Puffy Putin and His Long-Long Tables

Note has been taken among the Western Propaganda Media -- and some others -- that Vladimir Vladimirovich is looking distinctly unwell with a very puffy face and an odd for him demeanor. His fury at Ukrainia is really uncharacteristic. Yes, I realize there's this whole "projection of strength" thing, but this guy has been around for practically ever, and most observers have taken his measure and got his number, and his recent appearance and actions are just "not like him." Something is going on. 

And then there is the whole business about those long-long tables in those gigantic white-white rooms in the Kremlin at which he has his meetings and conferences. He sits at one end and those who wish to speak with him sit yards and yards away from him. And then what? Yell? It's very odd. Commentary suggests he's paranoid of catching the Covid. But... why? We've seen Trump, Boris, and Bolsonaro among others get it and get it bad and come through with the kind of treatments that are only available to the rich and powerful, and so, Vlad should be fine even if he gets it. 

But then, there's the whole "puff-face" business. That is often a consequence of taking cortico-steroids like prednisone and such, and there are other meds that do it, like cancer drugs. So.... could there be something going on where his immune system is all bolloxed (such as with cancer treatments and other conditions) and thus his wariness of sitting near someone who might be a carrier? Has he been poisoned? 

And then there's the question about his behavior. I was certainly surprised when he ordered a full-on invasion of Ukraine. From the outside looking in, it was stupid, and he is not stupid. There is no clear objective -- "demilitarize and denazify" is all well and good, but this isn't even close to doing that. And why now instead of in 2014 when it was more doable if you will? And actually, it was expected then. 

Instead, he just sat back and watched.

Hm.

What gives? Dunno.

It's not just Putin, tho. Far from it. 

Paul Jay did and interview with Lawrence Wilkerson wherein they discussed some of the oddities of this latest round of conflict. They correctly see it as a contest of oligarchies -- American, European, Russian and Ukrainian. This is not, at all, about "Democracy vs Autocracy." Jeeze, whoever came up with  that one must have been on drugs. It's oligarchs against oligarchs. The working class has no say. Very much a la WWI. Which is not a good thing. Far from it.

There are strategic military objectives, but regime change in Kiev/Kyiv (the correct pronunciation of which  no one quite knows or agrees on... the best one seems to go something like "KREE-iv") isn't one of them. Occupation of the whole of Ukraine isn't one of them. Destruction of Ukraine isn't one of them. Strategic military action would focus essentially entirely on "Novorossiya", the east and south, and essentially ignore the rest ("Banderastan")

And yet from appearances, Russian troops are flailing around, sort of trying to "take" the big cities in the north -- Kiev, Kharkov -- and advancing on Mariupol and Odessa in the south without really defending Donetsk and Luhansk in the Donbas. 

We keep hearing about the Siege of Kiev/Kyiv, but that doesn't really seem to be happening. The airport was apparently taken by Russian troops. And every now and then a missile is lobbed toward the city hitting sort of randomly, but there doesn't seem to be a "siege." Same with Kharkov. 

In the south, there's little word, so it is not clear what the Russians are doing. It has been reported, maybe true or not, that the Ukrainians are fiercely shelling the breakaway republics and there is little or no Russian counter offense or defense. 

And now we hear veiled references to "nuclear deterrent" from Moscow. The USandNato have never disavowed First Strike with Nukes, so Moscow is understandably concerned, yet...

It reminds me a bit of all the people running around screaming that Hillary was going to start WWIII with her talk of a No-Fly Zone in Syria. Huh? No. Not gonna happen. All out nuclear war takes two to tango, and from all appearances what they were screaming about was that Putin would respond to a No-fly Zone with nuclear weapons, and there was no sign at all of him doing that.

So was the screaming just partisan bullshit? I think so, yes. But with current events in mind, I wonder. Was there something else going on?

Was there a plan in place to goad Russia into doing something.... erm... unwise (like a full on invasion somewhere) that would enable the implementation of the Russia-Project (ie: its dismemberment and de-nuclearization among other things) as a "defensive" measure, a plan to be executed with Hillary in the Oval Office?

A plan that was interrupted but not cancelled by the unexpected installation of Trump.

So now with Biden in office it is being executed "at last". Putin has done his part by invading Ukraine -- and flailing around and now by "talking nukes."

The point from The West is to destroy/dismember Russia. This has been a goal since the 1990s. Once that's done, move on China.

But the whole plan started with destroying the Middle East. Followed by Iran -- which still hasn't been done. Then Russia. Then China. With the idea that China would surrender rather than be destroyed.

Well. 

Here we are.

Spring's coming. So at least there's that...

Moar War, War Fever, Scandal! Scandal! Scandal!

