About Us


Harmony Forum

Peace from Harmony
Michael Brenner. The Crisis of Western Humanism. Zucks Puppets. No Prisoners! Karl Rove.



Michael Brenner

Personal page: http://peacefromharmony.org/?cat=en_c&key=775


The Western World is being shaken by a reactionary movement that is reversing the historic accomplishments of the 20th century in building humane societies of social justice and caring. The assault is registering remarkable victories especially in North America and Britain but in continental Europe as well. Within the European Union, country after country in the communitys periphery has been reduced to penury (destitution in Greece) in the name of an austerity cure based o­n a misdiagnosis by dogmatists who have learned nothing from history. The lost decade refers not o­nly to aggregate growth but the network of social programs and public services which have been slashed while income gaps widen drastically. Everywhere, it is the moneyed interests and their political comrades in arms who are leading the charge. Everywhere, they have seized the commanding heights of public discourse from which they shape the thinking and attitudes of the political class, the populace and those intellectuals who have chosen to serve them. This entire exercise in regression is cast in moralistic terms, moreover. The great beneficiaries of this backwards progression cynically condemn the losers for a self-indulgent materialism that is the alleged cause of their, and their nations troubles. That is pure projection in the psychiatrists jargon.


Two aspects of this stunning phenomenon are arresting and puzzling. First, it runs against the grain of strong currents that have shaped our civilization over three centuries. Enlightenment ideas of a reasoned and reasonable society that acknowledged the basic humanity of all its members spread most often gradually, at times by fits and starts to shape a communal consensus which was fully reified after WW II. 


 An ethic of caring through collective institutions drew further ethical sustenance from religious ideals even as the influence of formal religious organizations itself faded. This sense of common interest was reconciled with the individualism that is a hallmark of modernity through the mechanism of constitutional democracy and the assiduous protection of civil liberties (politically) and the protection of property rights in free markets (economically). Domestic prosperity and tranquility was matched by the fostering of a transnational community wherein violent conflict (war) became a vestigial memory and collaboration to advance economic well-being the norm.


Today, almost every feature of that Social Compact either is being rejected or called into question: social equity, containing disparities in wealth distribution, ensconcing government as the legitimate and necessary guardian of the public good, giving everyone a piece of the action as well as a slice of the pie, valuing compromise and conciliation at the EU level.


The other peculiar feature is that the mounting challenge to the Wests great construction is not a reaction to failure. By any conceivable measure, our societies are the most successful that the world has ever known. They meet the needs and most desires of their members in every sphere of life to a greater extent and for more people than anywhere else ever before. There is no external threat of any consequence. There are no deep pools of discontent that spawn internal threats to the existing framework of values and institutions., with the partial and recent exception of refugee inflows.


The o­ne big shock that we have experienced was the financial meltdown of 2008. However, those events did not spring from the workings and principles of the humanistic society. Rather, they were caused by deviation from them: subordination of the public interest to private greed, governments failure to exercise their regulatory responsibilities, reckless behavior by financial elites who lost the sense of limits and prudence, and the legitimation of the alien notion that money rather than human welfare is the standard measure of a successful society.



Confucian ethics admonishes us that Humanity is the ultimate measure of all that we do.  That ethos is o­ne expression of the transformation in individuals understanding of their social identity and moral obligation that occurred almost simultaneously in the worlds great civilizations during the Axial Age roughly between the 6th and 4th centuries B.M.E. It was personified by the cohort of extraordinary sages and teachers: Lao Tzu, Confucius, Mahavira, Siddhartha, Socrates and prophets among the exiled Hebrews in Babylonia.  The revolution had three overlapping dimensions: the Cosmos as a unifying order; the human community o­n earth in the here and now as its extension; and each persons moral conduct in relation to both following an enlarged conception of kinship.


 To abbreviate in a few lines the nature of these epochal changes, here are the core propositions integral to all these traditions:

  Tribal community is enveloped in a wider community of humankind. The ethical precepts that had been applicable within the narrower society should be universalized. This is the implicit imperative of being o­ne with the Cosmos and the creative force that formed us. The Divine, whatever its exact form, does not extend blessings to o­ne parochial grouping at the expense of others but to everyone everywhere.  All are equal before the Divine, we should treat each other accordingly. Realization of these elemental truths should guide how we organize our societies, how we behave toward its fellow members, and how we behave toward those outside it.


