The Presidential Campaign Is Just a Game of F*ck, Marry, Kill

Any fellow slacker who visits Buzzfeed and other cyberloafing websites (usually when we should be working) knows the game of F*ck (Yeah, I'm G-rated), Marry, Kill.  Given a list of three people (men or women, whatever your preference), you decide who would you f*ck, who would you marry, and who would you kill.  With "Kill" being loosely defined as "Person You Are Least Likely to Marry or F*ck".  This is exactly what the 2016 presidential campaign is like in these early stages.

Since Donald Trump, who is seriously loony, entered the race, he's become the second most popular candidate.  Bernie Sanders, who should be the fringiest of fringe candidates, has double digit numbers.  How is it that these political whack-jobs could be polling so well? The answer is that Republicans and Democrats want to have crazy animal sex with them.

The Donald is pounding the drums on illegal immigration and better border security, and Bernie is spewing the "social justice" (read: class warfare) talking points.  Both are easy applause lines for their respective bases.  Eventually, we'll realize that immigration is a bit too complicated and nuanced for someone like the Donald and we'll remember that policies like Bernie's have led places like Venezuela, Greece, and the USSR to economic ruin.  But for now, the emotional response that fiery rhetoric on immigration and class warfare produces in the party bases is going to make us all horny as hell.

Granted, it seems strange to say that someone wants to f*ck the Donald.  Normal people, like his ex-wives, just want to f*ck his money.  And the thought of banging Bernie Sanders is a little creepy after reading his bizarro sex column from the seventies.  But the more sensible candidates just aren't as exciting.

This won't last, though.  In 2012, almost every Republican candidate briefly jumped into the top tier.  But this meant the candidate was in "F*ck" status, not "Marry" status.  Republicans had a one night stand with Ron Paul and felt so guilty the morning after they wouldn't let him into the convention.  They screwed Rick Perry so hard he had memory lapses.  Things got so nasty with Rick Santorum that "Santorum" is now a sex term.

Republicans wanted to f*ck all of them at one point or another.  Except I think they killed Jon Huntsman.  I haven't heard from him in ages.  Maybe he was executed for that horrible, painful to watch Nirvana joke during the debates.  But once they were done sleeping around, Republicans settled on Mitt Romney, because he was easily the most marriageable of the candidates.

I expect a similar whirlwind romance with the candidates this time around, starting with Bernie and the Donald.  But like your typical fling, it won't last.  For a few weeks, months, or maybe even a year or so, we'll be tagging Bernie and the Donald until our legs don't work.  But the Democrats will marry Hillary and Republicans will marry one of the more sensible Republican candidates.

I expect Bernie and the Donald will both eventually go from "F*ck" status to "Kill" status.  Maybe not literally kill, but once they're out of our system, we'll wish they were dead.  Once their time is over, Bernie and the Donald will be the sex partners we regret and wish never happened.  We'll settle for someone more sensible and try not to feel too guilty for straying with some wild and crazy person who blew through town one weekend.

"Just In Case" Healthcare

About three weeks ago, I was on my way home from a lengthy bike ride.  Prior to that day, my beat up old bike had been out of action.  A piece had fallen off on a previous bike ride two years ago, and I've had so many other priorities (Read: was procrastinating like a crazy person) that I'd only just fixed it the day before this ride.  A friend of mine asked me to go for a "quick ride", which apparently was her way of saying "a twenty mile endurance test, dodging traffic and weaving in and out of tourists.".

Anyway, as I neared my house, I made a slow left turn onto a side street.  I heard a little "clang" (Or was it a "ping"?  Could have been a "clunk". Whatever), and suddenly the front wheel locked up.  I discovered later that the bike lock popped loose and got jammed in the spokes.  At the time, I really didn't care because I was far too busy flying over the handle bars.  I managed to get my right foot down, but I couldn't keep my balance.  My knee came down hard, but I still kept going.  I tried to break my fall with a roll and came down on my right shoulder.  There was a sickening little "pop" sound.

