Elected (Kind Of) Dictators

Don't want to sound too EMO, after all. My personal motto is: "I'm not a nihilist for nothing." [Thanks Sue].

So why did Clinton say what she said to the congress critters? Why did she tell them that no matter what they did Obama and his minions would not consider it binding on The President?

I mean there was no real possibility that the congress would have voted to do anything other than SUPPORT OUR BOYS (and GIRLS) OVER THERE. Is there? So what is the deal, after all?

I suspect that the deal is that there is a constant movement towards a totalitarian (or at the very least a seriously authoritarian) form of governance which will place all power in the hands of one person. Well it will seem to be all power, whether or not that will turn out to be the case, or if the real power will be in the hands of the oligarchs who really run things is another question. (Well not really a real question, I mean we all know the answer, but I do like the way that sounds.) The owners of the banks, the Wall Street folks and some few others. Although, given the howls we heard when Obama bailed out GM and Chrysler there is still going to be some sort of battle for position amongst those who own the businesses that own America. I would suspect that in the end the assholes battling among themselves will assure that any large corporation that actually has real workers who really make things as opposed as workers who play with monopoly money, and who get paid decent money (i.e. unionized workers) well either be destroyed by the others or be forced to destroy any workers organizations.

There will of course be squabbles amoung them, the oligarchs, and if history is any guide there could be violent struggles amoung them. But in the end it will be a battle amoung our rulers and we the hoi poli will be allowed to do the fighting and bleeding (although, to be honest, in this country for the foreseeable future there will probably be no real fighting as in blood being shed, we are too comfortable).

So at any rate as is made clear in the Greenwald essay there have been groups pushing for "The President is Really King" theory of government for decades at least. It is easiest to do it in matters of foreign policy and war. It will only be a matter of time before it starts happening in matters of domestic policy. That will be because the grid lock will start to be seen as a problem, even by the Villigers. Now there are many ways to fix the gridlock we have in the congress right now (simplist is of course get rid of the filibuster), but that isn't going to happen. We saw that at the beginning of this session. No individual senator wants to lose any of his power. Eventually it will all be taken away and some president's horse will end up voting with the rest of the senators although at least in that case it will be the entire horse.

What I see going on with our more or less elected officials is that those in "power" in the House and Senate (mostly the Senate) have managed, in protecting their personal power to the extent that they have, made themselves look largly ineffectual in their ability to accomplish anything (although obviously not in their ability to prevent anything from being accomplished). Peop;e are already sick and tired of it, it is only a matter of time before the rulers get tired and do something about it.

Oh Brother

Running through some of the various right wing blogs and I wonder just what their connection with reality is or can be. On the other hand, the one with five fingers, I see the darkest possible implications from Obama's taking a couple of days off to go back and be at his grandmother's bed side. Wow (at word that is getting more and more use as I see more and more weird behavior from the right wing).

I always wondered how the Romans managed to give complete fidelity to someone like Caligula or Tiberius (obviously there was the little problem that if you didn't you and your entire family would be horribly tortured and then killed). But still, even when given the option of a clear ability to off the tyrant, people would still not do the deed until things got beyond belief. What was it that prevented them from seeing the writing on the wall (to coin a phrase) and doing something about it?

When I studied them in college I could not understand their ability to give complete fidelity to a tyrant. Well, I kind of understand giving complete fidelity to a tyrant, I just don't understand giving complete fidelity to a tyrant who would name his horse counsel.

Let's face it neither Bush nor his followers nor McCain nor his followers are more connected to reality than Tiberius or Caligula, they are just not as sexually interesting. They are as incompetent as Caligula, but their personal peccadillo's will not be as much fun to read about in the history texts.

Unfortunately, I appear to lack an imagination, because although I am living through it, I still cannot figure out how anyone living today can think that Chaney/Bush or Palin/McCain would be a better choice than Obama (or Kerry)? Or for that matter a better choice than a rotten rubber boot. What in god's name have these people gotten right up to this point?

I have a complete inability to understand the mind of the courtier. Or apparently a True
Believer. Now I do not think that is necessarily a deeply ingrained moral positive. It may simply be that I have not had the opportunity to sell my soul. Although, I would be willing to take bids.

Well to get back in a general way to the original thought, I am not sure how these people maintain their ability to eat with a fork without seriously injuring themselves (no links, no encouragement).