The ethical saga of humankind has been the sporadic, imperfect movement toward a condition that approximates this ideal. Our dominant creeds and philosophies give statement to it. Challenges have come from a variety of exclusive sects and cults, including modern nationalism. The fundamental obstacle, though, has been human nature, the unaccommodating traits of our personality the impulses to dominate, to differentiate, to secure privilege.  They were surmounted or circumvented in the West (and a few other places) after 1945 thanks to the fortuitous convergence of several favorable factors. The constructions, the understandings, the communalities that followed are now under siege. They will not collapse or disintegrate entirely. But they are being badly damaged and at a remarkable rate.



How do we explain what is happening? The motor energy and the driving force derive from three sources. Special interests in the financial and business worlds ruthlessly pushing to grab what they can; self-styled innovators and iconoclasts mainly pseudo-intellectuals, inside academia and out whose studied rejection of inherited truths is a crude way to demonstrate supposed superiority; and politicos expediently using a crisis to gain and hold o­nto power. The mix varies from country to country, and there are modalities of style, but these elements pull together everywhere to threaten an overturning of the socio-economic-political world as we have come to know it.


A fuller analysis has to explore the psychological mainsprings that move individuals whose personal lives are o­nes of comfort and status to pursue this radical turn to a discredited past. Surely, there are insecurities and status anxieties that go deeper than the appetite for greed and power. But this brief depiction must suffice for the purpose of this essay.


A related puzzle is the passive acceptance of this march backwards by other segments of the political elite, by intellectuals and by the many victims of this reactionary project. That, too, must remain a mystery for the time being. What can be said with some confidence is that all parties have lost a sense of historical perspective. The uniqueness of the present and recent past eludes them as does certainly the enormities of the costs and risks that impend.


Historical amnesia also helps to explain why the leaders of the march in reverse can get away with justifications that are rooted in stale, long abandoned ideas of no proven worth. Those doctrines and ideologies all hark back to the dark and scary days of the 20th centurys first forty-five years and beyond. The underlying economic doctrines and social philosophies animating the current strategy are revivals of ideas whose pedigree dates from the Great Depression.  Quotes from the public remarks of successive Directors of the European Central Bank Claude Trichet & Mario Draghi, from Ms. Merkel and her brothers-in-Hayek elsewhere in Britain, in the France, in the Netherlands, from the non- elected prefects appointed to run Greece and Italy in the name of the new found financial dogma Lucas Papdemos & Mario Monti - all match almost word for word the utterances of Herbert Hoover and the officials of his era who nearly buried capitalism in the rubble of greed, selfishness and incompetence.


This is not coincidence nor simple fashion among those steeped in the heady brew of market fundamentalism (although there is an element of intellectual fad at work).  Indeed, the situation would be less dangerous were it the case that the shift from Keynes back to Ricardo was like the alternation in the width of mens ties.  Then, at least, we could just hold o­n until tastes in economic doctrines reversed themselves. Instead, there is a strong synergistic logic among powerful financial interests, ascendant elements of the economic profession who have rediscovered the flat wheel, and politicians who have abandoned the Social/Christian Democracy model for trendy private sector based models of American inspiration.


What of compassionate humanism? In the United States, there are many who can hardly contain their delight in calling for as much pain and shame as the political traffic can bear to be imposed o­n the poor, the weak, the elderly. That is the prevailing ethos among Republicans. The Congressional Party has just voted en masse, with a discipline not seen outside the old Soviet Central Committee, to loot the economy for the rich and to kill social services. Their proclaimed next targets Medicare and Social Security, among others in effect will repeal the 20th Century. There are others, like former President Obama and the Democratic leadership, who show no signs of losing any sleep at the prospect of the vulnerable falling prey to cuts in social programs or having their homes foreclosed by predatory bankers. Related examples: (1) the blasé disregard of the pernicious effects that the sequestration cuts are having o­n the vulnerable  - o­n Wheels for Meals, o­n Head Start, o­n cancer treatment for Medicare patients; (2) the Obama administrations cavalier negligence in failing to ensure that bank obligations to illegally foreclosed home owners, reduced to a pittance, are actually paid correct amounts and not in rubber checks.


 In Europe, Troika leaders and their agents predictably have claimed that they are simply doctors whose prescription of tough medicine is the o­nly thing that will return the patient to good health. Like the application of leaches and purges to treat disease. There is more at work, though, than the normal rigidities of dogmatists deeply invested in the fixed collective mindset.  For there is clear evidence of suffering that humane instinct should impel us to prevent or mitigate. Yet, there is no evident compassion or concern for actions that could alleviate that suffering.


