But bananas would be the perfect weapon for a cat like Satan. No one would ever expect it. Weaponized bananas. They are considered the perfect food, so that would surely make them the perfect weapon. Get the healthy folks first, and then the fatties will be sitting ducks. Brilliant.

I bought a bunch of bananas (“bushel” seems like overkill, so I’m going with “bunch”) that have never ripened. After more than a week, I ended up purchasing another bunch of bananas, which promptly ripened, and then were consumed, digested, and excreted – all while this original bunch just sat there, green as the day I first brought them home.

After a few more days of non-ripening, I put an apple next to these bananas. For those unfamiliar with nature’s quirks, apples release something that makes bananas ripen more quickly. It’s one of the many reasons that you don’t see bananas and apples shipped together. All the other reasons have to do with the fact that they tend to be grown in different climates.

But even with the apple in the same bowl, there was no action on the ripening end of these bananas. Perhaps because it was a green apple? So I then tried a Macintosh, to see if that set things in motion, but no luck.

It’s been three weeks now, and still nothing. Not quite as green as when I originally brought them home, but still miles from ripe. I think I’m going to toss them, so I don’t accidentally slip on one of Satan’s peels.

But be advised, this could be the start of something. It’s certainly not a hallmark of Al Qaeda or the biblical apocalypse, but then that’s what makes it so diabolical…the Bananapocalypse.

Leave it to conservatives to play politics at such a time in America. A day after a successful mission to kill or capture Osama bin Laden, Bush Administration flunkies, Republican politicians, and the unabashedly biased boneheads at Fox News have already started trying to downplay President’s Obama role in killing Osama bin Laden. Saying that a soldier killed the most wanted man in the world, not Obama, is like saying a bullet killed him, not a soldier.

No matter how you try to spin it, the truth is that Clinton failed to make the right decision at Tarnak Farms because he didn’t want risk harming a member of the Saudi royal family, who was visiting the terrorist mastermind. And then Bush failed to make the right decision at Tora Bora because he didn’t want to put additional military assets at risk, opting instead to hire a tribe of Taliban cronies to do the work our soldiers should have done. Obama had the cojones to take the risk and make the right decision.

If you can’t give Obama credit for killing Bin Laden, then how do you justify crediting Bin Laden for bringing down the Twin Towers? And if your are so committed to your ideology that you cannot see past it, then maybe you ought to rethink why you live in a democracy.

A friend of mine sent me the above video of Morgan Spurlock’s TED Talk. For those of you unfamiliar with TED, it’s an exceptional forum where you’ll typically find intelligent people offering moments of enlightenment. This isn’t the shallow ideological blathering you’ll find in most forums, televised or online. It’s people, mostly experts in their field, offering insight into issues that shape our world. And when they’re on, you’ll smile, maybe even laugh, and gain new understanding, perhaps even a new perspective.

I do enjoy Spurlock’s documentaries, like Super Size Me. But to think the filmmaker doesn’t have an agenda is naive. Michael Moore is loathed primarily because he’s obese and obnoxious, whereas Spurlock is hipper and more charming. But make no mistake…both men are in the same racket.

The target of Spurlock newest film, The Greatest Movie Ever Sold, is the world of marketing. And you can tell from his TED Talk that he entered into the project with a busload of bias, viewing the marketing industry as non-transparent and somehow fundamentally disingenuous. He even considers colleagues who employ product placement in their films to be unclean, shamefully compromised by getting in bed with greed mongers and spin heads.

Don’t get me wrong…I think the marketing industry – and sponsorships in particular – is a worthy documentary subject. And there are certainly plenty of heartless hacks in the business, who would eagerly sell Satan’s gospel for an easy buck. But it doesn’t seem like Spurlock is interested in telling the whole story, at least not in any way that could be considered fair and balanced.

While I have yet to see the film (only dozens of billboard ads in my neighborhood…the same visual pollution he appears to denigrate in his film), I can already tell from these clips that he lacks that very same transparency and sincerity in his documentary style. Accusing the marketing industry – whether traditional ad agencies, public relations firms, or integrated marketing companies – of having something to hide – even to not be acting in their client’s best interests – is grossly deceptive. The reason Spurlock was rejected by nearly everyone he approached is because they clearly saw through the smokescreen surrounding his own intentions.

Even from the clips Spurlock features as part of his TED Talk, you can tell that his goal is attack the marketing world and those who use it, portraying them as heartless glob of profiteers seeking to dupe the innocent American consumer. Unfortunately for him, most of the people who have succeeded in the business aren’t that gullible. Their unwillingness to be his dupes has nothing to do with a lack of transparency, or misleading their clients. They simply know what Spurlock is trying to do, so why would they expose themselves – and their clients – to his intended ridicule?

In his new documentary, The Greatest Movie Ever Sold, filmmaker Morgan Spurlock appears to have little respect for the marketing industry, yet he gladly uses various marketing techniques - from advertising and public relations to speaking opportunities and social networking - in an effort to promote the film.

While a genuine documentary about the state of the marketing industry would be interesting, it wouldn’t be interesting enough to play at Sundance. It might make it on PBS or CNBC, and then be relegated to a tool for college professors. But it certainly wouldn’t make it to theaters around the country, or garner its star/writer/director/producer more accolades and television interviews. It’s easy to demonize an industry, especially if you don’t understand it. And that certainly sells better than a more serious and balanced documentary.

Towards the end of his presentation, Spurlock claims that, after previewing at Sundance (which is, incidentally, a marketing showcase, his film has delivered more than 90 million media impressions for the companies that chose to participate. He considers this a major coup, mocking all those agencies who advised their clients to spend their hard-earned dollars on more sound marketing investments.

And that fact alone tells me that Spurlock has managed to learn nothing about marketing. Though, in fairness, I doubt he ever actually intended to. Using his logic, the Gulf Oil Spill was a huge marketing boost for BP, in that they received billions of media impressions from it. But even someone of Spurlock’s obviously limited business acumen knows that this is far from the case.

Marketing is not about how many impressions you make. It’s about what you say, how you say it, and to whom. That’s what Spurlock seems to have missed. He derides the firms he met with for refusing to participate because they would have no “control” over how their clients – or their staff – are portrayed. Yet that’s the essence of marketing, being able to shape and manage that message.

At one point in this presentation, Spurlock talks about his father, who told him that there are three sides to every story. There’s your side, their side, and then the real story. The reason The Greatest Movie Ever Sold will never tell the real story is because it’s clearly only Spurlock’s side of the story. True, no one in the marketing industry stepped up to tell their story, but that’s because Spurlock never intended to let them. For that to actually happen, he would have to give up some “control,” the very thing he accuses them of insisting upon. He had complete freedom to tell his side, and then insisted on being able to control – edit, delete, etc. – whatever the marketing people tried to say. It’s like having an argument with your spouse except that they get to choose the words and phrases you use for your side of the story. Why bother?

Perhaps Spurlock should have listened to his father. Or at least do us all the courtesy of making a documentary about documentary filmmakers.

Another friend of mine sent me the following video clip, which was an ideal counterpoint. It’s easy to see the marketing world as invasive and manipulative. But in reality, for the most part, it helps people tell their story in a more effective way. And this video is a great illustration of that.

