So Actually, We're In The Same Place We Were Before the "Election"

An interesting result, to say the least.

We still have a chaotically gridlocked Congress, with the House in the hands of the renegade radical Republicans, the Senate in the hands of their Democratic enablers and a re-elected centrist-compromiser in the White House -- who is ritually disparaged as a Socialist by his rightist political opponents.

In other words, nothing has changed.

That of course doesn't mean that nothing will happen. In fact, all the signs point to some serious squabbling behind the scenes regarding how best and how quickly to extract more from the groaning masses through benefit cuts, tax and fee increases, and required expenditures for governmental and private services (ie: ACA).

There is no debate about the objectives themselves, only how quickly and how unmercifully to enforce them.

Rs want to go balls to the wall, forcing as much pain and suffering on the masses as possible in the shortest possible time while the Ds want to take it somewhat slow and easy, but there is no faction in among the Power Elite which was re-confirmed in office to abandon this program of mass suffering and try something else.

That means we are so screwed.

And that's what the People voted for -- well, some of them. Looking over a sampling of statistics, the turnout for this election was shockingly low in many precincts, under 50%. Was there a boycott? I'd like to think so, but without a public statement regarding such a thing, it's more likely people just weren't interested in the long lines and the hassles on voting day as well as the fact that neither candidate was offering anything substantive to the common people, only more benefits to the rich and well-connected.

I noticed this in the summary of political ads on the news. Rob-me had a definite program in mind which he mentioned in many of his ads, focusing on jobs (but he wouldn't say how he would increase employment), lower taxes for the rich, and reducing or eliminating regulations on employers, resource extractors and financiers.

You may not like the policies, but it is a policy program. Obama on the other hand seemed to concentrate on abstractions, what might be possible one day, and how to set the stage for the New America of the Future. He did not offer a policy program as such but instead focused his attention on ideas for doing something someday.

Obama's approach was rather soft and soothing but it lacked definition. Romney-Ryan on the other hand were cold and harsh -- though defined.

Neither appeared to be the least bit interested in the real issues the public faces, though both put on game faces of pretense. Romney for his part at least made "jobs" the centerpiece of his campaign. Obama barely mentioned the j-word.

They were both focused on the needs and demands of the Plutocrats.

That's where we were before the election, that's where we are now.

Nothing has changed.

Maybe after Barry and Mitch sit down together and have a good long heart to heart...

LONG LIVE THE STATUS QUO!

The Storm -- Redux

The Storm from overhead via NASA

Found a link to this stunning slideshow of The Storm over at dKos and I'm reposting it here so that we'll have it available for further contemplation as time goes on. (It's from NASA but it's not that easy to find at the NASA site.)

Despite claims to the contrary from some officials, it does not seem that response to The Storm has been in any way appropriate to the needs of the devastated areas and people, most of whom are not rich and don't have the means to escape the worst effects.

Unfortunately, Our Betters have a privileged claim on government services both in times of peril and times of peace and plenty. The Masses are left, as always, to fend for themselves -- or die. We saw this clearly in New York and parts of New Jersey where the tony well-to-do were provided with practically everything they needed almost immediately after The Storm passes while those many thousands, hundreds of thousands or even millions of Americans who faced the full wrath of The Storm and particularly the storm surge were ignored for days by official relief agencies (such as FEMA and the Red Cross) as was reported from Staten Island, the Rockaways, Coney Island and elsewhere in the New York/New Jersey area.

Occupy Wall Street brigades stood in the breach, helping where no one else did, stepping in where all the other "helping organizations" seemed to be tied up with currying favor with the High and the Mighty. They did heroic work under trying circumstances and are to be commended, but of course, because OWS is nothing but a bunch of DFHs, they will get little or no recognition from On High, in fact, they might be arrested for their temerity to go where angels fear to tread.

Oh, and there was an "election" yesterday, too.

Turns out those of us who predicted that the Romney campaign would forcefully try to steal the election were wrong. I wasn't alone in the view that Romney et al would do just about anything to have their way, but I was surprised when I heard that Obama was declared the "winner" and that shortly thereafter, Romney had conceded.

No fight in them, or what? Is it something else? Is it that the Rs know full well, and have known from the get go, that Obama is really one of them (well, except for his complexion and kinky hair)? And that they would rather someone like him, somewhat closer to the Masses, execute the Program?

It was never possible for me to imagine someone like Romney -- or Romney himself -- sitting in the Big Chair in the Oval Office except as a joke. Of course I felt the same way about addle-pated (But Ever-Saintly) Ronald Reagan. See where that got me. Given the polling consistency, I doubt that Romney actually thought he'd get there, but the Horserace was as always the most important thing to sell to the unwashed, and so it was, right down to the wire.

The game was called by shortly after 11pm EST, rather shockingly early given all the uncertainties in  places like Ohio and Florida and whatnot. Obviously, it could have been strung out much longer than it was, but apparently the mathematicians at the networks wouldn't have it, and so they did their noble thing and let the Kenyan Socialist continue to sit on the Throne.

But who will control him and to what object?

We'll have to see, won't we.

Interestingly, there has been little change in the Senate and House, meaning the idiocy of the last two years will continue. But look at this, the GOP has retaken the Wisconsin State Senate, so that all the sturm and all the drang over the Walker/Koch Brothers take over of the Wisconsin State House will either have to be repeated on a bigger scale, or it will have to dissipate into the mists of time. There's a level of absurdity in these things (anomalies abound in state and local election results) that simply defy rational consideration.

It is what it is.

[Note: Meant to mention the Nor'easter that is now visiting the East Coast, but this post was written early in the morning, before I was fully awake... not the first time, not the last.]

Gaming the "Election"

 

[Note: the truck trailer is now unloaded; the buildings are chock full of schtuff that we're now wondering why we brought out here, there's a new bed in the north bedroom (and we sleep like coddled proverbials), and the cat is loving it all...]

More and more it looks like the Rs are going to go ahead and try to steal the "election" tomorrow outright. They want the Big Chair even though they are proving their incompetence to do anything positive with it day after dreary day of the Long Campaign.

