Following the recent street protests in Russia, international attention has been focused on the country’s political scene. A young person tuning in to the news coverage might be confused by all the long names ending with –ov and –sky, and the series of heads that resemble slabs of meat, lumpy potatoes or some other comestible. Too much of the commentary is targeted at initiates; beginners need a jumping on point. After all, today’s 20 year olds were barely crawling the last time Vladimir Zhirinovsky scored serious headlines in the West. So strap on your shapka and let’s go!

Part I:   THE ESTABLISHMENT

VLADIMIR PUTIN: In 1999, when V.V. Putin was appointed prime minister by the celebrated disco dancer Borya Yeltsin, many articles appeared in the press noting that all he had to show for a long stint as a KGB agent in the 70s and 80s was a bronze medal from the Stasi- the implication being that he was a lightweight, a gray mediocrity, etc. Nobody remembers that stuff now. He is a master of political chess, and- whether you like him or not- compares favorably with most (perhaps all) Russian leaders of the past 100 years.

DMITRI MEDVEDEV: An elusive, mystical figure who has shown world-historic levels of personal restraint since winning the presidency in 2008. Indeed, he is very possibly the first man in history to rise to supreme office and then volunteer to return power to his predecessor. Historians shall ponder his enigma for centuries to come.

That’s all you need to know about the establishment. Now let’s get down to the parties of disgruntlement.

Part II: THE UPRISING

THE PROTESTORS: Russia has experienced anti-Putin protests for years, but until 2011 the crowds consisted of marginal types such as communist pensioners, rabid nationalists and international chess grandmasters. This changed in the aftermath of last year’s Duma elections which were widely viewed as rigged. There is nothing new in that criticism, but- perhaps inspired by events in the Middle East- individuals who look surprisingly middle class have started to object. Alas for them, the opposition is completely useless.

Part III: THE OPPOSITION

GENNADY ZYUGANOV: In all the breathless Western media coverage of Russia’s street protests what most journalists have neglected to mention is that the largest and best-organized opposition force in Russia is… THE COMMUNIST PARTY. That’s right, the party of Stalin and Brezhnev, which has a long tradition of tyranny and disastrous economic policies! Gennady Zyuganov has run the show since 1993, when everybody with talent and ambition abandoned the party to make $$$$. His is the saggy-jowled face of stagnation, the root vegetable-shaped head of hopelessness.

VLADIMIR ZHIRINOVSKY: A professional clown from Kazakhstan famous for his long-running performance as a radical nationalist. Not to be confused with an actual idiot, Zhirinovsky studied Turkish at Moscow State University’s Institute of Asian and African Countries, then law (also at MSU) and finally landed himself a PhD in philosophy (also at MSU, although he attained that last qualification in the 90s when standards had slipped). Impressively, he has never once broken character in twenty years of playing “Zhirik”, the burly, brawling politician-buffoon. Slyly subverts the very concept of “opposition” by endorsing everything Putin stands for whenever called upon to vote in the Duma.

MIKHAIL PROKHOROV: Russia’s third-richest man- worth $18 billion according to Forbes- and yet he has never shared any of his coin with me, the swine. Owner of SNOB, the magazine of Russian bourgeois self-satisfaction, and the New Jersey Nets basketball team. When he declared his candidacy I assumed he was a Kremlin double agent, however the numerous sympathetic articles about disgraced 90s billionaires that have appeared in SNOB lead me to suspect he is sincere in his opposition to Putin. Apparently not joking when he floated the idea of making the loathed ex- billionaire and current convict Mikhail Khodorkovsky his prime minister, this goes some way to explaining the 3% support he currently enjoys in the polls.

SERGEI MIRONOV: Some dude with a beard who, last time he ran for president, said he would vote for Putin rather than himself. Now supposedly an actual gen-u-wine enemy of the establishment, he poses absolutely no threat whatsoever.

BONUS MENTION:

GRIGORY YAVLINSKY: When he was disqualified from running for president following the discovery of thousands of forged signatures on his application, this was reported around the world as something significant, possibly an act of skullduggery on the part of the establishment. In fact, Yavlinsky is a has-been with miniscule support among Russians, even if he means well. Fun fact: in 1990, while still a member of the Communist Party, he co-authored a surrealist manifesto masquerading as a serious proposal to transform the USSR into a market economy in 500 days!

CONCLUSION:

Of course, many blame Putin for preventing a viable opposition from emerging on Russia’s political scene over the last twelve years. If that is true, he has been highly successful- I mean, presented with that selection of candidates, who would you vote for? Be honest, now.

Originally published at RIA- Novosti, the home of awesome

They say it is over. “They” is the Romnoids. But they have been saying it was over before it ever began. Now Newt, bedraggled and forlorn, seems to be in sullen agreement or at least he is not up to energetic resistance, which amounts to agreement. If we needed any more evidence that Newt has a half-life, a shelf-life and an inner-life inconsistent with the rigors of the Presidency, this is it. It seems Newt had begun to believe his own press. Santorum took a much harsher beating but unlike Newt, it was what he expected. Unshocked, he and his 13% will march on. If Newt were an ordinary party loyalist, he would back Mitt immediately hoping for Commerce Secretary to the detriment of the party and the nation. It seems he might be infantile enough though to consider his dignity over his advancement; always the calculation. If Gingrich can demonstrate a weak pulse and continue harrowing Romney it will be the finest service he could ever perform for the nation (and Rick Santorum), not that Newt should gain the office. Romney is the great threat at the moment and the Gingrich Blunderbuss is the only plausible weapon at hand but the powder, while voluminous, has grown damp in the Florida humidity. What if Mitt has succeeded, as of yesterday, to make his nomination a done deal?

Romney has spoken and conducted himself as if he had the one-and-only ticket to the nomination for three years. There is little reason to fault him for his public confidence. It is the habit of every candidate and should be. Of course he had the same confidence in 2008, a fact ill recalled. Those of us who have been dubious of the Governor from Massachusetts have done our best to explain why he is unelectable in a tactical sense and unsupportable for any would-be Constitutionalist but it seems that parochialism and name recognition have (nearly) carried the day. The gunslingers laugh, drink and swap resumes’, the bastards, but they have been right. No need to gaze into a deep, hypothetical future though to divine what this will mean. Mitt has been grand-poobah of the Republican party for years now, Reince Priebus notwithstanding. If you are a Right-leaning officeholder or voter, it’s Willard’s World and you are just living in it.

