Round Three: Creepy Clown vs The Hag -- a Draw

Once again, the "debate" was on the TeeVee while I was doing other things. So I didn't see a whole lot of it and I heard somewhat less than I did of previous installments.

Once again, Trump's facial tics and contortions made him look more and more like a Creepy Clown without makeup (though he was strangely pink this time rather than his more typical orange) and Herself appeared botoxed and made up to look 20 years younger.... oh dear. The Hag she is not! Whatever.

Chris Wallace actually did very well, I thought, asking substantive questions and cutting through some, not all, of the bullshit. I didn't much care for his Pete Peterson "Grand Bargain" hooey near the end, but even that was well crafted and provided each candidate with an opportunity to present their notions of how to deal with the Entitlement Problem (on the assumption that there is one, of course.)

Hillary had an approach -- raising the cap and increasing benefits at the lower end of SS -- that should appeal to a segment of Bernie supporters (assuming they believe her, HA!) while Trump literally had nothing. The problem would solve itself because of his glory and magnificence. OK. Sounds good.

I thought Hillary had an interesting modification of her previous call for a No Fly Zone over Syria. Wallace noted -- to his credit -- that generals and others say that establishing a No Fly Zone would in effect be a declaration of war against Russia and Syria -- and for my money that might not be the wisest course of action. What say the candidates?

Hillary said it would have to be (or would be) negotiated with Russia, it would take time, and it would take place once an agreement was reached. In other words, it would not be a unilateral Imperial imposition -- ergo, one would assume, no declaration of war.... How interesting.

For a moment, at any rate, the sabers stopped rattling. Trump for his part had previously mentioned that it would be a Good Thing to get along with Russia. He's been pretty consistent about that.

Hillary's campaign has been pretty consistent about accusing Russia and Putin of all manner of perfidy, and yet we can be pretty confident that Washington and the Kremlin are in fairly constant communications, that they engage in negotiations all the time, and that they can and do cooperate on any number of mutual objectives, despite the often ridiculous propaganda campaign against Russia/Putin that has been all but universal in the West.

This is very similar to the situation during the Cold War, when sabers were rattling all. the. time. Wild accusations against the Soviet Union and relentless anti-Soviet propaganda were daily injected into the US and NATO public bloodstream, and yet backchannel communications, negotiation, and accommodation between Washington and the Kremlin were nearly constant. The propaganda was not particularly related to the reality.

So when Hillary mentioned "negotiating" a Syrian No Fly Zone with Russia, I had a real "Ah ha!" moment. It's probably already in the pipeline. And that will be a steady as she goes resolution -- at least temporarily.

In other words, the idea is to have a safe-haven within Syria for civilians trying to flee the conflict which for a while will be under the joint protection of Russia and the United States.

Gee, could have done something like that long ago....

Trump again had nothing. He was challenged on his claim that "Aleppo has fallen,"  but his response was completely chaotic and nonsensical.

As for the rest of it, truly it's a blur. When they go off on one another's failings, or they repeat talking points and campaign boilerplate, I tune out. There's no there there.

Every sign is that Trump will lose the election badly, perhaps a historic loss on the level of Goldwater's loss to Johnson back in the day, or Carter's loss to Reagan. However, even historic losses on that scale provide opportunities for the losing side to eventually become dominant. Our political system has been set up that way. It's not clear what will happen to the congress, though many are predicting an R House and a (barely) D Senate. That seems to be what TPTB want. We'll see.

This will mean an almost certain Hillary impeachment the minute she assumes office, and that will provide endless entertainment for the masses and a huge ratings boost for the media. Trump TeeVee included. The bonanza will be incalculable.

Just like the last time...

My predict-o-meter is typically on the fritz, but my sense is that the SCOTUS will be allowed to wither away, as three more justices retire or die and are not replaced. It will maintain a "conservative" majority without really trying. Win-win (for TPTB) right?

Every Important measure will get through Congress and be signed by Hillary, including some kind of Grand Bargain, several trade agreements, various matters to do with War and Empire and such, budget reforms, and so forth. In other words, the idea that there will be "gridlock" is a crock. No gridlock on the Important Things, far from it.

The Impeachment Follies will probably go on in the House for a year or more, and then the Articles will be sent to the Senate for disposition. The "trial" will last, oh, I don't know, a few months, but whether the Senate chooses to convict Herself will depend a great deal on how well she performs for the Owners under pressure and how much the Senators would prefer her to sit in the Big Chair rather than Kaine. I predict they'll stick with her. But you never know.