Of course I realize that all this was set up years ago, and that two years ago, the Ds essentially conceded the Congressional mid-terms by not carrying out policies that would actually be beneficial to the public, and by not mounting a serious campaign at the state level -- where the Democratic wipe out was practically total.

This allowed numerous radical Rs to get into office in statehouses and legislatures all over the country, not simply in those infamous "battleground" states like Florida, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. They promptly set about radical rule and the delegitimization of democracy. For the most part, they were not seriously opposed by Ds though there was much pro-forma sturm und drang to be sure. From appearances, at any rate, this was a rather obvious Let It Happen series of events.

Radical rule and delegitimization of democracy included the infamous acts of Scott Walker in Wisconsin, but more importantly for the future, they involved gerrymandering districts and emplacing often severe restrictions on voting and voting rights, unlike any seen since the days of Jim Crow. The objective, of course, is to make it difficult or impossible for Ds to be elected in many disctricts, and to ensure that millions of otherwise qualified (and largely D) voters are prevented from voting, and if they do somehow manage to vote to ensure that their votes aren't counted.

The scheme was pretty obvious from the outset, and yet there was very little pushback from those who actually could have done something about it. By the time these radical measures were in place, it was too late to do much but complain about it and go to court over it. Courts that generally defer to elected officials.

Under the circumstances, this failure two years ago, to hold on to or even make gains at the state level meant that the High Pooh Bahs among the Dems were either guilty of gross political malpractice, or they were in on the deal from the get, and they let what happened happen for their own purposes.

There is a conventional wisdom in Left Blogistan that the Dems are just so seriously incompetent, they do not know what they are doing, yadda yadda, and if they'd only "listen" to certain bloggers-cum-political consultants, everything would be fine. I don't believe this.

The Democratic Party is the oldest political party in the country, and they absolutely do know what they are doing and and they also know how to win elections. They're masters at it. They are numerically the predominant party and if they chose to, they could predominate in office (as they have done frequently). From time to time, however, they choose to play dumb and let the Rs run rampant, as we've seen them do for the last 20 years and more -- at least since the election of Bill Clinton to the White House.

I have no idea what their reasoning is, but they have been quite determined to let the Rs do pretty much whatever they want, with predictable disastrous results for the rest of us.

And it looks like they are doing it again. If the "election" is stolen, I have no illusions that the Dems in office will fight. They will do what they did in 2000 and accommodate the thieves. If by some chance Obama is declared the winner (these things are largely determined by media "calls" after all) the Rs will fight tooth and claw to take it from him, going so far, I don't doubt, to initiate another coup.

The strange thing is that Obama is really one of them (an R is D clothing) and they know it. He's no  model of any Dem that I could recognize. I was willing to put up with this "R in D clothing" business with Howard Dean because it was important to me that the imperial warriorism of the Busheviks be ended and he served as one of the loudest voices against the Iraq nonsense. But I had no illusions that somehow Dean was this Big Progressive - Liberal he was being made out to be. He was and is essentially a Rockefeller Republican. Better than the radicals, but still an R at heart.

It was pretty clear the same was true with Clinton and then Obama. But Obama is tending more toward Reagan Republican than Rockefeller (it's his youth, don't you know) and his constant accommodations with the Rs are dispiriting to say the least. It means there is currently no major party that represents the interests of the People; it means that there is no Democratic Party in the ideological sense. Only two versions of the Republican Party -- radical or Reaganite. (Compared to today's radical Republicans, Reagan was practically a full on Communist).

The radicals see their main chance, and I suspect they are going to take it unless there is some sort of high level intervention.

Tomorrow will be interesting....

"Uncertainty" -- Will the Vote Actually Matter?

 

Americans have been trained to accept finagled and fudgy outcomes of elections for quite a long time, much longer than we think. Election chicanery is built in to the mechanisms of politics and voting in this country, and it always has been. We have never had truly free and fair elections, not even close, and the lengths to which campaigns and their owners and sponsors will go to steal elections outright is breathtaking.

Of course the 2000 election is the benchmark for election jiggering for most of us. I have called what happened when the Supreme Court decided the outcome -- by one vote, let it be said -- a "lawless intervention," because the Supreme Court is not tasked with electoral decisions. The Constitution gives that responsibility to the states, and in the case of a disputed outcome, the legislatures of the states determine the winner of the presidential election, not the Supreme Court of the United States. In other words, the Supreme Court had no jurisdiction but seized it anyway in as bold a move as we had seen taken by government up to then.

That was followed by an appallingly undisciplined move to electronic voting machines which are easily compromised -- with no possibility of audit or detection. All election outcomes conducted with such machines are by their nature suspect, and in 2004, it appeared that chicanery of many kinds were engaged in to ensure that Bush won the presidency, regardless of anything else.

This year's election has been primed and pumped to be a "cliff-hanger" right down to the wire. No matter what the polls indicated, the campaign horserace was always "tied" in the eyes of many mavens of the media -- because that's the narrative: they have to have their tight race or they have no story, and if they have no story, they don't make money. So while Obama was far in the lead through most of the campaign, there were always stories that the race was "tied" or that Romney was gaining or what have you.

All that changed with the first "debate," of course: the Very Game Changer that Chris Christie predicted happened. The stats turned sharply in Romney's favor as if by magic. The narrative is that Obama turned in a dreadful performance while Romney was keyed up and on point. Actually some who watched, like me, thought he was on a performance enhancing substance, oh like speed to name one. I wouldn't be surprised at all if that was the case. Obama, on the other hand, was clearly not into it, but he did his standard "workmanlike" performance, "Get through it and go home," which -- compared to Mister Hyper -- was interpreted as sleepwalking. Whatever.

But wait. How did Christie "know?" That is if he knew in advance what would happen, who told him? If he was just out on a limb, you could say it was a coincidence, but I don't think so. When the after-"debate" chatter started, chatter that seemed completely hysterical at dKos, for example (always a Republican spin palace, after all) I actually wondered if Obama was intentionally throwing the game. I would not put it past him, given the way our political class operates. He was giving it away in any case. Whatever else might have been going on Obama was not on top of the situation on stage, and he appeared not to care, either. Given Romney's "shambles" up to then, I thought his attitude toward the "debate" and his opponent was appropriate, but in the end, Obama gave me and pretty much everybody else no hope at all. His vision for the future was "stay the course." No matter what. After five years of an Endless Recession, he would continue it pretty much as is indefintely.