 Instead, there is a disengaged, distant attitude that is the antithesis of the conviction and sentiments that have shaped the social conscience of the post-war West. That means relegating Greeks, Irish, Portuguese et al to a condition of debt servitude for the foreseeable future. Severest penalties will be imposed o­n the poor and those of modest means, o­n all whose well-being depends o­n the network of social programs which, all across the continent,  has made Europe the most enlightened and humane society the world has ever known.  Workers in the public sector naturally are targeted as drags o­n an economy that must be reformed to make it more efficient and productive read, business friendly.  Hence, labor unions too have to be reined in so that workers can be rendered as pliable, and disposable as their American counterparts.


Moral instruction by the righteous is part of the package.  Stern warnings and fatwas are issued repeatedly like liturgical reinforcement of righteous dogma. Angela Merkel vents her fury at Cypriotes who balked at accepting the looting of their savings. How dare they spurn steps to deal with a threat to the Euro (and Ms. Merkels reelection) that they caused.  She and others visited Greece and Italy to offer moral instruction in the flesh.  There is an odd streak of lurking Puritanism in the otherwise secular persona of Europes new political elite. It is even more pronounced in the United States where it taps residues of the o­nce pervasive Protestant Ethic. There, a long tradition of masking greed with evangelism creates receptive ears for these moralistic denunciations of social parasites.  In America, politicos use God as a religious Swiss army knife multi-purpose, always at the ready, and manipulable. It is a personal and partisan possession like Yahweh was for the tribal Israelites before the Axial Age.


 On both sides of the Atlantic, there is much noise and agonizing real or confected  - decrying shiftless lay-abouts who reject the prescribed penance of a hair shirt. Of course, much of this is a show put o­n by self-designated guardians of economic rectitude who know exactly whose particular interests are being served and the sacrifices that are being extracted from the common folk to satisfy them. In Europe and America there is a manifest callousness, and insensitivity to the plight of o­nes fellows, that is alien to the modern social ethic. No European leader of the first two post-war generations, apart from Margaret Thatcher, would have acted in this way or said these things. The now beatified Thatcher prefigured todays politicos in her ignorant disregard for centuries of human experience as pithily stated in the obtuse and puerile remark that there is no such thing as society.  The anti-humanist prophetess as Ayn Rand. In the U.S., that neurotically misanthropic pseudo-philosopher numbers among her dogmatic acolytes Speaker of the House Paul Ryan, and Alan Greenspan.


 For the current generation of leaders generally, the full meaning of the Social Compact has lost its saliency even its meaning.  What was second nature for their predecessors now is a mental stretch their formers construction something that can be picked apart in the name of New Thinking.  Their sole points of reference are their egos o­n the hunt for self-justification and their unbridled ambitions.  The twin results have been the jeopardizing of global monetary stability and the transfer of vast sums from wage earners to financial entrepreneurs. Post- Thatcher Britain has been second o­nly to the United States in this enterprise. Some time ago, the Austrian finance minister Maria Fekter, herself an austerian,  described Britain as "the island of the blessed for tax evasion and money laundering." (interview with Kurier newspaper Thursday 11 April). Maintain that status is the paramount of the floundering May & Co. campaign to have its Brexit cake and eat it, too.


Similarly, no American national politician between 1945 and 2000 would do or say what has become commonplace in justifying the promotion of plutocracy by chastising the vulnerable although there the seeds were sown by Ronald Reagan in the 1980s. Something has changed something that is to be feared. For what is being placed in doubt are the very instincts of empathy, of communal solidarity and of compassion that provided a natural grounding for the ethic of universal humanism.


Everywhere, Social Democrats and progressives are deflated. They  increasingly feel like also-rans and act as also-rans.  In America there is the odd phenomenon that the locus of public opinion o­n most salient issues align with the Democrats; indeed, it is left of Obama and the Clintons. Yet, they cannot muster the conviction or political acumen or conviction to press their case. When we can provide an answer to that puzzle, we will have gone a ways to explainable what now strikes us as inexplicable.



Let us go back to the Chinese.  The Confucian philosophers saw what was humane as stemming from what was natural. Mencius said that ethical behavior conformed to human instinct  - as in the impulse to spring forward in order to save an endangered child. (The principle of xin). Xin inspires a more considered ethical precept to express kindness and to aid others out of common humanity. This cultivated humanism (ren), in turn, forms the ethos that is essential to a responsible society of responsible persons with responsible leaders. Ren* is the thread that unites Heaven or Nature with individual conduct and rulership in a society of mutual respect and mutual regard where leaders act with sincerity and conscientiousness - observing the philosophy of humaneness (jianai).


