Monday, August 07, 2023

Ruth Marcus is a Fact-Free Concern Troll Who Writes for the Washington Post

 [Wapo, 8/6, Ruth Marcus: 'How Trump will fight back in court; Trump won't stay quiet for long']

The headline is factually wrong ('Trump won't stay quiet for long.'). Trump has never been quiet. This fact has been the dominant news story of the past days, weeks and months. CNN's on-line headline for 8/6 is concordant with this fact. It reads: "Trump and team seek to destroy credibility of his election subversion trial before a date is even set."

In a news analysis, CNN's Stephen Collinson explains:

"Donald Trump and his legal team are escalating efforts to discredit and delay a trial over his alleged attempt to overturn the 2020 election, as his fight to avert criminal convictions becomes ever more indistinguishable from his presidential campaign.

"The former president’s attorney Sunday vowed to petition to relocate the trial from Washington, DC, claiming that a local jury won’t reflects the “characteristics” of the American people. And as prosecutors seek a speedy trial, he warned that his team will seek to run out the process for years in an apparent attempt to move it past the 2024 election.

"Trump demanded the judge set to hear the case recuse herself in a flurry of assaults on the process that may fail legally, but will play into his campaign narrative that he is a victim of political persecution by the Biden administration designed to thwart a White House comeback."


 The truth of the Jan. 6 indictment (and the classified dox indictment) is that Trump's attorneys know they have no chance of winning a jury trial, in part because Trump has already admitted enough to satisfy the factual and 'consciousness of guilt' components of the prosecution's case. 

"Try him in the press," Richard Nixon said to his minions in the Watergate Oval Office tapes. Nixon was referring to Daniel Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers. Nixon understood that the best legal strategy is to never let an issue get to trial in the first place. Trump's only strategy is like Nixon's -- to 'try it in the press.' This means a legal strategy of doing anything and everything (including threatening fact witnesses) at each procedural turn of the screw to push back the date of jury selection to never.

Trump can't and won't testify in Court on either case. He would be dissembled within a few minutes by a rookie prosecutor. To win the empathy of even one juror, Trump has to display the courage and conviction of an innocent, unjustly accused man. That requires having the spine to take the stand. But he can't and won't because Trump is a self-admitted serial liar. In the documents case he has already claimed to be doing purely recreational lying (cf. the secret Iran war plan he was waving around at Bedminster, NJ was just a sheaf of news clippings. Even when Trump says he's lying, he's lying.). 

Lying is like eating for Trump. He does it for necessity and for pleasure. Trump enjoys lying to people. He likes knowing that his supporters desperately want to believe his lies. He likes knowing that as a billionaire, his flacks, sycophants, minions and 'body men' must always pretend they believe his lies. ['you speak wise and beautiful truths, Sire ...'] 


A meta-story emerging from the indictments of Trump is the inability of some (but not all) of the mainstream press to show even basic journalistic competence as fact-presenters. In the WaPo example here, the headline writer ('Trump won't stay quiet for long') is utterly clueless. Did they not even watch the news all weekend?

The Washington Post of 2023 is not that of 1973.  The WaPo then was breaking fresh, original news reporting on Watergate every day and week. Its reporters and columnists were well ahead of the news curve -- not miles behind it.

The WaPo and Ruth Marcus seem afflicted with the syndrome of covering a serious public event as if it were a sports contest. Each season, the Alabama Crimson Tide plays football against some tiny, non-ranked opponent. Because it's obvious Alabama will win by seven touchdowns, the sports reporters previewing the game are forced to fantasize about how the tiny college team 'could win.' 

Ruth Marcus does the same with Trump (this is how Trump 'could' win at trial). It is pure fantasy for pure fantasy's sake. It is like the YouTube videos which ask, "What if the Sun exploded tomorrow?"

If Marcus had listened to Trump attorney John Lauro on Sunday, 8/5, she would have heard John Lauro plainly state his goal is to never go to trial. The CNN story plainly states this:

"And as prosecutors seek a speedy trial, he (Lauro) warned that his team will seek to run out the process for years in an apparent attempt to move it past the 2024 election."