Sigh.

But hyped-up Romney wouldn't do much different, he'd just be more of a salesman about it and be meaner and more overtly bloodthirsty besides. This, to me, did not bode well for the future for most of us. Not well at all. Either things stay as dismal as they have been for many more years, or they get worse. And more wars. There is no "better future" in either man's vision. None.

We are doomed if we rely on the political class and the candidates for office to do something positive and productive on behalf of the People -- because they won't do it. Period. End of discussion. They don't work for us.

Which means that the election is not really in our hands in any case. Whatever we vote is what we vote. The outcome, on the other hand, is what the vote counters decide, or if the Supreme Court so chooses, what a handful of Robed Ones decide, and we don't have much to say about it one way or another. Given the nearly identical positions of the major candidates on nearly everything (certainly apparent in the Third Round) no matter how we vote, the outcome will be almost the same no matter who is installed on the White House Throne.

The only real question is how fast and nasty will the advent of the New America be.

Given Obama's propensity to accommodate Republicans and actually seek to enact their programs, even the brakes Obama has been using are no longer operative in any case.

There are only two weeks to the election, and given the current "uncertainty" narrative, I would speculate that even if Obama receives a resounding electoral victory at the polls (he won't, though), he won't take office for a second term. "Uncertainty" has been the narrative of the fattest of the Fat Cats for years now, and Romney is himself one of them. That could mean that the "uncertainty" meme is a foreshadowing of what is to come.

The choice has most likely been made; we await the reveal.

Life At Versailles, In Sum: the Final Round

Versailles

Well. Wasn't that refreshing?

Himself and The Other One seemed to really get into it for once. The Other One looked to me to be pale and sweaty and even a bit blotchy under the intensity of the teevee lights and the penetrating gaze of Himself. The Other One even seemed to be "out of his depth" as they say on the all-important topic of Foreign Policy, unable to dent the rather gory record of the President of the United States even while bringing up a string of disasters and failures of this or that importance "on his watch."

"Commander-in-Chief" was the oft-repeated phrase, and as far as I could tell, Wromley (h/t Crowley) didn't really want that bit of Presidential Prerogative. This Killing of Brown People that Obama seems to relish these days appeared to make Wromley somewhat queasy. In a sense that's a good thing I guess. Presidents -- at least the way we are expected to regard them -- should not really be into the slaughter game. It hasn't been a celebrated characteristic in White House residents since TR, and he was always careful to make it clear that he "deplored" the slaughter he was (of course) forced to engage in (particularly in the Philippines)  and he loudly condemned the troops who went too far in their extermination of the Natives so as to secure that piece of American Empire.

Much of the "debate" -- which was closer to a real debate on substantive issues than previous forays -- focused on domestic issues and policies, particularly with regard to the economy, rather than foreign affairs. Good enough. There's not much to be said about America's foreign policy that isn't a factor of the rotten economy for the masses. Obama pointed out time and again that Romney would simply reinstate the same economic policies that crashed the economy under the Busheviks (true), but what he didn't say was that the Obama economic policies are almost identical. There has been very little positive change under Obama, and everybody knows it. As a rule, most of Romney's main criticisms of Obama economic policies are spot on: the economy is "sputtering," unemployment and underemployment is way -- way -- too high, ordinary people are struggling while the government lavishes money and favors on the rich, and so on. These things are not accidents, they are policy. And the Obama Administration proposes to "stay the course," essentially making no changes in the policies that are causing so much misery for the millions.

Meanwhile, Romney's prescription borders on insanity: he would return to the Bushevik Era free-for-all, crony-capitalist loot-fest, only now with the targets being Social Security and Medicare and whatever else is left of the social safety net and piddly middle class wealth, and he would call it a Good Thing.

Obama would do the same only with a few more controls on the looting and who gets first dibs.

Hm. Some choice there.

The "First Dibs" issue is basically all that the candidates are contesting. Their policies -- both foreign and domestic -- are all but identical in every important way (which is the way our political/governmental system is designed to operate in any case). The choice before the voters is not between policies, it is between personalities, styles, and who among the Highest of the Mighty has First Dibs on government and the benefits flowing therefrom.

It's not "tribal," it's inner-tribal. In other words, the political class is all the same tribe. The struggle, to the extent there is one, is between factions within the political class itself, and between factions of the Overclass that owns and controls the political class. But they are all, every single one, of the same tribe.

They are all denizens of Versailles. They all live in the bubble of a palace culture; and their realm is not that of the People.

For them, holding the keys to the Throne and the Treasury for the benefit of themselves and their friends is what it is all about; "First Dibs." The People don't factor in, or if they do, it is as an afterthought. Or sometimes, very rarely, because they are restless and throwing things.

At the on stage meet and greet after the "debate" the fact that these candidates were on the same side was made manifest what with all the Hale Fellow Well Met backslapping, hugs and handshakes. Even Tagg and the President had a good guffaw over something or other (Gee, I wonder what?) and the plethora of Romney children and grandchildren practically mobbed Obama ("Gee, can you be Our Dad?")

As for The Winner? I would give it to Obama because he didn't look like he was going to faint.

But who will win the election -- at this point -- I have no idea. The Rs have been diligently setting up their plans to steal the election outright if need be. Ds have done little or nothing about it, so even if Obama has a strong plurality at the polls, it won't necessarily lead to victory. I wouldn't be surprised if we had another Election 2000 situation, something that our Overlords seem to relish.

On the other hand, many have come to the conclusion that it will be a run-away Obama victory, that Romney will be thoroughly trounced, and that this has all been carefully planned for a very long time. What we see is just the Show; what's going on behind the scenes is what matters, and the result is to be a resounding Obama victory. He, after all, institutes Republican policies far better than Republicans ever did.

We'll see.