My friend was naturally a tad concerned.  She said "Are you all right?"  I said, "Yeah, I'm fine, just give me a second.".  At least, that's what I tried to say.  It probably came out like "NnnAarghMmm!" or words to that effect.  She came over with a look of horror on her face, because my arm was hanging at an odd angle.  I couldn't lift it.  She tentatively tried to touch it.  I could see her turning green.  Then she burst out laughing.  "I can't believe you wiped out!".  I have strange friends.

We eventually called another friend to help us with the bikes and give me a ride to the hospital.  My arm was in pain, but I have to admit that wasn't what was on my mind.  I knew that my emergency room copay was $300.  I could handle that, but it was still a decent chunk of change.  I don't like spending money that I don't have to.  Unless I'm spending it on frivolous things.

I walked into the emergency room hunched over to the right.  This was the only way I could stand without pain shooting up my arm.  This earned me a few odd looks, since the way I was walking resembled Igor, Dr. Frankenstein's assistant.  Still, I was a little confused by the looks.  This was an emergency room. Shouldn't they be used to people coming in a little banged up?

I was ushered into a room and instructed to lie down on a gurney.  While I waited, the nurse took the normal vitals.  Then she asked me if I wanted to watch TV, and pulled down a TV attached to an arm next to the gurney.  It had all the cable channels, or so she told me.  I couldn't reach the channel changer, because my right arm was dislocated.  The nurse had already vanished by this point.  So I had to watch the channel it was on, which (of course) was one of those asinine shopping channels.

After about twenty minutes of watching second string actors try to sell me useless crap, the nurse came back and dragged me to the radiology department.  After hobbling there, standing up straight for ten minutes (which is surprisingly painful with a dislocated shoulder), then hobbling back, I collapsed back into the gurney.

The nurse promptly hooked me up to a monitor.  Because there's always a risk of heart attack when your arm is out of it's socket, apparently.  She put an IV in me, then took some blood.  "We probably won't need this, but's it's good to take some, just in case, " she assured me.  Then she brought over an oxygen tank and put that little nose tubey thingy in my nose.  Normally, this is the type of thing 90 year-olds with emphysema have.  I asked why this was necessary.  "Just a precaution," was the answer.

Finally, the doctor came in with a physician's assistant who was there to make there were no complications from the anesthesia.  First, they gave me some painkiller (which was nice), then a bit later some anesthesia.  It wasn't the kind that makes you unconscious, just the kind that makes you woozy and causes short term memory loss.  The next thing I remember, my arm was back in, and the doctor was trying to sell me drugs.  He suggested some double strength ibuprofen and another, stronger drug if the pain got bad.  I told him to save the strong stuff.  I didn't need to get hooked on Oxycodone because of a bike accident.

The doctor told me to check in with my regular doctor and an orthopedic surgeon.  I saw my regular doctor three days later.  He said to keep my arm in a sling for five weeks and charged me thirty bucks for an office visit.  I saw the surgeon three days after that.  He said to keep my arm in a sling for five weeks and charged me thirty bucks for an office visit.

A few days ago, I finally got the hospital bill.  My $300 co-pay was charged to my credit card.  But the total cost was not quite $3,000.  And that's the moral of this ignoble and slightly goofy chapter of my life.  I think I've figured out why healthcare is so damned expensive.  About...well...an undisclosed number of years ago, I broke my other arm.  It was in a splint overnight, then the next morning I was put under while the doctors set it.  They took no blood.  Apart from the time in the operating room, there was no heart monitor or oxygen tank.  They only did what was necessary.

The reason my bill is so outrageous is this "just in case" healthcare.  Whenever I hear a doctor or nurse say "just in case" or "just a precaution" I hear "so I don't get sued by some two-bit shyster".  The oxygen, the monitors, the blood work, the extra physician's assistant, the extra painkiller, the two post-op visits, these all appear to be medical butt-covering.  Some people say healthcare is expensive because of overpaid doctors, but this looked like the expenses were incurred to prevent overpaid personal injury lawyers from preying on the overpaid doctors.