Ruth Marcus has no idea what John Lauro might or could say to any future Jan. 6 jury. This is because John Lauro doesn't know either. Lauro is like a criminal whose entire 'plan' is to not get caught. Once caught, there is no 'plan' because ... the plan was to not get caught. Lather, rinse, repeat.


U.S. Dept. of Interior Secretary James Watt once said on tape to a convention of Amway distributors: "If you're too tied up in your music or your job to be an Amway distributor, that's fine. After all, we don't want everyone selling Amway ... Someone has to buy it."

Saturday, August 05, 2023

Mark Levin's Chagrin: Jack Smith is Not Dumb

Mark Levin (on FOX, 8/4) is very deeply upset that Prosecutor Jack Smith refused to charge Donald Trump with using speech and words to foment an insurrection on Jan. 6, 2021. Rant here. Levin:

"This indictment, Mr. Barr, is crap! And the reason they didn't bring insurrection, and seditious conspiracy is because there was no insurrection and seditious conspiracy. …"

Levin equates the gravitas of crimes by how juicy their names sound (Sedition !!! Insurrection !!! Blimey!!!). He seems to be watching the Adams Chronicles, taking snuff and waving a quill pen menacingly ('By my steed these scratched words shall alert the delegates at Philadelphia!')

Levin makes a good point; and Prosecutor Jack Smith agrees with him. An insurrection or sedition conviction against Trump would be virtually impossible to win. Unlike the word 'sedition,' the words 'criminal conspiracy' and 'defraud' are deeply embedded in everyday criminal law and in mountain ranges of case law. To use 'insurrection' or 'sedition' as the fundamental basis for a criminal indictment is bad winning strategy. It's like going straight down the steepest, hardest part of the mountain instead of the bunny trail around the corner. It's just a real big gushy loser.

What is reliably prosecutable under the U.S. Code is the commission of specific acts and actions, including the formation and operation of a criminal conspiracy. These are rugged, time-worn legal tangibles. Sedition and insurrection have very little case law behind them and the cases which exist are so scattered over time and context to be unreliable as guidance (pick anyone you want; they all say different things). If a group is blowing up buildings and say they want to overthrow the U.S., you convict them for blowing up the buildings -- not for saying they have a seditious reason for doing so. Maybe they just like blowing up buildings. Who really knows?

UNC Law professor Michael Gerhardt explains:

"The third set of indictments is based on credible evidence of Trump’s conspiring to hinder or undo the final certification of the Electoral College votes in Congress ... The evidence and testimony laid out in the January 6 House select committee’s hearings are not imaginary or false; they plainly support the misconduct charged in the most recent indictment." 

Trump's lawyer-for-the-day, John Lauro, has repeatedly admitted that Trump did try to 'hinder and undo' the electoral vote certification, but offers this Eddie Haskell-ish twist: that Trump merely suggested there be a 10-day 'pause' in the certification of state electors' ballots by Congress on Jan. 6, 2021; and Trump's 'suggestion' was protected 1st Amendment political speech.

Statements by an attorney made on behalf of their client are treated in criminal trials as if the accused said the words themselves. Lauro, in trying to give succor to Trump supporters, has repeatedly admitted the essential facts (and interpretation of those facts) which buttress the indictment. It's as if Lauro admitted his client did rob the bank but did so only because he didn't get his free toaster. 

Lauro makes these disastrous factual admissions because he has no choice. Lauro has to say something to give succor to Trump's base; and on a near-daily basis. He must keep them from abandoning Trump and no longer funding his legal defense. This is a survival-level need. Lauro's fanciful re-spinning of Jan. 6th gives Trump's base the false and self-righteous narrative they crave.

The price of this news-cycle succor is that Lauro, and therefore, defendant Trump, have now repeatedly admitted the essential factual elements of the case before a trial date has even been set. Lauro has done so in a manner which cannot be walked back -- and can be immediately presented by the prosecution to the Court as fresh, credible evidence. Why would Lauro do this?