An eager, early citizen of Willardworld is one Chris Christie, sitting Governor of New Jersey and yes he sits AROUND the State, she being petite and he quite girthy but that is no mark against him. The true black mark he struck across his own record (which is credible for New Jersey but pretty crappy anywhere else) with his reactionary endorsement of Romney, taking up the colors of the regiment tasked to defend the indefensible. We speak of Romneycare, the zygote that twinned off metastatically to give us Obamacare. Christie’s task, which he took to like a meatball sub, was not to rebut reasoned objections to Romney as the father of Obamacare. Oh no! That would require air time and, um, some facts that we just don’t have right now, so instead the dubious Christie expends all his reserve flatulence in bilious, personalized denunciations of any who observe the simple fact that yes, procedurally they are one and the same! How can anyone with eyes to see and ears to hear deny this? But the blind and deaf are always a powerful voting bloc. If the talk shows are anything to go by the grammies and grampops are split between Mitt and Newt, each befuddled at the other but apparently as ignorant of their foe as they are indoctrinated for their own. What being can believe Romney’s adamant contention that he will immediately repeal Obamacare once in office? As the grannies say, “Of course he will, he says it every time he speaks. It is the first thing he says whenever he speaks.” Did everyone forget that it is the Legislature that would do such a thing? So Willard promises what he will have no power to do yet no one calls him on it. One might think the Obama Administration with their box-seats for this spectacle, might make the observation but the limits of the Presidency or indeed the limits on government of any sort are not an issue they would like on anyone’s mind. So Willard walks on unmolested, not from the regretable, forgettable wreckage of a lie/error caught out but rather amplifying and continuing his lie! Why? Because now it has been ratified, if not by the TEA Party proper at least by a majority Republican vote. It is now consensus that Romney is the first foe of Obamacare. From where did this vapid madness leak in? It all depends on what the definition of “repeal” is, don’t you see? As serviceable squish Senator from Minnesota, Norm Coleman (R) put it so well, there will be some tinkering about the edges but no, a Romney Administration will not repeal Obamacare. The proposition is absurd. And so it is. Any such action would be only pro-forma, if even that is actually attempted and there is little evidence that there is the desire, much less the will. Obamacare will become Romneycare although perhaps without the reproductive rules lately so offensive to Catholics (and one would presume, Mormons). The individual mandate? That is going nowhere except to be spray-painted.

Willardworld will have socialized medicine. Dandy! I hope the Romney supporters on Medicare/Medicaid/SSI enjoy that. Given their stated principles of responsibility and limited government they should at least not be surprised at the collapse. What will Willardworld NOT have that we might miss? One prominent excision is of Florida Republican Allen West. You have seen this man who first came to national prominence in uniform having interrogated an Iraqi prisoner by shooting a 9mm past his ear. He has practiced the same vigor in office (and let us stipulate that his actions were NOT illegal and were not found to be illegal) doing (political) drive-bys on the Congressional Black Caucus and Democrats, yes, but nearly as often (and with great accuracy) against the grandees, squishes and vested turncoats of the Republican Party. Could it be any surprise that such a man must go? Republicans rule in Florida generally and we have just had a census, as you recall. That means Redistricting. All House districts are re-drawn by the State Legislatures. Now, it is true that districts move with voters from State to State. New York loses seats and Arizona gains. So if the Florida Republicans are phasing out West’s district, and they are, it must be because they have lost seats or lost safe Republican seats due to a gigantic influx of Democrats, right? Oh, wrongo. Florida is gaining seats yet West is singled out for an attack by gerrymander. So be it, West has proven he is not easily dismayed or diswayed. Already he is making arrangements to run in another district with a retiring Republican incumbent. If anything it seems we have a more fiery West as a result, thankfully, but how can you blame this on Mitt Romney? Heck, he isn’t even from Florida! No, and neither is he from Virginia. Did the Virginia Republicans change their ballot rules spontaneously, excluding all candidates but Romney and Paul, in an instance of immaculate policy conception? No. No. Whether they took their orders from a Romney lieutenant or were acting to gain the great man’s eye and favor the result is the same. It is Mitt’s party and you can cry if you want to but if you vote for him anyway it won’t alter things in the slightest. Romney’s Republicans are not simply non-conservatives. They are actively and maliciously ANTI-conservative. If you do not know this, Romnoids, you don’t know much.

Is there an upside? Always, there is. The great virtue of Willardworld succeeding Obamaworld is continuity. Willard follows Obama like night follows day. Do you scoff? Perhaps you got youtubed into one of the President’s finest moments and a mere moment it proved to be. Obama did a very credible if brief bit of crooning in homage to the Rev Al Green and it was an unscripted, genuine touch of humanity. That it was conceived for partisan persuasion is not too relevant. It was not contrived. What was Romney’s response? Why in bloody hell should he HAVE a response? Yet he did, choosing perhaps the only song he knows (and that not well), Willard forced a crowd of supporters to endure his version of the national anthem. That was a conscious enough absurdity but Romney considers Obama his foil, not his adversary. Like Obama Mitt favors gun control but does not speak of it or openly pursue it. Like Obama, Mitt finds little in the Constitution but a barrier to his own just will. Like Obama, Mitt does not engage either foes or facts. Rather he dismisses them or has surrogates write them off the stage. Like Obama, Mitt has a media guard that serves to cement him and his policies in place. Certainly he enjoys less of that than Obama but it is the POLICIES not the personalities that we should concern ourselves with. Mitt is unquestioned on global warming because global warming is unquestionable. Mitt is babied by the media on his lengthy and adamant pro-choice record not for his sake but to safeguard abortion. Mitt is excused his self-dealing from the government trough, meager as it was relatively, not to save his skin but to prevent the general feeding from being disturbed.  It is unclear if the foregoing really attaches to Mitt the Man as opposed to Romney Inc. It seems likely that Romney again apes Obama in his removal and indeed amazement at the realm of policy. Displaying no ideology or principle, Romney forces us to presume that it is mere ambition driving his march forward. Mitt aspires to be a belated but additional First in our Plague of Firsts exemplified by the First Black President (Bill Clinton). Willard Romney intends to be our First Mormon President, a laughable milestone that again is only a fitting of his feet into the footprints of Obama.

