Silence, While the Pot Speaks!

News item in today's paper from Reuters, headlined "Iran elections 'cooked,' U.S. says." Well first, a fussy comment. I lived in Washington for 33 years and never -- not even once -- heard "the U.S." say anything. But I digress. Apparently the complaint about Iran -- and what do we care? We're going to bomb them back to the jazz age any day now anyway -- is that, quote, "the Iranian people were not able to vote for a full range of people". This is from the State Department. Well -- aside from the California governor's race that put "Ahh-nold" into office, when's the last time you heard of an _American_ election that offered the people the ability "to vote for a full range of people"? That race -- as comical as it was -- was pure democracy in action. You could vote for the guy who picks up your trash -- or a has-been actor whose only gig these days is Starbucks openings -- or yourself! And frankly, I loved it. Of course, the political establishment -- led by the perfectly-named Gray Davis -- recoiled in horror -- "Oh, the disgrace of allowing the unwashed into the political arena. Why, it just turns the whole thing into a circus." I guess that would be, unlike the noble and dignified exercise it usually is. What the powers that be always object to is any hint of their losing power to the people -- of the servants becoming masters, at least of their own fate if no one else's. Hell, even Russia liberated its serfs. But will the American voter ever be liberated?

But let's go on with the article. "... unelected state bodies barred many reformist foes... from the race." Hmmm. Sounds kind of like McCain-Feingold, doesn't it. Or the media, perhaps? Not only was Ron Paul -- a Republican, by the way, not a member of the "Tinfoil Hat Party" -- blocked from participating in a number of debates -- not only were his ideas severely censored by the MSM -- but his worse persecutors were none other than the Republican so-called "conservatives" -- read Neocons -- in places like the Fox Network. The fear of real change had swept over the land -- his ideas were just too unspeakable, too intolerable -- too threatening to the political warlords -- and for the good of the country they had to be suppressed, and his supporters characterized as a bunch of nerdy, right-wing bloggers (oops -- well, _that_ was awkward!). Indeed, can one imagine a more "unelected state body" than the media, or the two major parties? I can't. (And don't go quibbling that these are not official government agencies; they might just as well be.)

To go on. "They are given the choice of choosing between one supporter of the regime or another supporter of the regime." Well folks, I hate to break it to you like this, but the truth is, THERE IS ONLY ONE REGIME in the U.S. Oh sure, there are different "administrations", headed up by different power-crazed would-be tyrants, but the _regime_ is the same. The evidence? First, that they are all working from the same set of premises, with only minor variations. Among which:
* The people exist to serve the government, not vice-versa.
* People elect leaders to _lead_ them, because without strong leadership, they are absolutely helpless.
* Not only that, but they make _really_ bad choices about how to spend their own money, as Bill Clinton said.
* The government exists to provide laws, rules, regulations, and free advice in every imaginable facet of life, and woe be unto you if you do not accept this and offer thanks on a daily basis.
* "Freedom" means -- if anything -- the freedom to vote for the government to take even more money out of the other guy's pocket and put it into yours (after skimming off a fat commission, that is).
* "Rights" means the right to entitlements, which means to unearned money (see "Freedom").
* "Diversity" means the government-programmed Disney "It's a Small World" version, by which some groups are more diverse than others.

And so on. The two major parties -- the two-headed beast of the Regime -- never disagree on any of these basis premises -- not really. They may occasionally mouth words that make it sound like they disagree, but take a look at their actions and you'll find no significant difference.

Another bit of evidence. Those long and drawn-out "budget battles" in Congress, in which the floors of the Senate and the House are awash with blood, are never about more than anything but a few trivial percentage points difference. The Republicans propose a 1% drop in the _rate of increase_ of a certain agency's budget, and right away (according to the Democrats) the landscape will be dotted with evicted senior citizens raiding garbage cans for morsels of Ken-L-Ration. Are _serious_ budget proposals ever discussed? Does anyone spend any time seriously considering whether the Department of Education, for example, should simply be shut down, and its employees sent off to find honest work? Of course not. The basic structure of government -- the basic outline -- the overall budget priorities -- all are sacrosanct. And what happens when someone -- like ron Paul, for instance -- stands up and says, "why?" He is shouted down by both parties, by the media, by the administration, and by the bureaucracy. Say it with me: "One regime."

On Iran again: "They were not given the opportunity.... to vote for somebody who might have had different ideas." I won't repeat myself. And -- oh, most shameful of all -- Iran "failed to meet international standards on the conduct of democratic elections." Hmmm. So -- I guess hanging chads, butterfly ballots, tampered-with voting machines, corrupt election boards, and dead people voting all fall _within_ those standards. Good thing we helped make up the rules.

Well, it's good to be king. And at this point in history, the United States styles itself the king of conducting democratic elections. Well, actually, the country doesn't, Jimmy Carter does. But we'll let that pass. Meanwhile -- while we're getting in Iran's face over their elections (and why don't we get in Saudi Arabia's face, hmmm? I guess if you don't even _have_ elections you don't show up on radar.), we conduct our own in a matter that rivals a performance of "Marat/Sade" crossed with "Pee Wee's Playhouse". Is there any way we can make that huge letter H (for "Hypocrisy") already branded on our foreheads any larger? Seems unlikely...