Ave atque Vale

It 's not as if the parallels are any less evident, nor that our march to the end of empire isn't any less swift, It's that I'm tired and tired of writing about it: it may happen, anyway. Furthermore, as many of you have no doubt noticed, this website is becoming increasingly out of date, even if it is prescient.

I have not taken down dated pages, written in the heat of the 2008 campaign and even before. This website was first conceived about the time of the 2006 Congressional campaign, in some ways the obverse of what happened in 2010, which was the beginning of the overt counter-revolution.

The 'revolution,' you may have noticed, was limited, and terribly short.

Like many of you, I was optimistic then, that the parallels to the downfall of the Western Roman Empire would prove temporary, once we understood what was happening.

But it's happening. All you have to do is translate Roman Senator into multi-millionaire/billionaire (MMB), and voila! We don't have a Romney as President. Yet, we have the precursors to wealthy Senator Petronius Maximus (455), the first Senator to become Emperor (short-lived) after the Diocletian reforms. Now we have billionaires increasingly assertive of their money power attempting to control government, or to buy it.

We also have a strengthening political movement funded by the MMB class, which exhibits fundamental contempt for anyone not connected to what the Romans called the honestiores, the wealthy stars of the economic, cultural and social firmament. These are the few people who rub elbows, while enjoying more than half of the wealth the poor and wealthy nations of the world are tirelessly creating.

Ave, Atque Vale was what the gladiators are supposed to have said, before the Emperor, or his representative, as they were about to go into battle in the coliseums: I'm saying it in this roundabout way.

I've saved all the website pages, even the archived blogs, in one large word file. At some point, I may revive the website, updated, or dated, at another web-host. For now, I'm going to forego paying for all the bells and whistles, because I don't need them. And, as I wrote at the beginning: I'm tired, especially of writing about the declining American Empire.

I'm attempting again to write fiction. Writing Attila as Told To His Scribes and I, Zerco (both available as Amazon Kindle books) preceded this website, and writing other novels (I hope) will follow.

If I revive this website, an announcement will be posted on this blogspot companion site: http://roman-empire-america-now.blogspot.com/ I will keep this site simply to post, occasionally, about the state of affairs in the years going forward. I don't know how many more years I will have, since I'll be 75 in May, but my mother still can't let go at 101.

So, GOODBYE! But also, HELLO.

O'Reilly & Romney on "Gifts and Stuff"

Has anyone else noticed: the line Romney handed his donors--and via a surreptitious recording, the rest of the American people--is the same trotted out on Election night, not by Romney, but by Bill O'Reilly on Fox News. It was O'Reilly who blithered on first about why the election was going Obama's way: those "gifts and stuff" Obama had given out to blacks, Hispanics, women, the poor and the middle class.

Romney was simply parroting the nastiness of Fox News and then going further to all but say that 52% of the electorate was dependent on government largess, so of course they voted for Obama. What's a poor powerless multi-multi-millionaire going to do?

Is the Romney-O'Reilly contention true?

What is this "stuff"? Both O'Reilly and Romney speak as if these were bribes given to greedy people, in order for them to vote for Obama. However, when they mention specifics, what do they list: immigration reform, contraception for women, same-sex marriage and higher taxes for, er, "job creators". Unmentioned, except in the Republican primaries was the expansion of Food Stamps (officially SNAP), which has become critical to survival for a lot of people chronically unemployed.

Are these bribes, or are these policy intentions? Immigration reform is something this country has needed for a long time, since it's estimated we have 12 million illegal aliens living in the shadows, and a lot of hiring "under the table," which may work to employers' advantage, but is not a sustainable policy. Is immigration reform a "gift," or is it a needed reform of a broken system?

What is democracy, anyway? Some conservative wags have suggested that Rove and Adelson would have been better off just distributing the money they spent for political ads on directly buying votes. Hah hah.

Same-sex marriage has become something a majority of people feel is justified. So, is Obama's endorsement of it a gift, or a response to changing cultural attitudes?

Contraception for women, paid for by insurance in the ACA, may be seen by O'Reilly as a gift to unmarried women (who voted for Obama by a large margin), but contraception is necessary for women of childbearing age, in order for them to control their own lives. The subsidy means that poor women as well as wealthy ones can decide on their own. Republicans apparently want them "barefoot and pregnant."

So, "gifts" were Democrats offering substantive policies--and Republicans were offering what? God's blessing on a child of rape?

Fox News, it turns out, was giving Romney his lines. Fox is the perfect representative of the .001%, the media arm of our contemporary Roman Senatorial class. Romney's remark about the 47% was how he really thinks. Only now it's 52%, and aren't we lucky enough people knew this, or intuited it, that they didn't vote for this empty shirt!

We Won!

I remember when Harold, the school's maintenance man, came into the dining room as we kids were eating breakfast, and announced to my father: "We won!" The president re-elected was Truman, and the year was 1948.

Money didn't play such an outsized role in 1948 as it did in 2012, but the most important thing: "money," as the song goes, "doesn't buy you love." That was proven pretty decisively in 2012; money didn't buy love for Romney.