THAT is the world we are living in.

The New York Times opinion page is chock full of benignant thinkers. It’s a roster of such great intellectual depth that, to be honest, I always feel like I’m missing something every time I read them. The lineup is so impressive that it’s difficult to decide exactly which one of them is the most special, but David Brooks recently made a strong case for himself when he made the following important observation about politics and the government:

Sunshinism is a destructive ideology. Forcing people to financially undress in public is just one of those incursions that repels decent people from running for office.

…

It also destroys people’s faith in government. Have you noticed that as democracy has become more open, cynicism has skyrocketed and the effectiveness of government has gone down the toilet? Bill Galston of the Brookings Institution has the best observation on this — that parts of government should be hidden for the same reason middle-aged people should wear clothes.

This is a genuinely fascinating insight. The government is what keeps you safe. It makes important decisions for you. It helps people. If there is no faith in the institutions of government, then fear and chaos will spread.

The politicians that we elect run that government. If we don’t have faith in our leaders, then we cannot have faith in the government itself. There is no serious person who wants to live in a world in which we don’t have faith in our leaders to lead us. We will not follow them, if we do not trust them. And, as Mr. Brooks so eloquently points out, as people learn more about their leaders, the less likely they are to place their faith in the government.

It is the brave politician that puts himself up for election in this destructive climate of openness.

This is something that another important modern thinker, CNN’s Wolf Blitzer, recently discussed in a post on the CNN website. The New York Times opinion page is arguably the most essential assemblage of thinkers of the modern era, but Mr. Blitzer makes a strong case for inclusion in that group, with his own examination of the tribulations faced by the political class that is trying desperately to lead us:

I know it will probably sound weird, but I admire these politicians who put themselves out there before the American public knowing full well that all their warts will be exposed big time.

Most of them already have lots of money. They could easily coast at this point in their lives and sit back and relax.

…

I’ve seen them in action, and it’s tough. They get up early in the morning and go to sleep late at night. They have to deliver the same stump speech over and over and over again, and then answer an endless amount of often annoying questions at town hall meetings, at diners and from reporters such as me.

As Mr. Blitzer points out, these politicians could easily go on their merry way, without trying to run the government that does so much for us. Instead, they are making personal sacrifices on our behalf. In exchange for this selflessness, they are met with long nights, repetitive speaking engagements, and “annoying questions” from the people they want to lead. It’s difficult to imagine anything more difficult.

As if to provide an example of the very intrusiveness that so many in our political class find inconvenient, at last Thursday night’s presidential debate one of Mr. Blitzer’s CNN colleagues, John King, asked presidential candidate Newt Gingrich a question about some prurient allegations leveled against him  by his ex-wife. Mr. Gingrich responded with lines as eloquent as any ever written by either Mr. Brooks or Mr. Blitzer:

“I think the destructive, vicious, negative nature of much of the news media makes it harder to govern this country, harder to attract decent people to run for public office. And I am appalled that you would begin a presidential debate on a topic like that.”

Mr. Gingrich is willing to put in the long days, giving the same speeches over and over again, and answering annoying questions. He is working hard to combat the cynicism that is crippling our country. And his reward? A question about whether or not he might in the past have wanted to have an “open marriage.”

People like John King are ruining this country. People like John King are making this country ungovernable.

This is the same attitude that has opened up the current president for so much cynical criticism. It is fashionable for some people to point out that candidate for president Obama was opposed to wars in the Middle East, but that now he seems to relish them. It’s also fashionable to point out that before he was president, Obama opposed certain elements of the PATRIOT ACT, but as president, signed its extension. To these people, personal growth is not only not a positive quality for our leaders, but it is actually a negative quality, to be criticized. Clearly, since candidate Obama became president Obama he has come to realize the important necessity of drone-bombing those Muslims into submission, and allowing investigators to write their own search warrants all in the name of protecting the askers of “annoying questions.”

It’s as if we’re trying to force decent people away from a life of leadership. Demanding to know ever more personal things about their lives, requiring that they never change their minds… These are absurd requirements that will ultimately punish the country by driving men like Barack Obama and Newt Gingrich away from leadership positions.

Can you imagine that? Can you imagine living in a world in which decisions made by politicians like Newt Gingrich and Barack Obama did not directly impact your life? Can you imagine living in a world that was denied the benefit of the leadership of these two incorruptible paragons of virtue? These men, and so many others like them have worked hard to make their mark on the world; it’s selfish of us to deny them the opportunity.

As I write these powerful and emotional words, South Carolina is holding its Republican primary. Some recent polls have shown Newt Gingrich leading the other candidates, despite the venal attacks on his character by the likes of John King. This is welcome news. At the urging of powerful political thinkers like Sarah Palin and Rick Perry, the voters in South Carolina are rejecting the politics of personal destruction. They are rejecting the “incursions” that “repel decent people from running for office.” They are poised to deliver a powerful rebuke to cynicism, and a resounding “stay the course” to our political class, by awarding a victory to Newt Gingrich.

This election season is arguably the most important, and most recent, in history. I have noticed that a lot of statements are being made by the presidential candidates. A lot of these statements are indisputably unfactual, and I know this because I am a fact checker.

Today, more than ever, with candidates making more and more statements, the role of a fact checker such as myself is undeniable. For instance, when a candidate makes a statement, I will fact-check it. I am taking on this monumental task myself and lucky for you that I am, because these candidates are really saying things.