Meanwhile, an inside look at the Secret Rituals of the Mormon Temple is making the rounds. I watched the hour and twenty minute full version the the internet, embedded and linked below, because I'm into science fiction sometimes, and the whole thing seemed like it was straight out of a 1950's science fiction movie. Which makes me wonder how many science fiction authors and movie-makers were/are Mormons either current or ex. Anyway, it's an interesting -- if somewhat creepy -- diversion. Some of those who have watched it or the shorter version have claimed that "all religions" are creepy like this. Well could be, but this is on a whole nother plane.



http://youtu.be/5VrsFEiTpsQ

Life At Versailles, Or "At It Again;" the Presidential "Debate" Round 2

Versailles

It was all "Mitch Wromley" (h/t Letterman and Crowley) could do to refrain from referring to President Obama as "You there, boy."

Jeebus what an arrogant prick. I'm sure that's why other arrogant pricks love him so.

Meanwhile, Obama seemed to have recovered somewhat from whatever it was that threw him off his game in the first "debate" with Willard.

(I heard Tavis Smiley and Cornell West speculating on the radio that it was likely "something personal" that we will "never know." The likeliest scenario is a domestic squabble, but I dunno.)

At any rate, Obama's performance was rated more than adequate by the critics, so that's all that was necessary.

Someone who should know better (but since he's an entertainer, we're prepared to imagine he doesn't) claimed that Crowley was -- somehow -- a dyed in the wool Obama Supporter, what's the word, "Obamabot?" Surely anybody who has seen Crowley's performances in the past would think just the opposite of her, but I will say, she was fine last night, not favoring either of the candidates and pressing on generally substantive issues, trying to get them both to at least address the questions being asked by the heavily washed and perfumed masses who were allowed in.

The fact that neither candidate chose to actually answer the questions they were posed is telling.

No answer on jobs, no answer on gas prices, no answer on much of anything, let alone a straightforward answer on pay equity for women.

"Binders full of women" is nearly the sole take-away.

That tells us all we need to know about the priorities of the Palace and its handmaidens.

Life At Versailles, or The "Debate"

Versailles

I watched most of last night's fol de rol with the candidates in Denver and listened to some of the post-game analysis on NBC. What a rollicking good time Chuck Todd was having: "Oh what a horserace we have now!" Because, it would seem, by consensus "Mitt Won!"

And Oh, the keening and garment rending over at dKos in the aftermath of the "Debate" between the two candidates for the Presidency of the United States of America, aka "The Big Chair."

At Versailles, they called it The Throne, and during the Bush Regime, that's just what I called The Big Chair, the Presidency itself. The Throne.

Our Government operates on Royalist lines, that is its way, it's nature. Internally, it's not a democracy at all. It is for all practical purposes a full on monarchy/dictatorship. Let's say a serial monarchy, to be sure, since there are periodic changes in who occupies The Throne, but the Institution carries on no matter what. And the Institution is monarchical, based rather closely on that of 18th Century Britain -- or "Fraunce" for that matter. Thus it is anachronistic as hell.

What we saw last night was an elderly, powdered, bewigged aristo, with very little class, try to sell the People (or at least that part of the People who cast ballots) on a series of bogus premises: that he's competent, that he "cares," that he's full of vim and vigor and energy, and that he has a Plan to "help" the Middle Class. None of this, of course, is true. He's old, he cares not for the Lesser People (and has repeatedly said as much), he's running on nearly empty, and his Plan has nothing to do with "helping" anyone not in his class of looters, predators, and mountebanks. That's just the way it is.

He was "styling" as we used to say in the Circus.

He was a straightforward, obvious hustler and huckster, which tells us something about our Ruling Class, I think, that might help in sorting the wheat from the chaff.

Many people believe they were deceived by Obama in 2008, claiming they didn't know he was a corporatist imperialist warmonger. I find that odd, because Obama was running somewhat to the right of Hillary Clinton, and she was obviously a corporatist imperialist warmonger, so how did it come about that Obama was seen through such a radically different prism -- when he wasn't campaigning as a Man of the People and a Populist or particularly Liberal Peacenik?

I don't know where the image came from because I never saw it. But that's me.  I sometimes see things others don't, sometimes not for years.

Last night, Obama was the Wonk to "Mitch's" (h/t Letterman) hyper-Aristo. Sanity, you might say, in the face of loopieness.

So of course "Mitch" won. It couldn't be any other way. What with "Mitch" hopping around like a string-puppet, and Obama plodding along with his "facts" and his "figures," how could it be?

"Mitch" talked airily about all the "jobs" he was going to "create" as President, but any sentient being  should know by now that he has never had any interest in creating any jobs for you. It's simply not in his portfolio. The fact is he will eliminate your job or ship it to some foreign land in a heartbeat if it will increase his bottom line and the bottom lines of those he serves. He simply has neither the time nor the inclination to fret about you. You, for the most part, don't exist in his world, the world of Versailles.

You might from time to time "exist" in the abstract in Obama's World at Versailles, but only to the extent that you and yours can be motivated or manipulated to go along with something that's already been decided as Policy by the Governing Class. Romney doesn't acknowledge that you exist at all, and his rhetoric about "jobs" is nothing but a sales pitch; Obama only acknowledges you to the extent you are... useful.

Thus, rationally, because you and I exist (if only as tools and abstractions) in Obama's World of Versailles, Obama is the better candidate. But because "Mitch Won!" last night, it's a horserace once again. Obama will not be allowed by the media to run away with the election (which he looked fair to do until last night.)

Many of the points "Mitch" made in his pitch were valid complaints the People have -- about high-end Government beneficence  and low-end despair, which he called "Trickle Down Government" which was interesting -- but he clearly doesn't intend to do anything positive about those complaints, any more than Obama and the Democrats will.

Interesting, too, was the fact that Obama proposed nothing for the short term improvement of the condition of the Masses, any more than he did from the outset of his tenure on The Big Chair. For what it's worth, the Masses are expected and required to pay for the Government beneficence to the High and the Mighty and not get uppity and not complain too much about it, either; rule from Versailles will be imposed, and the People will comply. Period.

"Mitch" on the other hand will promise all sorts of things to the Masses and not deliver anything that would change that fact. He lies. He's a huckster.