The simplest explanation is that Lauro knows that once jury selection begins, the case is over. Lauro knows they have no chance at trial. As such, there is no real wounding by now admitting the essential facts of the indictment (ie., that Trump did want the certification to stop and did try to stop the certification) in order to give immediate succor to Trump's base. It's a trade-off. Lauro's admissions are so disastrous at any future trial that the only rational conclusion one can draw is that he doesn't care. Lauro knows if this case ever gets to a jury, he has lost.


 "If the facts are not on your side, argue the law. If the law is not on your side, argue the facts. When neither the law nor the facts are on your side, pound the table" -- Michael Gerhardt. He is the Burton Craige Distinguished Professor of Jurisprudence at the University of North Carolina School of Law. He is the author of several books, including the forthcoming “The Law of Presidential Impeachment.”

Friday, August 04, 2023

Trump's Defense is Really an Insanity Defense

Trump's stated defense will require the Jury find that:

Because the Defendant was mentally incapable of understanding and accepting that Joseph Biden, Jr. won the 2020 Unjted States presidential election, the State's burden of proving consciousness of guilt cannot be met beyond a reasonable doubt.

Without directly saying so, Trump's stated legal defense asserts that he was insane from November 1, 2020 to Jan. 6, 2021. He was insane within the legal meaning of a person who cannot see or understand a set of facts in the way that a reasonable, rational person would see and understand the same facts.

 That this strategy is itself insane misses the BIG point, which is:

Trump's only viable legal strategy is to avoid any trial by any Jury ever. Speculation about what Trump's lawyers will 'say' to a future Jury is meaningless. Once a jury is seated -- it's over.

This is why before a sycophantic interviewer, John Lauro et al. freely mix and conflate contradictory threads:

1. The 2020 election was stolen (Trump was correct on the facts).

2. The 2020 election wasn't stolen (Trump was wrong on the facts). However, Trump was so emotionally committed to the notion of a stolen election that he was not conscious that what he was doing was wrong. 

3. The character of  the 2020 election is irrelevant because everything Trump did and said is absolutely protected by the First Amendment as political speech.

What makes this case so maddening to analyze is that you keep forgetting that there IS no strategy for what to present to a Jury. The only possible survival strategy for Trump is to do anything and everything to kick the proceeding as far out as possible -- at each procedural moment. 

But you can't simply announce to the World that this is your actual legal strategy. You can't file a procedural motion which plainly states its only salutory purpose is to delay and complicate the proceeding as much as possible. There has to be a pretext, a fig leaf, some perfunctory daubing of lipstick on the pig. Enter John Lauro. Lather, rinse, repeat.

The end.

Tuesday, August 01, 2023

Maine's Tumbledown Mt. is on a Road to Ruin

 Yeah, why should you repair a public road if there's no 'taxpayers' on it?


Access to the Tumbledown Mountain trails has been hampered by flooding, and state and county officials have entered talks to see who foots the repair bill.

Water washed out the pavement on the road’s edges and exposed chunks of loose rock. In one section, the center buckled and cracked, and land around the road’s culverts slipped into the brook they feed.

Though remedial repairs have already been made to this 2.5-mile stretch of Byron Road in central Franklin County, county officials and the Maine Bureau of Parks and Lands are grappling with a $70,000 to $100,000 question of who will pay for the rest.

The initial repairs have made the road navigable, but county officials said they would soon put up signs warning travelers of the damage and corresponding risk.

Both parties were hesitant about that prospect during a July 25 meeting between county officials and Tim Post, the western regional land manager for the Bureau of Parks and Lands.

The road is owned by the county but has no county residents alongside it, Commissioner Bob Carlton said during the meeting, and most of the land abutting it is owned by the state, disincentivizing the county from footing the entire bill.

“From our standpoint, it just doesn’t make a lot of sense to … spend a lot of money on a road that has no taxpayers on it,” Carlton said.

Further complicating the issue, according to County Administrator Amy Bernard, is the road was already in bad shape before the flooding hit. Bernard said the culverts were undersized and the road itself was too wide, stretching from brook to brook in the valley.