I take this important role seriously. I will offer unbiased, unpartisan fact checking. All I am looking for is facts to check, and when I find them, I will check them. Without bias, because an informed electorate is arguably an important thing. So I will begin by fact checking statements made by Republican presidential candidates in their New Hampshire primary speeches last night.

First, I will fact check the winner of the New Hampshire primary, Mutt Mittens Romney. In his speech, Mr. Romney, a flip-flopper who ties dogs to the tops of cars and then drives them around for about twelve hours, stated,

Today, we are faced with the disappointing record of a failed President. The last three years have held a lot of change, but they haven’t offered much hope.

In these sentences Mr. Romney states that President Obama is a “failed” president. In fact, the President has an impressive list of accomplishments, as this article in the award-winning Onion points out:

“Let’s list the pros and cons of being president. … Con: You can help 40 million Americans receive health care, sign legislation that regulates a financial system run amok, give the order to kill Osama bin Laden, help topple Muammar Qaddafi’s tyrannical regime without losing the life of one American soldier, end the war in Iraq, repeal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, stave off a second Great Depression, take out more than 30 top al- Qaeda leaders, and somehow everyone still calls you the next Jimmy Carter.”

Given everything that the President has accomplished, describing him as “failed” strains the definition of that word, which is defined by the nonpartisan Merriam-Webster dictionary as,

transitive verb
1 a: to disappoint the expectations or trust of
b: to miss performing an expected service or function for
2: to be deficient in : lack
3: to leave undone : neglect
4 a: to be unsuccessful in passing
b: to grade (as a student) as not passing

The only one of those definitions that might fit the President would be “to leave undone,” and, while I doubt that Mr. Romney actually meant to suggest that the President needed a second term to finish everything he needs to accomplish, many have suggested that Mr. Obama needs two terms to fully restore our country to greatness, especially considering the fact that the Republicans have done so much to try and stop him in his first term. As one poster on the nonpartisan AARP’s website notes,

What makes even these accomplishments look better is that the Republican party has done everything in their power to stifle and obstruct whatever the president has proposed. The health care reform act and stimulus bill received no Republican votes. The Republicans in congress almost brought this country to the brink of default and almost brought another government shut down. How many other presidents have faced an opposition party where one of their leaders said their major priority was to make sure that the president was a one term president?
I am sure that there are other accomplishments as well as major disappointments since Obama took office in January 2009. But when one considers where the country was in January 2009 and what we were facing back then, a lot has been accomplished.

Therefore, I am rating this particular statement, DISFACTUAL.

Mr. Romney’s next statement up for fact check is:

Our debt is too high and our opportunities too few.

Many people have suggested that our debt is “too high.” That has become a mantra among reactionaries, which is why it’s important for a dispassionate person with no ideological axe to grind such as myself to fact check it. And the suggestion that “our debt is too high” might be popular, but only among the functionally illiterate. As the Nobel prize winning economist Paul Krugman has pointed out,

Governments don’t [have to pay back their debt] – all they need to do is ensure that debt grows more slowly than their tax base. The debt from World War II was never repaid; it just became increasingly irrelevant as the U.S. economy grew, and with it the income subject to taxation.

Second – and this is the point almost nobody seems to get – an over-borrowed family owes money to someone else; U.S. debt is, to a large extent, money we owe to ourselves.

As long as we continue to grow our tax base, our debt can never be “too high.” The fact that unemployment dropped in December shows that our tax base is growing:

The unemployment rate in the United States in December fell to 8.5 percent, its lowest level in nearly three years, the U.S. Labor Department (DOL) announced on Friday.

According to the December 2011 Employment Situation Report, nonfarm payroll employment added about 200,000 jobs, pushing the private sector up. The DOL said almost 2 million jobs were created in 2011.

That shows that, despite the opposition to progress that the Republicans have exhibited, our tax base is growing, which means our deficits aren’t worthy of focus. And as our employment grows, so do our opportunities.

I am rating this statement UNFACTLIKE.

The next of Mr. Romney’s fact statements which I will fact check is as follows:

And this President wakes up every morning, looks out across America and is proud to announce, “It could be worse.”

There is absolutely no way that Mr. Romney could possibly know what the President “announces” when he wakes up every morning, unless he is illegally wiretapping the President’s bedroom. However, we don’t know for certain that the President doesn’t announce “It could be worse” when he wakes up in the morning. For that reason, I am rating this statement LIKELY DUBIOUS AND UNTRUSTWORTHY.

Mr. Romney’s next statement:

The President has run out of ideas.

Clearly, this is nonsense. The President has several ideas. As the Washington Post, a newspaper, said in reference to a speech the President gave in December,

Obama called for a return to modest, middle-class values and said the recent rise in populist anger — from the tea party movement to the Occupy Wall Street protests — was evidence of the need to remedy the growing economic inequality in American life.

That is two ideas right there — a return to middle class values, and a need to remedy economic inequality. Anyone who suggests that the President doesn’t have ideas needs to more fully listen to the President’s speeches, because his ideas are clearly right there out in the open for anyone with ears to see. Mr. Romney’s statement is UNGENUINE.

His next statement for my unbiased fact-checking eye:

When it comes to the economy, my highest priority as President will be worrying about your job, not saving my own.

While we cannot see into the future, especially not a future that occurs in an alternate universe where President Obama, the best President of all time, doesn’t get re-elected to see what a so-called “President Romney” would prioritize, we can look to Mr. Romney’s past to see what his priorities are. And his priorities are not with “worrying about your job.” In fact, Mr. Romney himself recently stated,

I like being able to fire people who provide services to me.

Clearly, Mr. Romney prioritizes firing people who provide him with “services,” (perhaps the word “services” refers to those of a sexual variety, such as provided by prostitutes? I can’t verify at this time whether or not Mr. Romney likes to fire prostitutes or not, but I will keep fact-checking until I can) which suggests that Mr. Romney hardly prioritizes jobs for others. Even one of his own fellow Repugnantcans Republicans Jon Huntsman has suggested that Mr. Romney is a prostitute-firing jerk:

“It’s become abundantly clear over the last couple days what differentiates Gov. Romney and me,” Huntsman said. “I will always put my country first. It seems Gov. Romney believes in putting politics first. Gov. Romney enjoys firing people, I enjoy creating jobs.”