The Olympic Dream Is Alive And Well In The East Village
I spotted this little gem on First Avenue in the East Village the other day. If I had my drinking gear with me, I would have stopped in for some training. Fortunately I still have plenty of time before they make the selection for the 2012 team.

Charlie Sheen has taken narcissistic delusions to a new and colorful level, even for Hollywood. (image source: nydailynews.com)

I don’t know Charlie Sheen. I don’t read People Magazine or watch Entertainment Tonight. In fact, I don’t watch any network television except for Fox’s Sunday night fab four: Simpsons, Cleveland Show, Family Guy, & American Dad. I don’t even watch the Academy Awards, as if Chuckles might someday be fortunate enough to be invited to serve as a celebrity presenter.

So for Charlie Sheen to get on my radar, he must really be out of control. And, honestly, now I just can’t get enough of the guy. He is, after all, an entertainer by trade. And he’s been nothing but entertaining. OK, maybe amusingly annoying is a more appropriate way to describe him. But without a doubt, the man’s funniest role ever has been playing Charlie Sheen. Sadly, though, I don’t think he’s acting.

After four years of behaving like Charlie Sheen, I was awarded with a bachelor’s degree in psychology. That grants me no special qualifications, other than the fact that I’ve seen both sides of the coin. And one thing I’ve learned over the years is that when someone is trying so hard to convince you that they’re winning, it’s usually because deep down they feel themselves slipping away…headed for a major loss.

Charlie Sheen fancies himself a winner, but having lost Denise Richards has ensured that generations to come will consider him an epic loser.

What troubles me is that anyone could feel sorry for this guy. Carlos Irwin Estevez was born with a silver spoon in his mouth, and one that almost certainly had a little residue on it. OK, that’s probably not entirely true. His father didn’t really make it big until Charlie was 8. But the kid has pretty much lived the gravy train life.

Sheen’s father helped him break into show business, bypassing the struggling artist phase that typically induces some level of humility. And while he appeared in four good movies – starring in two (Platoon and Wall Street) and supporting in the other two (Red Dawn and Being John Malkovich) – he also appeared in more than 50 marginal to terrible ones. Let’s face it…even calling Charlie Sheen the Ben Affleck of his generation would be more than kind. And, frankly, that’s probably not being fair to Affleck.

I have seen snippets of his show (or I suppose I should say his “former show”), Two and a Half Men. For those of you who haven’t had the disappointment, it’s your typical mindless Hollywood sitcom drivel. The plots are as predictable as the earth’s rotation, and you could actually fart wittier dialog. Frankly, I’m not sure if the title refers to the IQ of the target demographic, but one does get the sense that Sheen is that half man. And while he claims all the credit for the show’s success, its co-creators/writers Lee Aronsohn and the suddenly Sheenonized Chuck Lorre have a string of milktoast sitcom successes that would make any obese housewife shudder with the kind of gratification typically reserved for Mallomars.

And the fact that this is what Sheen’s fighting over, an insipid sitcom that will seat him next to Garry Coleman in the pantheon of American entertainment, is pathetic. I understand that he wants that $16 million he’ll get from doing another season, but where did the millions from the other eight seasons go? Probably fled in the night, along with his dignity. 

Yes, I've included another picture of Sheen's ex-wife Denise Richards because she's so much better to look at than his gnarly facade, not to mention far prettier at age 40 than the skanky porn stars Sheen now surrounds himself with.

If I had such fame and fortune, would I be racking up eight balls and buying the home next door for a stable of second-rate porn stars? I’d like to think I would. But at my worst, I might cultivate a garden in the back of my house and invite a few of them over to frolic in a kiddie pool filled with baby oil while listening to the Bay City Rollers. I just can’t do full-on stupid. Though Sheen and I are the same age, I’ve unfortunately amassed far too many years as a functioning member of society to indulge in such gratuitous narcissism, as much as I wish I could.

But if I were a parent, like Sheen, I certainly wouldn’t be living the life of a dumbfuck. I may not take myself too seriously, but I consider the responsibility I have to the people I love – especially the young and vulnerable – to be nothing short of solemn. That’s clearly where Sheen and I veer apart. He’s one of those unfortunate parents who never realized that bringing a child into this world meant making that child a priority over one’s own petty indulgences.

Sure, I’d love to have a pair of “goddesses” (Sheen has invited a porn star and a reefer model to live with him, along with his two young children) attending to my needs. Lord knows I have sufficient needs to warrant two of women instead of one. Though I imagine I would have found a way to make things work with Denise Richards, as she’s more appealing than two skanks – no matter how you stack them.

Of course Sheen also keeps a few guys around the house, to clean the pool and tell him how fucking brilliant he is. But celebrity sycophants are to be expected, especially when you grow up in that kind of bubble – where you can’t buy friends but you can buy loyalty.

In all honesty, I’ll be the first to admit that I’m the last person in the world to lecture anyone about growing up. But there comes a time when you’ve got to take responsibility for yourself, and for the people and things in your life. And just because you can afford to hire someone to put your pants on for you doesn’t mean you should.

By the way, Corey Feldman wants his hat back. LOSING!!! (image source: aceshowbiz.com)

Anyone who has witnessed the narcissistic epilepsy that passes for a Charlie Sheen interview these days knows that he is big on telling people not to judge him. And for a guy who spends most of his screen time judging everyone else in the world (including lowlifes like you and me, who he deems weakly jealous of his wonderfully good fortune and unique talent), he is always quick to tell us not to judge him.

Well, Carlos, let’s be clear about one thing. I’m not judging you. I’m making fun of you. I’m laughing at you. Because the funniest joke you ever told is yourself. Dude.

PS – Everyone knows that Emilio was the cool one. WINNING!!!

ARCHER
Archer is an animated version of James Bond, if Ian Fleming were maliciously sodomized by Hunter S. Thompson. It’s centered around a private espionage agency where 1960′s morality slaps the ass of 1990′s political correctness in what can best be described as a far braver version of The Office.

The Bondesque title character works for his domineering mother and alongside his former lover and fellow agent, an ubervixen that will make you wonder what you ever saw in Daphne Blake. The rest of his twisted co-workers include a secretary with a choking fetish, voiced by The Hebrew Hammer’s Judy Greer. She is one of three Arrested Development veterans in the cast, adding nicely to the dysfunctional family atmosphere.

The show comes from the same minds that brought us the unquestionably brilliant Sealab 2021. And, as difficult as it may be to imagine, Archer might actually be even funnier. Do not miss this one. On Fox, naturally.

GLORY DAZE
TBS has a new show, Glory Daze, that has really struck a chord with me. It’s about a college fraternity in the 1980s. Oddly enough, I spent much of the 80s in a fraternity. And some of the plot twists reflect experiences my friends and I had.

But what really makes it work for me is the music. The theme is a sample from The Clash’s Police On My Back. And the show is chock full of gems that take me back.

A word of caution, though. Glory Daze was created by the writer of You, Me, & Dupree and the director of Van Wilder and Wild Hogs, which should help taper your expectations. It’s not brilliant, or even that witty, but it is an entertaining diversion, even if it is just for the music.