Tuesday night I stayed up until NBC declared Obama's victory--I didn't hear about Karl Rove's objections until the next afternoon. Obama really did win and it wasn't as close as Truman over Dewey.

Obama didn't campaign against a "do-nothing" Congress, but he could have; perhaps he should have. Considering Republican obstruction in Congress, it's extraordinary that Obama won on his accomplishments and his character--despite my evangelical friend's deeply held belief that Barack is the Antichrist.

What justifies Obama the Antichrist label? Maybe that he won? Or maybe that he's black, but doesn't act like a 'Yassuh, no Suh' N….., but as a powerful, articulate, well-educated man, who happens to be black.

Some now say Obama is a brilliant politician; I agree. But Obama's win, and that of the Democratic candidates who won a majority of Senate seats, despite the $100's of millions deployed against them, won because, in a democracy, numbers of voters ultimately prevail against raw cash. And Americans, like any people not cowed by authoritarianism, reacted to attempts to suppress them with impressive, stoic determination to push back and prevail. They may have voted in greater numbers than in the previous election when Republicans didn't so actively try to suppress the vote.

That's the strongest message and mandate in this election. Issues like global warming, collective bargaining rights and even inequality were often ignored by both sides--a defeat for democracy--but such a surge of money into the campaign (the money raised by billionaires and spent by "super-pacs"), encouraged Republicans to be more open and more aggressive about their extremist policies.

That was a good thing, because of the reaction: Americans reacted to the concerted effort to buy their votes through indirection, and they didn't like it. They turned out in droves in response to the attempts at voter suppression, and apparently ignored, or discounted, the negative ads flying nationwide. They may also have voted more decisively for Obama because of his real action in the face of Hurricane Sandy.

The day after the election, we still had a slowly diminishing empire, an artificially created "fiscal cliff," and need for a real stimulus to bolster jobs growth. And we still had Republican control of the House. But, for the moment, we've dodged the ultimate takeover of the selfish class, our equivalent of Roman Senators in the Fifth Century.

That's something to be thankful for.

Frankenstorm and FrankenLeader

We lost power for about three hours, but were lucky: we lost only one large spruce far from the house.

It's tropical here (the eastern side), but this storm is not normal, dumping feet of snow on the western side. We now know: extreme weather is an effect of global warming.

Is this storm a plus for Romney? Or will it favor Obama?

Obama can be completely non-partisan and still look Presidential, managing the storm, and can make the case that his government works, unlike the response to Katrina: Bush treated FEMA as a dumping ground for cronies.

Obama doesn't have to say this, but others illuminate the difference, even if unintentionally. Republican Governor Chris Christie effusively thanked Obama for his help and concern for New Jersey and remarked on how well they worked together! Christie was the keynote speaker at the Republican convention, who gave Romney a tepid endorsement while inflating himself.

Romney, meanwhile, has slowed the pace of his campaign, and released an ad that is a complete fabrication against Obama, saying Chrysler was going to outsource Jeep production to China. Chrysler released a statement: the charge was false. Romney continues to run the ad!

The big question is: can the Romney campaign get away with lies like this, and simply ignore Chrysler's charges? Will voters finally see that Romney is willing to lie about virtually anything? Abortion: he was pro-choice running for Governor, but now advocates banning abortion with exceptions for rape, etc. Yet, his party platform bans abortion without exceptions. He lies about his tax plan, about his foreign policy, and he's willing to lie about documented facts. Can he get away with this because he looks so clean-cut--because he's not black?

Back to the storm: will Romney complain that FEMA is doing a lousy job because of Obama? Before he began to "re-draw" his program Romney advocated abolishing FEMA, leaving disaster relief to the states. Now, if/when critics bring that up, what will Romney say? FEMA has been doing a good job with Cyclone Sandy. It's likely he'll claim he never said that; he'll find some way to wiggle away from it.

Romney is a sociopath as are most Republican Party leaders. They have no scruples about changing their positions, according to the audience, or the flavor of the minute. If Romney is elected, we will face an unpredictable non-entity wielding power in the world's most powerful nation, backed by radical Republicans. Will he do what he said last, or what his "handlers" tell him?

The US and the world could face chaos: the empire could die of violent storms and foreign adventures, but Romney's fellow Roman Senators probably believe they could move to "pleasant places" elsewhere if Romney's policies wreck us. That didn't work in the Fifth Century: few of the western elite survived. Further, frankenstorms and violent weather aren't respecters of wealth: look at Manhattan!

Comments? Click below, scroll down.

Who's the Antichrist?

My Jews-for-Jesus friend maintains that Obama is the Antichrist. Does he mean because he is: "the final Head of the last great Empire before the establishment of the millennial kingdom of our Lord?" [Bible Believers Antichrist]

No, he means, he's "truly so arrogant that he reminds me of Hitler Mussulini(sic) and Castro as a true Demagogue."