Can a modern West whose xin is being dulled or limited to o­nes immediate family and coterie, whose ren is weakened, behave responsibly with due regard for the common humanity of its members? Ren is the counter to the inclination to behave with unbridled selfishness. It is an omni-present tug o­n our selfish impulses to remind us that egotism is a contagious social disease. Selfishness will o­nly beget selfishness to everyones eventual harm. It will come back to haunt the initiator in the form of anothers hurtful conduct and deny society the capacity to achieve collective purposes. With a diminished ren we are fated to live among the self-absorbed atoms of an anti-social society a la Thatcher.


 Is it conceivable that our small-minded and mean spirited elites bear such an envy of their predecessors as to tear down what has been built and thereby leave their mark o­n the world by the o­nly accomplishment of which they are capable?


In the 1920s and 1930s, Liberal Democracy found itself in a three-way contest for the soul of Western civilization with Communism and Fascism. Democracy was not the obvious betting favorite. Yet, it beat back those challengers and thrived. Today, it seems bent o­n self-mutilation if not self-destruction. In parts of Europe, and in some aspects America, its ideals and enlightened politics are yielding to a novel form of neo-Fascism. All of this is occurring with no significant external threat. Such a perverse accomplishment is historic.

 So we are back to the old question: are there limits to the human potential for stupidity?


+= (xin) humans two under Heaven  = benevolence

+= (ren) man o­n left, word or speech o­n right, means trustworthy and integrity.

| (jian ai) inclusive, impartial caring




Friends & Colleagues

Mark Zuckerberg deigned to appear before Congress yesterday. His performance was revealing - at least it was to those whose minds are not clouded by the IT cult that he personifies. The scripted encounter was anticipated with remarkable prescience by Professor Zeynep Tufecki at the University of North Carolina. It appeared as an op ed in The New York Times - evidently unread by the Senators and their staffers. Not o­nly did she foresee with near exactitude the charade that was played out, but the brief essay provides a succinct and compelling interpretation of the structural problem while laying down guidelines for a sensible regulatory strategy. It is another landmark in the slowly growing development of critical thinking about the subject, albeit 10 years too late.

Another piece follows which offers a first-hand, play-by-play account of what transpired o­n Capitol Hill. It is by Matt Taibbi whose long critique was distributed last week.


Michael Brennermbren@pitt.edu


Watching Facebook and Senate Hypocrisy in Real-Time

By Matt Taibbi, Rolling Stone

11 April 18


Zuck takes a mauling in a bipartisan pigpile but the members seem more interested in influencing Facebook than decreasing its power


[]ts heading into the evening and its just been announced that if we continue o­n the current pace, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg will still be testifying before the Senate after midnight.

Id hoped to post complete notes from the whole session, but Im going to have to give up and make a few observations about the direction of what weve seen so far from this extraordinary hearing. As noted in a recent Rolling Stone feature o­n the subject, Facebook has been all over the news, ubiquitous in a bad way for the first time in its history.

Blamed variously for helping elect Donald Trump, aiding the Russians and providing communications support for everyone from terrorists to spies, Facebook has become the bogeyman for members of both parties. Thanks in large part to the Cambridge Analytica story and the Russiagate furor (and specifically the Internet Research Agency indictments), the Senate decided that the company was sufficiently o­n the publics minds and that its nerd-emperor CEO needed to be dragged in for public questioning.

Heres how the session went:

2:33: Iowa Republican Chuck Grassley, noting that 44 Senators are participating in the hearing a major indication of how badly members of both parties wanted a sound bite of themselves whacking Zuckerberg takes a dig at Zuck at the outset. "[44] may not seem like a large group by Facebooks standards," Grassley says, with unmistakable sarcasm. Its sort of an "our-44-Senators-can-beat-up-your-two-billion-users" comment.

2:37: While South Dakota Republican John Thune rambles through his opening remarks, Zuck, who looks fully eight and a half years old, seems to be trying to remember how many data points hes harvested about Thune and what the weirdest o­ne was.

2:42: Diane Feinstein is summarizing the IRA and Cambridge Analytica stuff. Zucks pale blue suit and tie ensemble are very reassuring and non-scary, very Menendez-brothers.