Mr. Romney often touts his private-sector experience with Bain Capital investments as evidence of his ability to create jobs. But, as the Administrator at the Thom Hartmann Radio Show message board has stated,

The guy made a living laying off working Americans – and now he thinks he’d be the best guy to create jobs. Good luck making that argument in a general election.

Mr. Romney puts politics first, and he lays off Americans so that he can reap all the benefits for himself. Therefore, I have to rate Mr. Romney’s “I will prioritize your jobs over my own” statement as FACT-IMPAIRED.

Now let us move over to Ron Paul’s acceptance speech. Mr. Paul came in second place in New Hampshire. I’m not sure why the guy who comes in second place is making an acceptance speech after failing to win, but that is not my problem. My problem is to fact check these liars, which is what I’m doing, with an unbiased look at what they’re saying. And one thing that Mr. Paul said that I checked was,

I think what we need to do is make this emphasis that liberty means you have a right to your life and your privacy and the way you want to live your life, as long as you don’t hurt people, and you have a right to keep and spend your money as you want to.

These sentences are so absurd that it’s difficult to take them seriously enough to fact-check them. Mr. Paul’s statement is contradicted even by mainstream conservative thinkers such as the New York Times‘s conservative columnist David Brooks, who stated in a column published earlier this month,

[A] nation isn’t just an agglomeration of individuals; it’s a fabric of social relationships.
…
Communities breed character. … [G]overnment cannot be agnostic about the character of its citizens because the less disciplined the people are, the more government must step in to provide order.

Ironically, liberty breeds less liberty, because as people practice liberty, they must be protected from the bad choices they make which damage their lives and therefore cost all of us. By way of example, our government is leading the charge against distracted driving which is, according to the federal government’s own website,

a dangerous epidemic on America’s roadways. In 2009 alone, nearly 5,500 people were killed and 450,000 more were injured in distracted driving crashes.

The U.S. Department of Transportation is leading the effort to stop texting and cell phone use behind the wheel. Since 2009, we have held two national distracted driving summits, banned texting and cell phone use for commercial drivers, encouraged states to adopt tough laws, and launched several campaigns to raise public awareness about the issue.

The idea that American citizens have “a right to your life and privacy” is obviously UNMOORED FROM TRUTH, a fact which Mr. Paul himself seems to acknowledge within the statements quoted above. You’ll note that Mr. Paul also says, “as long as you don’t hurt people.” But that is why government must make laws that Mr. Paul claims are against his “liberty.” Because things like distracted driving kill thousands of people every year. For that reason, I am rating half of Mr. Paul’s statement ACCIDENTALLY STUMBLING INTO SOMETHING NEARING VERACITY.

Mr. Paul’s next statement up for fact checking:

You don’t have to compromise.

The idea that people shouldn’t compromise has been debunked by years of experience. In fact, as Walter Isaacson pointed out in a bipartisan article in the newspaper The New York Times, our country was founded on compromise:

We like to think of our nation’s founders as men with unwavering fealty to high-minded principles. To some extent they were. But when they gathered in Philadelphia during the summer of 1787 to write the Constitution, they showed that they were also something just as great and often more difficult to be: compromisers. In that regard they reflected not just the classical virtues of honor and integrity but also the Enlightenment’s values of balance, order, tolerance, scientific calibration and respect for other people’s beliefs. On almost all issues that they faced — with one very big exception — this art of compromise served them well. As Benjamin Franklin, that ultimate Enlightenment sage, conveyed in both his actions and words at the convention, compromisers may not make great heroes but they do make great democracies.

In truth, Mr. Paul’s statement is completely and utterly wrong — you do have to compromise. That’s how greatness is achieved. I am rating Mr. Paul’s statement WHOLLY CONTRADICTED BY THE INDISPUTABLE FACTS.

Mr. Paul’s next fact checked statement:

What we have to convince them, if you are a true humanitarian, you have to fight and argue the case for free markets, sound money, property rights, contract rights, no use of force, and a sensible foreign policy, so we don’t waste our resources.

Mr. Paul is suggesting here that only true humanitarians are in favor of free markets. This is so obviously false that everyone knows it. Unfettered capitalism is what almost destroyed our economy, and has led to our current economic woes. But just to be sure, I went downstairs to talk to one of my neighbors, Jim. Jim is so non-partisan that he’s not even registered to vote, because that’s how they get your name for jury duty. I asked him if it was unfettered capitalism that caused the recent recession, or if he thought that humanitarians are opposed to the government. He told me:

Obviously, capitalistic greed and deregulation caused the recession. And no one’s even gone to jail for it. Where is MY bailout?

As for “no use of force,” I suppose Mr. Paul wants to get rid of the police. I asked my downstairs neighbor Jim about that one, too. He laughed. Then he said,

Sure, we can get rid of the police. Then everyone will be killing each other in the street, and raping their corpses.

Facts are stubborn things. I am ranking Mr. Paul’s lies as POTENTIALLY CORPSE-RAPING UNTRUTHS.

Well, there were some other candidates who appeared on the ballot in New Hampshire as well. They probably made some speeches, but they all said the same things, basically. And all of the things they said were mostly untruths. That is why I must diligently fact check all of their lies, or as many as I can get to before I have to go to sleep. It’s pretty clear that these people will say anything to get the President’s job; but they haven’t reckoned on me, and my unbiased fact checking abilities.

Written after reading this Columbia Journalism Review piece, via the Agitator.

FUTURE EDITORIAL: LET NOT THE REACTIONARIES PREVENT PASSAGE OF THE HUMAN ENHANCEMENT ACT

By Thomauridas Krugolliniedowdfried

For all the overhot rhetoric flourish coming from certain counterfeit parties, this Thomauridas Krugolliniedowdfried will show that the Human Enhancement Act recently proposed by SenReps Chuck Schumer-4 of MicroSoft, and John McCain-PrimeBeta of Atlanta Braves is actually a quite modest plan whose benefits would be felt by everyone in the 34 Congloms, and around the world.