What a freaking mess. What have we done to deserve this? [I'm sure the many targeted peoples under the bombs raining down on them from the Empire Above wonder the same damn thing...]

Views from Damascus overnight resemble Baghdad on Shock n Awe night so many years ago. Remember? I don't know anymore whether people do. There's been so much misery, mayhem and bloodshed Over There, it's hard to keep track, isn't it?

The proximate cause of the latest "coalition" air strikes (primarily from off shore missile launches) of yet another Middle Eastern city is the supposed use of prohibited chemical weapons against a rebel stronghold in the suburbs of Damascus.

Whether it actually happened and who did it if it did is subject of some dispute. There are statements that it didn't happen at all. There are statements that it was staged. There are statements that it was done by outside forces. There are statements that it was done by the rebels themselves... Yadda, yadda.

None of us is in a position to know. Whether our military and civilian rulers know much more than we do is a mystery. All we can say with any certainty is that the protagonists of these wars and rebellions tend to be dissemblers.

The launching of retaliatory missiles is essentially de rigeur these days. It's what's done to show the non-compliant who's the boss. It hasn't worked very well with the Assad regime, and it doesn't seem to quell rebellions either. It's just a Thing. Blowing shit up is the way things are done by the Empire and by the Rebel Alliance. Sometimes I think they cause misery for the fun of it.

So they just blow things up. People are in the way, oh well!

Jeepus, I hate this. I was going round and round about the Stephon Clark Thing in Sacramento. My point was that I just want the killing to stop, and he didn't quite get it. Huh? Whut?

The killing. To. Stop.

We seem to be locked into this situation where killing is the number one option when things go sideways or there's a perception of a threat of some sort. When police kill, they're just taking their cue from our Dauntless Leaders. Killing is their Go To solution to practically everything. They're no too bright are they?

Meanwhile the White House (and many other prominent elements of society) are enveloped in one scandal after another. I don't think we've ever had a mobbed up gangster sitting on the throne, but we do now, and our institutions have no idea how to deal with it/him. He's been hamstrung in various ways, but that's not sufficient. He uses what powers he has remaining for making much mischief and propping up his frail ego. This is hardly presidential, but I don't think it much matters any more.

The presidency itself has long since been diminished by various unfortunate and unpleasant occupants and their scandals, deceptions, and military adventures. It's close to time for something else again.

The Ruling Class seems happy to have the Rabble wallowing in it. Distraction? Sure. Entertainment? Yep. A masque?

The downward spiral seems inescapable.

And yet, there must be hope somewhere.

The Franken Thing

This is one reason Show Business personalities should not be elected to public office.

You'd think Minnesotans would have learned their lesson with Jesse The Body Ventura.

But no.

Actually, I'm given to understand that Minnesotans weren't consulted about whether or not Mr. Franken should become a sacrifice, it was pretty much entirely a matter of Senate Democratic colleagues demanding and getting his resignation, but the fact that he stood for election and was elected twice despite a rather marked unsuitability for office -- something he even alluded to -- is what's telling.

Minnesotans, though, didn't have much of a choice.

That's a deep seated problem for our faulty and anachronistic electoral system. Franken shouldn't have had to run, but he did because at the time there were few viable options.

But isn't that the case in most elections? Indeed. It is so by design.

Meanwhile Franken's forced resignation over things that a low comedian like him would be expected to do as part of a gag or not was happy-making for some people, definitely not so for many others. The backlash against Gillibrand and the dozens of other Senators (not all of them Democrats) who participated in the mob action against Franken has been pretty intense. What were they thinking?? That they would gain cred among women in general or among a specific demographic (suburban white women) who they long to appeal to? Don't know. I'm not sure they do.

If this were really about ending sexualized aggression against women (and men) by the rich/powerful men who rule us, then Franken would not be a likely target given what he was accused of.

No. What he was accused of was pretty much what almost any low comedian would be expected to do when he's "on." Viz: the Marx Brothers as historic (and very randy) examples. There are many more.

Some women now claim they were offended/assaulted by Franken when he was being a low comedian, and their claims were too much for a significant portion of the Senate to handle and they called for his ouster.

Go back in time and look at the Marx Brothers in action with the many Sweet Young Things and Margaret Dumont in their movies or watch Groucho ogling and even touching girls and women on his television show. Was that sexual harassment or assault? Well, some people would certainly think so.

Times change, and that sort of thing certainly isn't allowed now.. Or it shouldn't be. Particularly among high government officials. Ergo, Franken had to vamoose.

Right?

Well, he said he would step down, so I guess so. Make an example of him. Right?

(As for Conyers, he's old and needed to retire anyway, right?) (Who?) (Another target of the witch hunt, that's all.)

