Bill Maher says he might vote for Rand Paul. Huh?

HBO host Bill Maher doesn’t like Hillary Clinton. Okay. I’m not a big fan of hers either. In an interview with The Hill, Maher went on to say that he might consider voting for a Republican in 2016. Come again, Bill? He thinks Rand Paul is an interesting candidate.

Bill, Bill, Bill.

For a person who pretends to be politically savvy and informed, this is a spectacularly idiotic pronouncement (unless it was a bit of satirical theatre, but I doubt that). With the exception of his isolationist tendencies, Paul is a conservative’s conservative, the kind that Bill Maher routinely mocks on his show. Bill, if you’re reading this, here are some of Paul’s far right-wing creds for you to absorb:

Abortion: Pro-life. Abortion regulation should be left up to the states.

Education: Advocate of home schooling. Doesn’t want the federal government to regulate home schooling in any way.

Energy and the environment: Doesn’t believe in man-made global warming and opposes the EPA efforts to enforce greenhouse emissions.

Health care: Opposes Obamacare and universal healthcare. Despite the facts, he doesn’t believe there are significant numbers of Americans unable to access healthcare.

Social Security: Advocates privatizing Social Security.

Second Amendment: Strong supporter of the right to bear arms. Lifelong member of the NRA.

Economy: Believes it’s a myth that government can create jobs.

Immigration: Does not believe in amnesty for illegal immigrants and wants the government to strictly enforcement immigration laws.

Rand Paul? Seriously?

Things on my mind today

How do you know you haven’t been hypnotized and you’re actually a member of an ISIS sleeper cell?

Donald Trump says he’s a human being, but isn’t that exactly what a shape-shifting alien would say?

Who actually has the key to the highway?

What did the first human to ever laugh find funny?

They say there are no atheists in foxholes, but there aren’t any foxes either.

If you are reincarnated, but you don’t have any idea who you were in your past lives, what difference does it make?

The NSA should create a lost & found hotline:

“I can’t find my keys.”

“They’re in the pocket of your gray denim pants that you threw in the dirty laundry last night after you got home from Janine’s party.”

“Gee, thanks NSA.”

“Glad to help.”

America: A long history of violence

As the drums for yet more war in the Middle East beat louder and louder, cheered on by the ratings-hungry American media, we the people stand by helplessly as the Obama administration ponders yet another certain foreign policy fiasco. We’ve already sent troops to the area and we’re conducting bombings of suspected ISIS strongholds, but if you listened to the talking heads on the Sunday news shows, Obama’s response is weak and ineffectual. The pundits demand blood and another full-scale invasion. Endless war seems our destiny, just as it was for Rome, and we all know how that turned out.

Are the times that we live in an anomaly? Weren’t we once a peace loving country that only used its military as a last resort? Aren’t we the global standard bearers of freedom and democracy?

The answer is no, no and no.

We are, in fact, an international bully that has been interjecting its military might around the globe since the beginning of the nineteenth century. Our violent recklessness has touched people from the Ivory Coast to Iraq, Cambodia to Croatia, Argentina to Angola, not to leave out two world wars, Korea and Vietnam. The Global Policy Forum has put together an extensive list titled, US Military and Clandestine Operations in Foreign Countries - 1798-Present, and if you go to this site, your jaw will certainly drop at the extent of American intervention (both military and CIA operations) around the world, and it only goes up to 2004. Add to that the past ten years of war in the Middle East and the list would probably grow by a third.

America has a long, sad history of violence and meddling that now extends well into the twenty-first century. When historians of the future look back on the history of the United States, will they focus on our lofty rhetoric and self-satisfactory smugness, or will they look at our actual record, like the Global Policy Forum list? If they do that, we’re not going to end up being a shining example of good in the world.