Please let this Thomauridas Krugolliniedowdfried spell this out for you in this New Bloomberg Telemex Times editorial: Our Conglomeration of States has struggled with an epidemic of obesity, and other preventable behavioral-based diseases. Our ruling class politicians and other moral and spiritual leaders have long been sounding the alarm over the fact that this is a national security issue, as the bodies that citizens often selfishly believe belong only to themselves are being abused to the point that they are often of no use to our national decision-makers.

This Thomauridas Krugolliniedowdfried notes that the SenReps who guide us have passed laws limiting the portion sizes served in restaurants. They have outlawed buffets. The HealthNet has issued strict guidelines for how much we can eat. The States have deployed drones to monitor and correct our often errant behavior.

This Thomauridas Krugolliniedowdfried was heartened when the SuperCourt ruled, in Hometown Buffet V. Conglomeration of States, that the ConReps had the legal authority to ignore the “constitution,” when issuing their laws that pertained to the health and safety of citizens, and could invoke the “commerce clause” to justify anything and everything else they did. This has empowered our SenReps to help us make more sensible choices about the bodies we caretake for the Conglomeration of States.

Yet this Thomauridas Krugolliniedowdfried is sad to note that these laws are failing our conglom. After all, when this Thomauridas Krugolliniedowdfried ambulates down the boulevard, shim’s eyes are met by images of citizens with disappointing bodies that make this Thomauridas Krugolliniedowdfried fear for the future of the Conglom.

**This Thomauridas Krugolliniedowdfried wants you to be on the lookout for the new action thriller “Kill Choice.” “Kill Choice” stars Apple Ubisoft Paltrow as Nightingale, a young shim hunted by a multinational corporate conspiracy that will stop at nothing to kill shim. Paltrow gives a typical standout performance, ably abetted by supporting perfs Tom ESPN Hanks IV, and Jada-Will Smith HSBC. “Kill Choice” opens on Implant and Payper Vu this Time-Warner Day, and this Thomauridas Krugolliniedowdfried says it is a 4Star Knockout. This editorial interlude mini-review paid for by MSNBCFox Studios, who approve this message.**

This Thomauridas Krugolliniedowdfried  sees all around shim people who still bemouth BigFat. People still BigCig, and Imbibe. People still Heroin. To be sure, some corporations have gone to great lengths to ensure enhanced addictive qualities of their products by manufacturing the products that were bad for citizens to be more delicious and appealing than healthy products. This created an intolerable death spiral, as citizens, who are often unable to overcome their own weaknesses and forget their duty to the rest of the Conglom, were left helpless to make the choices that we all knew we should in order to better maintain our health.

Now, thanks to improvements in health technology, we can provide biological incentives to people who in the past might have had to live with the helpless addiction to fatty foods, and therefore burden themselves and the rest of us with their dishealth.

The Human Enhancement Act would provide a sensible roadmap by which a new office of Human Enhancement would allow for the modification of citizens so that they would no longer be burdened by having to choose between what they want, and what they really need; it would make them realize that what they want *is* what they need. This modification would take place in the womb, before a citizen was even born.

Imagine a world in which citizens of the Conglom could be born free of the desire for those things which will harm them.  Cravings for BigFat and BigChoc would be replaced by cravings for PeriSweet Paste, the Conglom’s own nutritionally-sound nourishing glomp. Now imagine not having to imagine such a world, because it has been legislated into existence. Only cret-holes could mount opposition to such a thing.

Yet opposition there has been, this Thomauridas Krugolliniedowdfried notes. The OurBods, who operate under the misapprehension that healthful biological improvements are wrong, claim that a fetus cannot give consent to have shim’s body “altered.” They claim this is sinister.

In fact, this Thomauridas Krugolliniedowdfried notes that it is the OurBods themselves who are sinister. It is they who want to continue to inhabit a world in which our Almighty Presarch cannot fight the wars he declares, because not enough of us are healthy enough to be conscripted into the Mildustry.

The reader will remember, because this Thomauridas Krugolliniedowdfried will remind shim, that these were the same people who opposed the implants that allow the Conglom government to monitor citizens’ daily caloric intake, and induce nausea once their quota’s been filled. Clearly, these people have an agenda. This Thomauridas Krugolliniedowdfried wonders who is funding them?

**If you’re in the New Bloomberg area and looking for something to eat, this Thomauridas Krugolliniedowdfried recommends you try La Graisse Gras Matière for the finest in HauteCuisine Français. This Thomauridas Krugolliniedowdfried was particularly impressed with the Foie Gras in Hollandaise with Brie de Meaux. A 5Star dining experience. This editorial interlude mini-review paid for by La Graisse Gras Matière [at the corner of Broadway and Disney], who approves this message.**

Then there is the health industrial complex. They claim that the technology mentioned in the legislation doesn’t yet exist. They claim that the research required to create such technology would cost them billions that they don’t have. This Thomauridas Krugolliniedowdfried believes that this is just another way for them to say that profits mean to them than the citizens they are supposed to serve.

But this Thomauridas Krugolliniedowdfried notes that the Human Enhancement Act would not take effect for two years, giving the HealthCorps more than enough time to create the technology required by the legislation.

This Thomauridas Krugolliniedowdfried notes that Our Conglomeration of States is at a crossroads. One fork in the stream leads to death and destruction of our entire way of life. The other will lead us to an unprecedented age of health and prosperity. Let us be healthful and prosperous; let not the reactionaries win.

This Thomauridas Krugolliniedowdfried was created from the DNA of past New Bloomberg Telemex Times editorial writers. Shim’s column appears every Trump Day and GE Day.

The year 2011 was an alarming one for dictators, as a series of mass uprisings toppled several authoritarian regimes in the Middle East. The so-called “Arab Spring” inspired wild hopes, with some optimists even declaring that the 20th century phenomenon of the dictator was finished, and a new era of democracy was dawning- just like in Eastern Europe in 1989. True? False? Let’s survey the Year in Dictators and find out!