Obama is too, but he is in a different category; he's -- dare I say it -- "The Help." Romney and his allies see themselves as the Prime Movers, the Landlords, the rest of us, including Obama himself, being tenants or vermin.

Many of those keening and rending their garments last night were obvious plants, Romney supporters bent on sowing Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt among the Obama partisans. It was obvious. It was also surprising to see how easily FUD is sown through ostensibly liberal online communities. It's a cinch. Of course, I've seen it happen many times, so I shouldn't be surprised, but I still am.

Romney brings up all the things that Obama isn't doing for the People, or isn't doing well. He promises to do something exciting and positive to fix things, but he won't. He's a liar. On the other hand, Obama essentially promises nothing but more of the same, which isn't very good, but at least it's believable.

We have an electoral choice of Versailles or Versailles.  And it really can't be any other way given our anachronistic and balky system.

The only way to change it -- if the People really want to change it -- is through rebellion.

The Enigma That Is "Mitch" Romney

I've noticed the few times I've been able to check in to the Intertubes lately that there are a number of posts and articles circulating about Romney's religion, specifically its controlling and authoritarian nature and the fact that Mormon church missionaries and officials are essentially enjoined to "lie for the Lord" as part of their calling.

The behavior of both Ann and "Mitch" Romney (h/t Letterman) has been a demonstration of both characteristics from the get-go, and the fact that people are only now beginning to connect the dots is something of a mystery. I was certainly out front in noting that "lying for the Lord" was something that Mormons do, and in some cases are expected to do. It's part of Mormon culture.

I also pointed out that when "Mitch's" father was endowed in the Church, there was a vow of vengeance against the United States for the murder most foul of Church Founder Joseph Smith and his brother.

Note has been made of the fact that "Mitch" is himself a "high official" in the Mormon Church, but a Mormon bishop is not the equivalent of a Catholic or Episcopalian one, and a Stake President isn't quite the same thing as an Archbishop. The issue for "Mitch" is not that he holds a position within the church hierarchy -- which he does -- it is that he is in direct and apparently frequent contact with the Mormon Highest of the Mighty. He's quite proud of it too. (The link goes to a very revealing radio interview from last December. It's... interesting.)

So the question is raised about whether a President Romney would serve his church or the nation. Would he act on the Vow of Vengeance? Would he take direction from the current crop of wrinkled old men who run the Mormon enterprise from the shadows?

Now of course I remember the same sort of questions being asked about John F. Kennedy when he was running for president. Anti-Catholicism was still very prominent in this country, and electing a Catholic to the highest office in the land was considered too horrifying to imagine for many Americans.

I don't know that there is nearly as much anti-Mormonism abroad in the land today as there was anti-Catholicism back then, and that makes questioning Romney's religion problematical. To me, it's worth understanding some of these matters, but it's not, ultimately, all that important, in part because there are probably as many admirable aspects of Mormonism as there are questionable ones. As far as I'm concerned, all organized  religions are cults of one sort or another, and for believers, their cult is always the Best.

No, my issue with "Mitch" doesn't revolve around his religion. Instead, I question his mental acuity. In other words, the man doesn't appear to be very bright. Cruel, certainly. Bright, not at all.

Which makes one wonder how exactly he managed to accumulate more money than God (well, in a manner of speaking), and to become the boon companion of such luminaries as Netanyahu and the rest of the Neo-Con crowd, let alone become the Governor of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

Of course cruelty has become the standard necessity for political success these days, so that explains that. But he seems to have social and other difficulties (some of which are being snarkily attributed to early-onset dementia) that I doubt are really new but have probably always been part of his make up. The dude is mean and dumb.

So how does someone like that rise so high? Why does anyone else in his class tolerate him?

Speaking of class, I've noticed that Ann's behavior is distinctly nouveau. This woman may have gone to private school, but she obviously lacks breeding and could not have come from money, at least not old money. Say what I will about Bar-Be'elze-Bitch, mother (so they say) of the Bush Boys, she at least knows how to play the Grand Dame and can actually pull it off most of the time. Ann Romney can't. If this were an audition, she would have been thanked and sent packing long ago. Same with "Mitch" for that matter.

The enigma, for me, is how these people manage to rise as it were at all. "Mitch" and his wife are clearly not... "made" for what they have accumulated and seek to acquire. In some other role, they might be fine, but in the roles they want, they are abominations.

What's up with that?

[Note: Cat bite is healing thanks to powerful antibiotics, but it's one nasty mutherfugger; there have been no more wasps. Unloading of excess stuff continues.]

The "47%"

While I was doing my other tasks, I was listening to the coverage on NPR of the Great Gaffe of this Campaign, Mitt Romney's statement in Boca Raton last May that forty seven percent of the voters are a lock for Obama because they pay no income tax and are dependent on government for their support which they believe they are entitled to.

I think that's a fair paraphrase of what he said to his $50,000 a plate audience (reminding me of Bush's comment about his base, "the haves and the have mores." At least he was honest about it.)

The coverage of the brou-ha-hah was striking for the fact that in every report -- and there were many -- the reporters and bureau chiefs and commentators were making excuses for Romney and explaining "what he really meant to say." Which came out the same as what he said only polished up a little bit. Not only that, but over and over and over again, the "47%" meme was reinforced, as if it were propaganda.

As I was listening to the coverage, I wondered if perhaps this was the first time most people had ever heard of the fact that "47%" of Americans don't pay income tax and are dependent on government. Those of us who pay attention to political matters have been hearing it from the Rightists for a long time, as they constantly whine about the poors, the olds, the halts, and the lames who "don't pay taxes."

But does everybody hear it? I don't think so. Now that it's "out there"  -- thanks to David Corn and Mother Jones -- everybody, potentially, has heard it, and if the other news outfits have been covering it like NPR has been covering it, making excuses for Romney, and reinforcing the meme, then the propaganda no doubt will be effective.

Which, given some of the stories I've heard about both David Corn and Mother Jones, may be the intent.

It's been used by the Rightists to claim that there are all these freeloaders who simply get money for nothing (and their chicks for free? ;-) from the Government as "entitlements." It's Alan Simpson's complaint about Social Security ("a milk cow with 300 million tits") and Reagan's canard about Welfare Queens cheerfully conflated with the suggestion that only Those People (you know the ones) vote Democrat, and they're all dependent because they "don't pay taxes."