All I needed was an x-ray, a sedative, and someone to jam my arm back into place.  All this other crap is excessive.  Even the TV.  That's nice, but I don't want to pay for it.  Especially if I'm stuck watching HSN.  So let's stop having every procedure and test known to man.  The chances of me croaking due to lack of oxygen when I have a dislocated shoulder are probably less than my chances of winning the lottery.  I'll risk it.  I'll even sign a consent to keep the lawyers away.  $3,000 is ridiculous.  I normally don't spend that much money on anything that doesn't come with air conditioning.  And I know I don't need to spend that much to have some doc slap my shoulder back into place.  

Naturally, I don't pay all of that, but now I know why the health insurance that employer's provide costs so much.  I think doctor's are smart enough to know which complications are likely and unlikely.  They can discuss this with patients, weigh the risks, and come to a decision.  Instead, they're doing anything and everything to prevent even highly unlikely scenarios.  I think if the lawyers backed off and let the doctors and patients use their judgment, healthcare costs wouldn't be so ridiculous.

The sling came off today, and now I can look forward to several weeks of physical therapy.  Naturally, each visit will set me back a little bit.  My arm feels fine.  I probably don't need it, said the doc, but I should do it "just in case".  Hopefully, the PT place will be staffed by young, single women.  That might make it worth the extra expense.

Bradley is Chelsea, Upon Pain of Death

The Bradley Manning case just got weirder today.  Because apparently he (she?) is now Chelsea Manning.  He had been diagnosed with gender identity disorder back in Some Year I Don't Care To Spend Time Looking Up and admitted to a counselor that he wanted to be a woman in 2009, well before he started dumping classified documents.  Suddenly, old and new media blew up with stories about Bradley.  Or Chelsea.  Or whatever.

There was much speculation and debate.  Why did he wait until just now, if he thought about becoming a woman four years ago?  Is it because women don't serve in Leavenworth, only men?  Do taxpayers have to pay for his hormone treatment, (If his lawyer gets his way, we will) and should we have to?  In response to these questions, the PC Gestapo launched into action.  Merely asking these questions was bigotry.  Also, anyone failing to refer to "her" as "she" was immediately dubbed Hatey McRacist.  Members of the press who failed to comply were decried by lib/progs.

I, like many people, don't care what he does with his junk.  I don't care to know anything about his various personal habits.  He can take all of the hormones he wants, but we shouldn't have to pay for it.  Nor should he be able to use this to dodge Fort Leavenworth.  What I'm amazed by is just how upset the lib/progs of the world are that we haven't all decided to say "she" or "her".

Failing to adhere to the canons of sensitivity is apparently a crime against humanity.  Lib/progs finger wag and lecture about transgender rights and say that Manning claims to be a she, therefore she is.  This sounds surprisingly similar to someone screaming that "the science is settled!"  The science isn't settled.  Psychology is still more art than science, meaning there is a lot of judgment involved.  Issues such as transgender are not based solely on empirical evidence, but also on the opinions of various psychologists.

There is even such a thing as "transgender regret."  This is where someone undergoes sex change therapy, and then has second thoughts.  Don Ennis, a producer at ABC, is a recent example.  He went through the therapy, and changed his name to "Dawn".  Recently, he told the world he wants to be Don again.  Apparently, to mention that there might be this sort of regret is hateful to Manning supporters.  I think some dude regretting this seems like an entirely plausible reaction.  Especially if he went the whole way (Ennis didn't, apparently) and lopped off his unit.