UGLY AMERICANS
This late-night addition to Comedy Central is very well done. In a nutshell, Ugly Americans is a show about a social worker, and it includes amusing little life lessons in each episode.

OK, that sounds like a barge of rotting cat carcasses. Let’s try it from a different angle. Ugly Americans is an animated show set in the future, or perhaps an alternate present, when aliens have landed and the gates of hell have opened, letting demons and zombies run free. The main character is a social worker at the “Department of Integration,” where he is in charge of helping aliens, demons, zombies, and other bizarre creatures acclimate to life in New York City. His roommate is zombie cocksman, his boss/girlfriend is a hot demoness, and his colleague is an ancient wizard who frequents the bottle.

OK, there’s no way to adequately describe this show. It must be experienced. Turn on, tune out, and then tune in. With writing credentials that include The Simpsons, you’re sure to enjoy the ride.

The "polite" ad for The Social Network film. (image source: comingsoon.net)

FINDING FACEBOOK
I joined Facebook in 2007, which means I was among the first 50 million users. A friend of mine who is a Web producer suggested I check it out after I was complaining about the spammification of MySpace. Even though I didn’t know anyone who was on it, besides her, I signed up and created a profile. Not a lot of action at first.

Now there are more than 500 million Facebook users around the world. That’s more than one out of every 14 people on the planet. It is, as the Internetters like to say, the next big thing. Yet, unlike other next big things - such as MySpace, Friendster, RealAudio, Netscape, AltaVista, Excite, and Lycos, for example – those in the know say that this is the real deal (which, of course, is what they say about every next big thing that comes along).

Don’t get me wrong, I do enjoy Facebook – to an extent. But clearly not as much as many of my friends. They love to post pictures of their kids or pets. Or videos of someone else’s kids or pets doing something cute or stupid.

I understand that sort of Facebooking. People want to share the things they like. But what I can’t understand is the people who play games on Facebook, like FarmVille or FronteirVille. That and those stupid surveys that seemed to be all the rage not long ago – how well do you know so-and-so and shit like that.

It’s one thing to share trivial facts about your life with everyone. But these people don’t even have enough trivial facts in their life to share, so they must seek applications and other gimmicks to manufacture them. That’s really sad. It’s one thing not to have a life, a zero life value, but those people have ventured into the realm of negative life values.

Personally, I have 142 friends on Facebook. That’s a very tight network compared to a lot of people. Still, I only really communicate (as in occasionally speak to, in real life) with a handful of them. There are five people on this list I honestly don’t even know. When they requested my friendship, I figured they must know me, even though I couldn’t remember them. And despite their postings, I still haven’t a clue.

But the sad truth is that I hide 46 of these “friends” – a good third of them. Why? Because they play shit like FarmVille, Mafia Wars, FronteirVille, Bejeweled Blitz, or any of that useless crap. Or they do stuff like How Well Do You Know so-and-so or I Just Answered A Question About so-and-so. Hey, if you are going to say something, then say something – don’t post some Hallmark bullshit!

Which President Are You? Which Celebrity Are You? Who cares! I’d rather know what you think. Tell me something original. If you can’t do that, then share something that will either get me to think, or make me laugh. That is, after all, what I use Facebook for – to inspire and amuse others.

Or so I think. I’m sure that there are plenty of people who hide my ass on Facebook. I’m a different offender altogether. I’m the guy who shamelessly promotes his blogs. And since few of my friends share my passion for soccer, the constant posts about soccer and Total Footblog must get very annoying for them. That and my rabid political rants.

Perhaps the most annoying Facebookers of all are the location posters. These are the people who post that they are in an airport or at a restaurant. Why do people do that? Are they simply bragging that they are travelling, or dining out? I’m having dinner at Quaker State & Lube in Cleveland Hopkins International…and you’re not!

Or is it in case I need to locate them - immediately – as in I wouldn’t have time to give them a call or shoot them a text? Perhaps I’m going to get a call from the President some day, insisting that I tell them the location of a Facebook friend because aliens have landed and said they’d only deal directly with my friend…or they’ll destroy the planet in 40 seconds. Yes, that’s probably why people feel compelled to let everyone know exactly where they are at any given moment in their day.

People do the same sort of thing on sites like FourSquare and Twitter. Ya know, if you like a place that much, why not write a post that explains why it’s so good, rather than just say you are there. Information without context or reason is just noise.

But Twitter has to be the most useless and annoying of all the social networking sites. Once the media darling, you don’t see a lot written about Twitter anymore. It was hyped as the next big thing, but not so much these days.

I guess people don’t really care what you ate for breakfast. It’s one thing to be able to share your thoughts, ideas, and experiences with others via platforms like Facebook, but Twitter lends itself more to the mundane – the minute-by-minute brief clips of one’s daily activities. And, despite the popularity of reality TV, that’s just not that interesting. You can tell me something in 140 characters, but rarely can you tell me enough to make it meaningful. If anything, following a friend on Twitter – someone who tweets regularly – will likely make you want to stop being their friend.

I admit that I’ve seen some celebrities, journalists, and even a few companies put Twitter to good use. But I think a lot of regular folk have realized that Twitter is an exotic French term for talking when no one is listening. And lest you think I’m being harsh, compare the number of Tweeters who have more followers than followings to those who are following more than they are followed. It’s a great divide.

But what separates Facebook from Twitter and all the other social networking sites is not just the fact that more than one in 14 people on the planet use it. No, the real sign of preeminence is the fact that they have made a movie about it. You haven’t really arrived in American culture until Hollywood takes note.

The "less polite" ad for The Social Network film. (image source: sixthseal.com)

THE MOVIE
The movie, entitled The Social Network, is about the founding of Facebook, and supposedly follows the exploits of Facebook founder and furher, Mark Zuckerberg, from his freshman year of college to the founding of the company and ensuing litigation. Now keep in mind that this isn’t exactly an accurate portrayal. The writers never spoke with Zuckerberg, and they have a reputation for combining characters and events in an effort to create drama. As is often the case with social networking, drama and sensationalism often trump the truth.

For example, the film ignores Zuckerberg’s child prodigy status in the tech world prior to his arrival at Harvard. And then it fixates on a manufactured desire to join elite clubs at the university, as if they needed to pin some sort of motive on Zuckerberg’s actions. But, as is the case with Facebook, when something is shared with that many people, it becomes the truth – regardless of its accuracy. And, in a nutshell, that is the problem I have with Facebook, Zuckerberg, and The Social Network.

Zuckerberg was a gifted child who grew up in a very comfortable environment. His father is a dentist and his mother was a psychiatrist. He attended an elite boarding school before going to Harvard. He was receiving big offers from AOL and Microsoft before he took his first college class. And over the past eight years, his life as gotten even rosier. Despite some litigation along the way, it’s been nothing but a charmed existence for the 26 year-old, who has become the world’s youngest billionaire – and then some.

So what’s the problem? Zuckerberg is indeed very smart. But book-smart. His life experience has been very limited, and very skewed. In a word, the guy is naive. And the good thing about The Social Network is that it will hopefully open his eyes a little.