By spreading it far and wide this way -- and explaining it in great and almost obsessive detail -- it becomes CW which is then used to -- ta da -- broaden the base and lower the rates of taxation.  Which is code for shifting the tax burden from them that's got to them that's not. Which has been the plan all along.

Basically, the rich who have the most money, goods, and chattel sincerely believe that they should not be subjected to the burden of taxation because they see it as punishment; they certainly don't believe that they should be forced to carry so much of the income tax burden in this country. Never mind that the income tax was established specifically to tax the incomes of the highest earners and to exempt the incomes of the lowest earners. They claim it's unfair and immoral to tax the incomes of "successful" people so as to give money (their money) to the "failures."

Charity should suffice. If it doesn't, oh well, too bad.

It is, after all, the way things were organized back in those Glory Days of Yore when there were no curbs on corporate rapine and the abuses of the moneyed elite.

The reasons why so many Americans don't pay income taxes has little to do with dependence but the coverage has successfully conflated not paying income taxes with dependence to the point that I wouldn't doubt those who do "pay taxes" are outraged.

There was another factor in the coverage that was troubling to say the least. Time after time, as one or another NPR bright light bustled to the microphone to explain what Mitt really meant, the topics of the debt and entitlements were raised, and once again the two were conflated --as in  "the entitlements are driving the debt, yadda yadda" -- with hardly a mention about the numerous wars of imperial aggression and all their collateral costs and damage, and none at all about all the extortion and tribute being paid to the Highest of the Mighty financiers.

None of this ever gets mentioned in any comprehensive manner in the mainstream media. This issue is always presented as one of dependent people who "don't pay taxes" and "entitlements."

There has been very little effective counter.

As Romney doubled down on his comments, clearly his handlers have decided that he's presenting the issue correctly for the purposes of propaganda, and as his statements and those of other Rightists are spread far and wide and repeated over and over again, he seems to be getting plenty of mileage out of it.

Would A President Romney Actually Be Worse Than Another Term of President Obama?

Romney wants so much to serve you

The answer is "Yes." That should be obvious. President Romney would be worse than President Obama in approximately the same way that George W Bush was worse than a President Gore would have been.

Bush's legacy -- if you want to call it that -- will live in infamy while Gore has petered out to near irrelevance in the public mind. Millions were slaughtered or displaced during the Bush era, imperialist aggression was launched, torture instituted as widely known policy (though continually officially denied), civil liberties were sharply curtailed, whole cities suffered ruin and neglect at home and abroad, and so on, all orchestrated, dictated if you will, from the White House. These things were not accidents.

For all his wardrobe and other faults, President Gore is unlikely to have done those things.

As is well known, the terrible things that Bush initiated or expanded during his time in the White House have largely continued under Obama, and Obama has built on the Bush/Cheney structure of rule. Rather than wars of opportunity and aggression, though, Obama prefers stealth Death From Above of "targeted" militants, insurgents, "enemies" of all kinds. He prefers arrests and draconian charges against domestic dissenters and whistleblowers. Civil liberties may be less openly suppressed, but efforts to curb and suppress dissent are no less intense. He prefers to let bygones be bygones with regard to the appalling crimes against humanity of his predecessors in office, and he has much the same attitude toward the banksters who crashed the economy and continue to loot, plunder and pillage with abandon.

It is unlikely that any of those things would change under President Romney. But what would change is this: domestic "order" would be compelled. Revenge is likely to be a paramount motivation for domestic policies. Harm would be no less widespread than it is now, but reward for faith and loyalty would be much greater because there will be more to offer those who are faithful and loyal.

The economic situation for most Americans will not get better; it will stay the same or get demonstrably worse. But there might be a greater sense of "hope" among the suffering masses. Instead of the languid indifference toward their plight as demonstrated time and again by the Obama regime, Romney in office would be constantly talking about the plight of the Lesser People while doing nothing to alleviate it. What would be likely for the poor and unemployed, maybe the homeless and mentally ill as well, is a form of indenture, by which they are provided with some sort of unpaid employment (which they are required to take) in exchange for bare and basic necessities of living, and perhaps forced instruction in thrift and obedience. In other words, don't be surprised if President Romney initiates a whole different order of society for the poor, homeless and mentally ill -- those who "can't make it" -- as opposed to the social order for those who can and do. Make it, that is.

There seems to be a natural point at which the current decline in living standards will begin to mitigate: it's about when 20% lives in poverty, and the 80% remainder feel they have escaped the worst of the Endless Recession. We're not quite there yet, as public employees continue to be shed and the official poverty rate is still slightly under 20%. But once it gets there, which will probably happen no matter who is in office, expect to see the beginnings of economic stabilization for the masses. The economic theory will be that so long as The 80% are doing OK, The Suffering 20% don't matter. They should be Grateful. As long as they're kept in a kind of spare but useful servitude, why should they complain anyway?

They'd be doing something useful for Their Betters. And what would Their Betters be doing under President Romney that they aren't doing now? For one thing, positions of wealth and power would become much more hereditary than they are now, and a true aristocracy of breeding would be instituted and promoted much more widely than we currently see, with Willard as the prime example of the Son following the Father in Power (and Glory if you like).

There would continue to be elections of a sort, but positions would become quasi-officially hereditary in far more cases than now.  That would be unlikely in the extreme to occur under President Obama, though a mostly non-hereditary aristocracy would continue as customary.

Elections would become more farcical, but probably would be taken more seriously, than they are now. Whether there would be so much money dumped into elections would depend on how useful the media chooses to be to the New Settlement Regimes*.

For the money expended in campaigns is almost all fed directly into the maws of media conglomerates, in other words, Plutocracy feeding itself. The economic ideal is for the stronger to exploit the weaker, however, and among Plutocrats and Oligarchs, open exploitation of one another for someone else's profit is not polite. Never mind that the media money is spent to propagandize the masses. Shouldn't they be paying for their own brainwashing? I mean really.