No one I've spoken to (Read: gotten into a shouting match/twitter war) with on the left cares that don't care what Manning does to himself.  Failing to accept everything and use the right pronouns makes me automatically hateful and homophobic and blah blah blah.  Not that I'm bothered by this.  Recent experience with the extreme left suggests that when one calls me a bigot, it doesn't mean I am a bigot.  It just means they've run out of intelligent things to say.  But what does annoy me slightly is that it's fairly clear that lib/progs assume that their way is the only way, despite the fact that there's still plenty of unsettled science.  We must call Manning "her" or "she".  Bradley is now Chelsea.  Any who fail to accede to the wishes of the lib/progs does so on pain of death.

Tale of Three Leakers

Bradley Manning was sentenced to 35 years today.  Supporters think he's a principled whistleblower being oppressed.  Detractors say he's a miserable traitor and think he got off light.  Based on the convictions, he's not technically a traitor, but he's certainly not principled either.  This verdict actually makes sense, because Manning went too far.  He deserves the time he'll get, as will Edward Snowden, the NSA leaker, if we ever get our hands on him.  There's a way to leak in a principled and responsible way.  It's happened before.

Manning's supporters frequently liken him to Daniel Ellsberg, the leaker of the Pentagon Papers.  Ellsberg has been public in his support for Manning. But Ellsberg's story differs from Manning's in a few key aspects.  The short version of the Daniel Ellsberg story is that he found top secret documents that appeared to show that the Vietnam War was started under false pretenses and that the military no longer believed the war winnable.  Unable to accomplish anything through channels, he attempted to leak it to several senators, and ultimately leaked it to the New York Times.  He was tried for espionage, but cleared.

Ellsberg is generally remembered as a heroic figure.  He took a stand against a war he was convinced was wrong, and did not like the fact that we were still prosecuting the war after we thought it unwinnable.  His goal throughout the process was to stop the war.  Regardless if someone agrees or disagrees, he remained focused on this objective and everything he did was to bring it about.  So at the very least this shows it was a principled fight for him.  He didn't veer off course.

Bradley Manning was also on trial because he leaked documents.  Documents that were merely secret, not top secret like the Pentagon Papers.  He was also disillusioned with lengthy wars we had become involved in.  Initially, he only leaked video that showed American airstrikes that appeared to be at the very least careless, and possibly criminal.  The video shows an American gunship firing on a group of men in a war zone.  The men are not running or doing anything overtly aggressive, but this is not necessarily relevant in a war.  In a war zone, a soldier does not have to wait for an identified enemy to be an immediate threat to open fire.  The only problem is, at least some of the men weren't enemies.

Two of the men were reporters of Al Jazheera.  They were carrying cameras that the pilots mistakenly identified as rocket launchers.  The gunship firing on the men was a mistake.  This is a tragedy, but also the sort of mistake that happens in the fog of war.  However, the gunship also fired on a minivan that came up to assist the wounded.  There was no clear evidence that the occupants were enemies.  Later, the gunship fires on a building because the pilots claimed they saw enemies enter.  This was a civilian building, and God only knows who else was in there.  This video alone was a worthwhile leak.  If Manning had stopped there, he'd probably be okay.

But he didn't.  He later released a critical installation list, some information involving a flap in Iceland, and tons of diplomatic cables.  Most of this information had nothing to do with Iraq or Afghanistan.  The release of these documents could not be expected to affect these wars.  Unlike Ellsberg, who released documents with the sole intent of ending a war, Manning just dumped everything he had to Wikileaks.  This suggests that his intent was not really to end the wars (because these documents were unrelated), but merely to harm and embarrass the United States.  That's why he's been sentenced to 35 years.

This explains why NSA leaker Edward Snowden went from Superhero Leaker to International Man of Douchebaggery within a fairly short span of time.  He also is no Daniel Ellsberg.  When he first leaked, plenty of conservatives, liberals, and libertarians hailed him as a hero.  Now, they sort of...don't.