Zuckerberg claims that he’s “trying to make the world a more open place.” And that’s a noble goal, as you might expect from a 26 year-old billionaire. But by “more open” he means less private. In fact, Facebook’s entire business model depends upon people sharing information about themselves. The more personal data that people reveal, the more money Zuckerberg can make from his advertisers. So the real question is, for whom is he trying to make the world a more open place?

Until The Social Network appeared on the horizon, Zuckerberg was a very private person. A strange choice for someone who makes their money by getting other people to be less private. Forced to face Hollywood’s version of the story he refused to ever discuss, Zuckerberg is now starting to do more interviews. What he’s finding, though, is that – as he says about his business – execution is everything. A big-budget Hollywood film will trump magazine articles every time. And, as is the case with sharing information online, once it is out there, it’s a lot harder to change…even if it’s not true.

Unlike his portrayal in the film, Zuckerberg wasn’t necessarily a social misfit who had trouble with the ladies. Sure, it might have been a tough freshman year for the kid, as it is for most, but by the time he was a sophomore he had a steady girlfriend (who he is still with today) and joined a fraternity.

However, the one thing that seems to be true from The Social Network is that Zuckerberg was a bit of an arrogant asshole. As part of the litigation over the origins of Facebook, which also received what appears to be a fairly accurate depiction in the film, some of Zuckerberg’s emails from his Harvard days were made public (you know…to make the world a more open place). And these emails paint a pretty scary picture for anyone naive enough to think that Zuckerberg and Facebook can be trusted with their information, or that they have their best interests in mind.

In one email exchange, a friend asks him how he’s going to deal with Divya Narenda and the Winklevoss twins, who had hired him to help build Harvard Connection, the site they claim he stole to create Facebook. Zuckerberg replied “I’m going to fuck them.”

And once he had launched Facebook, Zuckerberg bragged to a friend via email that “if you ever need info about anyone at harvard, just ask; I have over 4,000 emails, pictures, addresses, sns.” When his friend asked him how he amassed that information, Zuckerberg replied “people just submitted it; I don’t know why; they ‘trust me;’ dumb fucks.”

Zuckerberg has said that he regrets what he said in those email exchanges. And that he is worried that the public exposure of such information – along with his depiction in the film – will tarnish his image. Ah, the irony.

Zuckerberg's mission sounds noble but his practices are often less than noble. (image source: time.com)

THE FUCKERBERG EFFECT
Two element’s of Zuckerberg’s vision for the future of the Internet trouble me. First is his premise that what people really want to know is what’s going on with the people in your life. No, that’s what life is for. Life experiences. Real world social interactions tell me what’s going on with the people in my life. And if I cannot take the time to actively engage the people in my life, then clearly what’s happening in their lives is not that important to me.

The other flawed notion is that the Internet needs a new approach to information. Zuckerberg believes that, while Google indexes information available on the Web, his goal is to create a way of indexing what’s in people’s heads. Do you want everything in your head indexed and searchable for the world to see?

Clearly Zuckerberg doesn’t. But he’s made billions of dollars trying to do that to you. Famous for the confusing complexity of its privacy policies, Facebook changes them frequently, and the default always ensure maximum exposure of your information. Unless you are vigilant, that means information such as your name, gender, list of friends, and your photographs are all available to the public. Why? Because advertisers will pay for that information – enough to make Zuckerberg the youngest billionaire in the world.

If you look at the various products that Zuckerberg created in his relatively brief career, they all have one thing in common: eliminating people’s choices. For some reason, he thinks that people do not want to seek out their own information. And by narrowing and channeling the information you receive, he hopes to make some of those choices for you.

It began with Synapse, a program he created that tracked the music you liked to listen to, theoretically to help you find other artists you might like. But had it become commercial, like Pandora, that tracking information would have been sold to advertisers, and finding music that didn’t fit into the most profitable demographics would have been even harder to find than it is today.

Facebook’s latest addition, Open Graph, is designed to track what information you read. Again, like everything else on Facebook, Zuckerberg will sell his knowledge of your reading habits to advertisers. But the worst part of it is that – in his vision – people will start to read articles, watch movies, and shop for things based on what their friends read, watch, and buy. Instead of making the world a more open place, Zuckerberg’s vision will likely make it a more partisan place.

While Google seeks to gather and index a broad spectrum of information, Zuckerberg seeks to limit what’s available to those things which others we know have available. In his world, if no one I know listens to Goldfish or reads Fareed Zakaria, than there’s no need for me to even know about them.

Limiting our options is one thing, but the whole privacy issue is equally disturbing. Why should you be worried about what information Facebook shares with advertisers and other companies? If you have nothing to hide, then you should have nothing to fear, right? Well, even a billionaire who has led a charmed and relatively sheltered life is starting to realize that, with a feature film and emails from his youth surfacing to paint a rather unflattering picture of the man, not all information needs to be shared.

Since I’m relatively cautious with Facebook, let me give you an example of how another Web site, Amazon.com, uses information about its customers. My 16 year-old nephew was offered an HPV vaccine at his school. He didn’t want to take it. As a joke, I thought about giving him a book about STDs for Christmas. After I searched for such a book on Amazon.com, now I receive suggestions to purchase a myriad of STD-related items when I visit that online retailer. I have also received some rather questionable email offers to my email account that I use to shop at that retailer. Which is all just an embarrassing inconvenience, unless I happened to be searching for a new health insurance provider.

And if I were looking for a new health insurance provider, they would surely do some research about me. Clearly my information has been placed in some STD-friendly database, so they might suspect that I had an STD or engage in unsafe sexual practices. Suddenly it’s not so harmless, is it?

Think about that for a moment. I have never had an STD and I don’t engage in risky sexual practices (unless, of course, the harness breaks). So I have nothing to hide, right? So I should have nothing to fear?

Yet, like Zuckerberg’s Harvard emails or his depiction in the film, once information – true or false – is out there on the Internet, it’s forever in your virtual “public record.”

Facebook aggressively collects and sells your data. Everything that you like, every place that you visit. And if you happen to list Capt. Morgan and 15 other liquor brands among your likes, along with three photo albums and a few videos that show you in regular states of maniacal inebriation, you might find it harder to get affordable health insurance than someone who searched for an STD book as a gag gift.

In an effort that seems designed more to sell magazines than accurately document our time, Time Magazine selected Zuckerberg as its 2010 Person of the Year. (image source: time.com)

Just among my friends on Facebook, which are an admittedly dicey bunch, I’ve seen photos of several colleagues smoking from a hookah. I’ve witnessed numerous posts in which people have told their company/management to suck it, fuck off, etc. And certainly I’ve shared some twisted and shocking things, thinking it worth the risks given the reward of amusing my friends.

Of course I have set my privacy settings to the strictest Facebook offers. And I have done so repeatedly because Facebook continually changes its privacy policies, automatically resetting them to zero protection, so I must be vigilant. Clearly Facebook does this so that it can profit from selling our information – name, contact info, and interests – to data mining companies. Which is exactly what they do. And if they were otherwise concerned about your privacy, they would simply make the default settings for privacy the strictest, instead of the laxest.