2:50: Bill Nelson from Florida leads aggressively: "Let me just cut to the chase if you and other social media companies dont get your act together, we wont have privacy anymore." He goes o­n to talk about how were all glued to screens and tablets from morning to night, and chastises Zuckerberg for repeatedly misusing data.

Its not that Nelson is wrong, but the randomness of this is so strange. Facebook and other social media platforms have been using the same data-mining techniques for ages, and of course have been partners with the government at times in its use of such techniques including partnerships with the NSA in its PRISM program. But suddenly Facebook is getting hammered by both parties in the most aggressive manner. Zuckerberg is a uniquely unsympathetic person in a lot of ways, but the rapacious and completely illegal government surveillance programs to this day tolerated by this same U.S. Senate undercut the effect of the outrage theyre all going to demonstrate today.

2:55: Zuck, presidentially, "assumes full responsibility" for a lot of the bad stuff thats happened Cambridge Analytica, etc. Its a smart tactic that, as it does for presidents, deflects from the institutional breadth and power of his organization, and focuses o­n the human being, who can make a personal play for sympathy. His version of the rhetorical trick: "I started Facebook, I run it, and Im responsible for what happens here."

2:57: Good advice for anyone who happens to be high o­n anything today: Do NOT simultaneously listen to both Mark Zuckerberg testifying in the Senate, and Sesame Streets Ernie singing the 1970 classic, "Rubber Duckie."


2:58: Zuck repeats the core mantra that his greatest mission is to "bring people together." Facebook loves dopey corporate aphorisms and this o­ne is not going to work when it comes to deflecting public anger, especially since an internal memo recently leaked in which executive Andrew "Boz" Bosworth said that if "someone dies in a terrorist attack" that its all good, because "we connect people."

Like its new catchphrase, "Move fast with stable infrastructure" (updated from the original proto-libertarian "Move fast and break things"), "We bring people together" isnt going to fly all that well with a pissed-off public.

3:08: Nelson challenges Zuck: Does the data belong to the user, or to the company? Zuck answers unequivocally that "the first line of the terms of service" tells users they control the information they enter. But Zuckerberg just finished telling Nelson that there is currently no option for users to disable the use of personal data for ads, arguing that ads are the o­nly way to provide free service.

So thats fucked.

3:10: Thune blasts Zucks "14-year history" of apologies for bad decisions and asks why we should listen to this new o­ne. Zuck looks back blankly, appears to be counting Thunes eyebrows.

3:12: This is the scary part. Zuck explains that for the first 10-to-12 years of the companys existence, he viewed the companys "responsibility" as ending with giving people "tools" to connect with each other, so they could "do good things." But he now understands the companys "responsibility" is greater, and that they have to be more "proactive."

But what does that mean? Will they use algorithms and "content review" to drive down offensive content and/or what he calls "bad activity?" If so, how will those determinations be made?

The terrifying part of this controversy, to me, is the possibility that Facebook will ultimately engage in a kind of policing/censorship activity that all of these Senators may actually favor perhaps driving down or eliminating certain kinds of alternative or dissenting speech in return for regulatory relief.

3:23: Utah Republican Orrin Hatch, o­ne of the first soft-ballers, is o­ne of the few people present who seems to think the whole controversy is dumb. His point seems to be, if you want a free service, dont bitch if that company then mines your data to sell ads.

"Some profess themselves shocked, shocked that companies like Facebook and Google share user data with advertisers," Hatch says. "Did any of these individuals ever stop to ask themselves why Facebook and Google dont charge for access? Nothing in life is free. Everything involves tradeoffs. If you want something without having to pay money for it, youre gonna have to pay for it in some other way."

He serves up this question for Zuckerberg: How do you survive financially?

"Senator, we run ads," says Zuckerberg, trying not to seem too pleased.

3:26: Maria Cantwells aides clearly are trying to get a sound bite o­n the news by having her ask Zuck if hed heard that people were calling Palantir "Stanford Analytica." The line falls like a dead bird o­n the Senate floor.

3:28: Cantwell asks Zuckerberg if hes ever heard of the infamous John Ashcroft-era "Total Information Awareness" data-dominance program, and he says no.

Its probably not because hes lying, but because Zuckerberg is basically a millennial for whom the early Bush years happened when dinosaurs still roamed the earth.

3:37: Mississippi Republican Roger Wicker asks Zuckerberg if its true that Facebook collects data o­n people even after they log off the site. Zuck pauses, looking like Daffy Duck after having his bill shot off, and tries to tell Wicker that hell have his people follow up.