That would mean that campaign money as we've known it would begin to disappear, and taxpayer funded elections might become standard. Of course that couldn't happen until the tax burden is fully shifted off of wealth and onto the middling and poor where it belongs. Taxes, after all, are punishment for failure. Those who do not achieve wealth are ipso facto failures, and only they should be subjected to the compulsion of taxation. Their Betters, on the other hand, will be offered opportunities for voluntary contributions of -- say -- as much as 10% of their income to worthy public causes, or even to the government if they choose.

As now, candidates would still be chosen by Their Betters for the masses to vote for, but the likelihood of insurgent candidates would be reduced to near absence. Elections would be formalities of popular approval for the pre-chosen few.

Eligibility to vote will be further restricted, perhaps only to those who have proved themselves worthy of citizenship and the franchise.

There might be other public rituals besides elections, probably on the pattern of public rallies at stadia and arenas and so forth that will be intended to "build community" and break the strangle-hold of devices and teevee on people's attention and leisure.

While this is a feature Obama might have instituted, given the huge crowds he was drawing during the 2008 campaign and the millions who gathered to freeze in the Mall while he was inaugurated, he quickly set out to disabuse the People that he was there to do anything for them; if anything, Obama policies set out to out Hoover Hoover. Consequently, gathering such enormous crowds now is essentially impossible for him now.

But a Romney Regime would not be holding such rallies for him as such, they would be clearly intended to build a sense of common purpose and community among attendees, more like the patriotic rallies of the past.

Internationally, I suspect that after wiping out Iran -- which seems more and more inevitable at some point, much as the Alexandrian effort to destroy the Persian Empire seems inevitable in hindsight -- all foreign interest will turn to China, or rather turn on China, in an American led effort to cripple and recolonize the Celestial Empire.

Of course this may turn into a long term and ultimately futile campaign which may so debilitate the United States that it... disappears, broken into petty statelets, the remainder partially absorbed by Canada and Mexico.

Don't laugh.

The United States has unfulfilled atonement to make, according to Romney's Mormon Scripture, and further, the Mormon Temple Romney was endowed into -- and in which he is still styled a bishop -- once demanded revenge against the United States for the murder of the Prophet Joseph Smith and his brother Hyrum. Of course they disavow any such thing now, and they say they have not included it in Temple Endowment ceremonies since 1927, but the Oath of Vengeance from previous generations was operative when Romney was Endowed at a Temple ceremony in 1966.

Whether or not a President Romney would consciously seek vengeance on the United States on the basis of that oath is something I think only he would know, but the Mormon church has an intrinsic sense of animus toward the United States government for its interference in and persecution of religious practices, some of which, like polygamy, forced Romney's grandfather to settle his polygamous family in exile in Mexico rather than put up with US government interference. This is not ancient history. For many Mormons, and for all I know the Romneys as well, this is very recent.

Despite all the accusations to the contrary, it's clear that Obama is not actively trying to take vengeance on or otherwise destroy the United States as such -- though his policies largely aid the Overclass in destroying the American People's wealth and security, the American People have often been considered expendable in some cause of the Rich whether it be war, empire, or economic peril for the masses. Obviously, Romney's predatory and parasitical capitalist career at Bain is not in any way outside the norm for his class.

There may be something deeper in both men's views of past (or present) slights and persecutions, but if so, it's not obvious. So I wouldn't be focused on the potential for mayhem implicit in the Mormon Oath of Vengeance. It may or may not even be a factor in a Romney presidency.

What we should keep in mind is that this nation has a deeply rooted theocratic underpinning. Its tendency has always been more or less toward theocracy, not toward secularism and pluralism. Thus, an antagonistic theocratic state like Iran would be considered an existential threat -- even though it is not -- because its theocracy competes with America's own. An overtly secular and atheistic state like China (or the former Soviet Union for that matter) is seen as an existential threat -- even though it is not -- because successful secular/atheist societies compete with America's theocratic-tending state.

No matter whether Romney or anyone else in office thinks and acts directly from a position of religious authority, the result is essentially the same because of the nature of the American state, not because of the nature or religious beliefs of the person in office.

Yes, a Romney presidency would be worse that Obama's in the same way George W Bush's presidency was worse than Gore's might have been, yet none of them are particularly good for the People of the United States due to the nature of its founding, its Constitution, and the state itself.

Bad can easily become worse.
-----------------------------------------------------------
*[Forgot my footnote!] "New Settlement Regime" is a term coined to describe the means by which the financial shenanigans of the Highest of the Mighty are rationalized and backstopped by governments. As used by me, however, I'm referring to the New Settlement Regime as the ruling corporatocracy itself, as exemplified by one of its members, Mr. Romney of Bain Capital. In other words, the corporatocracy would be rationalizing and backstopping itself through direct extraction and rule.

Normalizing Obscenity

I've been intrigued with the coverage of Romney's tax return releases, sparse as that coverage has been, even in the so-called "left" media and new media.

Nearly all the coverage in the major mass media has been an effort to normalize Mr. Romney's situation, using terms like "unsurprising," "typical for wealthy people like the Romneys," "sophisticated but perfectly legal," and so on.

Note is made of Romney's remarkably low tax rate -- which of course is said to be a consequence of policies set by Congress, so there's nothing wrong with it. Of course not.

The idea that someone can make more than $20 million a year for literally -- quite literally -- doing nothing to earn it is not even mentioned as a bit "unusual," as if anyone could be doing this if only they... worked hard enough, or deserved it, or something of the sort, as if it were perfectly normal and should be celebrated as "an American success story."

The fact that the Romneys literally do nothing at all to "earn" most of this money, they are merely passive investors in mostly blind trusts, is not even considered worth remarking on.

How Mitt initially got the money to embark on this do-nothing wealth machine -- from the disruption and destruction of other people's lives and futures ("that's capitalism, my friend!") -- is only mentioned by rivals. The fact that Bain Capital is and has always been a predatory outfit, looting and destroying the work of others for its own profits is not a topic for discussion amid polite company at all.

It's all perfectly normal, what anyone of his wealth and financial sophistication (not to mention political ambition) would be expected to do.

And he tithes to his church, so he's obviously moral.

Stunning.

