Edit: The results are interesting. Mitt won Columbia and Charleston, the predominantly wealthy, educated sections of the state. Newt won the less educated, and lower social classes.

Edit: I should add that “Luther” is a very violent and brutal show as well, it is just a very good show. I do not mind violence, provided it has a point. I loved HBO’s Rome, which was both graphically violent and wildly oversexed, but I am an ancient history major and it was historically relavant sex and violence. Think of “Luther” like “The Wire” and it will make sense. Violent to the extreme, but very good television.

Edit 2: Peter Dinklage is a wonderful actor, BTW, and I am thrilled he won. I HATE GRRM, since book 5, but I have always pictured Tyrion as Dinklage.

The problem comes from Mitt’s time at the helm of Bain Capital. It is somewhat amusing to watch, as the other contenders in the Republican Party try to appeal to the 99%, while the Party proper screams that “capitalism” must be defended. The cannibalism is wonderful theater.

According to accusations, Mitt’s time at Bain is likely littered with examples of what is now being called “vulture capitalism”. A professor at NYU’s school of law explained the accusations…

“They would buy a business and boost its short-term profitability through measures that did not actually increase, and might indeed reduce, its long-term profitability. A specific example mentioned is demanding swifter production at the cost of much lower quality, which could increase sales for the first six to twelve months but then destroy a product’s reputation and longer-term sales.“

The question is whether or not Mitt did this. I think he likely did, at least some. The problem is that capitalism is an inherently flawed system. This is why regulation exists. Capitalism is neither moral, nor immoral. It simple does what makes money. Human sex trafficking makes someone money, but we consider that activity abhorrent, so we discourage it through legal restrictions. We regulate because it prevents the worst of capitalism, but the drum that is heard lately is that there is too much regulation. We recently reduced regulations, and people let greed run amok and the recent financial meltdown was the result.

And more often than not, the people at the top rarely feel the result of their decisions. Consider Psycho Jeff, who threatened me a few weeks ago. He is a real estate developer who left a company he founded, Monument Realty, to take over a struggling Advantis. This was in August of 2008. In July of 2009, the company had gone down like the Hindenburg, in part because of “an aggressive expansion plan by a majority owner.” Nevertheless, despite running one company into the ground, after leaving another just before their relationship with Lehman Brothers collapsed them (coincidental that).

But then later this year, Jeff sold his condo for a slight profit of over 2 million dollars.

The reason I explain all of this, is that when Jeff’s company, Advantis, collapsed because of his overreach and greed, his employees not only lost their jobs, but had to sue to get back pay for work they had already done. This is someone who led two companies into the ground (the one without him survived), and sold their home for over 2 million, being sued for hundreds.

Capitalism allowed this to happen, and because the worst characteristics of some individuals were allowed to operate without impediment. And when these bubbles burst, when the companies are dismembered with a scalpel and sold off, and when vulture capitalism is allowed to run without regulation, it is not the people at the helm who suffer. It is others who will pay for the bailouts, who will sue for $500, who will lose their homes to foreclosure, and all of the other negative problems that we see everyday.

So whether or not Mitt actually participated in vulture capitalism, we need to use this as a vehicle to really discuss what kind of society we want. We should discuss why greed has a place, and motivation to improve is not a negative, but there should be reason applied to the calculus. Sweden has a very equitable income distribution, while the US is looking more like Mexico everyday. This is a conversation we, as the 99%, need to have.

So Mitt stands accused of threatening excommunication because a single mother would not give her baby up for adoption. The handbook does not say this, though excommunication for fornication is a possibility, but rarely exercised in my experience (given the people I have known over the years). I just checked an old version of the handbook, and there is no threat if the mother does not place the baby for adoption there either.

Mitt strikes me as a very by-the-book sort of individual, and I cannot see him doing this, but no one can really know what happened. I feel for the then young woman, regardless.

What this does bring up is the very odd position an LDS Bishop finds himself in, and it is not something people outside of a detailed knowledge of the Church might understand. When the same woman asked for a blessing, and Mitt did not attend but instead sent two others to perform the religious duty, this is Bishop 101. A by-the-book guy like Mitt might very well send the young woman’s Home Teachers, a program in which ecclesiastical responsibilities are spread throughout the congregation.

In this relationship every family (even if only of one member) would have two male (and in an alternate program for women, two women) assigned to them for religious responsibilities to include assistance, teaching, and general contact as necessary. More often than not, the individual in question would be responsible for some other family themselves, so a web of networking exists. A lot of people find it creepy and controlling. I never did, but then again I would never find the random thoughts of someone from Church to be compelling simply because they were LDS. I have had great home teachers, bad ones, and in general I am awful at it, since I am so rarely around.