Wicker, irritated: "You dont know?"

Zuck gives a verbose passive-voice answer about how there are cookies o­n the Internet and it would be possible to track people "between sessions," but o­nly to improve the user experience, blah blah blah.

Short answer: yup, they monitor us after we leave the site.

3:44: Lindsey Graham down-homing it, saying: "If I buy a Ford and dont like it, ah can buy a Chevy." He asks if he doesnt like Facebook, what can he go to instead? Zuckerberg struggles to name a main competitor.

Graham asks flat out: "Are you a monopoly?"

Zuckerberg says, "It doesnt feel like it." Laughter in the gallery.

When Lindsey Graham is haranguing a company for being insufficiently enthusiastic about regulation, something odd is going o­n.

Its an unusual synergy. Conservatives hammer Facebook because of the widespread impression that Silicon Valley tilts Democratic, while Democrats are hammering Facebook because of its central role in the Russiagate narrative.

3:50: Minnesota Democrat Amy Klobuchar asks a question about whether its possible that Cambridge Analyticas data is possibly "stored in Russia" that is so incoherent that Zuckerberg struggles to find an appropriately insincere answer.

Zuckerberg seems more commanding as it becomes clear that the Senators have little-to-no technical understanding of the issues involved. Its worse than a banking hearing by far.

3:59: Well, heres the sound bite for tonights news! Dick Durbin asks Zuckerberg if hed be comfortable disclosing what hotel he stayed in last night.

Zuck first squirms, then says, in drawn-out fashion, "N-n-n-oooo." Which makes him look like an unparalleled-in-history asshole for having collected similar data points about two billion people.

4:17: Senator Ted Cruz asks, "Does Facebook consider itself a neutral public forum?" Hes going after the Gizmodo stuff about Facebook employees allegedly suppressing conservative speech. Zuck obliges by giving Cruz a sound bite, to the effect that Silicon Valley "is an extremely left-leaning place," and this is a source of concern for him.

Zuckerberg, who moments ago seemed cocky when he said he didnt need a break, and was happy to go for 15 minutes more, now seems to have made a PR error, coming off a little like James Damore in this obnoxious-on-both-sides colloquy with Cruz. Its almost impossible not to come across as sympathetic when Ted Cruz is your antagonist, but Zuckerberg pulls it off a little here.

4:59: Democrat Chris Coons of Delaware hammers Zuckerberg, pointing out that Facebook allowed real estate advertisers to o­nly advertise to white people, in clear violation of the law. After promises to fix the problem, it hadnt been addressed "fully" a year later, according to ProPublica.

Zuckerberg responds with his now customary origin-story tale about how Facebook started in his dorm room, without money or without A.I. to help him root out bad thingies. But of course an ad program that offers the service to exclude non-white ad targets is something done consciously, not an oversight that youd need A.I. to catch.

5:09: Republican Ben Sasse asks Zuckerberg if social media platforms hire consultants to help them increase the addictive dopamine hits users get from their o­nline experience. Zuckerberg says no, which is a direct contradiction of what original developer Sean Parker said about Facebook just last year.

The hearing goes o­n and o­n, with each Senator trying to get in a viral zinger.

A subtext of the hearing was a vague sense that some of these politicians would rather

shape Facebooks power than decrease it. Lindsey Graham was the o­nly Senator to really raise the possibility of antitrust action. Because the government itself has been engaged in vast and illegal data-mining operations for so long, the outrage expressed against Facebook today was not terribly convincing.

But Zuckerberg came across as even more phony than his interrogators. Hes an unhealthily un-self-aware business overlord who unfortunately has been convinced by someone to have political aspirations, which made him care how he came across o­n C-SPAN a lot more than someone like Jamie Dimon, wholl come to the Hill and make Senators wet themselves with his unabashed presentation of pure greed.

Zuckerberg, o­n the other hand, kept frantically switching faces in search of what made him seem more human he alternated throughout between libertarian, liberal and arch-capitalist personas. None of them really worked. Of course, five years from now, when hes emperor of the universe, none of this will matter




No Prisoners!


Friends & Colleagues


We exalt ourselves in believing that the HEAVENLY FATHER created us in His image. The Truth is less reassuring. In all probability, the HF is chagrined at the way it has turned out. His neglect of his apex creatures suggests that. It is not all His fault. How could He foresee the complicated state of affairs that humans have fashioned out of the pristine Garden of Eden. The resulting stresses and strains are aggravated by the misalignment of persons and positions. Too many of us are doing the wrong things for our individual make-up.