The information he initially leaked seemed to be something that showed the government clearly violating the fourth amendment.  I can think of few more principled stands than standing up for the Constitution.  That's how people from all over the political spectrum were able to support him.  He could have been the next Daniel Ellsberg.  But instead, he'll just be the next Bradley Manning.

Not long after his initial leak, he decided to leak the fact that the US and UK spied on a G20 (or G8 or G-whatever) meeting.  Then he decided to leak that we were hacking the Chinese.  The fact that we spy on other countries is not a revelation.  They do it to us too.  Spying may be an inherently shady business, but in a world with dangerous and unpredictable countries and shifting loyalties, it's necessary for our survival.  Revealing specifics of our spying damages our ability to do so.  This is what moved Snowden into Manning territory.  None of this is related to the initial fourth amendment concerns.  This can only hurt the United States.  He either intended this or didn't care, both of which are enough to convict someone in a court of law.

Both Manning and Snowden seem to think that revealing everything makes the world a better place.  This mindset is common amongst many young activists, particularly the Anonymous/Occupy types.  They seem to believe that if everyone knows everything, the world will be a better place.  This is naive utopianism. These absurdist and foolhardy ideas demonstrate a severe lack of understanding about how the world works; a lack of understanding that is common in these circles.  

For example, King of Leaky Net Nerds, Darling of Nutball Radicals, and Wikileaks founder Julian Assange actually claimed he saw no irony that Snowden was hob-nobbing with China and Russia.  Two countries who are not known for their respect of personal privacy, free speech, and so forth.  This sort of willful ignorance is common among those who occupy the hackivist bubble.

Maybe this only happened because Manning and Snowden are young and foolish.  Maybe they got bamboozled by members of the press who wanted a scoop.  An older person might be sophisticated enough to know that intelligence gathering and operating in secret are frequently necessary, because many world governments do not lead free countries and are not trustworthy.  But being a naive kid doesn't grant absolution.  Stupidity is not an excuse.

Daniel Ellsberg walks free.  Manning will go to jail.  And Snowden will too, if we ever catch him.  A real leaker stays focused on principle.  Manning and Snowden revealed everything they knew, even things that were unrelated to their supposed goals of ending war or protecting the constitution.  Had they stopped with their initial leaks, they'd probably go free, and maybe be remembered as heroes.  Now they'll just be remembered as small, ignoble men who could have acted on principle, but just acted to hurt the country they swore to protect.

Why AMPAC'S Million Muslim March is Actually a Great Idea

Lots of really loud yelling broke out on various cable news shows last week.  Not that that's unusual, but last week's subject of controversy was the Million Muslim March organized by AMPAC (American Muslim Political Action Committee) and planned for the twelfth anniversary of the September 11 attacks.  AMPAC is apparently chock full of Truthers and Anti-Semites.  A fringe, nut group.  In other words, they're like the Muslim equivalent of Occupy or Anonymous.

Conservatives are outraged.  I'm sure plenty of others are outraged too, but conservatives are less restrained by the shackles of political correctness, so they can be louder and get away with it.  And I understand the outrage.  But if AMPAC actually pulled this off, it would truly be fantastic.  No, really.  I realize this seems like madness (and most of the things I post on my blog are), but what I'm referring to is one of the silver linings of hate speech.

One adage that is often repeated in free speech arguments is that the first amendment doesn't protect speech we like, it protects speech we don't like.  I don't know who said that.  I also don't care, and don't feel like looking up.  But this is why even hateful ideas like the ones spewed forth by AMPAC nuts are protected.  And as infuriating as that can be, it is also comforting.  Because the advantage of letting extremists spew nonsense is that they marginalize themselves.  Silencing or censoring a nut can actually give him credibility, as he can claim he's being oppressed.  But if a nut is allowed to shout his wacky theories, people start seeing him for the loon that he is.  Nutty people ultimately will self destruct (See: Alex Jones), as long as we just let them.