But the trouble doesn’t stop there. Even if I set my privacy to the strictest settings and my friends do not, I may still be exposed to this data mining practice. For example, the Wall Street Journal recently reported that Facebook’s partners, those companies that create third-party applications for Facebook (like FarmVille and FronteirVille), have been selling user information as well as the information of those users’ friends “to dozens of advertising and internet tracking companies.” In fact, the report found that, of the 10 most popular Facebook applications, all of them were sharing information about users - and their friends – with other companies.

One of the key bits of information that these companies are sharing is your Facebook user ID. And with that piece of data, anyone with access to the Internet can easily find your name and, depending on your privacy settings, information such as your age, residence, occupation, interests, photos, and contact info.

But what’s the big deal? A friend of mine recently posted on Facebook about a company that offers access – searchable by name, email, or phone number – to sensitive data like income history and mortgage information. And there are plenty of companies that catalog this, offering it to anyone willing to pay the price. But, as often the case with the Internet, this information may not necessarily be accurate.

Data mining is not a union gig. It’s done by computer, with little if any human fact-checking. So, whether you are applying for a loan or insurance, information provided by these data miners may very well play an important role in the process – for better or worse. If one of these companies picks up something negative about you – true or not – it will spread like wildfire to all of the others.

Think I’m exaggerating? Those of you who have lost a family member know I’m not. Information never goes away. Nothing is ever erased. And even when you tell someone that the person they are calling about is deceased, they will apologize and promise to correct their records. But you can be certain that you’ll get another call from that organization somewhere down the road.

As a movie, The Social Network (aka Revenge of the Nerds V: All About the Money, Honey) was entertaining. Like Oliver Stone’s JFK, it’s wise to know the facts before you watch it. As for Facebook itself, I am going to continue to use it, but with even greater caution.

As a marketing communications professional (stand back, he’s a marketing communications professional!), I need to know how to utilize sites like Facebook and Twitter for my clients. And using them to promote my blogs is a perfect exercise.

So forgive me if you don’t see that much data about me personally. I will try to be a better friend in real life, as opposed to the “speak but selectively listen” world of social networking. And forgive the constant crap I post promoting my blogs. I’m just developing my digital marketing proficiency. Besides, what do you care? The only people regularly reading my posts are the data miners!

With that in mind, the stats monkeys at WordPress.com mulled over how our blog did in 2010, and here’s a high level summary of its overall blog health:

The Blog-Health-o-Meter™ reads: This blog is doing awesome!

By The Numbers

Clearly the WordPress stats monkeys are functional morons. But they did provide us with some additional information of interest. For example, a Boeing 747-400 passenger jet can hold 416 passengers (or 20 people from Wisconsin). This blog was viewed about 2,000 times in 2010. That’s about 5 full 747s…crashing into the ocean.

The busiest day of the year was Oct. 5th with 95 views. The most popular post that day was New Sex Study Proves To Be A Tease, which is where this prophylactic graphic comes from (they actually sent this to me in a lovely little summary). And it’s also where one of our favorite search terms comes from: “pubic hair removal among women in the united states: prevalence, methods, and characteristics.” Yes, apparently that has brought the Internet’s finest surfers to our fair shores.

A close runner-up for our busiest day was after we posted about the Sonny Rollins concert. But traffic for that was spread out over a few days, as it was picked up by NPR and other outlets. In fact, A Sonny Night at the Beacon received 60 percent more traffic than the New Sex Study post.

But our most viewed post was our review of the San Matteo Pizza & Espresso Bar, THREE THINGS I LIKE: Pizza, Espresso, & Bars. That page alone has received more than 280 views since it was posted back on Sept. 24, 2010 (scooping The New York Times, by the way). And searches for the exceptional little restaurant are easily our most common source of traffic.

Our primary source of traffic came from Facebook, which is odd since only three people have “liked” our Facebook fan page (which means the rest of you will suffer dearly in 2011!). NPR was actually our second biggest source of traffic. And now that San Matteo has its own site, we do get some ricochets from there (awesome fricken eats, by the way…and good people too).

Attractions in 2010

These are the posts and pages that got the most views in 2010.

New Sex Study Proves To Be A Tease October 2010
1 comment

THREE THINGS I LIKE: Pizza, Espresso, & Bars September 2010

A Sonny Night at the Beacon September 2010
2 comments

BIG SWINGING DICK WEEK: The American, Machete, & Restrepo September 2010

On Target August 2010

Looking Ahead to 2011

What will the new year have in store for The Burning Love Institute? Like it or not, probably more fo the same. Several of our staffers will continue to focus on our even more popular soccer blog, Total Footblog. So posts here will be periodic at best.

With that said, we are always open to suggestions. We encourage you to subscribe to the blog so you can receive an email notice as soon as we post something new (look over to the right-hand column, just above the Facebook link). And we thank you for your patronage over the past 21 weeks. Burning Love.

HAPPY HOLIDAYS
Few things in life move me like the holiday season. And when I say the holiday season, I am referring to all of the different religious and ethnic celebrations that traditionally occur around this time of year. But to understand why this season is so special – for me and so many others – let’s begin by taking a brief look at each of the major holidays.

Christmas
Christmas is a celebration commemorating the birth of Jesus Christ, who Christians believe was the son of God. As the story goes, Jesus’ parents arrived in the ancient city of Bethlehem late one night. They hadn’t called ahead and there were no rooms available so they ended up spending the night in the manger (kind of a mini-stable). Wow…now that I think about it, the story of Christmas starts off a lot like one of those jokes about a traveling salesman and the farmer’s daughter. I bet Joseph heard about that every time December rolled around, with Mary bitching to anyone who would listen about how he forgot to make a reservation…oye vay!

Anyway, Jesus is born there in the manger that night and three wise dudes show up, bearing gifts of gold, frankincense, and myrrh (with the latter two of ending up on eBay the following morning). You see, these guys were at Beaudoinpalooza out in the desert when they spotted a bright light in the sky.  Naturally, they followed the light, a star, which led them to the manger in Bethlehem (though, given that our planet is rotating and revolving, technically they would still be circumnavigating the Earth to this very day).  But they were kings, and they brought gifts, and it makes a nice story.

Over the years, this once purely religious holiday has evolved into a more secular celebration. In fact the Romans, who created what we know today as modern Christianity in an effort to pacify their subjects, co-opted many popular pagan rituals and traditions of the time – including the timing of the holiday itself (most Bible thumpers believe Jesus was a Virgo or Libra). Today, Christmas is celebrated on December 25th and its traditions include the giving of gifts, decorating of trees, singing of carols, and – of course – eating of cookies and other yummy foods.

For many, Santa Claus – the mythical transformation of a religious figure, St. Nicholas – has replaced Jesus Christ as the holiday’s focal point.  It is said that he lives at the North Pole and brings toys to all the children of the world on Christmas Eve, using a sleigh pulled by flying reindeer to get around and chimneys as his point of entry. Seem far-fetched? It’s not any crazier than the Bible.

