I don’t know if it’s a good thing or a bad thing but when one writes a blog, there’s nobody to tell them what to write or when.  Nor are there editors to tighten the narrative or catch spelling and usage errors.  Good and bad.  The truth is, I don’t limit myself in subject.  I might write about anything at any time.  But, if you’ve read much of my work, you would have to agree I focus on politics.  A LOT.  So it seems strange that, after all this time, I’ve failed to address the single most important political question in the western world.  It’s the question on every person’s lips – and I’ve written zilch on the topic.

It hasn’t been an oversight, so much.  I’ve even known that sooner or later, I was going to weigh in.  We all have opinions.  According to Francis Bacon (no relation) the sheer number of opinions stands as testament to the number that must be wrong.  Still, I’ve been hesitant to say, partly, because it involves a prediction.  I’m MUCH better at matching history with current events and extrapolating from there and we’re simply not in far enough to know for sure.  But after much consideration, and I mean a ridiculous amount, I’m ready to take a position, bold and outlandish as it may seem.  So, as they say, here goes nothin’…

I think Tyrion Lannister is going to end up on the Iron Throne.  I expect that statement received one of two responses: one, “Who, on the what?” and two, “TYRION?!?” (It’s even said with the two question marks and the exclamation point.)  If you’re in the ‘who on the what’ crowd, this essay probably isn’t for you.  You’ve got seven seasons of catching up to do and I may introduce spoilers.  But if you DO know what I’m talking about – and which civilized person in the western world doesn’t – allow me to explain WHY I expect Tyrion to “win” the Game of Thrones…

I’ve heard people opine that Peter Dinklage is the best actor on the show.  I don’t know if that’s true.  Sure, he’s VERY good but he really benefits from a great role.  His is the most fun and probably the most fun to write.  But if your character is supposed to be a pent up, play-it-close-to-the-vest type, NOT being so broad as an actor or likeable as a character actually IS great acting.  Tough call.  Too subjective.

As it happens, my hypothesis began with a simple observation: Peter Dinklage, the actor who portrays Tyrion, always receives top billing.  Okay, so…not ALWAYS.  Season One stands as an outlier but even then he received what might be called “highlighted billing.”  So, let’s talk about actors for a moment.

I’m not one.  Nor do I play one on TV.  I’ve known some – but the local kind, not the kind whose agents argue with producers about credits – or even the kind with agents.  So, consider yourself fully engulfed in the wonderful world of theoretical speculation.  One of the things I think actors seriously think about is billing – where their name appears in relation to where everyone else’s name is going to appear as the movie or TV show begins.  For the actors, it’s a matter of importance – meaning, if you get top billing (your name appears first) you’re the most important.  But there’s a nuance to that – the “highlighted billing” I mentioned before.  (I imagine there’s an actual name for the practice in the industry but as I’ve indicated, I’m not in the industry…)

In Season One, several actor’s names appear…then, “and Peter Dinklage”.  He’s the only one of the top names to receive anything that sets him apart, as it were.  …”AND Peter Dinklage.”  Beginning with Season Two and from then on, Peter Dinklage is the first name to appear on the screen as the credits begin.

Show runners know the actors are going to bitch about billing.  Through the years, they’ve come up with several tricks to reduce the tensions such concerns can create.  Maybe they list the actors in order of appearance.  Sometimes the actors are listed alphabetically.  Sometimes, it all comes down to who’s the most famous and let the bickering begin.  I think the show runners from ‘Game of Thrones’ have been using the “importance to the story” technique – telling us all along who wins…

As an example, in the early seasons, Sophie Turner – who portrays Sansa Stark, had to share billing with two other people.  Sansa wasn’t critical to the story at the time.  NOW, in Season 7, she’s the Lady of Winterfell…and ‘Sophie Turner’ appears alone during the credits.  Maisie Williams, playing Arya Stark, still shares billing with others.  Arya’s definitely moving into more of an…enforcer role…not bound for the Iron Throne…

So that’s it.  THAT’S what started me down this thought path.  Peter Dinklage receives top billing.  BUT…if you go back and watch the series again (and you should), you’ll notice that Tyrion keeps gaining experience running cities and states.  People keep mentioning how good he is at it.  He’s smart.  He’s diplomatic.  He knows when to work with enemies and when to fight.  He’s brave but concerned with the plight of the lower classes.