Monday, July 24, 2023

Cornel West Wants You to Thank Him for Losing Your Election


This frog will get as many electoral college votes as Cornel West.
Cornel West is the injured veteran who insists on playing and 'helping the team' even though he can barely walk -- and ends up causing the team to lose. And he wants you to thank him for it.

 CNN  — 7/21/2023 -- Headline:

Democratic worries bubble up over Cornel West’s Green Party run as Biden campaign takes hands-off approach

Updated 2:47 PM EDT, Fri July 21, 2023

"Cornel West’s candidacy on the Green Party line confuses some of his longtime political allies and friends – while also alarming top Democrats and Black leaders as a potential ticking time bomb for President Joe Biden in next year’s election." 


Cornel West knows you need 538 electoral votes to win. Cornel West knows he can't and won't actually win 538 electoral votes. He knows he will not pull away Republican voters and thereby help in close states. He knows he will pull from voters in close states who would otherwise vote Democratic. Cornel West knows that no third party candidate for president has ever won or even come remotely close to winning the U.S. presidency.

Cornel West knows that without a Justice Department willing to prosecute civil rights violations,. the laws become meaningless fig leaves. He knows that a Republican victory means the end of civil rights period -- no enforcement and the active stripping away of the underlying laws themselves.

If Cornel West is the razor-sharp intellect he is running as -- he would his candidacy cannot help its intended benefactors. It's like giving someone a boat with a hole in the bottom as a wedding present and then expecting to be thanked

West wishes to be honored and praised and for his Quixotic mission for the White House. But he is as confusing reckless stupidity with bravery. He is the delusionary soldier leaping out of the foxhole alone, getting quickly shot by the enemy, and revealing his company's secreted location.  


This is a provable falsity -- according to West's own campaign strategy. Any new voters which he pulls into the election will naturally vote for him. Except for a few states with ranked-choice voting in presidential elections, this means that the only candidate capable of keeping the Republicans from winning will not get any of the new votes and voters West attracts. This is the unifying falsity which defines all failed third party presidential candidacies coming from the Left. West's rebuttal is provably false (by factual data) and rationally disingenuous. On the negative effect of Ralph Nader on the 2000 election, West bluntly claims none of the Nader voters would have voted at all if not for Nader -- so they had no effect on Al Gore's numbers. But this argues too much. First, West can't prove (some Nader voters would have switched if Nader told them; but he didn't). Using West's own rationale, his candidacy in 2024 will at best be utterly meaningless. He drew in voters only to have them throw their votes completely away by voting for him, who has no stick of a chance of getting five electoral votes, never mind 538. 

Cornel West is a guy who can't swim who thinks he can do a better life-saving job than the life guard simply because he cares more. So the kid drowns. And he wants you to thank him for it. 

All Left-oriented 3rd Party candidates always promise to tell their supporters to switch to the leading candidate if the polls show them with no chance actually winning (or getting a single electoral vote). Then they always refuse. This is because 3rd party candidates are always liars. 3rd Party candidates cannot and will not ever accept culpability for their obstinacy and its consequences on the real people who now have to suffer under a truly hostile government-in-power. 

Nor does West seem to be aware that this Republican Party is more hostile to black Americans than any since the Reconstruction. Or that this Republican Party has plainly stated its intention to make black Americans as legally powerless as before the 1964 Civil Rights Act. None of these existential facts seem to faze West -- it is if he is still living in 1980 and the Republican Party was that led by Gerald Ford. This a problem with Old Lefties.Their lifetimes of past experience turn into millstones in the present. 

It's one thing for one old man to launch one more Quixotic Mission to redeem the defeats of his past. But that's a personal thing. If you personal validation, go climb K-2. At least it will only be your body on the crags of the summit. But don't invite the whole country along and kill them as well. That is just selfish.

Like RFK Jr.. West seems driven by internal demons unique to men who realize this is their last shot -- at anything 'big.' This is Cornel West at the bar with Dylan Thomas, draining pints and rage, raging against the dying of the light, forgetting the world goes on after them, and they are really only rueing the dying of their own light.