Chanukah
Another popular celebration of this holiday season is Chanukah.  And so is Hanukkah.  As well as Hanukah.  No, it’s not a celebration of indecisive spelling.  It’s a Jewish holiday celebrating the Maccabee revolution against the oppressive Syrian king, Antiochus.  After an extended intifada, they drove the infidels from Jerusalem and began work on cleaning up the city – particularly the temple (apparently the Syrians pioneered the art of graffiti).

Naturally, they shopped around to get the best price.  And once the place was kosher, they held a celebration to rededicate the temple and light the N’er Tamid, which is the eternal flame that is found in every Jewish temple.

The catch was that they only had enough oil for the light to burn for one day, as opposed to all of eternity.  But they lit it anyway and it lasted for eight days, which some consider a miracle whereas others see it as the impetus behind the faith’s legendary frugality.  Yet I’m left wondering what they did on the 9th day…let the lamp burn out?

Today, Chanukah (I’ll use this spelling, since it seems the most ridiculous of the three) is celebrated on the 25th day of the Hebrew month of Kislev, so the actual date on calendars here in America varies from year to year.  It lasts for eight days, commemorating the “miracle” of the oil.  And that is probably why the holiday has the official subtitle of The Festival of Lights.

Traditions of this celebration include the lighting of the menorah, a candelabra with eight candles, with an additional candle being lit each day.  There’s also the spinning of the dreidel, a clumsy type of top. And, of course, the eating of some fairly bizarre foods.

Like the Christians, modern Jews have managed to secularize this holiday to some extent.  They have also started giving gifts and decorating their houses with colored lights.

Kwanza
Another holiday plagued by indecisive spelling is Kwanza, or Kwanzaa.  And that makes no sense, given that this is a relatively new holiday.

Kwanza was conceived and developed by Dr. Maulana “Ron” Karenga as a celebration of African-American culture.  It was first celebrated on December 26, 1966.  The celebration lasts through January 1st, with each day focused on one of its seven principles:

7) Faith - To believe with all our hearts in our parents, our teachers, our leaders, our people, and the righteousness and victory of our struggle.

The holiday grew out of the civil rights movement.  It was created to help strengthen the sense of community among African-Americans as well as to celebrate their traditions and culture.  Though some, probably those who spell it Kwanzaa, consider the holiday a chance to rectify the cultural and economic exploitation perpetrated against African-Americans during the months of October, November, and December.

While they don’t specify exactly who be perpetrating against them, the underlying sentiment leads me to believe that they have grossly misinterpreted the lyrics to White Christmas.  And, though I certainly can understand a backlash against the commercialism that has largely overtaken this holiday season, the reality is that the greed and indifference of corporate America is universal, crushing all the less fortunate – regardless of race or religion.

It’s not clear exactly how Kwanza is celebrated today.  For some, it appears to be a blend of Christmas and Chanukah, tapping traditions from both.  For others, it is more of genuine celebration of African-American culture.  Either way, it’s safe to assume that the celebration will involve family and friends as well as some good music and a lot of great food.

Festivus
Another holiday born of hatred for and anger against the commercialism of others is Festivus.  And, in comparison, it makes Kwanza look as ancient as Chanukah and Christmas.

Festivus began as a joke.  On December 18, 1997, an episode of the NBC television show Seinfeld featured Frank Costanza (Jerry Stiller) celebrating a holiday he invented: Festivus.  He felt alienated by all of the denominational celebrations, which he felt had become grossly commercial, so he boldly declared “a Festivus for the rest of us.”

The Festivus celebration is more like an anti-holiday, though.  Instead of a tree as a symbol to gather around, it features a simple, unadorned aluminum pole.  No trimmings or other distractions are allowed, especially tinsel because that can be particularly distracting.

Celebrated on December 23rd, Festivus has two primary components.  The first is the Airing of the Grievances.  This is when you take the time to tell those you love – family and friends – how they have consistently disappointed you during the past year.  Then there is the Feats of Strength, in which the head of the family selects one lucky person to test his or her strength.  The celebration continues until the head of the family has been physically pinned down.

Despite its roots as a fictional entity (which, frankly, could be said of all of these holidays), Festivus has evolved into a legitimate holiday.  A quick Web search shows that there are indeed a large number of people actively celebrating it.

Sure, Festivus may seem silly.  But, having read the history and traditions of this season’s other holidays, is it any sillier than the rest?

As a devout atheist who is painfully white, I hold no allegiance or claim to any of these celebrations. However, having been raised by Catholics, there is a special place in my heart for the Christmas traditions – the giving, the tree, and even the music.    And, though only the offspring of Sammy Davis Jr. can legitimately claim the right to celebrate all of the season’s holiday traditions, I do like to take elements from all four of these holidays and roll them up into one big bamboo of a celebration.

Some people really detest the holidays, feeling cynical and disenfranchised by a season run amok.  Sure, our market-driven economy has turned it all into one giant heap of commercialism.  Whether it is a dreidel made of chocolate or a Santa doll that shakes his booty to some country tune, it’s easy to feel like you have sold out while celebrating.

But I believe that there is still something special, something magical about this season.  And no matter how bad things get, whether in my life or the world at large, I still feel the warmth and joy – and a glimmer of hope.

The Christmas Spirit
For me, Christmas is a time of giving.  No, it’s not about what you get.  Nor is it necessarily about what – or how much – you give.  It about the act of giving and, more importantly, the spirit of giving.  I know it may seem corny, but I do believe it’s better to give than to receive.  And that’s true for everything, from oral sex to naval artillery.

After all, what could be more rewarding than making someone you love happy?  And regardless of your religious or ethnic affiliations, that’s what this season is really about.  Whereas Thanksgiving is about gathering family and friends to be thankful for what you have and for one another, this holiday season is about gathering family and friends and showing them how much you love and appreciate them.

No matter which holiday you choose to celebrate this season, it’s all about sharing your love with others.  And love, by definition, is giving yourself to someone else because that someone means more to you than you do to yourself.  And that is why the spirit of giving, if not the act, is so central to the celebrations.

Maybe I’m just sentimental.  Maybe my belief in love and giving stems from the way I was raised, my own holiday memories and traditions.  After all, I had a wonderful childhood.  I think back to Christmas’s past, and they were all so wonderful.  I don’t remember any of the gifts.  Not a single one.  But I do recall the joy of giving, and quite fondly.  Not to mention all the glorious traditions.

I grew up on the campus of Colgate University in Hamilton, New York.  We always had a white Christmas up there in Central New York.  That and fires in the fireplace.  And there were plenty of pine trees around, so we would often go with my dad to a tree farm and cut our own.

I remember watching all the Christmas specials on TV.  Of course, they weren’t running them as early as they do now.  But my favorites – A Charlie Brown Christmas, Frosty the Snowman, The Grinch Who Stole Christmas, Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer, & Santa Claus is Coming to Town - still warm my heart every time I see them.  And most of them are as old as I am.

Another one of my favorite holiday traditions is Charles Dickens’ A Christmas Carol, with a strong preference for the 1984 film version starring George C. Scott.  But I must confess that it all goes back to my childhood – when my father, in the first and only time I ever saw him take to the stage, was in a performance put on by the faculty and students at Colgate one year.