Meanwhile, she might wind up one term or less for any number of reasons, including her health. While medical science can no doubt keep her animated indefinitely, there are other issues that might make her wish to "retire" before even the end of her first term.

As for Trump, he'll make a bundle marketing his patented brand of nonsense, but it won't matter because he'll be fringified as will nearly all of his "issues." This is the advantage (to TPTB) of someone like him claiming to be the King of What's Wrong. A good deal of his criticism of Hillary and the Government is valid, but because he is the critic, it will be dismissed. It's like Alex Jones with a (much) bigger audience. Jones is right about some things, but it doesn't matter because he's fringe. And what he's right about is therefore ignored.

The advantage of having a Trumpian fringe is that those inclined to share his views are fringified just like him. Win-Win again for TPTB.

In the meantime, I've suggested that this will be the last "genuine" presidential election. I know, I know, there's all this stuff about how it's being rigged in favor of Hillary. Well, every recent and many (most?) past elections were similarly rigged, But the votes were genuine, and for the most part they were genuinely counted -- where they were fudged, the numbers were mostly very small, just enough to change certain results without raising more than a few suspicions.

Following this election, however, I suspect that we will never have a genuine presidential election again, that the votes and the counts will be predetermined and they may vary greatly from what the electorate chooses, and there will be no way to check. Our Rulers will be chosen for us, and we will have nothing whatever to say about it.

Cf: Roman elections following Augustus. They took place for hundreds of years after the establishment of the Empire, even after the Fall of the Empire, but they were essentially fraudulent and meaningless, and no one voted for or against the Emperor, he was chosen by the palace faction with the greatest power.

And so it will go in our own revised government.

We have reached the final end of the Republic.

Transition compete.

So let it be written, so let it be done.

The Second Contact Between Hillary and Trump

Always one for a good time, I had the second "debate" between the Presidential contestants on last night while I busied myself with other things.

My, wasn't it nasty, though.

Jeebus.

They seem to have picked up energy from the VP set-to, or something, and the accusations flew fast and furious. Trouble is, we've heard them all before and they no longer resonate. Yes, he's a misogynist and liar; yes, she skirts the edges of legality and may cross over from time to time; yes, Bill is a serial philanderer (or was, anyway).

I didn't know about Trump's press availability with The Women Who Accuse Bill (and One More) just before the "debate"" until after the event. How interesting. Yah, it was a good deflection from his own "locker room banter," but ultimately, it's a nonstarter. Everyone knows -- too much -- about Big Dog's randiness and they long ago made of it what they would. Nobody's mind will be changed by trotting out The Women again. On the other hand, we're just getting used to the notion of Trump the Serial Assaulter (though why it should have been a mystery until now is anyone's guess.) His peccadilloes will play for a while until people get bored with them.

Ultimately, though, they don't stain Hillary. She's  blameless -- well, more or less -- in all of this, so the point of bringing up Bill's indiscretions (or the Other Accuser that I'm still somewhat mystified by) is more of a distraction than a Thing. Hunh?

I didn't watch much of it, but I heard plenty. All the same accusations we've been hearing on and on, about taxes, emails, Russia, Muslims, yadda yadda, almost all of it completely meaningless.

Mention was made of the Wikileaks release of partial transcripts from the high-paying Clinton speeches to People Who Matter. The issue that's been glommed onto is Hillary's "public" vs "private" positions. OK, so?

Or rather it would have been a meh if it weren't for Hillary's hooey about the Ruskis hacking; what the FFF? Another tailspin into the gutter.

The point of course is that she didn't even try to deny she said what she's reported to have said, doesn't discount the truth of what's been released, but she blames it on the Russians, which is stone stupid.

But then Our Rulers never were known for their smarts, I think.

Meanwhile, I looked over some of the Wikileaks leaks of what she said to the High and the Mighty, and my initial impression is that she was trying -- probably unsuccessfully -- to inject some concept of social consciousness into the realm of Those Who Must Be Obeyed.

In other words, if she had a brain -- or her people were actually thinking things through -- they would realize these leaks are better for her than opponents make them out to be.

But then, who ever said they could figure things out without a focus group?