100 year old Apple trees, Richmond, Maine - 5/2/2022


Friday, July 21, 2023

Old Farm Shed near Wilson Pond, North Monmouth, Maine.

Photoshoot for 1st Day of Spring (March 20) in 2023.

RFK Jr., CNN and Click-Bait Coddling

This rock has a better chance of winning than RFK Jr.  
 Jay Michaelson, a rabbi, writes in a 7/20/2023 CNN opinion piece:

 "Whereas, Kennedy Jr. is the epitome of the ‘useful idiot.’ Heavily funded by right-wing donors, he is proving to be an early headache for President Joe Biden, who is now forced into a no-win decision between debating him and allowing his dangerous nonsense to go unchecked." 

RFK Jr. is no 'early headache' for Biden. He is a useful contrast for Biden. The more RFK Jr. self-implodes, the more Biden looks like the only sane adult in the room.

CNN and others continue to paint RFK Jr. as a serious presidential candidate even as the facts in their own reporting lay out his own lurching, calamitous self-immolation. CNN has a fiduciary interest in allowing RFK Jr. to be 'considered' a serious candidate (by whom?; for what?) solely because RFK Jr. will generate clicks -- but only if he remains considered (by CNN) to still be a 'serious' challenger who 'worries Democrats.'

Who are all these 'worried Democrats' ? How come CNN can't find one and interview them? Are they also 'worried' about talking to CNN? How worried can a Democrat be?

This is the oldest and sleaziest news trick in the book. You invent a premise from whole cloth claim that it 'worries' some unknown but apparently audible 'Democrats' If the worries are audible, where is the audio? Where's the interview? Where's the transcript? 

The provable fact that the Koch brothers are funding RFK Jr. and the fact that he is not flatly rejecting their 'help' should be the second sentence in any CNN story about RFK Jr. He is the first-ever Democratic primary hopeful directly funded and cheered on by the opposing party and vocally hated by his own party. Or, as Democratic House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries said on July 20, RFK Jr. is a “a living, breathing, false flag operation.” 

This non sequitur is not just insane -- it's highly germane.


For CNN, keeping RFK Jr. in the news queue and portal page generates far more clicks than that guy from North Dakota. Without RFK Jr. there is no named challenger to Biden and therefore, no upcoming Democratic presidential contest of any type. Bored now. So can't we prop up the squeaky bat a bit longer?


Sunday, December 10, 2017

Carl Sagan and the Pollution of Science

While most scientists do not lie (except when they play poker), they can be easily encouraged to do so with the offer of financial renumeration. We call them 'biostitutes.' They pollute science and do not care (as they turn the key to their new SUV). But we have to live in the wreck of the world which their lies have made.

Carl Sagan (1980) wrote that "science is self-correcting" (contrasting with religious dogma). But this is only sometimes true and only under certain special conditions. Sagan's thesis requires a lack of financial incentive for scientists to lie. Sagan's postulate ('science is self-correcting') is virtually impossible to attain (and is strongly disfavored) in a capitalist society. As such Sagan's 'Rule' is the exception which proves the opposite.

Sagan was afflicted with personal/psychological bias regarding the life experiments conducted on NASA's Viking 1 and 2 landers on Mars in 1976. His apologia for the failure of Viking 1 and 2 to find any present or past evidence of life on Mars, in his book Cosmos ('Blues for a Red Planet') is almost the same 'special pleading' used by the Church to explain away Galileo's discovery with a telescope of moons around Jupiter. The hidden bias in Sagan's special pleading that he knew the only justification for spending $1 billion to put two landers on Mars was the chance of finding signs of life. When Viking 1 and 2 found no signs of life, it was hard for a non-biased observer not to describe the effort as a failure. This is shown simply: if NASA had hard evidence there was no life on Mars, Congress would not have given them $1 billion to put two landers on it. So were Sagan and the JPL liars? Were they 'astrobiostitutes'? No. Just the opposite. They were conducting an experiment which could only be conducted by physically going to Mars. And that does cost a billion dollars.