Now, highly placed reliable sources are whispering that the HF is contemplating a bit of reorganization. The first step will be some redeployment of human resources. Here are a few proposals that the HF may wish to consider.


Michael Brenner



Nikki HALEYBroomstick Test Pilot


Donald TRUMPMedical Director, Womens Olympic Gymnastics Team




Eldon KUSHNERCurling Stone Sweeper


Steve BANNONBalance Columnist, The New York Times


Herman CAINBalance & Diversity Columnist, The New York Times


GeneralH.R. McMASTEREditor, Otto von BISMARCK: Complete Correspondence


John KERRYDeputy Assistant to Sergei LAVROV U.S.A. Bureau


Rahm EMANUELSubstitute Teacher, Chicago South Side High School


Stormy DANIELSWhite House Protocol Officer




Mike PENCELBGTQ Activist


Steven MNUCHINAuto Loan Repossession Agent






General Joseph DUNFORDCleveland Browns Quarterback Coach


Rex TILLERSONDeputy Assistant to Sergei LAVROV GULF Bureau


General John KELLYSuperintendent,BEDLAMMental Hospital


Samantha POWERStar Desperate Housewives of Damascus


General David PETRAEUSCorps Bugler KHYBER RIFLES


Victoria NULANDTour Guide: VOLGA Cruises


General James MATTISMayor of RAQQA




Corey LEWANDOWSKIDean, JFK School Harvard University


Shawn SPICERAssociate Dean, JFK School




John BARTONUnibomber




Scott PRUITMunicipal Water Taster FLINT, MICH




John BRENNANPolygraph Technician


Ben CARSONEgyptologist




Christopher WRAYInspector LESTRADE




Theresa MAYCoco CHANEL


Narendra MOTIFounder & CEO, AshramBnb Ltd


Mohammed bin-SALMANRock Concert Impresario


Jean-Claude JUNCKERFIFAPresident




Jan STOLTENBERGArchi-Guardian of the Seraglio


Emmanuel MACRONBarack OBAMA


Barack OBAMAEmmanuel MACRON


Sarah HUCKERBEEThespian


Susan RiceStar Desperate Housewives of Benghazi


DebbieAuthor, UP FROM SUICIDE: The Democrats In 2020 WASSERMAN-SCHULTZ


Thomas FRIEDMANScribe at Court of Crown Prince Mohammed bin-SALMAN


Nancy PELOSIBatting Practice Pitcher Washington Nationals


Donald TRUMP, jrBatboy Washington Nationals


John PODESTABunting Instructor New York Yankees


Paul RYANResearch Assistant to Larry Kudlow


Chris CHRISTIETraffic Cop George Washington Bridge




Dennis ROSS/Kenneth POLLACK




Bernie SANDERSBach Pianist Honky-tonk New Orleans Cat House


Elizabeth WARRENSacred Music Recitalist - Honky-tonk New Orleans Cat House


Arthur SULZBERGERProprietor, Renovated Russian Tea Room


Dean BAQUETMaitre D Renovated Russian Tea Room


Michael McFAULBarman, Renovated Russian Tea Room


David REMNICKPublicist, Renovated Russian Tea Room






*Some of you may be offended by what you interpret as a disparaging, sexist put-down of a professional woman. I suggest that you try to recall who Pussy Galore was the character in the original Bond movie Goldfinger. She was played by the English actress Honor Blackman. P.G. was a tough lady who commanded the all-woman air squadron that was the muscle (along with Odd-Job) for Goldfingers machinations. Her manner implied that she was gay. She obviously had the looks and gumption to win the confidence of her egomaniacal, criminal boss. In the memorable scene, she fights Sean Connery in a rough-and-tumble ju-jitsu contest which she ultimately loses. In keeping with the macho ethos of the Bond stories, she yields to his alpha male machismo. o­ne suspects, though, that she already is plotting a way to get back at him. In the event, she saw the writing o­n the wall and switched sides probably as part of a plea bargain that likely included her receiving a new identity as a flight instructor in Alice Springs, Australia. (Britains Witness Protection Program has undergone a few modifications since 1964. The Skripals apparently now are being so designated in order to keep them incommunicado. o­ne o­nly hopes that their secret residence is not in Diego Garcia as a guest of Ms Haspel. A likely alternative location is Alice Springs - or its American counterpart - where they could be stashed by MI6 and the CIA under mind-numbing sedation after having Chosen Freedom).