Her baroque and legalistic excuses for the Email Thing are wearing thin, but Trump's continued yapping about it doesn't help his cause in the least. Saying she should be in jail because of it, while red meat to his fans, is one of many disqualifications for high office Trump has exposed throughout this mess of a campaign. I'm sure that a tit for tat could be used -- no, YOU should go to jail! -- but it's just stupid. If Trump were running a  serious-revolutionary campaign and he didn't have so many vulnerabilities and skeletons in his own closet, I'd say go for it, jail them all and hang the rest of them, but that's not what he's doing. He's trying to finagle a neo-Republican ascendancy with Himself in the driver's seat. It's not revolutionary, it's just more of the same bullshit, with an extra dose of cruelty.

So in the end, I'm more convinced than ever that he's a ringer, meant to lose and to split the R Party in the process. Revenge, let's say, for the impeachment. Yes, of course, Our Rulers are just that obsessed with Get Back. This tells me that when Trump loses, he will be rewarded handsomely. Oh, very handsomely indeed.

It's all as phony as a three dollar bill.

Yep.

So I'm thinking that when they gamed this thing out, they discovered that Hillary couldn't win the White House unless the R candidate were someone like... Trump, who I'm given to believe has been a family friend of the Clintons for years, and perhaps was.... induced to run with the proviso that he lose and throw a monkey wrench into the R Party to boot.

Signs are sure pointing that way.

I think I'll skip the next one.

How To Control the So-Called "Debate"

[Note: It doesn't matter what the "debate" happens to be; we could be talking about the Summer Story of Century -- the NSA Surveillance Thing -- or closing a neighborhood school or building a new WalMart; the tactics are the same.]

I've written quite a lot about propaganda and its relative success in shaping and controlling people's perceptions of the world and those around them. We are immersed in propaganda 24/7, and having been born and grown up in the Post WWII Baby Boom generation, I know that has been true my entire life.

Discussing perception management with my parents (my father born in 1901, my mother born in 1911), I realized they, too, spent their entire lives being propagandized to believe certain things and to "know" certain things that I -- in the Ultimate Wisdom of the Adolescent in the latter half of the 1960's -- knew were manifestly untrue. In hashing these things out, though, they considered me to be the victim of propaganda, specifically of Communist propaganda designed to undermine my patriotism and ultimately to conquer the USofA.

When I told them that that was propaganda, it became clear to me that we were all immersed in the same stew of lies, half-truths, misdirection, and fabrications, and finding our way out of it -- if there was one -- could be a full-time job.

It was clear to me in studying history and journalism in this country that there has never been a time when most of the media was not the propaganda wing of the government and its corporate sector patrons. Never. Not even during Watergate, that Great Gate that famously brought down a President.

Radical and alternative publications have always had a place in the American media environment, but even when they are honest and wise and true (often incompatible objectives to be sure), they cannot be separated from their political and ideological perspectives or those of their publishers, and whatever truth one may find in alternative media must still be approached with skepticism and critical thinking, just as one must approach the often more blatant propaganda of the Major Mass Media.

Not even Ramparts (c. 1962 - c. 1975, RIP) was immune from the general propaganda of its era nor was it free of the urge to propagandize on behalf of its own objectives. (/s)

The use of propaganda by government was supposedly illegal until very recently, but any sentient being  should long ago have realized that the government is just as adept at using propaganda tactics on the People as any other institution in our lives, and it has never ceased doing so. A key to understanding the use of propaganda by government and the media is their institutional nature.

We all want media we can trust. We want a government we can trust. The horror is... there isn't any.

Things Fall Apart (Question Mark)

The Snowden Saga has more twists and turns than practically any spy novel or movie would have by this point. Well, I'm assuming. I'm not really into the genre, preferring as I do history and science fiction/fantasy. Chacun à son goût, n'est pas? Si tu veux.

And it seems to be falling apart.

What has been revealed of the domestic and international surveillance programs run out of the NSA shop by its corporate partners is interesting to be sure, and the documentation so far supplied by the Guardian may prove useful in providing standing for those who have been trying to launch legal challenges against the Surveillance State on 4th and other Amendment grounds, but it's hard to say at this point whether any court in the land is prepared to allow such suits given the "national security" arguments of the Government.

They've been reluctant to provide a path to litigants against the Surveillance State for the simple reason that the surveillance serves the interests of the courts as well. When we are told that  "all three branches of government have signed off" on the surveillance programs, what we should be hearing is "all three branches are convinced that the surveillance programs are in their interests and are protecting them."