I shouldn't be surprised: a super-articulate black man might be perceived as "arrogant." In the debates, Obama, tried to make sense of the complicated world we live in. In the last debate, Romney blithered and was ignorant of basic geography. Syria does not have a common border with Iran, and both have their own access to strategic Seas: Syria, the eastern Mediterranean, Iran, the Persian Gulf, one of the world's most strategic straits, as well as the Gulf of Oman, opening out into the Arabian Sea! But Romney accused Iran of taking sides in Syria to gain "its pathway to the sea." Why didn’t the media jump all over this gaffe?

Romney also remade his Middle Eastern foreign policy on the spot--his etch-a-sketch--so that Obama couldn't attack him; suddenly, they were almost exactly the same: on Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran and Syria, and hardly a whimper about Libya and Egypt, either. He was "Moderate Mitt."

Obama did elide, and inflate, but he wasn't lying: he was explaining--to his own advantage--what he'd already done, and why it was working.

Neither dealt with important issues like climate change, or the European financial crisis and Romney was caught out in his ignorance of the Navy--and the rest of the Defense complex, despite campaigning on a huge increase in Defense spending. Where's the media to jump all over him on that?

Fox News said the debate was a tie!

Obama knew what he was talking about, at least, but if Romney isn't the AntiChrist; he's the False Prophet.

Does that make Obama the Antichrist, with his right to blow up or assassinate anyone he deems a threat to the United States? At least it isn't just a personal threat to Obama, or the wealthy, or Democrats, but it's still wrong.

If, then, Obama is the Antichrist, then we must have entered into the end times! But remember: Revelations was written in the late first century, not by John, the Apostle, and evidently the writer saw end-times coming, but in his own era.

Evangelists revel in Revelations, yet so far the end times haven't manifested throughout the ages. Yet so many, in this era, anticipate that they will; they look forward to it.

Romney's election might not be the end of the "last great empire," but he could push it there more rapidly. Obama might delay it, at least--or, if pushed adequately, embark on a less destructive path.

The Hunger Games and Romney

What do the Hunger Games tell you about American society right now? In the movie, the images of people from the capital, of the powerful, compared to the images of Katniss's District 12 are stark contrasts. The capital is a gleaming, futuristic metropolis; District 12 is strongly reminiscent of Appalachia in the sixties. Images of the other outlying districts are equally bereft and impoverished, compared to the artificial glitz of the capital and especially its stars.

And then there's the white uniformed security forces, reminiscent both of Star Wars Imperial Guard and of our militarized riot squads today. That leads you to realize: the contour of the Hunger Games future begins to look familiar. It's the kind of class division in the future that we could have with the Republican agenda, and the security forces are already in place--to repress popular protests, like an escalation of Occupy, and to keep people in line, which they did in both District 12 and 11 in the movie.

Even if Obama wins re-election, the power of the wealthy will continue to grow, unless we elect a progressive Congress willing to stand up to them and, as a first step, pass and organize the ratification of the repeal of Citizens United. Otherwise, the kind of society envisioned by Hunger Games looks much more likely than some progressive alternative.

Why? Okay, let's posit a question: why does Romney propose spending 4% of GDP on Defense, when that would add 100's of billions to its budget with no real programmatic reason advanced.

Perhaps you need a more powerful military not only to bully the rest of the world, but to guard against popular, or populist revolution at home. Why would Romney, et al, worry about revolution? How else will people react if it becomes starkly clear to them--as clear as it was in District 12--that they are oppressed by an unfair political system, a system that was supposed to be democratic?

So, if you propose policies that will intensify inequality, which Romney-Ryan have done, then you are also logically required to beef up domestic security: to guard against popular protest--especially if you can successfully steal their votes--and enough people know it.

I suspect that's the real rationale for Romney's proposed Defense buildup, but of course, he'd never tell us. The reason for the Hunger Games, and the disappearance of the 13th district (the Northeast?) was the suppression of "treason"--by the heroic security forces.

Given Romney's energetic sale of himself, and Obama's lackluster rebuttals in the first debate, this kind of future looks all the more possible. His election, too, would include an attempt to extend our shrinking empire. The Roman Empire bankrupted itself in similar attempts; it's likely we would, as well.

"Apologies"

Terrible, isn't it that America has to "apologize" for a crude youtube movie! Uhm, an embassy spokesperson, in the Egyptian embassy about to be surrounded by protestors, rightly distanced the US from a rancid anti-Muslim piece of propaganda for which America was not responsible.

Romney called this statement an apology and his politicizing a foreign event has blown up in his face. But it's not as if this is a new position for him. He's previously gone around the nation claiming that Obama apologized rather than standing up for America, so he interpreted the sensible statement of the US Embassy in Egypt in terms of his own campaign propaganda. He was reflexively reacting to Obama's famous speech in Cairo.

What Obama attempted, in that famous speech, was to reach out to Muslims worldwide, to demonstrate his understanding of their concerns and to attempt to move US-Muslim relations forward. He said, "There must be a sustained effort to listen to each other; to learn from each other; to respect one another; and to seek common ground." If that were an apology, then the only alternative would be war---for which Americans have no appetite, after two failed wars in the last ten years.

So, it's not just that Romney demonstrated his ability to put his foot in his mouth, especially on foreign affairs; it's that he has shown an inherent inability to see other people from any but his own perspective.