But what I keep going back to is that Franken should never have been in office, should never have felt he had to run. The fact that he really did believe in the necessity of his candidacy and service -- while still being a comedian -- put him and the people of Minnesota in a jam.

Much the same has been the case with other show business personalities who have run for office and won, including Ronald Reagan, Jesse Ventura, Arnold Schwarzenegger, and Donald Trump.

All have some kind of sexual indiscretion in their backgrounds, and none of them were/are particularly suited to office.

I've noticed that show business executives ("suits") rarely if ever stand for office, but performers rather often (too often in my view) do. I think about that and the absurdity of it and I ask myself what kind of reflection that is on the electoral system itself.

Oddly enough, actors and performers in the Show Business are not autonomous individuals who are free to do as they wilt on stage or screen or in the ring. They are more like product shaped and socialized by many others behind the scenes including those suits who most of us never see.

Oddly enough, the show business environment is highly (some might say "hyper") sexualized. The notion that show business personalities are somehow (or should be) monk-like in probity is silly. On the other hand, I've been informed that elected government officials are even less monkish.

Ultimately the issue is consent. The women complaining about Franken's behavior claim that they didn't give their consent for what he is accused of doing, including holding one by the waist during a photo op. Indeed, it's credible. It's likely he didn't even think to get permission before acting in a touchy-feely or even boorish way toward these --and no doubt other -- women during his long career as a comedian. Permission was implied.

To say now that they didn't give or imply their consent is jejune to say the least and they are now Outraged!®. On the other hand, Franken was clearly targeted for other reasons than his alleged misbehavior, and once targeted, he had no means to escape punishment. 

If this is about ultimately getting to Trump and forcing him out of office, I don't think it will work. It's already backfiring. Trump's sexual improprieties have "already been litigated," and it's not likely that any accusation of sexual impropriety against him will cause his removal in the future. Maybe some women will think twice about reelecting him, but what -- if anything -- will get him out of office in the meantime remains to be seen.

If on the other hand the objective is to ensure that going forward there will be no physical or sexual contact between individuals without express permission and consent and none at all between adults and minors with or without consent, then it's possible we'll enter into that New Society more or less soon. We've been painfully inching toward it for a long time.

If the objective is to precipitate general equality between men and women, then nah. This isn't the way.

But maybe in the short term show business personalities will think twice or three times before standing for office, and that might be a good thing.

One of the Very Few Times ...

...that the High and Mighty have been targeted by the American Lone Gunman happened in Alexandria, VA, this morning at a softball practice involving congress members and staff.

Details are sketchy -- to say the least -- but apparently one congressman was wounded (Steve Scalise) as well as a couple of cops on protective duty. The suspect is said to be in custody.

Some wag said, "Well, he must be white then."

This wouldn't be the first time a congressmember was shot and wounded by the Lone Gunman, and it will be interesting to see what kind of outrage emerges from this one. Gabby Giffords was shot and critically wounded in 2011 and had to leave congress on account of her injuries, but all the outrage her shooting provoked had zero effect on her former colleagues who rather ostentatiously and arrogantly refused to consider legislation that might further restrict access to firearms for people with mental illness. As I recall -- but my memory is failing -- congress actually passed legislation easing access to guns in the wake of Gabby Giffords' shooting.

How much bigger a "Fuck you!" could they have engineered?

Shootings by these Lone Gunmen are commonplace, of course, but they almost never target people with money or power. That's why the Giffords shooting was so odd. Today's incident is also odd.

Ah, but  we've been in this chaotic matrix for some time now, and these sorts of oddities are bound to become more and more common. The question is not whether they will happen -- they will -- but rather what the response of the Powers That Be will be.

If as I suspect the shooting today can be labeled "terrorism" -- even better if the shooter is brown, black, or Muslim(!) or better still a "damn dirty librul"*-- then we will see a prompt response from Power and Authority to tighten the ratchet on all sorts of irritating people and behavior.

This isn't a Reichstag Fire type incident, but given the hysterics of Our Rulers (well, some of them) over the Terrorist Threat (to themselves, of course, they don't give a shit about the rest of us) the reaction is liable to be similar.

As if we didn't have enough of that already.

It's the world we live in.

Gak.

UPDATE: * And so, here we are:

His Twitter profile shows that Hodgkinson is a left-wing supporter of Bernie Sanders who has also posted several memes on his Facebook page critical of President Donald Trump. He also called Georgia Republican congressional candidate Karen Handel a “b*tch” for saying she didn’t support a living wage during a debate with Democratic rival Jon Ossoff.

http://www.rawstory.com/2017/06/gop-baseball-practice-shooter-identified-as-66-year-old-james-t-hodgkinson/