Percival Lowell and Carl Sagan

"Blues for a Red Planet" tells the strange story of a wealthy Bostonian, Percival Lowell, who had an interest in astronomy, and funded a giant telescope to be built for him in Flagstaff, Arizona around 1910. Through this telescope, Lowell viewed Mars incessantly and was convinced he saw giant man-made canals on it. Nobody could shake Lowell of this conviction, and because he was the richest guy around (and paid everybody), everyone said, 'Whatever you say, Mr. Lowell (you freakin' nut).'

In 1910, the diameter of Mars and its distance from Earth had been calculated to a few percent. A 'canal' of the size and width Lowell drew while looking at Mars would have to be 100 times wider than the Mississippi River. Why did nobody point this out to Lowell? Some did. But most, who were dependent on his patronage, dutifully said, "Yup, Mr. Lowell, that sure looks like a man-made canal to me." [The resolution of Lowell's 24-inch dia. refractor telescope was so poor that it could barely discern a feature on Mars smaller than the British Isles on Earth, let alone the Thames River or London, or a canal along the Thames near London. But Lowell swore he 'saw them.']

Like Lowell, Carl Sagan was like Fox Mulder of the X-Files, burrowed in a cellar office with a poster on the wall which said, "I Want To Believe." For Lowell, it was canals on Mars. For Sagan it was life on Mars -- of any type. Carl Sagan almost religiously hoped to find scientific evidence of life on Mars. His 'telescope' was the $1 billion Viking 1 and 2 landers. But like Lowell should have known in his time (1910), Sagan should have known in his time (1976) that finding any life on Mars was as likely as finding a Suez Canal on Mars. The clue? Atmosphere.

NASA knew in the 1970s that the atmosphere of Mars was ridiculously thin; on Earth it would be called a very good vacuum. Atmospheric pressure on the lowest section of Mars (Hellas Basin) is less than the highest altitude of a jet fighter (10 mbar). The best conditions on the surface of Mars are what you would expect at 60,000 feet of altitude on Earth. Sagan knew all this well before Viking. But like Lowell and Fox Mulder, Sagan wanted to believe. Why?

1. If Viking discovered life on Mars it would be biggest scientific discovery in the history of Homo sapiens.
2. If Viking discovered no signs of life on Mars it could be called a colossal waste of $1 billion dollars and cripple NASA and space exploration in perpetuity.

So when the Viking data came back and said, "No life -- not even a chance." It was a colossal bummer for the Viking team and NASA, as in -- we are so screwed.  Hence the PBS television show 'Cosmos,' which could be called, "Carl Sagan Bitching About Nobody Being Excited That Viking Found No Life On Mars."

If Viking 1 or 2 had found any evidence of life on Mars, the news would have been headline on every newspaper and TV station in the world. It would be much bigger news than Armstrong and Aldrin walking on the Moon in 1969. The NASA-JPL team would all get Nobel Prizes and biographies in Encyclopedia Britannica. But what Sagan forgot is that Viking 1 and 2 didn't find any signs of life on Mars. Finding life on Mars is big news. Not finding it is not big news. But from Carl's disappointment he created Cosmos -- the PBS series -- and from his chagrin did more to popularize basic science than any person. So was Sagan a 'biostitute?' No.

While Carl Sagan financially benefitted from science (he was a professor of science at Cornell), he was not doing science solely for the financial benefits. He did not start looking up at the stars as boy in Brooklyn and say, "I can make some money off of this." And in reality, most biostitutes never start that way either. They usually start quite pure, much like Carl, but upon college gradumacation start to get sucked slowly and relentlessly into the culture of biostitution. Which raises the question: what is a biostitute?

A biostitute is an otherwise competent scientist who steers and shifts and shades their factual data and conclusions so that they 'magically' coincide with the specific wishes and desires of their financial patron -- and suppresses data which their patron might get butt-hurt about (ie. lose money).

