boggling. Excerpts:

• "Every sentence of the decision served as sledgehammer blow brought down by our angry service personnel and people on the head of Jang, an anti-party, counter-revolutionary factional element and despicable political careerist and trickster.'

• "The accused is a traitor to the nation for all ages who perpetrated anti-party, counter-revolutionary factional acts in a bid to overthrow the leadership of our party and state and the socialist system."

• "Despicable human scum Jang, who was worse than a dog, perpetrated thrice-cursed acts of treachery in betrayal of such profound trust and warmest paternal love shown by the party and the leader for him."

• "From long ago, Jang had a dirty political ambition. He dared not raise his head when Kim Il-sung and Kim Jong-il were alive … He began revealing his true colours, thinking that it was just the time for him to realise his wild ambition in the period of historic turn when the generation of the revolution was replaced."

• "When … the decision that Kim Jong-un was elected vice chairman of the central military commission of the Workers' party of Korea at the third conference of the WPK in reflection of the unanimous will of all party members, service personnel and people was proclaimed, making all participants break into enthusiastic cheers that shook the conference hall, he behaved so arrogantly and insolently as unwillingly standing up from his seat and half-heartedly clapping, touching off towering resentment of our service personnel and people."

• "When Kim Jongil passed away so suddenly and untimely to our sorrow, he began working in real earnest to realise his long-cherished greed for power."

• "The revolutionary army will never pardon all those who disobey the order of the supreme commander and there will be no place for them to be buried even after their death."

• "He instructed his stooges to sell coal and other precious underground resources at random. Consequently, his confidants were saddled with huge debts, deceived by brokers."

• "He let the decadent capitalist lifestyle find its way to our society by distributing all sorts of pornographic pictures among his confidants since 2009. He led a dissolute, depraved life, squandering money wherever he went. He took at least €4.6m from his secret coffers and squandered it in 2009 alone and enjoyed himself in casino in a foreign country. These facts alone clearly show how corrupt and degenerate he was."

• "The era and history will eternally record and never forget the shuddering crimes committed by Jang Song-thaek, the enemy of the party, revolution and people and heinous traitor to the nation.

"The decision was immediately executed."

I'm not advocating that kind of treatment for Cheney-- just a fair trial.

Do The Ruling Elites Just Assume Laws Are For The Little People Only?

The Friday morning tweet from Alan Grayson (above) was anything but gratuitous. Grayson worked his way through Harvard as a janitor. He graduated, summa cum laude, with a degree in economics. Before going back to Harvard Law, he worked as an economist. He graduated from Harvard Law magna cum laude. So, you don't have to take my word for it when I tell you that his is one of the most brilliant and rigorous minds to be serving in a House of Representatives that includes so very many men and women of no talents beyond rabble-rousing. Think of losers-at-life like Steve Stockman (R-TX), Paul Broun (R_GA), Lynn Westmoreland (R-GA), Rob Woodhall (R-GA), Bachmann (R-MN), David Scheikert (R-AZ), Tom Graves (R-GA), and then, of course, the Tea Party Medusa, Bachmann/Gohmert/King. At the same age those last three were still trying to learn how to read without moving their lips, Grayson had already been a law clerk for both Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Antonin Scalia. He has the best track record of any lawyer in the world to have taken on Iraq War corporate profiteers and beating them. So when he worries aloud about the lack of accountability wrecking America's democracy, he's not just handing his opponents some opposition research they can use against him in an election some day.

In covering Barton Gellman's shocking and brilliant book about the Cheney presidency, Angler, we looked at the palpable-- and very rational-- fear many of Cheney's law-breaking minions had about going to prison in a post-Bush/Cheney future.

I would wager that history will treat Nancy Pelosi well. She is not just the first woman Speaker of the House, she is also one of the Speakers with the most accomplished records. Tarring her legacy however, is one 3-word phrase, "off the table." One of her daughters once blamed me for popularizing the unfortunate Pelosi response to a question about holding Bush and Cheney accountable for the most criminally-oriented American government in all history. I suspect a Speaker Alan Grayson would have handled it very differently. He may be a huge Pelosi backer but he has some very different priorities and is a lot more serious about the U.S. Constitution than most mere politicians.

Gellman makes it clear in his book how Cheney moved with lightning speed to take over the U.S. government from an incurious and ill-equipped-- both intellectually and morally-- George W. Bush and how Cheney and his team of war criminals used the NSA to grab more and more power within the administration and freeze out any and all rational debate. An out-and-out fascist shit-bag like David Addington, Cheney's completely unscrupulous chief lawyer, didn't seem to care… but he was pretty much the only one not obsessed with President Kerry throwing the whole lot of them in jail for subverting the Constitution. If Cheney was the E.F. Hutton on the Bush Regime, Addington was the alpha lawyer of the snarling, snapping pack of ruthlessly bred attack dogs. Gellman:

It is unlikely that the history of U.S. intelligence includes another operation conceived and supervised by the office of the vice president. Back in 2001, it had been Cheney who brought Bush a radically new concept of electronic surveillance at home. Through his lawyer, the vice president now guided the program's expansion and development. Words, once assigned by the commander in chief, became orders for the nation's espionage machinery. And it was Addington who wrote those words, defining the reach of warantless intrusion into the lives of Americans. On national security matters, the president's own lawyer, White House counsel Alberto Gonzales, did little more than review documents that Addington prepared.

Before he resigned in 2004-- and wrote a book about his experiences inside the Bush Regime (The Terror Presidency)-- Jack Goldsmith headed the Office of Legal Counsel, the final arbiter on what was and what wasn't legal inside the administration. He quickly fell out with Cheney and Addington-- he wrote in his book, "Nobody had said no to them before"-- over torture and domestic spying. The carefully placed network of Cheney apparatchiks throughout government demanded ex ante pardons for the activities they knew were illegal. Goldsmith pulled that rug out from under them and there was a general freakout at the CIA and among others who were carrying out Cheney's criminally insane agenda. Gellman writes that "Cheney and Addington, Goldsmith came to believe, manipulated the legal advice they sought. 'They were geniuses at this,' Goldsmith said. 'They could divide up all the problems in the bureaucracy, ask different people to decide things in their lanes, control the facts they gave them, and then put the answer together to get the result they want.'"

There were all kinds of excuses floated for clearly criminal activities like insisting customers-- so forget citizens-- waived their privacy rights in the fine print of their telephone and Internet service contracts.

If only they knew how accommodating Nancy Pelosi would be, lots of sleepless, fearful nights could have been avoided!