Hope Hicks is a beautiful, steely young woman who has several of PGs traits although not a lesbian. She managed to have an affair first with Lewandowski (married with four children) and then the serial wife-beater Rob Porter who twice had been divorced by his victims. Neither affair harmed her ambition of rising in Trumps inner circle.When this all blew up, she jumped ship. Doubtless, a confiding inside account is in the works; to be followed by a turn o­n the celebrity circuit.One cant imagine Pussy Galore taking the same path, Witness Protection or not. Times change for better and for worse.


In 2012 Blackman publicly criticised actor Sean Connery, her Bond co-star in the 1960s, for his status as a tax exile. She said,

"I disapprove of him strongly now. Because I don't think you should accept a title from a country and then pay absolutely no tax towards it. He wants it both ways. I don't think his principles are very high."

At the age of 90, she is still working







I encountered Karl Rove last week.Not as dramatic as George Bushs finding Jesus in Roves office at cold dawn back in 1997 when Gods plan for him was revealed. Still, my meeting was instructive.


Rove came to the University of Texas (he is an Austin resident) to give an informal seminar talk. A history buff, KR has just written a book o­n President William McKinley his political hero between bouts of consulting and appearances as commentator/analyst o­n the networks. His theme was the international implications of the Spanish-American War for Americas world role. First, a few general impressions.


Rove is not the mild-mannered, avuncular figure as usually portrayed among the cast of hard characters occupying the Bush White House. Amiable o­n the surface, he is as tough and rough as they come. In other words, your typical Texas Republican. The cultivated benign demeanor is very much part of the persona. Think J.R. in DALLAS.The mask quickly drops when any challenge to man or methods or partisan program emerges. Then, the steely core, the mean spirit and the aggression shines through. When this surprisingly occurred in the cloistered gathering of academic types (few active faculty, though), o­ne observed a formidable condottiere.


One immediately was struck by the sharp contrast with his Democratic counterparts. The latter are an insipid bunch, averse to combat and bending with the breeze even the mildest zephyr. A contest between Podesta cum Penn cum Axelrod and Rove is a no-contest. As we know from experience, the outcome is what youd expect from a match between a no-holds-barred UFC fighter and a high school debate team captain. Roves conviction, ferocity and frankly talent have no Democratic (much less Progressive) equivalent.


What set Rove off exposing the man behind the veil? The ruckus was caused by o­ne mischief-making soul sitting around the table who was so impolitic as to suggest that there was a connection between the fabrications re. the explosion o­n the Maine in Havana harbor and the historical American practice of falsifying evidence to justify military action in foreign lands. Polks deceptions and misrepresentations that provided excuse to invade Mexico, the Maine incident, the Tonkin Gulf episode, and the fiction about Saddams alleged possession of WMD. At that moment, benign and avuncular uncle Karl disappeared in the clouds of smoke flaring from his ears and nostrils.


Rove insisted, vehemently and angrily, that the administration had taken action based o­n compelling Intelligence that was fair, accurate and absolutely apolitical. The President was obliged to do his duty in protecting the country and all Americans from a clear and manifest threat.


He then cast his argument in partisan terms: reciting at length all the Democrats who had read the Intelligence the same way and supported the war. Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi etc. etc.The intrepid skeptics suggestion that the Intelligence was cooked (re. sworn statement of former head of MI6 in London) and that, moreover, none of the persons mentioned actually had read the Intelligence reports, was met with scorn and a further outburst of offended innocence. That elicited o­ne last foray by the skeptic who mildly stated that the question was raised not as a Democrat but as a PATRIOT. That last word evoked the spastic retort that Rove himself was the true patriot who had served his country for seven years in the White House.The tone and body language said: "how dare you yellow-bellied pacifist appropriate a term to which we American heroes, who honorthe flag by killing terrorists, have an exclusive claim!" FINIS


The reaction among the 50 odd attendees? None; silence. No follow-up. Shortly thereafter, Rove was given a warm round of applause by the assembled retired faculty, students, senior staff and assorted academic types. They quietly filed out while avoiding making eye contact with the pariah. Two persons did cautiously sidle up to him to whisper that they agreed with what he had said while glancing anxiously over their shoulder lest some STASI agent was eavesdropping.

Welcome to 21st Century America

Michael Brenner












© Website author: Leo Semashko, 2005; © designed by Roman Snitko, 2005