The silence of academics regarding 9/11

I just became aware of a documentary titled, “9/11 in the Academic Community,” which won an award at the 2011 Toronto Film Festival. I haven’t watched it yet (I plan to), but the general gist of it is an in-depth look at why academics have kept the subject at arms length despite the event’s tremendous national and international ramifications. With a few exceptions, academicians have been silent about one of the greatest crimes in American history.

The documentary may provide some answers. I too have wondered at both the silence of the Left regarding 9/11 as well as the thinking of those who doggedly defend the government’s version of events; Noam Chomsky and Rachel Maddow to name two of the most prominent members of this camp. The general consensus from the Left seems to be that 9/11 truth is the realm of right-wing fanatics like Alec Jones and his ilk. The irony is that progressives have a natural distrust of government and spend a lot of time and energy detailing the government’s lies and cover-ups, yet when it comes to 9/11, they accept the Commission’s conclusions hook, line and sinker.

My suspicion is that academics, just like members of other professions, fear the career consequences of coming out as a Truther. I believe there are intellectuals, as well as engineers and scientists, who question the official version of 9/11, but remain silent for professional reasons. 

Don’t think. Just buy.

The motto of WebMD is “Better information. Better health.” It should be, “The best medical information money can buy.”

If you were on the site recently and you took a test to determine if you suffer from depression, no matter how you answered the questions, the result was, “You may be at risk for major depression. See a doctor immediately.” The test was sponsored by Eli Lilly, the maker of the antidepressant Cymbalta, so it might not come as a complete shock that the test was rigged. WebMD quietly changed some of the questions after being outed, but the damage to the site’s credibility is spreading across the Internet.

The larger issue is the insidious melding of news, advertising and entertainment. In my field, marketing, we talk about “brand loyalty” and the “purchasing lifecycle” as if manipulating a customer to form a psychological relationship with a certain brand of toilet paper is a good thing. The same is true in other fields. Twenty-first century capitalism does not encourage critical thinking. Why is it still possible to have two bottles of ibuprofen on the shelf that are exactly the same, except one is a national brand and the other is a store brand that is two dollars cheaper? I would call this a no brainer, except it’s not.

The battle for customers today is not about who has the best product or even the lowest price, it is about who can most successfully manipulate you to buy one product over another, regardless of its merits, quality or price. Sure, this has always been the case, but believe it or not, there was a time when news was news, movies were stories on the big screen, and television shows and commercials were separate entities. Then someone said, “Hey, mister movie director, I’ll pay you a bundle if you put a can of Coke in that last scene.” “Hey TV show producer, write a show around a futuristic, talking Pontiac Trans Am.” “Hey, news producer, our channel is owned by GE, so we need to drop that story critical of them.” And thus it began.

Today you simply cannot trust that the news, information or entertainment you consume isn’t a below-the-radar attempt to manipulate you in some fashion. Whether it’s WebMD or CBS Evening News or your favorite Marvel Comics movie, you should always ask yourself, “What are they trying to sell me?”

Thursday's thought for the day

Guess the World Hot Spot

Choose the Hot Spot:

a) Beirut, Lebanon
b) Seoul, South Korea
c) Ferguson, Missouri
d) Caracas, Venezuela

Ferguson: When cops become vigilantes

There are numerous issues related to the shooting of Michael Brown and subsequent riots in Ferguson, Missouri that deserve analysis, but I’m focusing on one area here: The attempt by Ferguson police to demonize Michael Brown. Despite Justice Department warnings, the Ferguson police department released security video of what is purported to be Brown stealing cigars from a local convenience store. The obvious ploy is to paint Brown as a thief and troublemaker who may have got what he deserved.

This kind of blatant race baiting will probably work by reaffirming the bigoted views of a certain segment of people, including FOX news hosts and viewers, but most Americans should be able to see through this crude charade.

Who hasn’t heard the iconic opening lines to the TV show “Law and Order?”

In the criminal justice system, the people are represented by two separate yet equally important groups: the police who investigate crime and the district attorneys who prosecute the offenders.