What's Romney's perspective? Much has been made of his flip-flopping on abortion, on global warming, on health care policy and on war policy. But on the latter, he was for the Vietnam War before he was against it (when campaigning for the Senate in Massachusetts), to paraphrase John Kerry, and now is apparently for any war in prospect. He has consistently advocated a "tough" foreign policy, as in adopting Netanyahu's "red line" on Iran's nuclear policy, thereby justifying an immediate attack, identifying Russia as our primary antagonist and vowing he'd name China a currency manipulator (and initiating a trade war) on his first day in office.

So, Romney's perspective is to see any nation not allied with us as against us, and to discount any concerns other nations have, by saying that any attempt to understand them is "apologizing for America." His unconsidered statement about the Egyptian Embassy attack was consistent with his articulated foreign policy--such as it is.

If Rove's and Saudi Arabia's money still wins Romney the election, the United States might embark on a whole series of "wars of choice," which would also be consistent with Romney's insistence that the Pentagon budget not be cut, but increased to 4% of GDP.

So, every other government program would be cut, people would be left without support and the US would be hollowed out by wars, just like the Roman Empire in the fourth and fifth centuries. Not a pretty prospect, but still a possible one.

Who Holds the Power?

Political conventions are mostly to activate the base these days, since the selection of the nominee has taken place long before. That's when Romney bought the primaries, through his superior funding, the support of Rove's Crossroads GPS and Wall Street.

Of course, Obama, as incumbent didn't have to fight contested primaries; the nominee had been selected by his previous election, although there was some opposition and lack of interest, especially among activists

If you look at the two conventions as venues to gin up the activists, the Democrats were far more effective. Obama was by far a better speaker than Romney, and the GOP has no one like Bill Clinton, who gave one of the best speeches of his life. The Democratic convention was much more integrated and the many other speakers created a meaningful whole, climaxing with Obama's speech.

It probably wasn't his best, but it was inspirational for anyone listening, by the climax, though it started out slowly.

Former supporters who had cooled to the President, said in the convention's aftermath, "He's doing the best he can, maybe the best anyone can--and I'm going to give money, and/or I'm going to do something for his campaign."

I hope many saw parts, at least, of the two conventions; apparently, not that many did. From my vantage point (admittedly biased towards Democrats, but wary of its Wall Street wing), they did seem to differ, the way Bill Clinton encapsulated it: the Republicans stressed on-your-own-individualism, while Democrats demonstrated, as well as advocated, for a society in which everyone-is-in-it-together. The second model seemed to work for Democrats. Republican stars hardly gave a nod to Romney in their speeches.

Another expression of this difference was the GOP's insistence that the wealthy already paid too much, and should get tax cuts, while Democrats said they should pay their fair share, meaning higher tax rates, above the top rate of 35% as of now, at least back to Clinton's 39.6% (the top rate was 91% under Republican President Eisenhower). The wealthy are already paying the lowest rate since 1931 (only the 20's had a lower rate--25%) and we know where that led.

Some surprises from the conventions: Democrats came across celebrating the military and national security (the execution of Osama bin Laden), Obamacare, the auto bailout, as well as the partial recovery from the economy's depths in 2009, after Obama's inauguration.

Republicans totally missed any military celebration, entertained warnings from neo-cons that Americans should take on Syria, Iran--or threats anywhere--and complained that Obama had failed abroad, and at home with the recovery.

Neither party focused on financial sector abuses, or impunity, indicating that both are heavily beholden to Wall Street--AG Holder just dropped all suits against banks and banksters.

Even if Obama and Democrats win, the selfish class, our Roman Senators, firmly hold the reins, even though it's clear: most of them would prefer Romney. He's one of their own.

Chaos

It's what happened in the Fifth Century, well ahead of the "fall" of Rome, and it can happen here, especially if Romney is elected. Even if he isn't, as long as this nation remains so polarized, it's almost inevitable: we'll have chaos, as in large segments of society no longer acting as if they belong to it.

One of the more poignant quotations coming down from the early Sixth Century: the monasteries reporting they had little time for learning, because of the omnipresence of "war bands," that ripped off whatever of value the monks and their neighbors had managed to gain.

As I've pointed out before, the dream of Grover Norquist is realized in Somalia. There is no government: "war bands" roam the countryside. Government was "drowned in a bathtub." Moreover, different war bands roam the seas: we call them 'Somali pirates.'

Seriously. If the obscenely wealthy gain even more power and wealth, by buying the election, or at least government stalemate, then the working class (which no one mentions anymore) will be even more desperate. The middle class will bifurcate into the few 'successful' and the many even more desperate than the working class--because children of the middle class don't expect to be poor.

I taught Revolution as a Political Science class. One of the leading theories for why revolutions emerge, and why some succeed: the leaders came from the disaffected, but highly educated, middle class. That's even true if their class is a small portion of society, like Mao's rich peasants and Castro's private school elite. Roman bandits came from this class.

Chaos will come if Romney is elected, because his policies make no sense: they'll generate a new depression. Even a new war with Iran would only make it worse, but the very rich will get even wealthier. Romney's tax plan, reportedly, would reduce his tax rate from his claimed (and outrageously low) 13% to 1%.