Though it is a lot like another of my holiday favorites, It’s A Wonderful Life, A Christmas Carol is the quintessential portrayal of the holiday spirit.  It’s about a man – Ebenezer Scrooge – who sees no value in giving.  To him, the only things that are important are earnings and savings.

Of course, in the end, Scrooge learns the joy of giving.  He sees the true value of his wealth, realizing that it is most meaningful when bestowed upon others.  He discovers the treasure and pleasure of kindness and generosity.  And he savors, for the first time in many years, the feeling of love.

Perhaps I love this story simply because it’s a somewhat subtle way of annually reminding all those realists and pragmatists out there – who feel that ideals are fine but at the end of the day what is mine is mine and that’s all that matters – that what really matters in life is what you make of it rather than what you make in it.  And though Dickens penned the tale in the 1843, it is just as appropriate today – perhaps even more so – as it was back then.

The Joy of Giving
Our society certainly has nourished the notion that money matters, that wealth must be amassed and that love – along with everything else – can be bought and sold like a mere commodity.  It seems that many of us have forgotten the true joy of giving, the true joy of love.

For example, I was flipping around the television a few nights ago.  It was late and I was having trouble sleeping.  And I came across one of those televangelists.  He was in this magnificent cathedral.  In fact, it was more like a palace – like something Saddam might have built for himself.

This preacher was a young man, though well schooled in the ways of persuasive speaking.  And, as he stood amid this opulence in his well-tailored suit, he spoke of helping those in need.  He said that we have to “spend more time sowing the seed and less time chasing greed.”  He told the people that if they give, Jesus will return their generosity many times over.  The bible, apparently, says so.

I was able to overlook the hypocrisy of the moment, including the fact that the cost of regularly staging this nonsense and bringing into my home could easily feed a large portion of the hungry and house many of the homeless.  But what stuck with me is how false the sentiment was.  This is not what the holidays are all about.  This is not the true spirit of giving.

People should give because they want to give, and because they can give.  And because the act of giving brings them a joy like no other.  People should not give simply because they think they’ll be rewarded for it, whether it be with gifts from others, or from Jesus or some other spiritual facsimile.  That, my friends, is not giving.  When you give because you expect something in return, it’s called investing.

I fear that this sentiment has come close to overtaking the true spirit of our holiday season.  All too often we give because we feel obligated to.  Or we give only because we expect something in return.  I am still of the belief that giving, like love, is best done when you expect nothing in return.  And not because you feel obligated to do so, but because you love that person and want them to be happy.

Holiday Traditions
Despite all this, and though commercialism may have clouded this holiday for many (and overtaken it for some), my spirits cannot be dampened.  I will still celebrate the holidays.

I will buy a tree.  A real tree, not one of those artificial things.  Though these days I have begun using a live tree, which I then plant in Central Park as an annual act of civil disobedience (it’s illegal to plant things in a city park without the proper paperwork).

I will get gifts for those I love.  And I will give eagerly, simply to see the joy on their faces rather than expecting anything in return.

I don’t have a fireplace, but I do have candles.  I even have a few that smell like apple pie.  And I’ll light them, along with my colored lights.

Of course I have a solid collection of Christmas music.  I’ve got a few of Elvis’ Christmas albums, including a collector’s edition on green vinyl.  I also have an old record of classic carols, released by Columbia back in 1968 as a special promo for Goodyear.  It features songs by Tony Bennett, Perry Como, The Ray Conniff Singers, Percy Faith, Robert Goulet, Johnny Mathis, Barbara Streisand, and Andy Williams.  But my favorite track on the album has to be The New Christy Minstrels singing Sleigh Ride.

I must confess to having a soft spot for these Christmas classics, especially The Little Drummer Boy, White Christmas, Oh Tannenbaum, Christmas Song, Winter Wonderland, and Silent Night.  Unfortunately, I can’t sing – not even when stuck with a sharp stick.  But I used to live with this lovely Jamaican girl who had the most beautiful voice.  Every Christmas Eve she would sing me to sleep with Silent Night.

But my all-time favorite Christmas album is The Ramsey Lewis Trio’s Sounds of Christmas.  Released back in 1960, it remains the undisputed king – the best Christmas album ever.  I know you are probably thinking I’m nuts, that jazz renditions of classic Christmas tunes seems like a bit of a stretch, but they make them sizzle: Merry Christmas Baby, Here Comes Santa Claus, Christmas Blues, & Winter Wonderland.  My dad was a big fan of The Ramsey Lewis Trio and occasionally caught their sets at The Bohemian Caverns in DC (where they recorded The In Crowd in 1965).

Another one of my favorite holiday traditions is dragging people to The Nutcracker at Lincoln Center. As you can imagine, the ballet has never been one of my passions.  I hate to dance, and I certainly have no desire to see others do it.  But the reason I dig The Nutcracker is the music.  That Tchaikovsky boy has got it going on, in spades.  To me, nothing sounds like Christmas quite like The Nutcracker.

And maybe the reason why the holiday season remains so special for me and countless others is because of the warm memories it invokes.  It is the memories and traditions, regardless of where they came from or how silly they may seem now, that remind us of better times – of friends and family, childhood, innocence, joy, and love.  To quote the last line of Leroy Anderson’s Sleigh Ride, “These wonderful things are the things we remember all through our lives.”

So whatever you choose to celebrate this season, try to do so with love in your heart.  Give what you can and cherish what you receive.  For, just like life, the holidays are what you make of it.

The film is good entertainment, with Naomi Watts playing CIA agent Valerie Plame and Sean Penn as Joe Wilson, her husband and former Ambassador to Gabon as well as Sao Tome and Principe. The storyline closely follows historical events, and does a good job of capturing the political tension of the time. Plus, it’s an important story to be told, now more than ever.

In the film Fair Game, Sean Penn plays Joe Wilson, Valerie Plame's husband and target of a Bush administration smear campaign. (image source: filmcritic.com)

For those of you unfamiliar with Joe Wilson, he dedicated his life to public service, primarily in the US State Department. He began his career in Niger, and served in six other African nations. He was also the Deputy Chief of Mission in Iraq during the first Gulf War. And for his public defiance of Saddam Hussein and protecting of civilians the Iraqi dictator threatened to use as human shields, President Bush I (the smart one) called Wilson “a true American hero.”

After Iraq, Wilson was tapped to be the Political Advisor to the Commander-in-Chief of US Armed Forces, Europe. He then served as Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for African Affairs on the United States National Security Council. Interestingly, it was the Bush II (the dumb one) administration’s National Security Council that – according to Bush’s Secretary of the Treasury, who was in attendance – met on Jan. 30, 2001 to discuss plans to invade Iraq, more than seven months before the terrorist attacks on 9/11.

After serving as an advisor to President Clinton’s National Security Council, Wilson retired from public office and started his own consulting firm, specializing in international business management. It’s no coincidence that this is the same year he married Valerie Plame, who was an active Central Intelligence Agency Operations Officer. Her father was a Lieutenant Colonel in the US Air Force who also worked for the NSA.