It is in this sense that Carl Sagan's statement, 'science is self-correcting,' must be appended with its initial clause, "Unlike religious belief, science is self-correcting." If modern capitalism becomes synonymous with the position of religion in the 1600s, then we can say, "Science is not self-correcting." The scientists who work slavishly to ensure that science does not rid itself of empirical errors are called biostitutes. They do this for a check, a job, prestige, a trophy wife, a new SUV, an Asian hooker, or whatever modern capital can offer them. Proof of this is that biostitutes do not publish. They keep their written utterances in the 'grey literature' -- one or several steps below peer-reviewed science.

Q: Why doesn't a biostitute say the Earth is flat?
A: No one has paid them to.

Q: When will a biostitute say the Earth is flat?
A: As soon as someone pays them to.

Percival Lowell's 1910 belief there were no canals on Mars is no different than those who claim there is no man-made global warming on Earth with one exception: Lowell had no skin in the game. Lowell was not trying to pull the wool over peoples' eyes so as to make a buck. Lowell was not suppressing science done by others so as to make a buck (he was already as rich as Midas). Lowell was not trying to deliberately fool the groundlings in the back row (like the Duke and the Dauphin in Huckleberry Finn). Lowell actually believed there were canals on Mars. His posthumous reputation has taken the consequent hit for it (rich guy, built a big telescope, crazy as a bedbug). If the American Petroleum Institute thought increasing global temperatures was good for their stock price they would now be funding the same main-stream climate scientists they are now defunding and defaming. But since AGW will negatively hit oil stock prices, they need Ph.D biostitutes. Thankfully, University geology departments breed them like rabbits. In the meeting hall of every local Biostitute Klavern is a flag with the slogan, "Hey, I gotta feed my family, man."

Apollo 11 and the Two Million Parts

Author Craig Jackson ('Rocket Men') describes the Saturn V rocket and Apollo space capsules as having more than 2 million individual parts; even its contractors and builders could not give an accurate count. Each part was individually fabricated by a collective of 400,000 workers. If any of one the key parts had fatal flaws, Apollo 11 would never survive an Earth-Moon trip. Try and imagine biostitutes designing and building the Saturn V and Apollo 11. Actually, you don't have to. Apollo 1 was designed by biostitutes, which caused astronauts Ed White, Gus Grissom and Roger Chaffee to be fried to a crisp in a capsule test in 1964. This disaster caused NASA to weed out the biostitutes in its contractor-chain. A space craft like Apollo is a one-use device. It either works or it doesn't. It doesn't have to work over and over and over for millions of iterations. But a highway bridge does and a natural environment does and the Earth's environment does. This reveals to us the biostitute's secret:

They get paid in full with no fear of consequence when their lies hurt people.

This is why biostitutes have that name -- "bio" -- meaning living systems, which tend to have long consequence and feedback circles (ie. will catching 20 million cod a year affect the cod stock in 20 years?). By a biostitute's correct calculation, by the time their lie is revealed they will be comfortably retired, in their SUV and Florida vacation home, and legally immune from retribution. This delayed cycle cannot happen on Apollo 11 (if they screw up, the crew dies on national TV).

What Happens When the Client Says, "We Don't Care If it Works."

As any car owner knows, there are a million more ways to make a car not work than work. Neil Armstrong once said of Apollo 11, "This is a great statement about American craftsmanship." He meant that it worked -- as in it didn't blow up and kill him and Buzz Aldrin and Mike Collins. But what if biostitutes worked on Apollo 11? What if the contractors and CEOs didn't care if it worked or not? What if everyone was completely unconcerned whether what they built worked or not -- so long as they got paid? That's what Armstrong, Grissom, White et al. were deeply worried about from 1964-1969 [Do these jackasses even care?]. It's one reason why NASA had all the astronauts do repeated 'meet and greets' at all the factories making parts for Apollo -- to remind the contractors that real peoples' lives were at stake if they sloughed off the job or their boss told them to skimp on the details.

Now think of the Earth as Apollo 11 - but 10 billion times larger. Both are space capsules floating in absolute zero. What if biostitutes run the Earth?