Objectivity vs. Mitt Romney

Now, first off, let's be clear: Obama was Goldman-Sachs' pick for president last time-- he's proven to be a fraud, now the big banks are running against his record supporting an even more vile candidate, and it's looking more and more like Romney will win. Watching the debates it's pretty clear why. Both men are running on platforms mostly comprised of fantasy and mythology, and the voters are choosing on the basis of which dream they'd rather dream rather than any basis of choice rooted in objective reality. Of the two delusional visions to choose from I find Romney's much more vile-- and it's worthy to point out some of the reasons his delusions are much more dangerous, at least in the near term.

First-- Romney's claim to fame, his resume, if you will-- is all based on the notion that he's some kind of businessman. He's got the talent for "making money" -- that's American, that's business oriented, that's practical. The fact is, however, he's no talent for making money at all. Now, sure as shit he's got a prime set of sticky fingers and he's pretty fine at taking it. . .but as far as I can see he's never, ever, created any real value on his own. This is an important distinction, and I'm surprised that more "pro-business" folk can't figure that out-- in fact Romney is very anti-business-- at least of the "creating value" kind, which, of course, is the only kind we of average non-richer-that-god sorts have available to us. Leveraged buyouts, offshore accounts, special access to legislators--ability to buy off regulators--key to Mitt's wealth. . .this is exactly the kind of behavior that has crushed small business: it's destroyed the economy, it's destroyed access to credit, it's increased costs of doing business(and promoted regulatory burdens--stuff the Mitts can ignore, but the little guy can't)-- and most dangerously and importantly, it's destroyed to competitive marketplace. You can't compete with Mitt. He's a taker, and he'll pay a buddy to write a law so he can buy you out, saddle you with debt, steal the companies value, bankrupt you, and personally claim the loss against his profits.

Let's be clear-- if you're a creator of value-- you're screwed in this economy-- and while the Mitts run the show(think big grabby hands when you think Mitt, it's a useful image) forget getting ahead. You could do something unbelievable amazing, like create a pill that magical cured cancer, aging, and loss of libido in one shot-- and you still couldn't make the kind of money Mitt's got. Why? 'Cause you're not going to get to go to school to learn the skills unless you pay off Mitt. You'll need to do your research at Mitt's company. Mitt will own the rights to your research anyway--as you're working for him, of course. Even if you could figure a way around that he'll just steal the research from you-- you can't afford to sue against him-- out of luck once again. Even if you got a Lesser Mitt to back you you'll still lose, as you'll pay more taxes, be forced to deal with more oversight, and eventually the Big Mitt will run you underground. No offense, nothin' personal, just business, right? Hardly. . .Mitt's business plan is no more brilliant than that of the average carjacker-- and that's written large in his life and his campaign-- from avoiding military service, to tax evasion and offshore accounts, to his double dipping business practices, his scammy relationship with politics all the way along, his sleazy peer-group--to now how he's run his campaign-- bullshit, deception, and expediency all the way through.

So, with that skillset, how you figure he'll handle the reins of the US economy?

By the way. . .

So a friend the other day called:

"Hey Jay, enjoy your recent posts, but don't you think you're really being a bit hard and extreme in your judgements about personal culpability? I mean, you're making some pretty heavy comparisons there. . ."

Well, I don't know. Let's look at it:

Frankly, it really doesn't matter a great deal what my judgements are. No one really cares and my opinions don't matter very much-- unless -- unless -- they're in some sense prescient of the attitudes of future generations. Then they may matter a great deal. I think, in fact, they are. Personally, I expect-- looking at the mess we're handing the future that my attitudes are actually pretty moderate and I try to keep a responsible level of objectivity with them. In fact, I'd suggest that forty or so years from now a guy like me struggling to survive in a poisoned, dying, brutal world will have a lot harder time having any sense of justice or moderation in his judgements at all. . .and frankly I anticipate--fear even--simple blind vengeful rage. Those people are going to wonder how the hell, how the hell, we made the choices we did. They're going to wonder where our courage was, and how we allowed events to unfold as they are. Those of us left are mostly going to try to plead ignorance('cept me, nah, it was obvious) but that's going to be a pretty weak defense especially falling on ears listening for a damn good explanation. And it will have to be a good one indeed, as the expectation from the historic evidence will be clear-- we were just too busy feeling smug about ourselves, stuffing our faces, indulging in wishes, and not giving a shit. So yeah, I think there's a very good reason to think about how our actions right now might be judged by future folk. . .

And no, and in that context, I don't think my positions are that radical at all.

Appropriate Technology for the Future:

We'll set aside my tirade about Rick "Imperial Dragon" Perry of the Koch Klimate Klan-- it looks to be a foregone conclusion that we'll (s)elect that monster to be the next "Leader of the Free World." I don't want to be accused of beating a dead horse here. . .

Did I mention he's the god-damned "antichrist?" Seriously!

Anyway, in the interest of being constructive I thought today I'd introduce skills that may well become important in the future that we're likely to face: Flint Knapping and Gnawing.

Flint knapping, of course, is the traditional art of making stone edged tools by chipping hard stone, like obsidian  or flint. Without the means, especially fuel, to work metals, knapping can produce implements much superior to more primitive techniques, like poking stuff with sharp sticks or mashing things apart with rocks. Here in Hawaii we don't have in hard rocks like that, and probably won't have any fuel either--especially after the bio-mass to energy boys get ahold of the forests--so we'd better stick to techniques that we can actually manage in the future of scarcity that seems all but unavoidable.

Gnawing, as well, is a time honored tradition for getting stuff apart. Compared to knapping, it is relatively simple to master. Rats can do it. But it too has its technical limitations, as it relies on teeth, something already starting to show signs of scarcity in East Hawaii. Around the world scarcity of teeth, especially prevalent among males of the warrior class, was compensated for by again utilizing sharp sticks and mashing rocks, used to compel women and children(who still possessed the tools for gnawing) to perform the necessary tasks. Sharp sticks and rocks were also useful to produce extra children even among toothless women, so teeth proved to be a true renewable resource manageable even in cultures of comparative austerity. . .

. . .Now as promising as either of these two technologies seem to be, personally I kinda like to dream for the moonshot--like practicing a little, authentic, thinking ahead and conservation now--as it seems to me that if we responsibly steward our resources now, we might not even need to worry about the scarcity of teeth that much in the future.  . .

. . .Nah, I know. Just a pipedream. Conservation? Good stewardship? Too much work. It would cut too much into our quality of life. . .be realistic, Jay.