Okay, here's the recipe: depression, increasing misery, savage cuts to income maintenance programs like Food Stamps, skyrocketing medical costs, by repealing Obamacare, government support for breaking unions, cutting wages and raising taxes on everyone but the wealthy; the wealthy clearly flourish. What do you get?

Perhaps Syria is the model for our future. The peaceful reform movement there was brutally repressed, thereby stoking desperation and violence, which eventually led to civil war, maybe it will lead to revolution, once Assad is ejected.

Leftists, don't take heart. Not all revolutions are leftist: Hitler and Mussolini were revolutionaries. The US could go either way and given past history, Americans have tended to blunder right, not left. FDR and Lincoln were outliers.

So, chaos: even if Obama wins--unless he carries his party's progressives with a real mandate to slash unemployment, control the banks, and radically reduce inequality.

How likely is that? Well, maybe if Elizabeth Warren were the Democratic convention's keynoter, there could be cause for optimism. But she won't be.

Comments? See below and scroll down.

Rapists for Romney-Ryan

Rapists: just think, if the GOP wins the White House and Congress, then the women who carry your babies will just have to have them, hah, hah! You can go around the country forcing women to have your sons and daughters. Won't that be fun? Oh, you might have to go to prison, but that's a small price to pay. And just think, if the nasty woman you’ve impregnated tries to "get rid of it," she'll end up in prison, too!

And think of it this way: you're carrying out God's plan to be fruitful and multiply. Maybe the GOP will pass a law that your rap-ee will have to marry you, sort of like the Taliban in Afghanistan.

Hey, as far as Afghanistan goes, the only thing wrong with their social policies, from a Republican point of view, is that they're justified by the Quran, not the Bible; it's like going back to the Fourth Century, when the Catholic Church even humiliated Emperor Theodosius the Great!

Some Republicans, like Michelle Bachmann, are worried that the US will be governed under Sharia law, if Obama is re-elected, but really, if the Republicans are elected, maybe they'll re-institute stoning: it's in the Bible, after all.

Anyone who thinks it would have been much nicer in the Dark Ages, should vote for Republicans. Just think: if the GOP swept away all the regulations they enjoy complaining about, we could be re-visited by the Black Death, since basic sanitation would have to be left up to the "Free Market," meaning no one would do anything about accumulating garbage, unless someone paid them to: What! The Government? No, no! They'll have "drowned it in the bathtub."

Now, if you’re a billionaire, you should also vote Republican because you'll get at least $250,000 more to piss away any way you want to, instead of being subjected to the indignity of having to give it to the Government. You can spend it on ermine pillow covers instead of Govmint spending it on all sorts of ridiculous things, like job training, early childhood education, or even Food Stamps so some un-enterprising slobs don't go hungry at night! Or maybe they'd spend it on those awful women, who seem to think they should get birth control for free, probably, even if they're raped.

If women don't want to be raped, they should pack an automatic, or just don't go out anywhere, unless they have an escort, preferably male and over 6 feet tall--or, or hold an aspirin between their knees.

That's why women should really stay home, you see. Again, the Taliban have had the vision to create the glorious future that Republicans are only now beginning to realize--if it's Christian, of course.

What Is To Be Done?*

I despair the politics of this era, the lies and distortions that impel it, the money that drives it. Mitt Romney is its perfect symbol; Paul Ryan is the embodiment of its deceptive promises of reaction snake-oil.

The Economist asks, 'Who, really, is Mitt Romney?' I doubt he can answer, except: he's determined to win the Presidency; he has no goal, other than winning it. He's been both a moderate liberal as governor of Massachusetts, and an "extreme conservative," (his own words), while running for President, even after winning the nomination. He was pro-choice, and now, he'll run on a Republican platform in which even rape and incest are not exempt from its absolute ban. He insists, after Akin's blooper, that he'd allow abortion for either reason, but who knows whether he would, or could, given his party.

Romney even threatens a Gold Commission to investigate returning to the Gold Standard--presumably to mollify Ron Paul supporters.

Then Senator, George McGovern, wrote an awful forward to The Promise of the Coming Dark Age: McGovern touted the Khmer Rouge as a beacon! If Mitt is able to buy the Presidency--that's what it would be, a purchase, costing several billion dollars--then the Dark Age could be upon us: the Roman Senators of old couldn't match the callous disregard the elite bear today for the rest of us. Romney would cut services (Food Stamps, Medicaid) for the desperate and cut taxes for his (lightly taxed) class of multimillionaires and billionaires. He'd also increase Defense spending, possibly for fighting another war: Iran, probably, although he'd also start a trade war with China the day he's inaugurated.

Romney appears to have chosen "extreme conservative" over moderate liberal, although he's still claiming he lives in Massachusetts (there is a question whether he did, when he filed taxes and voted in Massachusetts, claiming residence in his son's basement, a possible felony). But Romney still resists political, as well as geographic, definition.

His party tries to rally natives against immigrants, whites against blacks, men against women--its absolutist anti-abortion position is only a small part of that--but all is subsumed in the general war against all who are not owners of significant capital.