So I can see Mitt employing the religious responsibility network to help this woman, since it is technically their religious duty. And because Mitt was a businessman while he was an ecclesiastical leader. Mormon pastors are not paid, and do the duty part time. As such they are doubly busy, fulfilling the roles a traditional pastor fills, while leading their everyday lives. It is a lot of work, which is one reason the above mentioned network of relationships exist, to ease the burden (and one reason I never found it creepy, it was a communal relationship given the lack of a paid clergy, which I found in keeping with the teachings of Christ).

So when Mitt was requested, and he sent someone else, I saw it as a man trying to balance life and Church, something most pastors have less of a difficulty with, since their employment is their religious life (they still might have to worry about some conflicts, but not as many). I am also more than aware of the problems that can come from the high-maintenance member of the LDS Church. LDS missionaries tend to attract the more colorful members of society. I fully understand that this is a Christian injunction, to teach everyone, but as the wife of a member of my extended family once told the missionaries in her congregation “You’re not allowed to teach anyone who does not have a job or a car!!!” The missionaries laughed it off, though she was serious, since she took an hour before and after church picking up new members who had no transportation, who were extremely high maintenance. We do, at least on the fringe of Mormonism in the sparsely populated areas, tend to attract the mentally unstable more than a little often. It is likely more in keeping with Christian precepts, as I said, but it is difficult too.

This individual strikes me as a little high maintenance. As I said, you can never really tell what went on, but I do know how difficult a largely lay organization can be in areas that are not as well established with common operating mores and traditions. It is a hard job, and I do feel for Mitt, even though I disagree with him so much.

The same situation exists with the repeated claims amongst the current Republican establishment about being a Conservative. Conservatism is actually a well defined political ideology, but Republicanism is NOT Conservative in the definitional sense. As language evolves, naturally words will take on lives of their own, but with respect to politics, it is important to be specific. This is hardly a new or outrageous claim, it was discussed in 2009 by Sam Tanenhaus in his article “Conservatism is Dead“. The modern Republican Party has courted insanity for so long, that it has permeated the party proper. Newt Gingrich claims to be a Conservative, but then discusses unConstitutional methods of arresting judges. This is distinctly NOT Conservative, but no one seems to notice.

I sort of wonder if anyone will ever realize that the majority of Americans are defining themselves as a member of a political movement that they do not really understand.

Rather than get upset that they are paying no taxes, shouldn’t we be upset that 50% of the people in the US make so little? There have been several studies that discuss social stability and income equality. This is a serious problem, that most people fail to recognize, all while more and more people are being pushed into the lower classes. This is a very bad situation, but criticizing those who make so little is not the answer. A recent study that came out in the last few years showed a group of Americans an income distribution graph, and almost all preferred the Swedish model to the American one. But consider all of the Republican propaganda demonizing the “socialist” Europeans.

Keep in mind that this Republican position is also counter to the writings of Milton Friedman, paragon of Republican economics. But then again, most have never actually read Friedman (because reading is hard and takes time, it is far easy to discuss something without the trouble of working hard and reading).

I noticed that psycho Jeff deleted a post I made on his blog. He was criticizing governmental spending, with the same appeals to emotion. The desire to cut spending is common from many Republicans, and it is not an untenable position, when considered rationally. The recently announced defense strategy is actually very well thought out and is a very interesting balance of strategic vision and budget cuts.

Unfortunately this type of moderate vision is rarely employed (rationality not being common in today’s America). What is interesting, and Jeff deleted from his blog, was that this was all laid out from the Republican perspective less than a year ago, then completely ignored. It was bizarre and a testament to the broken GOP.

Back in March of 2011, Speaker Boehner published a study that discussed the historical analysis of several countries and produced an optimal split of spending cuts to tax increases that fit a 85% to 15% ratio. For the sake of argument, let’s say that this analysis was 100% accurate and this is the ratio that is necessary to stimulate economic growth while cutting debt producing spending.

The problem was that shortly after publishing the report, the Republican leadership rejected the same proposal that they claimed they wanted. The Economist discussed this here. Obama presented a budget with a 17% 83% split in tax increases (which were simply closing loopholes) and budget cuts, that was the plan the Republicans wanted, and they completely rejected it. What we really need are people, both elected and electorate, who are interested in actually solving problems, thoughtfully considering issues, and developing plans that work without appealing to the poor children (who they really do not care about anyway) when faced with difficult issues.

Maybe someday. But likely I will have immigrated to Scandinavia by then.