It's important to keep in mind that the rest of us need to help nuts marginalize themselves.  The onus is on the sane among us to identify them, call them out when spout their lunacy, and expose their nuttiness to the world.  Since the number of people voicing opinions is ever increasing, we need convenient ways to identify the stupid and the screwy.  This way we can summarily ignore them.

There are several ways to identify nut groups already.  For example, any protester in America who burns the American flag can be dismissed as irrelevant.  Flag burners exercise their right to free speech by burning the symbol of their free speech.  This is probably not someone inclined to think things through rationally.  Also, anyone wearing a Guy Fawkes mask can be discounted.  Unless they were in "V for Vendetta."  Those people were just doing a job.  Guy Fawkes mask aficionados are frequently Occupiers and Anonymous members, two groups with more than their fair share of Truthers, False Flaggers, Anarchists, and Neo-Marxists.  None of these ideas is worth the time it takes to write this paragraph.

Like these two examples, the AMPAC march is a convenient mechanism for crazy identification.  Anyone who shows up will  be someone we can assume isn't worth including in a rational debate.  An attendee will not be the type of Muslim we should take seriously or expect any reasoned debate from.  Once we've identified them, we can disregard them and spend our time talking to those Muslims that aren't crazy.  And despite what some anti-Muslim extremists say, non-crazy Muslims do exist.  All someone needs to do is go have a beer in Turkey to see what I'm talking about.

A loon who spews hateful nonsense is offensive, but is also a labor saving device.  My making themselves readily identifiable, crazy people help the rest of us.  Those of us with brains and sanity can figure out who's not worth talking to.  Separating non-crazy Muslims from the crazy is worthwhile.  Non-Crazy Muslims want these nuts marginalized, because extremists make other Muslims look bad.

Sadly, though, the latest reports suggest that the turnout might be slightly less than a million (more like several dozen).  All of the outrage may have put a damper on the entire affair.  This isn't a good thing, I think.  I'd rather have all of the nutjobs out in the open.  Once I know who they are, I can make sure I don't waste my time on them.

The Argument is Settled, Provided You Agree With Me

Over the course of two days, SCOTUS has rendered controversial rulings on the Voting Rights Act and gay marriage.  Two serious issues that inflame passions on both sides.  Decisions which could echo through history.  And the reaction to these extremely weighty cases has been...absolutely hilarious.

When section four of the Voting Rights Act was ruled unconstitutional, the reaction from the left was unsurprisingly indignant.  Melissa Harris-Perry of MSNBC bemoaned her "loss of citizenship".  Chris Hayes, also of MSNBC, was "physically enraged" by the act of "judicial activism.  Apparently, the rights of minorities to vote has been completely obliterated.  Well, not quite.

Section one of the voting rights act makes voter discrimination illegal.  It's still illegal.  Section five makes certain areas with a history of racism clear any changes in voting procedures with the federal government.  Section four identified which states (as well as a few random counties and so forth) are subject to this.  The original formula was to apply this scrutiny to any area that used a "test or device" (i.e. literacy test) and whether half of eligible citizens were voting, or at least registered.  As of November 1st, 1964.  This was updated in 1968 and 1972, but not since then.  So under VRA as it was before the ruling, a state, county, or township that had a literacy test or not enough registered voters in 1972 had to clear any changes in voting policy with the feds.  Even forty years later.  The South has changed ever so slightly since then.  Jim Crow is long gone.

Huffington Post's Howard Fineman snarkily noted that anyone who thought the South had improved significantly should spend some time there.  Thus evincing that he hasn't spent any time here recently.  Or that if he has, he's stayed within one of the few liberal bubbles in the South.  A more sensible response came from liberal Fox News contributor Bob Beckel, who noted that there are still a few remote counties that have these problems.  And he's right.  That's why they're "remote".  We make our racists live all the way back in the woods now.  And if one of these jurisdictions did have voting irregularities, it's highly unlikely it would sway a vote.  In most of these places, the voter turnout could be five people, and that would be an 83% turnout.