I know…there are some obvious problems with my hypothesis.  Daenerys Targaryen and her nephew, Jon Snow, for one, er two – and the aforementioned Sansa Stark.  I suspect Daenerys and Aegon (Jon’s real name) are going to end up back in the east screwing their hot little Targaryen brains out and Sansa will continue as Wardeness of the North.  Everyone else of consequence is – or soon will be – dead.  Jaime, I think, is going to end up Hand of the King to Tyrion.

I’ll tell you, I don’t really know HOW those last few contenders are going to play out.  Tyrion Lannister on the Iron Throne is the only REAL prediction, here.  But I think he’s going to make a great king of Westeros…

Look, I have no problem with the idea that Hillary cashed in with a book.  Who among us wouldn’t, given the opportunity?  And, having determined to take the money, she had to write SOMETHING.  I DO wish she had written about something more innocuous.  Maybe a children’s story, ‘The Bad Little Candidate’.  I don’t know, maybe throwing gas on the fire between Progressives and Democrats seemed like the right idea in the moment.  She has a lot of those – things that seemed like a good idea in the moment for which she has to offer mea culpa later.

Then again, maybe now IS the time to get it out there.  If it’s a fight we’re going to have – and, apparently, it is, perhaps it better to have it now and get it out of the way.  Each side has staked out their position.  Progressives are stating quite clearly that they need a party that represents Progressive values.  Democrats are stating quite clearly that the Democratic party is not that place.  I have to admit, I don’t understand the Democratic thinking on this.

We already have a party that kowtows to corporations and rich people, the Republitarians.  Why would the Democrats think a second party with the same message will do well?  Do they really think the lack of racism is the key?  I guess, if I had to choose, I would agree that inclusive oppression is marginally better than racist oppression but the operative word, here, seems to be “oppression.”

The Democrats are STILL trying to convince someone other than themselves that “more of the same” and “incremental baby steps” is the right message in an environment where people can’t earn enough money to take proper care of their families.  But the masses are getting angrier.  Hell, even the party loyalists are angry, they just refuse to indict the Democrats along with the Republicans (because…loyalists) so they point their fingers in any and every other direction hoping something will stick – then they get furious when someone points out the flaws in their collective thinking.

I’m sure Hillary’s book will do well.  Democrats will go out and buy three copies each to ensure the book does well.  They’ll all nod in agreement.  Darn Bernie.  Darn Putin.  Except for the parts that weren’t, it was the perfect campaign.  Hillary did make one point I found illustrative.  Bernie isn’t a Democrat.  She’s quick to add that she didn’t mean that as a smear…like not being a Democrat could be a smear.

But I realized she had accidentally revealed the underlying reason for the DNC to get busy tinkering with the outcome of the primary: Bernie isn’t a Democrat.  See, if you’re in the party, the party can dictate terms.  You’ll do as you’re told or you’ll lose funding and other kinds of support.  But Bernie isn’t in the party.  He doesn’t need them and he doesn’t need their funding.  If the party can’t control the candidate, he might just do something that benefits Americans – even though it may not be in the party’s best interest.  Can’t have that.  Party first!

Apparently, we now live in an era where benefiting Americans is not an option.

I’ll tell you this: I wonder how many more “elections” the Democrats are going to have to lose before they realize that parroting the Republicans does them no good.  I also wonder where the hell Progressives are going to go in the meantime…

Here comes the GOP, planning to tackle “tax reform”…again.  By now, most of us should be aware that “tax reform” is political-speak for “cut taxes on the wealthy.”  Okay, sure, the not-wealthy usually enjoy a small break as well.  That can’t be helped.  But, long term, the cuts benefit the wealthy and everyone else ends up paying more in one way or another.