Capital is the contemporary version of the gold, land and slaves controlled by Roman Senators in the fourth and fifth centuries. Unlike the wealth of old, however, capital is expandable, and radical. Roman Senators could do only a small fraction of the damage that can be done, is already being done, by our contemporary elites, from eviscerating the safety net, environmental pollution and impoverishing the non-rich, to global warming, global immiseration and buying this election.

Can sanity stop them? Even the sitting President, Obama, doesn't have the money to beat back their misinformation, smears, and outright lies: example, their claim that Obama is reviving welfare.

What is to be done?

*Lenin used the same title.

Reporters and Corruption

Everything is for sale, including our supposedly representative government. What I find almost worse is the market of public information--and what, apparently, is not for sale.

Fox News, the most popular (faux) news channel, is despite its slogan "Fair and balanced," an unabashed propaganda mill that actively disseminates half-truths that become, momentarily, lead stories in the rest of the news.

Supposedly, on the other side, is NPR, which Congressional Republicans and candidate Romney both want to cut off from the public teat. NPR may favor Democrats, you see, because it's just as wishy-washy as they are. It's not hard-line for tax cuts for the wealthy, but it takes no position and attempts to present a 'fair and balanced' presentation of the issue.

NPR listeners are better informed than Fox watchers, or those of MSNBC, but none of the above present serious analyses of an issue, like reasonable rates of taxation. Even on NPR, the tendency is to parrot whatever one side said, and then how the other side responded: a he-said-she-said model that requires of the reporter no thought or research.

Will the Watergate break-in, and the investigations that issued from it, be our last really serious and effective investigative journalism?

Fewer and fewer news bureaus have reporters on the ground, either around the nation, or around the world. A worker-police massacre in South Africa is reported on by a journalist in Nairobi, 1780 miles away. If something happens in Minnesota, the reporter may be sent in from Chicago.

And more and more reporters only report: recording what the official, and/or his opponent say, without any reflection like: What the hell is "legitimate rape?" Or, damn, is that how contraception works: "the woman's body" somehow knows how to get rid of it--no abortion needed? Should I report that Congressman Akin don't know nothin'?

Maybe Akin made even the laziest reporters sit up and realize: they can't just report; they've got to base their reporting on facts.

Maybe. If extremists--who seem to be overwhelmingly on the right during this period--keep on attempting to present fiction as fact and fact as fiction, ever more wildly, maybe a more responsible information system will emerge. I hope it will finally allow most people to really know what's going on, and why it affects them.

On the optimistic side: people do help each other, and given a choice, most people will lend a helping hand when needed. Factual and analytic reporting would help people.

On the negative: fear is probably our most powerful emotion, and the one-percent, ably represented by Fox and Limbaugh, are backed by much more money, because our moneyed Roman Senators only want more money, and think in zero-sum terms: if they pay workers more, or protect us more from their pollution (pay their own external costs), they'll get less. Their strategy: keep'em scared and angry.

Will fear and anger work?

Romney-Ryan Can Win by Losing

It's more likely Romney won't win the Presidency, having named Paul Ryan. Ryan defines Romney, clarifies that he's not some "compassionate conservative," as W pretended to be--until he was elected.

But winning appears to be less important than changing the conversation.

Radical reactionaries won't meet the fate they did with Goldwater in 1964. Then, conservatives had neither think-tank brainpower, nor the financial power unleashed by Citizens United. Goldwater went down hard, because Democrats/progressives dominated the conversation.

It wasn't until Reagan that conservatives gained a second chance, but they won only a toehold.

The reactionary, Ayn Randian ideas of Paul Ryan are far more extreme than Reagan ever dared. They represent an aspiration to turn American political society back to the Robber Barons, before not only the New Society (Medicare-Medicaid), New Deal (Social Security, fair wages, labor union power), but even before the Anti-Trust Progressive era, when governments began to regulate and tax corporate and personal excess.

If Democrats/progressives/liberals/labor are able to get the word out, a slim majority of voters in "contested battleground states" will probably vote for Obama, and maybe even for a Democratic Congress and Senate.

That's a big if, since Ryan's name has drawn over $3 million to Republican coffers in just two days. Self-interested moneybags will mobilize to send much more--not just to the GOP, but to the so-called super-pacs, to spend on bile against Obama, or anyone to the left of Attila the Hun (I wrote Attila's autobiography, which you can buy here: http://www.amazon.com/Attila-Told-his-Scribes-ebook/dp/B00855M90G).

Still, there are ways incumbent Presidents can get the word out. But the election is only part of the story, perhaps the least likely part. Ryan is important even if he and Romney don't win: the right wing will have succeeded in shifting the conversation far to the right in their favor.

The great failure of Goldwater was that LBJ's landslide shifted political ideals and policy leftward. But with millions to billions of dollars mobilized against Obama and Democrats by Ryan's candidacy, Obama and even other Democrats might still win, but the election will probably be close.

So, the ideas put forward by Ryan and the Tea Party, will not only NOT remain unthinkable, they will become The Alternative, if nearly half the electorate supports Romney-Ryan-Republicans.