From whom, you may ask. Yes, well. That's fairly obvious, isn't it?

It has nothing to do with protecting you. Never did. It all has to do with protecting them from you. And with profiting from your fears.

It's all really quite cynical.

Nothing Young Snowden has revealed has undone any of that. It's merely brought some of it into the light of day.

The Ars Technica story about Snowden's chat logs c. 2009 seems to have started the unraveling of The Narrative that had been so carefully constructed by the Guardian and (apparently) WikiLeaks about Snowden and his heroism/bravery or what have you; the "traitor" narrative is the other side of the same coin.

While Ars Technica tried to present it in the best light possible for Snowden, anyone who is exposed to the chat records that they published would likely say, "Wait, something ain't right here." People may disbelieve the logs -- they could be fabricated, after all -- but neither Snowden or anyone connected with him has denied them, so it's likely they are legit. If so, then it's no wonder that the situation seemed to change for Snowden almost immediately after the Ars Technica publication. The tone of the bluster changed, for one thing. Putin seemed to be smirking quite a bit over his catch. The White House pretended not to be particularly concerned about Snowden's attempts at defection, nor did they appear to be all that upset about his revelations.

They did not, however, appear to want him to receive asylum in any state. The Russian "offers" of asylum seemed to ring particularly hollow once Putin explained that Young Snowden might be granted asylum so long as he stopped his "work" harming Russia's American partners. It's an interesting locution given the pre-eminence of the Agencies' corporate partners.

The chat logs show someone who is all in with the Surveillance State. His advocates have had to turn themselves into pretzels in order to get past this narrative roadblock. For the most part, they've just ignored it -- publicly. In the background, though, it seems obvious that the Snowden in the chats has been a highly perturbing element in the story. Not only does it not fit The Narrative (Hero! Traitor!), but it is an indication that Snowden himself may have been trying to put one over on his handlers and the public.

Ergo. There he sits. Supposedly in the transit zone at the Moscow airport. Friendless. Alone. Trapped. With no place to run. But apparently plenty of places to hide. There have been no verifiable sightings of him in Moscow nor on the plane to Moscow from Hong Kong. Whether he is actually in Moscow -- or ever arrived in Moscow -- is subject to some dispute. It's not even certain that his WikiLeaks handler is there. It is fairly obvious that the recent "statements" from Snowden, such as his letter (said to have been written in Spanish) to Rafael Correa in Quito and his "I am unbowed" statement released by WikiLeaks were not written by him. Who did write them, I don't know nor does any skeptic, but they don't scan as being directly from the Whistle Blower himself.

This is not unlike the news articles revealing the surveillance programs bylined Glenn Greenwald (and somebody else) that don't read like Greenwald wrote them at all. Compare and contrast the news articles with his columns and the stylistic differences should be immediately clear. The news articles are not written in Glenn's style or voice; they are far too journalistically tight and succinct. They were clearly written by (or so heavily edited by they may as well have been written by) professionals at the craft of newspaper writing which Glenn is not.

Apparently Glenn tweeted the other day something to the effect that Snowden is now out of the story altogether; further revelations will come from Greenwald and the Guardian, not from him. Who? Snowden? Never heard of him.

That sounds an awful lot like they (Guardian/Greenwald) are washing their hands of Snowden now that they've got everything they want out of him. Of course, it's Twitter, and you can't make too much of it, but given the extraordinary silence at the Guardian about the Ars Technica chat logs, I wouldn't be at all surprised if they've decided to drop kick him into the ozone.

On the other hand, there is another whole layer to this at play. Greenwald appears to me to be a political actor in this drama, just as Judith Miller was in the run up to the Iraq debacle (she who is avidly supporting Greenwald these days, much as Howie Kurtz does... Howie who is also a political actor...)  Greenwald plays for a particular faction on behalf of, shall we say, seizing the rulership. I call it the Koch Faction. He's not a neutral observer -- any more than Judith Miller and/or Howie Kurtz are.

It seemed to me that Snowden was playing on the same team as Greenwald, but not in the same way, and with the Ars chats, it was unclear whether he was even playing for the same goal.

Could it be that Snowden is actually a "Statist?" OMG!

Meanwhile, supposedly Snowden has withdrawn his supposed request for asylum from Russia and has supposedly expanded his list of countries from which he is said to be trying to obtain asylum, all according to WikiLeaks which appears to be running the Snowden Operation these days. Little wonder, then, if the Guardian has severed its ties with him. WikiLeaks and the Guardian are supposedly not the best of friends...