SCOTUS lacks the power to rewrite the law, only Congress does.  So instead of leaving an obsolete law in place, they chunked it and forced Congress to finally update it.  Not too unreasonable, if the last update to the formula was in 1972.  50 years ago, Congress passed a law that prevented inappropriate tests related to voting, and updated it in 1968 and 1972.  And this was a great thing.  Now these jurisdictions are subject to a test that is forty years out of date.  But when SCOTUS threw out this inappropriate test, it was not a great thing.  I guess inappropriate tests are only okay when they have pre-approval from MSNBC.

Fast forward one day, and the same people are singing the praises of the overturn of the Defense of Marriage Act.  And the reaction from the left is exactly the opposite.  No cries of judicial activism here.  Rachel Maddow spiked the football and said "This is now decided as a nation.  The argument is won."  Because apparently SCOTUS had spoken and SCOTUS is always right.  Oh, wait.

Obviously, there's going to be (and already has been) push back from conservatives on this.  (Personal opinion on DOMA: vast indifference, like most things).  But according to the left it's now The Settled Law of the Land.  Which is why these reactions are leaving me in stitches.  "Settled law" is a contradiction in terms.  All laws are subject to constant revision.  To use another controversial example, abortion was legalized after Roe v. Wade.  But recent advances in neo-natal care make third term babies far more viable.  They used to be just fetuses with only a small chance to live, but now this viability suggests that they are living beings with rights in the third term.  Thus, Roe v. Wade is not "settled".  As time passes and society evolves, old rulings may become obsolete and thus may require updating for our current environment.  This is also true for DOMA and the VRA.

That's why I roll on the floor when I hear spew like this from the punditocracy.  Nothing is settled.  Congress will (eventually, maybe) update the VRA.  States will pass new laws regarding gay marriage.  The law, even the Constitution, is a constant work in process.  So a vote against VRA is not the end of the world and a vote against DOMA does not settle the argument.  It just advances the argument.  A little.  The stupendous level of ignorance from the chattering class is what has my sides splitting.  An argument is only settled when SCOTUS rules in their favor.  How could this be funny?  Well, I only laugh to keep from crying.

The Greatest Conspiracy Ever!

Given the amount of time I spend goofing around on the Internet and social media (which is what I do when I should be working), it's only a matter of time until I start bumping into the loonier side of cyberspace.  Every nutty conspiracy theory there is is out on the web.  I've been inundated with this kind of crazy for hours every day, except for the moments where my boss walks by my desk and I have to pretend I'm working.  And I finally noticed a common pattern.

All of these conspiracy theories were created by communists.  Commies.  Oh, yes.  That is the only explanation that makes sense.  All of the greatest conspiracy theories are obviously created by communists.  The faking of the moon landing, aliens at Area 51, the assassination of JFK, the various Rothschild, Illuminati, New World Order conspiracies, and the worst, 9/11 truther conspiracies, are all created by communists to advance a communist agenda.

They do this because the truth makes communists look bad.  The moon landing was an early indication that American capitalism would blow right past Soviet communism.  Communists thought they had the edge in the space race, but suddenly America was back in the game.  When America successfully completed the first moon landing, communists couldn't let people believe that capitalism was actually superior.  So they invented the myth that the moon landing was faked.  A pack of communist lies that claimed the moon landing was a pack of capitalist lies.  Irony, anyone?

The aliens at Area 51 is a similar example.  Area 51 is a real place.  It's a part of Nellis Air Force Base in Nevada.  The truth is that there was (and probably still is) Air Force research being conducted at Area 51.  Crazy, mad scientist, ARPA/DARPA stuff.  American enterprise was rapidly making Soviet communism obsolete.  The Soviets couldn't let the world believe that the innovations that we made were the product of capitalism.  So they cobbled together a half-assed theory that we were actually stealing the ideas from aliens.  Damn Commies.  Couldn't handle the fact that we were just way more innovative than them.