The show is fiction, but this single sentence encapsulates an important truth. In the United States, we have law enforcement and we have a judicial system, and they have distinct and separate duties. The police investigate crimes and arrest individuals suspected of committing crimes. Those accused then enter the judicial system where they are judged innocent or guilty, and if guilty, receive punishment. Police do not have the power to deliver justice. They can use force to protect themselves or others, but they cannot decide who is guilty or innocent of a crime, that is for the courts.

This brings me to shooting of Michael Brown. Whether Brown robbed a convenience store or not, it is up to the judiciary to decide his guilt or innocence, not the cops. If Michael Brown committed murder, it is still not up to the cops to act as judge and jury. Sure, the Ferguson police department is trying to protect one of its own, but by releasing the convenience store video, they have opened the door to accusations that perhaps they believe they have the power to be judge, jury and executioner. The unarmed Brown was shot six times, twice in the head.

Should anyone be surprised that members of the African American community of Ferguson are angry?

My Short Scary Stories

Over the past couple of months I’ve become addicted to writing very short horror stories that I then post on a Reddit sub called: Short Scary Stories (duh). Go to They're Only Shadows and check out four of the stories I’ve recently submitted.

Is Ferguson a glimpse of America’s future?

Police brutality has been around since the dawn of human civilization, and is far too often a common occurrence in marginalized areas of society. What’s happening in Ferguson, Missouri, however, goes well beyond “police brutality” to a new realm resembling a military occupation. Armed to the teeth, using terror as a tactic, assaulting and arresting the media, overreacting to provocation; these are the actions of a force not bent on restoring order, but on intimidating and expunging anyone who dares question their authority.

The riots, following the shooting of an unarmed black man by police, are a lamentable but understandable reaction to yet another attack on a civilian by a law enforcement department that does not feel it is accountable to anyone. These types of incidents are becoming more and more common, as very little is done to bring the perpetrators to justice. Police departments and their enablers in the justice system consistently turn a blind eye to police who commit crimes, encouraging an environment of lawlessness and overreach among others.

The question that has to be asked about the situation in Ferguson and similar incidents is this: What is the mindset of the police involved? Do they believe they are there to stop lawlessness and illegal activity or do they see themselves as society’s tool for keeping order at any cost? Harassing and arresting reporters definitely falls into the latter category.

The footage of the riots in Ferguson look more like a scene from some third world country where the military is routinely sent in to quell disturbances, more often than not with bloody force. Is this America’s future we’re watching? It seems to me we dangerously close to crossing the line between enforcing the law and the active suppression of Constitutionally guaranteed civil rights.

R.I.P. Participatory Democracy

This will come as no surprise to anyone who’s been paying attention, but if you’re just waking up from a twenty-year coma, I hate to be the one to tell you, but American democracy passed away while you were gone. A recent study by two university professors has confirmed what many of us already new intuitively: The average American has virtually no say in how our country is run anymore.

The new study, "Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens," will be published in the fall 2014 edition of Perspectives on Politics. The authors are Martin Gilens of Princeton University and Benjamin Page of Northwestern University. Simply put, when compared to the power of the wealthy elite, corporations and organized interest groups, the influence of the average American is, “non-significant, near-zero level.”

The elites and interest groups, with their truckloads of money and armies of lobbyists, have the greatest impact on government policy in Washington. And when their desires are at odds with those of the majority of Americans, which is often, guess who wins? It ain’t you and me.

Is there any question why so many citizens have stopped participating in elections? Year after year, election after election, we signal our desires and concerns at the ballot box, only to have the door of the White House and Congress shut in our faces. Recent Supreme Court rulings like Citizens United have clearly made the problem worse, turning our government over to the highest bidder. We are now “non-significant” entities, allowed by our overseers to go through the motions of living in a democracy, but shut out of the real policy debates and decisions.