I thought it was interesting that the Guardian editors told Charlie Rose they vetted Snowden by interviewing him in person in New York before he went to Hong Kong, and further having Ewen MacAskill interview and vouch for him there. Greenwald hardly appears in their account of what happened at all, even though Greenwald has been at the center of the story from its first publication and has remained there.

This is yet another indication that there is a whole other level of this story that is being hidden from the public, and how it all shakes out is anyone's guess.

Whatever the case, there is no sign that the National Surveillance/Security State is jeopardized in any way, nor that domestic surveillance will be curtailed.

But there is quite an active debate about it all, isn't there?

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 Other "Debate"

Versailles

These people have been on the Government Teat too long.

I arrived back at our place in California just as the Vice Presidential "Debate" was beginning, so, still zzzzz-y from the long drive, I sat down to listen to and watch a bit of it. At least Martha Raddatz was awake, I'll give her that, and she maintained some sort of control of the boys.

Well, that was my impression. Both Biden and Ryan came across as boys, literal adolescents having at one another, more for fun and for show than for any real object at all, because both of these boys know that no matter who eventually sits in the Big Chair (and the not-quite-so Big Chair nearby) the strings will still be pulled by the same people, and the results will be about the same because the goal is the same: Empire, economic calamity (for the masses), and some sort of permanence, ie: "certainty" for the High and the Mighty.

There were times when Ryan came across as just a punk, which seems to be his personality in any case, but I don't know that my judgement about these things is actually valid any more, being as that I'm more of a codger these days than not.

By his advanced years -- 70 now, is he? -- Biden should have come across as the Doddering Old Count puttering around the Palace since he's been in office (thus part of the Palace culture) for nearly all his life (wasn't he first elected when he was a twenty-something... punk?)  Well, maybe that's how younger people saw him last night, but I myself saw him more as the older frat brother slapping around some random pledge. Ryan wasn't a real person to Biden (I don't know that anyone who speaks in constant sound bites and talking points could be mistaken for "real" in any case). He was an object, a cat toy.

For his part, Ryan seemed to enjoy it, but then he loves him some attention, doesn't he?

The world Ryan wants for the rest of us is one of submission, misery and despair. Apparently, this grows out of his religious faith somehow; but then I guess after the rejection of the reforms of Vatican II (now 50 years ago) the Church really does want to go back to submission, misery and despair for all except the Highest of the Mighty for whom no flattery is out of bounds.

Biden is old enough to remember Vatican II and the reforms that resulted, and like the Rebel Nuns, he seems to think that that now antiquated version of the Church ought to still mean something. Yes, well. Good luck with that.

How did misery for all (except those on top) become the standard outlook for the younger generation?

Do they even realize it?

But there is no less misery misery in Biden's future vision, such as it is.

And this is why both of these boys are basically Bubble Boys, living in the Palace of Versailles, completely divorced from the People they ostensibly serve.

Yes, they have personally suffered somewhat in ways that many of us can relate to, but I'm not at all sure that either of them can relate their own suffering and loss to what the millions encounter. On the other hand, I can easily imagine them ordering the masses to "suck it up like I did." True empathy is not really a strong suit of Versailles.

Back in the day, Versailles was "open." Anyone who could make their way to the Chateau was admitted so long as they were unarmed. They had essentially free rein to roam the corridors and grand salons at will; many were able to directly encounter one or another royal functionary, count, or duc, and it was even possible for the unwashed to encounter and directly petition the King Himself -- though such encounters were rare. In a sense therefore, the Ancien Regime was at least theoretically in closer touch with the masses than our own isolated and heavily protected Royals are. When the déluge came, therefore, the Anciens were not entirely unaware that the People were, shall we say, discontent.

These days, however, it is not at all certain that those who have lived in a version of Versailles all their supposedly adult lives -- like Biden and Ryan to take but two -- have any idea that the masses are not altogether delighted with them.

After his Victorious Performance at the previous "debate" with Obama, Romney attempted to adopt the trappings of Royalty, asserting his "interest" in and "care" for "all the People," but it is obviously a charade, something he knows he is supposed to do which he doesn't carry off very well. Ryan doesn't have to play that game -- and he doesn't -- any more than Biden does.

They're just  boys   playing. Doing what they do.

Somehow, I am not reassured.

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.