Well we’re buying a fake tree. Which are insanely overpriced, by the way. But we will have a fake, saccharine-esque representation of Christmas next year. I should probably foot the bill for some Yankee Candles to help with the aroma?

Sad.

As the recent primaries attest, the GOP is in shambles (and this is not to imply that the Democrats are much better off). Part of the problem is that ideology has frequently trumped actual understanding, education, and knowledge. Talking heads, and Glenn Beck is a significant force here, have turned reasoned thought into something alien and unwanted.

Consider Mr. Neal’s website. He has run post after post describing various ills and horrors of either President Obama, Democrats, or things along those lines. The problem is that he is rarely correct in his assessment, not necessarily because his opinions are wrong (I think they are, but that is beyond the point), but because they are formed in absence of full understanding. It is one thing to form an opinion based on full research and study. It is another to do so with minimal research and absolutely no real thought. Mr. Neal’s opinions fall into the latter category.

For example, in discussing Gingrich’s position on judges, Jeff argued that the President has “a sworn duty to assert their authority to prevent the judiciary from declaring a monopoly over the determination of what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is; the determination of what is the meaning of ‘American jurisprudence’”. The problem with this position is that Gingrich advocates insanely unConstitutional action. Gingrich actively advocated arresting judges he disagreed with, on national television. By a simple definition of “Constitutional” this hardly fits. In fact there is a stated method of dealing with judicial misconduct, and Gingrich mentions this, impeachment, after he mentions sending out Federal Marshals to bring in the offending judge.

How can someone speak about Constitutionality, when defending someone who takes unConstitutional action before Constitutional?

The problem is that Jeff does not really know what the US Constitution says, likely does not know what Gingrich actually said, and doesn’t care enough to learn before speaking. In the past month or two on his website, he discussed market failures, without understanding what the definition of market failure is. He discussed foreign countries (Singapore specifically) without understanding the nation. He criticized Gloria Allred for her retainment by one of Herman Cain’s many accusers, seemingly unaware that she was also retained by one of Anthony Wiener’s accusers (he implied it was a partisan attack). He discusses economic theory he does not understand, policy he does not understand, etc…

None of this is particularly surprising, however. Mr. Neal is a somewhat successful businessman. He has presided over multimillion dollar real estate deals. He is not stupid. He is, however, poorly researched. He co-ran Monument Realty, for a while, leaving about the time their involvement with Lehman Brothers collapsed both corporations. Lehman Brothers disappeared. Monument came back recently.

He jumped from Monument to run GVA/Advantage, as Monument was collapsing, which also collapsed. He has since moved on to another company.

The problem with shoddy research, poorly thought out decisions, and ideologically driven thought, as opposed to reasoned thought, is that it is pervasive. It should come as no shock that a real estate developer in bed with Lehman Brothers who oversaw several companies that collapsed in the real estate debacle that almost sank the US economy would form poor positions based on little research and preconceived notions. The tendency to make decisions without adequate research likely contributed to both the relationship with Lehman and the dissolution of GVA/Advantage.

And oddly enough nothing has changed. This is a serious problem with the Republican electorate. Not all of the electorate, but a large enough number to make it problematic. I was involved in a discussion with a Mormon Republican who insisted that President Obama was a socialist. I pointed out that he was not, and that by the definition of socialism, nothing Obama has done was/is socialist. He basically agreed that it was not socialist, and if actual definitions were used, the nothing was really socialist (and that this was a bad thing, since he REALLY wanted to use the term). I agreed completely with that. But he wanted to use term anyway, so… At the heart of the issue, it is easier to use an emotion laden term like “socialism”, even when it was not accurate, than actually discuss a complex issue. Unfortunately most will never recognize that the term itself is incorrect.

Many Republicans, including the socialist accuser above, and Jeff, are products of a political machine that is built for bumper sticker politics, not detailed thought. Jon Huntsman was selected as ambassador to China, in part, because he posed a significant threat to Obama in 2012, at least at the time. He was a popular Republican Governor, who appealed to a wide range of voters. He was a moderate Republican, with views amicable to key Democratic issues, like environmental politics and same-sex issues. He was not a Democrat by any stretch of the imagination, but he was middle-of-the-road enough to pose a risk. But this was assuming that extreme insanity had not taken over the party.

It has.

So what can be seen more and more are individuals who have no real understanding on issues, who nevertheless avail themselves of the bully pulpit to spout what is essentially nonsense under the guise of political thought. And this is fueled by the numerous pundits who do nothing more then make more and more nonsensical claims, because to get air time you have to be more and more extreme.

This is killing the nation, however. I do not know when reason will prevail, but it is unlikely to be soon. I have to put the children to bed, so I will discuss the way out tomorrow.