My short story on Youtube

A short story of mine, "The Halloween Prank," is featured on a Youtube series called Tales of Tim. He narrates and illustrates short horror stories, and it's really nicely done. Check it out here.

In the crosshairs of the surveillance state

An article in the most recent issue of The Atlantic titled, “Does John Brennan know too much for Obama to fire him?” looks at an issue that I have brought up a number of times before. I think it is very possible that we are in a situation where the CIA, NSA and other spy agencies are allowed to virtually write their own playbook because they have potentially damaging information on top officials in Washington, including Obama.

The author of the article guesses that the information in CIA Director Brennan’s case might be related to illegal drone attacks that violated international law. Very possible, I agree, but it could be any number of things in Obama’s past that Brennan might hang over the President’s head. As I’ve said before, the extortion of those in the executive and legislative branches does not have to be explicit at all. No threats have to be made. You can assume that if you made an embarrassing misstep in your past, the CIA and NSA know about it too.

It will take a future President with a whole lot of courage (if there is such a thing) to truly rein in America’s bloated surveillance state.

America's fatal addiction to violence

So we’re back in Iraq bombing the country again for “humanitarian purposes.” What have we as a nation become? Every time there is an international challenge, from Syria to Libya to Iraq to Afghanistan to Pakistan, our response is to use violence. The horrible irony is that the actions of the Bush Administration created the conditions for the rise of ISIS in Iraq, and, despite the failures of our past approach we are responding with more violence. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

America’s knee-jerk reaction to resort to violence as the solution of first choice illustrates how morally bankrupt we’ve become as a nation. These aren’t the actions of a powerful, confident country, but reflect a weak, fearful America that thinks it can shape the world in its image by intimidation. It didn’t work for Rome or France or Britain or Spain, and it won’t work for us.

It’s Friday and many Americans are planning weekends lounging around a pool, playing golf, going to a baseball game or heading to the cabin. Unlike Iraqi’s, they won’t have to worry about bombs raining from the sky on their homes or hospitals or churches. Thirteen years later we continue to use 9/11 as an excuse to unleash violence anywhere we want for any reason we choose. History clearly demonstrates that a nation with his attitude is a nation in decline.

The War on (Legalizing) Drugs

There are a number of powerful organizations across the country using their money and influence to try and stop marijuana legalization. They have a legal right to do this, of course, but it’s their motives that are highly problematic. From law enforcement organizations to pharmaceutical companies to private prisons and prison guards to alcohol and beer companies, the reason they oppose legal marijuana revolves around profits. It all boils down to money.

As knowledge about cannabis has spread, the “all drugs are bad” mentality has shifted, and there are few serious attempts anymore to portray marijuana as the devil weed of depraved and soulless addicts. Today’s opponents of legalization have much more practical objections. Once again, capitalism raises its amoral head. For the companies that object to legalization, arguments do not revolve around what’s clearly the right thing to do for society, but how legalization will affect their bottom lines. There’s no concern for the tens of thousands of people doing hard time in prison for being caught with a baggie of pot. There’s no sympathy for the disproportionately large number of African Americans serving time for pot possession. There’s no interest in the scientific findings that marijuana is far less hazardous to a person’s health and far less addictive than alcohol or tobacco. Our allegiance, they will gladly tell you, is to our shareholders and investors.

Although their objections to marijuana legalization are morally repugnant, it’s not hard to understand the resistance of police and private prisons. The more people they arrest and lock up, the more money they make through various channels. The groups that puzzle me are the alcohol and pharmaceutical companies. Both of these industries seem perfectly suited to take advantage of legalization and profit form it. They already have distribution channels, staff for research and development, and in the case of alcohol companies, a network of farmers who would probably be happy to grow marijuana alongside their hops and barley.