This isn't the only thing they thought we stole.  All of Illuminati, New World Order, Rothschild conspiracies have a similar theme.  A shadowy cabal of businessmen, bankers, and whatever controls the entire world's wealth.  America is apparently controlled by a few families, like the Rockefellers.  Uh-huh.  One look at the Forbes 400 disproves this.  70% of the 400 wealthiest Americans are self made billionaires.  Many are household names on the list, such as Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, Charles Schwab, George Lucas, and Donald Trump just to name a few.  There is a Rockefeller on the list.  He's tied for 151.  Less than the five I just mentioned.  How can a few families control all of the wealth, when so many self made billionaires are richer than one of the supposed conspirators?  The answer is simple.  Commies.  They can't handle the fact that capitalism allows people to thrive and be successful in a single lifetime.  So they claim that some rich people must have stolen it.  The old "behind every great fortune is a great crime" canard.

The last conspiracy led to another goofball theory that was apparently manufactured by the Politburo.  When faced with happy people enjoying the fruits of capitalism, communists swung into damage control mode.  Western society is "decadent" according to the commies of the world.  This was raw denial on the part of the USSR.  The commies couldn't admit that things were just better here.  They didn't want people to look around at the bread lines and start dreaming of a life in America.  So instead, they pushed the idea that we were weakening ourselves.  Slowly poisoning ourselves with debauchery.  We stole all the money and were living frivolously.  Anything to prevent the people living under communism from seeing the obvious truth: communism was a failure waiting to happen.

The JFK assassination theories are a little different.  They're a deflection of guilt.  The guy who actually killed JFK, Lee Harvey Oswald, was a member of the communist party.  The party couldn't have people believing that a communist murdered the American president.  So the commies acted like it was a shadowy conspiracy, a convoluted, Byzantine intrigue produced by American capitalism.  Anything to avoid having people realize that the actual murderer was just another naive chump duped by communism.

The 9/11 truther conspiracies are a product of the even more naive neo-communists.  Communism rightly became extinct.  It's political Darwinism; the unfit system perished and the fittest system survived and thrived.  But a few leftover douches from the 60's occasionally con some young people into pushing the various quaint and archaic notions of communism.  We see this today with Anonymous and the Occupy movement.  And it should come as no surprise that plenty of these nuts are in love with the 9/11 Truth idea.  Youtube is full of the Truthers at Occupy rallies and Anonymopes demanding an investigation of the 9/11 "false flag" attack.

For the commies, it was absolutely critical that the United States not appear in any way sympathetic after 9/11.  The neo-commies would have us believe that 9/11 was a giant conspiracy by the corrupt shadowy cabals that rule the United States and stole the world's wealth devised it as an elaborate power grab.  Of course, they already control the world's wealth, according to various other communist theories.  So I'm not sure how much power they could grab for.  That is irrelevant, though, since logic and reason are not things Occupunks and Anonymopes concern themselves with.  America overreached when it responded to 9/11. The simple explanations are that this was political opportunism or, far more likely, a natural reaction that came from fear.  But if the world believed that, it would disrupt the commie narrative that capitalism is evil.  So they threw together a theory about planned demolitions.

There it is.  The one true conspiracy.  Communists invent all other conspiracy theories to advance their discredited ideology.  All of their conspiracy theories about capitalism and the New World Order are actually an elaborate conspiracy to install a communist New World Order.  Of course now that I think about it, does it make sense to assume there is an conspiracy every time I hear something that doesn't fit what I believe?  Could this belief that communists are behind everything be the product of paranoia; another Red Scare?  Maybe these conspiracy theories exist because there are lots of disaffected nuts in the world who jump on every screwy theory, especially the Anti-American ones, that they can find.  That's a much simpler explanation.  Nah, screw it.  Occam's Razor is for pussies.  Commies are behind everything.  Damn commies.