The action started in Tunisia in late 2010, when a man named Mohamed Bouazizi self-immolated to protest the rule of President Ben Ali, and immediately triggered a mass uprising. By January, the hitherto unassailable dictator was in exile in Saudi Arabia and lots of politicians and journalists were pretending to know something about the country. Tunisians are secular, they told us, so don’t worry about religious radicals coming to power! A few months later, an Islamist party won 30% or so of the vote, making it the largest bloc in Tunisia’s parliament, with great influence over the country’s new constitution. Awesome! Which brings us to…

Egypt – not only the most populous country in the Arab world but also home to the University of Al- Azhar, the world’s most important center of Islamic learning. Starting in February, a series of protests led to the downfall of long term dictator Hosni Mubarak, who learned that America is only your friend until she isn’t, as Obama urged his nation’s faithful ally of three decades to stand down so that some reactionary, authoritarian anti-Semitic types could take over. Well that’s not exactly what he said, but that’s obviously what was going to happen, and it’s what’s happening right now. Awesome!

Then there’s Libya, where Colonel Gaddafi learned the hard way that it doesn’t pay to give up your weapons of mass destruction, or to hang out with Tony Blair. After 41 years of doing his own thang, he was faced by an immensely incompetent uprising which would have failed had not a NATO mission led by Britain and France with major support from the US eventually assisted an unappealing mob of ex-Al Qaeda men and other unlovely sorts in killing the Brother Leader. At least 50,000 people died in a haphazard military campaign that was supposedly waged to save lives, and which had nothing to do with regime change, HONEST! It’s hard to say what’s going on there now because the media isn’t doing much reporting, but I do hear that Gaddafi’s son is yet to see a lawyer after weeks in captivity and that polygamy is now legal. Awesome (if you’re a dude)!

There was unrest elsewhere in the Middle East, but not much change. Bahrain held firm. I think something happened in the Yemen, but nobody reports on it that much. Let me Google it…

….no, the president is still hanging on, although he’s supposed to be gone by February. In Syria Bashar Assad has responded to unrest like a proper dictator and killed lots of his own people. Will his regime fall in 2012? I have no idea. But having seen what happened to Gaddafi he has a pretty strong motivation to keep on killing.

And that’s it for the alleged Brave New World of democracy. Elsewhere, 2011 was not bad at all for dictators. Consider the ex-USSR for instance:

In Turkmenistan former dentist Gurbanguly Berdymukhamedov switched the portraits of his predecessor Turkmenbashi for his own years ago and nobody noticed any difference.

In Uzbekistan, Islam Karimov has ruled with an iron fist since the country was part of the USSR. His repressive system is working well, and the jails are nice and full.

In Tajikistan, ex-collective farm boss Emomali Rakhmon is still rocking the presidential palace. Not long ago he banned all religious education for those below the age of 18; he’d rather everybody read his own books about Zoroaster.

In Azerbaijan, Ilham Aliyev continues as president of the country his daddy used to run.

In Kazakhstan, oblivious to the lessons of Libya, Nursultan Nazarbayev recently started hanging out with Tony Blair. Blair denies he is making any money from the friendship, but the Kazakhs claim he already has a gleaming new office in Astana, the capital.

Meanwhile I hear Africa still has some dictators, and there are also a few dodgy fellows knocking about in Latin America. North Korea just swapped one psycho for his puffy faced son, while China remains a one party state. Russia which although not a dictatorship is certainly authoritarian, recently experienced some uprisings but the challengers Mr. Putin faces for the presidency in 2012 are (as usual) discredited frauds and rich dilettantes doomed to failure.

Authoritarian rule is the norm rather than the exception in human history and even in liberal democracies many yearn to impose their will on others. In the EU for instance, whenever the public makes the wrong decision in a referendum, their leaders make them vote again until they get it right!  In the Middle East meanwhile I suspect that secular dictators are about to be replaced by religious dictators- plus ca change, and all that.

Happy New Dictators!

Originally published at RIA Novosti, the home of the awesome

Sometime around the arrest of Mikhail Khodorkovsky, a long period of abject Western media failure regarding the Putin phenomenon began. Journalists were so busy making fatuous comparisons to Stalin or hyping The New Cold War™ that they refused to address why the president was so popular in Russia. I suspect this is because many of them missed the 1990s, when Americans and Europeans had enjoyed near godlike status. Yeltsin had been no catastrophe for them, even if he was for 99.99% of everybody else.

However, Putin was genuinely popular and until a few weeks ago seemed unassailable. A generous man might read this as proof of success: that life in Russia has improved to the point where citizens are no longer willing to accept corruption in exchange for stability. When I lived in Russia, I attended some entirely futile anti-government rallies comprised of pensioners, punks and nationalists; the latest protests are larger, much more diverse and the Kremlin obviously hasn’t decided what to do about them…yet.
It’s ironic, meanwhile, that these demands for democracy are occurring twenty years after the leaders of Russia, Ukraine and Belarus unilaterally declared the USSR dead, thus overriding the democratically expressed will of the majority of soviet citizens who had voted in referenda earlier that year for the Soviet Union to remain united (assuming we can trust those results, of course).

That two decade anniversary also makes me think of the erstwhile soviet satellites in Central and Eastern Europe which had seized their liberty in 1989. All of these countries- from Estonia to Bulgaria- almost immediately applied to join the EU, membership of which is now making them, ironically, less free again.

Of course, there’s a world of difference between the totalitarian USSR and the impotent, soft authoritarian EU. But how the citizens of these nations, who are still resentful of Moscow’s long dominance of their internal politics, can so freely submit to oversight of their national budgets by an unelected cabal in Brussels, or worse, meekly acquiesce as entire populations are forced to vote again whenever a referendum in the EU brings the wrong result… well, it blows my mind, man.

I come from a small country. I understand the advantages of an alliance with a bigger neighbor. But I am not seduced by the vague, utopian EU goal of ‘ever closer union’ and I don’t subscribe to the comic fantasy that the EU could ever rival the USA or China as a world power. The fear/shame stigma surrounding nationalism is largely a continental issue, not a British one. Thus while passport free travel is nice and Brussels surely provides pleasant sinecures for national politicians who can’t be bothered with elections any more, I fail to see the point of surrendering to the Franco-German axis at its heart.