The other aspect to consider is the inevitability of legalization. Spending tens of millions of dollars opposing the will of the American people seems incredibly stupid from a business standpoint. The snowball is rolling down the hill and while some efforts may succeed in slowing it down, it won’t be stopped. If I were Anheuser Busch, I’d quit throwing money away on anti-legalization efforts and put it toward retooling the company to start growing, packaging and selling pot. Actually, it wouldn’t surprise me if behind the scenes, they weren’t already doing just that.

Obama hatres stricke agin

Gun nuts are going after your children

Here’s your dose of insanity for the day. Brian Jeffs and Nathan Nephew have just published a book extoling the virtues of open carry, and it’s aimed (sorry) at kids.

"Before writing this, we looked for pro-gun children's books and couldn't find any," say the authors, who, I can only guess, would be surprised to learn there aren’t any children’s books about parents carrying chainsaws or flame throwers, either.

Imagine the family sitting around the dinner table and Mother turns to her ten-year old daughter.

“I saw you with your nose in a book, Emily. What are you reading?”

“Oh, it’s a book about how cool it is to wear a gun to the mall.”

“A gun? At the mall?”

“Sure. Can I get one? Please, please, please? Cindy said her parents are getting her a gun that’s pink.”

Beyond the crazed content, the illustration on the cover looks like Ned Flanders’ family on vacation in Zombieland.

Short Scary Stories

Over the past few months I've been wasting my time writing very short horror stories (under 275 words) for a subreddit called (you probably already guessed): Super short scary stories. Anyway, if you're interested in reading some, just go here and search under "minnboy."

What could possibly make Congress even less popular than it already is? Trying to impeach Obama.

One of Obama’s top aides said today that he expects Boehner and his Congressional minions to ultimately file articles of impeachment against the President. Why? Does it really matter? Blah, blah, blah Affordable Care Act, blah, blah, blah, immigration. What they couldn’t stop at the ballot box and through congressional action, they are going to try and stop with impeachment. The least popular, least effective Congress in history is going to spend time and money trying to impeach Obama over some technicalities that they ignored up to this point.

Let’s compare a couple of presidents just for the heck of it. Oh, how about Bush and Obama. George Bush used the Supreme Court to steal the 2000 election; broke international law by invading a sovereign nation on trumped up charges; broke international law by allowing torture and secret renditions; suspended parts of the U.S. Constitution and U.S. law through the Patriot Act; killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians during an illegal war; used drones to kill suspects in foreign countries, resulting in hundreds of dead civilians; gave the NSA and other agencies carte blanche to spy on anyone they wanted to; lied to the America public on numerous occasions.

Then there’s Obama who’s black and did some stuff Republicans don’t like. Let’s lynch him. Don’t get me wrong, Obama has been a pretty lousy President, but if you compare the Obama presidency against the Bush presidency, there can be no question which President actually deserved to be impeached.

The popularity of the U.S. Congress is in single digits, but Boehner and company seem intent on driving it even lower with a ridiculous impeachment circus.

The Author’s Prerogative - A short short story

The fire cast the only light in the room, a hazy copper glow that reached as far as Armand’s well-worn easy chair. He held a cigarette in one hand, a glass of good scotch in the other, wondering what else a retired writer does during his last night on earth. He could imagine a few things, but at 75 and ill, they were the wistful and wishful desires of a younger man. He took a drink and savored the smoky tang around his tongue before swallowing. As he set the glass back down on the chair’s arm, the air behind him began to chill and wrap around the back of his neck and shoulders like an icy blanket. He dabbed his dying cigarette in the glass ashtray.

“Are you preparing, Armand?” came a hoarse, hollow whisper behind him.

“I’m afraid you’re too late,” said Armand, taking another long drink. “I’ve finished the last chapter.”

“You couldn’t know. No one ever knows.”

            The old man responded with a dusty laugh. “Not even you, apparently.”

“I make the decision. What’s that smell?"

Armand’s glass fell to the floor. “What? You don’t recognize the smell of death?” he rasped, his heart’s final beat a triumphant exclamation point to a life ending exactly when he knew it should.