Former CIA agent Valerie Plame (l) and Naomi Watts (r), who portrayed her in the movie Fair Game. (image source: coveringmedia.com)

For those of you unfamiliar with the duties of a CIA Operations Officer, it is part of the organization’s Clandestine Service – meaning their secret agents. Plame was a CIA case officer, responsible for the actual recruitment of agents and assets in addition to collecting intelligence information on her own.

It is important that you know this about Plame and Wilson, because the Bush administration did their best to portray them as anything but loyal Americans, in a smear campaign that was reminiscent of Tricky Dick Nixon. Why? Wilson exposed the Bush administration’s lies about Iraq, and Dick Cheney doesn’t like to be caught lying to the American public.

After 9/11 (and clearly even before 9/11, it seems), the Bush administration had a hard-on for invading Iraq. Some say it was because of the oil. Others think it was Junior’s effort to out-do his dad, who didn’t overthrow Hussein in the first Gulf War.

Regardless of whatever the real reasons were, the Bush administration knew that they had to feed a plausible reason to the American public in order to justify America’s only unprovoked invasion of a sovereign nation in more than a century (though we could certainly debate whether or not we had adequate provocation for Vietnam). The catch was that there was no credible link between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein, and anyone familiar with the two would find such a notion ludicrous. The only thing Hussein had in common with Al Qaeda was hairy forearms and a penchant for evil.

All of our nation’s intelligence services – the CIA, NSA, DOD, QVC, etc. – looked into every possible connection. With the Bush administration breathing down their necks, they exhausted every possibility until they all came up with the same undeniable conclusion – that Iraq had nothing to do with Al Qaeda and the attacks on 9/11.

President Bush (r) fed the American public lies - produced by Dick Cheney (l) - about Iraq in his 2003 State of the Union address. (image source: about.com)

But Bush and his boys really wanted to invade Iraq. They had already invaded Afghanistan, and rightly so. They had toppled the Taliban regime, but George W. didn’t have the guts to put troops on the ground to capture Osama bin Laden. With the leaders of Al Qaeda still at large, he needed to change the story – and quick. But rather than go after Pakistan – which created the Taliban, was (and probably still is) harboring Bin Laden and other Al Qaeda leaders, and has WMD - he opted to invade Iraq instead. WTF?

The problem was that all the credible intelligence put Iraq in the clear, on all fronts. No Al Qaeda connection and no evidence of WMD. So the Bush administration decided to “create” their own “intelligence.” Cheney set up the administration’s own intelligence organization that cherry-picked raw data from all the legitimate intelligence services and then ignored anything that didn’t support their conclusions that Iraq was a terrorist state with WMD.

That is how George W. Bush infamously claimed in his 2003 State of the Union speech – before the American public, and the world – that we had evidence that Iraq attempted to purchase uranium yellowcake from Niger for the purpose of building nuclear weapons. Someone made that false accusation, the CIA investigated the allegation and found it had no merit whatsoever (which proved to be the truth). Cheney’s “intelligence” team latched on to the initial report and intentionally ignored its refutation. That’s called lying to the American public, folks.

While some would argue he controlled the entire Bush administration, Cheney was clearly the mastermind behind the Wilson-Plame smear campaign. (image source: politico.com)

Which brings us back to Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame. In 2002, the CIA asked Wilson, with Plame’s permission, if he would travel to Niger, where he still had good contacts, and investigate the allegations. He did that, and he did a thorough job because he had met Saddam Hussein and knew what kind of a threat the man would be if he ever developed a nuclear weapon. But he found absolutely no evidence of it, which he reported to the CIA, who then reported the news to the Bush administration.

Now there is some debate as to whether Bush himself was ever told that there was no basis to the Nigerian yellowcake allegations before his State of the Union speech. However, we do know that the allegation was intentionally removed from an earlier speech he made because the information had been discredited, so someone – either his aides, speechwriters, or Bush himself – knew that the claim wasn’t true before he stood up and said it was before the entire world.

The American public bought the lies Bush sold them, that Iraq posed an imminent threat, and the media went along with it. As a result, the US invaded Iraq, and we never found any evidence of WMD (which proved our legitimate intelligence reports to be accurate).

The story might have ended there. But after the unjustified invasion of Iraq, Wilson decided to submit an Op-Ed piece to The New York Times, entitled “What I Didn’t Find in Africa,” refuting the lies that Bush told in his State of the Union address to convince the American public – and the world.

Cheney's man, Scooter Libby, was the only one convicted of a felony. (image source; foxnews.com)

Dick Cheney was pissed. He put his boy Scooter Libby on it. He, along with Bush’s political advisor and Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove, decided that they needed to discredit Wilson and get the lap-dogs of the media excited about something other than the fact that the Bush administration falsified evidence in order to invade a sovereign nation. Again, they needed to change the story – creating more lies to cover up their initial lies.

And the crux of this smear campaign was exposing Wilson’s wife, Valerie Plame, as a CIA agent. That, of course, is a federal offense. But when has that stopped people like Cheney? He just lied to the world in order to start a $900 billion-dollar war that would cost thousands of lives and fill the bank accounts of his former company. What’s a federal offense to a guy like him?

Well it was a big deal to Valerie Plame, effectively ending her 20-year career in the CIA. And apparently it was an even bigger deal to the Iraqi scientist she had tapped as intelligence assets, assigned by the CIA to get to the bottom of the WMD controversy once our soldiers were in country. Rather than receiving protection and asylum from the CIA, as promised, they were all abandoned once Plame’s cover was blown. Most were executed, while others disappeared, taking their WMD knowledge with them – along with a well-earned hatred for our government. So much for keeping WMD out of Al Qaeda’s hands.

Karl Rove walked free from his role in the smear campaign. (image source: life.com)

Wilson’s career as a consultant was ruined as well. The Cheney-Rove political machine, with its puppets at Fox News, tore the couple apart. They painted them as know-nothing second-rate lackeys, reaching for the limelight to escape the hollowness of their lives. When, in reality, they were loyal Americans, doing their jobs, and doing them well – none of which could be said for the likes of Cheney, Rove, and Libby.

After a federal investigation (into the leaking of Plame’s identity, not Bush’s perjury), no one was found guilty of leaking Plame’s identity. However, Libby was indicted on four counts, including perjury and obstruction of justice, and sentenced to 30 months in prison along with a $250,000 fine and 400 hours of community service. Bush commuted his sentence so that he wouldn’t have to spend any time in prison, calling it “excessive,” but he did not pardon Cheney’s righthand man.

Once again, Cheney was pissed. There is evidence that Bush asked Cheney to offer up a fall guy, which was Libby. Karl Rove was exonerated, whereas Libby proved the sacrificial lamb. But when Bush refused to pardon Libby, Cheney became “furious” – according to Bush, in his own memoirs – and said, “I can’t believe you’re going to leave a soldier on the battlefield.”

Ah, the irony. They were so willing to leave a soldier in the field – Valerie Plame - as long as it wasn’t one of their own. Not to mention the more than 4,400 US soldiers, left dead in the field, or the 32,000 who returned wounded.

Despite films like Fair Game, Dick Cheney (l) and Scooter Libby (r) were among the Bush administration leaders who were largely successful in covering up their lies to the American public. (image source: getty images)