Romney has never, until now, allowed himself to be defined in policy terms: he's run away from his one signal accomplishment as Massachusetts Governor (Romneycare), but by naming Ryan, he becomes dependent upon the Tea Party and its radical corporate base: addled activists subsidized by Robber Barons.

So, today's equivalent of Fifth Century Roman Senators will attempt to control virtually all levels of government--and, of course, their own serfs. That's why they're willing to spend (100's of) millions of dollars against Obama.

Billionaires Will Save the World

Or not.

Let me get this straight: Batman is a billionaire named Bruce Wayne, but when Wayne drops out, everybody suffers. You see, it's what the billionaire does that creates profits, and without profits from his company, the world begins to fall apart--because he doesn't care. When he does care, everyone prospers; when he doesn't, poverty and misery extend over the land, because 'socialists' take over and enforce 'equality,' which in the vision of Dark Knight's Director, Jonathan Nolan comprises expropriation, not creation. And, of course, it's the bad guys who are socialists and egalitarian, and the good guys are for the "free market."

Never knew that's why there are billionaires, did you? They’re heroes, you see, who carry the world on their shoulders: that's why they have so much money!

The "free" market is hardly free, when there are billionaires like the Walton (Walmart) family, who underpay their employees--and their developing nation suppliers--so they can amass the largest (combined) fortune on the planet. The market isn't free, because large agglomerations of capital give firms oligopoly and monopoly power, enabling them to skew market prices to their own advantage, and laws and government "regulations," as well.

By mis-delivery, I received World magazine, which seems to be a mouthpiece for evangelical Christianity. I'll put it back in the mailbox tomorrow, so it can be correctly delivered to its addressee, about a mile and a half down the next road. The above came from World's review of Dark Knight Rising: it fell open to that page when I picked it up.

The review, and editorials and other articles reminded me of the ravings of Salvian, a fifth century priest, who denounced almost anything secular, or of the panegyrists, like Ausonius and Claudian, who recited their paeans to the powerful of their day: rising Senators, as well as the Emperor, "God's Vice-Regent on Earth."

Jonathan Nolan, especially, appears to parallel the fifth century panegyrist who went on for hundreds of verses about the virtues of Emperor Honorius, Heaven born: Honorius was clearly of below normal intelligence; he preferred to play with his roosters (one was named Rome), than attend to affairs of State. While Batman is not an identified present ruler, or candidate for office, it's easy to see him representing someone like Romney, or Bloomberg; his heroism and centrality to making Gotham work is almost a caricature of Romney's whole raison-d'être: I'm so wealthy because I know how to make the economy work.

In a way, that's true: he knows how to make it work for him, but not for the rest of us. He and his kind know how to skew the rules to favor themselves: as he says repeatedly, he didn't break any laws when he evaded taxes. Of course. His class, his fellow wealthy, paid for those loopholes fair and square.

Romney and a Two-Class Society

In Fifth Century Rome, there were two sets of laws: one for honestiores and the other for humiliores. As you might guess from the words, the former were Senators and a few others: not slaves or serfs; the latter were slaves, serfs, non-citizens and everyone else.

It seems that we are now developing a similar system: Romney may well have committed multiple felonies (on taxes and SEC filings), yet no charges have been filed, and probably won't be. Further, even if he did not commit felonies, it's startlingly obvious that the "carried interest" loophole, which allows him to file his income as if it were capital gains (15% instead of 35%), is comparable to the kinds of privileges enjoyed by the honestiores--and he has enjoyed many others.

Even more egregious, it's clear from the LIBOR scandal, as well as the robo-signing scandals and other bank and corporate misdeeds, that huge thefts were carried out by banksters, CEO's, etc. Yet, so far, no one has even been charged, let alone gone to jail, except for people like Bernie Madoff, who didn't play by the rules, and didn't get away with his multimillion-dollar thefts. The LIBOR, EURIBOR and other rate-thefts, may amount to hundreds of billions of dollars, since they affected interest rates on an estimated $10-600 trillions worth of transactions. Since those thefts affected other elite institutions (banks, municipalities, corporations, even countries), it is more likely that there could be huge civil penalties incurred, but I'll bet practically no one goes to jail.

Yet, consider how easy it is for a young black or Hispanic male to be jailed. All they have to do is walk down a street in NYC with a little bit of pot in their pockets and have a little bad luck. The US now has by far the largest per-capita prison population on the planet, which is saying something, since we're competing with the likes of Russia and Communist China.

Also, consider that police departments in the US have been militarized: equipped with high tech weaponry, and even armored personnel carriers and tanks. This weaponry is not targeted against the Romney's of this world, our honestiores. But it's already been used against the Occupy movement in Oakland, and we'll see it out in force for the political conventions. It could be used against any popular revulsion to elite rule. The same is true of the rapidly increasing surveillance programs.

Attorney General Holder aggressively raids and prosecutes medical marijuana dispensaries and whistleblowers (he wants to catch Julian Assange, too), but he and Treasury Secretary Geithner (both with strong links to Wall Street), have been extremely forgiving of banks and other large corporations--and their leaders.