So what is its appeal? Let’s ask Dostoevsky’s Grand Inquisitor:

“There is no more ceaseless or tormenting care for man, as long as he remains free, than to find someone to bow down to as soon as possible.”

Hmm…

Well now that makes me think of Egypt, where following the so-called Arab Spring, a majority of Egyptians have just voted for reactionary parties such as The Muslim Brotherhood or worse, the Salafists. Of course, this is not surprising if you consider that Egypt is a very traditional, pious society, which has been governed for decades by a corrupt military junta. Who were the people going to vote for, the parties that claim to embody the Will of Allah; or that wee man with the moustache who used to lurk about the UN?

It has been vaguely amusing (while also pathetic), to watch the American leaders and bien pensant media types who were so wrong about the meaning of the uprising now argue that political power will make the Brotherhood, which has over eighty years of hardcore Islamist pronouncements behind it, less radical. Such stupidity is nothing new. Apologists denied the obvious extremism of Lenin, Hitler, Mussolini and Stalin for a long time. In the 60s, many European lefties loved Mao. One of Jimmy Carter’s advisors compared the Ayatollah Khomeini to Gandhi. Don’t worry, say the useful idiots, it will all be OK.

Not likely. Remember the 2004 uprisings in Ukraine, Georgia and Kyrgyzstan? Well, in Ukraine the guy who (allegedly?) stole the election is now president, while the “heroes” who defeated him are either a) in prison or b) in disgrace. In 2008 Georgia’s president launched an attack on his own citizens and lost one third of his country’s territory. As for Kyrgyzstan… well… yeah.

Thus, when I watch the rallies in Russia, I celebrate the protestors’ loss of fear, but wolves are always waiting in the wings. And yet for all that, sometimes things actually do improve. However fatuous the EU may be in its goals and deeds, it’s far better to be forced to submit to Merkozy than to be devoured by Stalin, if that’s the choice history offers you.

As for Egypt, however, I’m considerably less optimistic.

Originally published at RIA Novosti, home of the awesome.

In June 2009, I found myself glued to the TV set, watching the crowds in Tehran protesting the rigged reelection of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as president of Iran. I was amazed that things seemed to be falling apart so quickly for the motley crew of thugs, thieves, killers and millenarian fantasists that run the country. After all, their despotic regime was only 30 years old, and at that age the USSR was in the full, terrifying flower of Stalinism. It would be another four decades before it collapsed due to institutional senility and internal decay.

Eh?

Like most Britons, I long ago accepted that our island home is a small, increasingly insignificant place, populated by a mild-mannered people who meekly submit to the highest degree of government surveillance in the Western world. Our public services are mediocre and our TV is largely rubbish. The notion that the ineffectual clique of ex-public schoolboys running this minor power could mastermind an uprising in Iran- or would even want to- was definitely worth a chuckle or two.

What I had forgotten, of course, is that in the Middle East people have very long memories. The Iranians recall the days when Britain had an empire, and stern, ascetic men fond of a good spanking liked to fiddle with the internal politics of faraway places. To the Iranians, apparently, Albion is still perfidious, the “Little Satan” manipulating the oafish Great Satan of America into doing its bidding: a bit like the Elders of Zion, only even more devious.

Jeez, I thought, those Mullahs have got to catch up with the times… watch a bit of UK reality TV or something. Those imperial guys might as well be aliens for all they have in common with their descendants. Didn’t the Iranians notice that the last time they kidnapped a bunch of British soldiers some of them burst into tears?

On the other hand, I thought, this should make those “experts,” who doubt that Ahmadinejad & co. are serious about all the apocalyptic stuff, think again. If the Iranians can believe this about the UK, then the notion that the Hidden Imam is about to return any day now and usher in the End Times is eminently plausible by comparison.

Of course, it’s very likely that the regime didn’t really think Britain was responsible, but was merely indulging in the usual scapegoating that occurs whenever rotten, tyrannical regimes seek to explain to their people why living/political/economic conditions are so awful: it’s the Jews! It’s the Americans! No, wait, it’s the Jews and the Americans! And the British!

Thus, when I learned on Tuesday that a mob had stormed the UK Embassy in Tehran I assumed that the Mullahs had been whipping up yet another anti-British frenzy to cover their own wickedness and incompetence.

And yet, as I read commentary on the rampage, I discovered that this time the Masters of Iran might actually have genuine cause to be angry at Britain. Apparently, following the latest report from the UN stating what has been obvious to everyone for, oh, the last eight or nine years or so (that Iran is actively seeking nuclear weapons) the British government banned all Iranian banks from trading in London, which, according to people who understand economics better than I do, will have disastrous consequences for Iranian access to European markets.

Now that does sound annoying, especially as the Iranian economy is already a disaster area. Of course, there’s not much behind the threats of “serious consequences” that were made by the small bald man who purports to be Britain’s foreign secretary. But the real attack on Iran has already been launched.

What next? I don’t know, although I suspect that the system built by the Ayatollah Khomeini will totter on for a while, before it collapses in on itself, or perishes in fire and blood. Given that Iran is home to a truly ancient civilization, and was (probably) the birthplace of the prophet Zoroaster, who may have been the inventor of linear time, the idea of apocalypse and many other concepts common to Judaism, Christianity, Islam (and by extension much of mankind)… I kind of have high hopes for the place. Certainly the Iranians deserve much better leadership than is provided by the current crop of bearded obscurantists.

Meanwhile, I find myself struggling with a strange stirring in my breast. It’s not quite pride, but it’s definitely a sensation of surprise, possibly even pleasure. For some time now, the UK has been a world leader in meaningless gesture politics, particularly when it comes to environmentalism and the developing world. But this action on the Iranian banks, well it just might have actual consequences for that most pernicious of regimes. Certainly the Mullahs are peeved.

Rule Britannia! Hail (The Little) Satan!

Originally published @ RIA Novosti, the home of awesome