("And did you hear? Those nasty Democrats and that arrogant Negro in the White House are engaging in Class War again.")

The Uselessness of Our Aristocrats

While the Obama regime has made incalculable unforced errors that have kept our many overseas wars of aggression going -- indeed, expanded some of them -- restricted our liberties, perpetuated our Endless Recession, and made more and more people's lives as miserable and controlled as possible, even though a handful of predators in banking and finance and vulture capital continue to prosper mightily, the prospect of putting up another Republican Aristo against Obama -- someone who is arguably a Man of the People (if somewhat of a traitor to his class nonetheless) -- is looking more and more like a bizarre spectacle. Yet it may have an upshot no one has adequately anticipated.

Mitt Romney as the Republican nominee presumptive has been under a surprising level of attack from fellow Rs for his "vulture capitalism" period at Bain Capital during which he amassed an enormous fortune, much of it on the backs of... lesser people... whose lives and livelihoods were destroyed. That's how people of his ilk make money. They do leveraged buyouts, then strip the assets of the acquisitions. It's been going on for decades, Mitt got into the game early, made a huge fortune through debt finance and asset stripping, destroying many people's lives along the way, and he -- like all the rest of his ilk -- seems to be utterly oblivious to the wreckage he left behind. It's not his problem, you see. Someone else can clean up the mess.

This is the general attitude of our entire Aristocratic Class, not just Mittens. They seem completely incapable -- as a class -- of recognizing, let alone addressing, the level of human misery they cause in pursuit of endless riches above all else.

It's pathological.

Of course we've seen it all before, not that long ago, either. It was present in both Bush reigns, and of course it was the consistent attitude during the Go-Go 80's; the Lesser People simply don't matter. They are on the whole an undifferentiated, dehumanized mass, resources to be exploited and discarded at will.

This is the general attitude of our Overclass to the rest of humanity. They simply do not have a human connection with anyone, nor do they have a care for anyone, outside their own class, and more and more it is clear (as in the case of Mitt), they have no knowledge of anyone outside their own class. Nor do they want any, nor are they able to empathize with anyone at all, let alone those "beneath" them.

Unfortunately, this pathology is like an infection. Much as craziness and insanity are communicable with enough exposure, so is the complete lack of empathy that characterizes so much of our Aristocracy. It can spread all too easily through a population at large, and when it does, we see the kind of violent, crabbed and misshapen societies the United States has largely become -- one that celebrates the misfortune of others and one that punishes those who can't abide or keep up with the course of selfishness and greed.

Ordinary people may tolerate this state of affairs for a while, may even become temporary advocates for it, if they believe they are somehow better off under the rule of cruelty (cf: Fascist/Nazi era in Europe as example). But inevitably they awaken to the fact that they have been under assault and have been robbed all this time.

And they rise up. It is inevitable. And as we saw so many times last year -- still going on this year, but not getting quite as much press -- the Rule of Aristocratic Cruelty reacts with more repression and cruelty, and more and more physical and psychological violence, trying to force the masses to accept their sorry fate. In other words, their only response to the outcry against their cruelty is more cruelty more widely applied.

A more responsible Aristocracy (or at least one that wants to survive) listens to the outcry of the masses and adjusts its behavior accordingly to accommodate the pleas for redress they receive.

But ours, somewhat bewilderingly, does not. Pleas aren't even heard, let alone accommodated -- or rejected for that matter. Theft and looting, exploitation and destruction by the Overclass is more and more brazen; control or punishment only applies to those "below" never to those on top, while just being "below" becomes a punishable offense.

Our putative Aristocrats -- the Overclass -- has no regard at all for the interests of those beneath them, and they have only a marginal concern over how far they can push the lesser people and how fast.

The Overclass only serves itself, but its members are also in fierce and unrelenting competition with one another for pre-eminence. They cheerfully steal from one another, in other words, as well as from those beneath them. They seem to be hard-wired for theft and looting and destruction and they can't help themselves. It is an identity thing for them.

And here we have Mittens as the perfect example. He displays no conscience, no empathy, no consideration -- at all -- for any of those he has brought misery to over his long years as a titan of finance. If they have "problems", oh well, they need to bootstrap themselves like he did, suck it up and go on. Or not. It's not his "problem." Someone else can deal with it -- or no one. It doesn't matter. Because those who don't make it under his scheme of cruelty... don't matter.

"It's Capitalist Free Enterprise, my friends."

Yes, it is.

The more he goes down this path, the more people will associate their misery with what he is attempting to get them to celebrate: Capitalist Free Enterprise. And the more they will ultimately reject it.

Under the circumstances, full on Socialism is looking more and more promising. Or something else. But not Plunder Capitalism and the Useless Aristocracy that goes with it -- such as Mittens believes in as his secular religion. No more of that, thankyouverymuch.

Obama does not get off scot free by any means. His role, though, has always been quite different: to serve the interests of the Overclass fully while managing the masses. I've mentioned this many times before: Obama spent years auditioning for his role as Manager of the Masses, and he demonstrated just how well he was able to do it in Berlin, where he attracted a crowd of hundreds of thousands, perhaps a million, who listened to him speechify about... nothing. He held them in thrall, and what he said to them didn't matter at all. Later, at his inauguration, he was able to enthrall millions who attended in bitter cold, while telling them that they would have to sacrifice and suffer in order to get through the rough times ahead.

Little did they realize they were being told they must suffer and sacrifice for the benefit of those who had been robbing them and destroying their lives, but there you are. That's how our system works.

Obama has been on message ever since. His premise is that "things could be worse," and they will be worse, guaranteed, if those Other People are ever put back in charge.

In other words, there is No Better Future for You. You will drudge along till all your goods and chattel are used up or stolen, and you'll feel grateful that things didn't get any worse than they did. That is your lot and your fate. Rejoice!

And yet, more and more obviously, the Aristocrats of Cruelty who rule us are seen as the useless parasites they are, burdens the rest of us can no longer afford.

The test for Obama now is whether he can keep the masses under control. So far, he's done surprisingly well at it. His real test will be whether he can manage the coming rebellions.

Needless to say, people like Mitt are too busy plundering to be bothered...