If Romney and Republicans win control, this pattern will be consummated, but even if Obama and Democrats win, the US will be well along its way towards the two-class society found in Fifth Century Rome.

Romney, Wall Street Occupation and Obama

After three weeks of protests, or "occupation," the Wall Street movement (for want of a better term) has begun to pick up enough momentum that even Mitt Romney noticed: he griped it was "class warfare."

In Egypt, the demonstrations at Tahrir Square met with some police violence, just like the Wall Street protests, but they were largely peaceful and prevailed in the end. In Bahrain, the King called in the Saudi army to suppress the protesters. One hopes our military is more like the Egyptian than the Saudi; it's largely American, at least.

In some ways, the Wall Street grievances are not comparable to those of the Middle East. There, all the governments were openly corrupt dictatorships. The elite that has taken power in the US has used more subtlety.

First of all, there really was a counter-revolutionary coup, but in stages. It was first partly successful with Reagan, and the selfish class steadily gained power even with Clinton. The rate of takeover accelerated with the Supreme Court coup that put Bush II into the White House, and has hardly been retarded by Obama. Obama's capitulation to the corporate position on the environment (against science and his own EPA) and at least temporarily on taxes is symptomatic: the Obama "revolution" hasn't happened yet.

A friend of mine, more centrist than I am, was outraged when I remarked I wasn't going to donate or work for the Obama campaign the way I did in 2008. Then, I not only gave money, many times, I also volunteered to work in the campaign out of Poughkeepsie, NY and also in Pennsylvania. I'll still vote for him, probably, if I vote, unless there really is the possibility that a more liberal/anti-war, pro-New Deal third party could emerge. But, and this is a warning to others similarly inclined, the one time I did vote for a third party candidate, because I was disgusted with the Democrat, was the Reagan election against incumbent, Jimmy Carter.

Either Obama is much less progressive than he made himself out to be, or he was overawed by "the experts," professionals (both civilian and military), and by the selfish class elites. Obama is very bright, but he naturally seeks out compromise, even when the other side was considerably weaker (before 2010) and intransigent. To seek compromise under such conditions only ensures that radical conservative positions tend to become even more radical.

FDR's advantage was that he was Old Money, and couldn't care less if members of his class hated him. Obama is an arriviste; he's too impressed/overawed by the Lawrence Summers and Tim Geithners of this world.

That's why the Wall Street protests are on target, and why Mitt Romney's remark is an indication they are beginning to hit home. Maybe Obama will finally get it.

We still have a chance to escape the fate of Fifth Century Rome, but Obama needs to turn into another Truman, not another Carter.

Trump and Emperor Maximus

Donald Trump is awful! But a lot of Republicans think he should run for President: 17%, as many as for Huckabee, only behind Mitt Romney, and 20% of tea party ID'd Republicans expressed support.

Trump has his special quirks, one being his birther schtick, which may or may not be a genuine concern. At least one commentator points out birtherism's racist undertones, or at least that it could encourage racism. Birtherism feeds the fears of whites who cannot believe we elected an African-American President; they want to believe he's an impostor, regardless of all the data proving his birth in Hawaii. Why? Because he's black?

Bitherism and racism are one thing: what's even scarier, however, is that Trump represents the new breed of brash, political billionaire: he dismisses his closest rival, Mitt Romney, as "a small businessman," and claims that he, Trump, is "much, much bigger than he is." And that, dear America, is why he feels he should be President: he has more money.

Romney's business past may come back to haunt him. He's no small businessman: Bain Capital, the private equity firm he helped found, buys and sells businesses, and not only employs several hundred, but as with most such firms, it has also been in the business of firing hundreds or more of the purchased companies in order to "streamline" them.

This may be a portent of the kind of politics we'll be offered, either in the next few cycles, or for the foreseeable future. Billionaires vs multi-millionaires, these self-funded candidates run in part to protect the interests of their super-rich brethren, who will probably support them with their own money, too.

I would pair Trump with Roman Emperor: Maximus (ruled 3 months in 455); he was known as the wealthiest of the Senatorial class; he conspired to assassinate Valentinian III, in part, because the Emperor had seduced his reputedly beautiful wife, but also to gain power for himself. His "rule" was a disaster; it gave the Vandal King, Gaiseric, the pretext to sack Rome. "Emperor" Maximus was torn apart by an enraged Roman mob as the Vandals approached.

The question is: will all the money spent by and for someone like Trump/Romney, seduce Americans?

Or, will people begin to get it: the filthy rich want to keep it all for themselves. Congressman Ryan's budget makes clear what the future could begin to look like with people like Trump or Romney in charge. They'd cut taxes on themselves, the wealthy (Ryan calls them "job creators" even when, like Romney they are job destroyers). Those tax cuts would be paid for by draconian cuts to services (including Medicare and Social Security) and cut tax loopholes that benefit the poor and what remains of the middle class.

In late Imperial Rome, the middle class had two options: seek protection from the wealthy, becoming serfs, or escaping to the hills as bandits. Is that what we want?