And let’s be clear: we’re no longer talking “economic theory”, here.  We, the people of this once-great nation, have been living in this experiment since Ronald Reagan initiated the wealthy assault on America.  We can SEE actual results – and all we have to do is look around.  If you think the average American is better off, economically, than the average American of, say, the 1960’s, well, you’re probably not old enough to remember the 60’s.

In fact, it’s my own little pet theory that average Americans of the mid-twentieth century became SO strong, economically, that they began refusing to go fight the bullshit little wars rich people find so…rewarding.  Enter Reagan and “voodoo economics” (check), return to the great days of income disparity that existed before the New Deal (check), return HUGE swaths of society to subsistence level incomes (check), kick off a few new wars for profit (check), (check), and (check), and see if the desperately poor still refuse to join the military…

But I digress.  As it happens, much of our society has been coached to understand that printing money is a harmful behavior without being given the context as to WHY the government keeps finding itself in the position of having to do so in the first place.  Also as it happens, the short answer is…”tax reform”!  (I promise, I’ll do this a painlessly as possible…)

Every once in awhile, I hear someone opine that they “couldn’t run their household or business the way the government runs the economy.”  That’s true, but only because national economies don’t work the way your household or business economy works.  See, in a national economy, your spending is my income and MY spending is YOUR income.  National economies stall when – for whatever reason – everyone stops spending at once.  When that happens, the government is forced to step in and spend until there’s enough money in circulation again to keep things humming along.

Ah, circulation.  That’s the key to this whole mess, then, right?  Why, yes.  Yes it is.  But we’re getting just a bit ahead of ourselves because there’s one more piece you need to understand before it all fits together.  As it happens, there’s only so much money.  Certain segments of our society have been taught something else – that the “pie” is infinite and, as such, it just doesn’t matter if rich people keep more and more of it – there will ALWAYS be enough to go around.  Hmm, devoutly to be wished, for sure, but simply not true.

There’s only so much.  EVERY DAY, the government knows it’s own net worth.  (Rich people tell not-rich people not to trust government numbers but rich people use government numbers every day in order to make multi-million or -billion dollar decisions…)  It’s a HUGE number and it changes all the time but every day, the government knows it’s own net worth.  So…let’s tie these bits together using (admittedly) ridiculously small, made up numbers.

Let’s say the total money pool is 10 bucks.  As long as 5 bucks are in circulation, everyone is doing well.  One guy has 5 bucks all to himself.  He’s rich but everyone else is okay because there are still 5 bucks in circulation.  But then, Mr. 5 Bucks decides to keep more.  When he keeps the next dollar, someone else begins to suffer because there’s not quite enough money in circulation.  By the time Mr. 5 Bucks has squirreled away 8 bucks, people are in dire straits.  The government has two choices.  One, it can use it’s leverage (in the form of taxes) to pry some of that beautiful lucre away from Mr. 5 Bucks OR it can print more money.

The thing is, when they print more money, it’s only a short-term solution.  Mr. 5 Bucks is so well positioned in the market that he’s just going to suck up that newly printed money as well, leaving everyone else to try and survive on the remaining 2 bucks.  Now, Mr. 5 Bucks has 11 bucks and everyone else is STILL struggling to get by on the remaining 2 bucks in circulation…so the government prints more money to keep the economy moving.  Now, just keep reading this paragraph over and over and over again until the whole kit and caboodle comes crashing down onto your head…

As long as the government refuses to tax Mr. 5 Bucks – FORCING him to return some of “his” money to circulation – they have no choice but to keep printing money.  And none of this even touches on what it means to have 16 bucks out there covering 10 bucks worth of value…

So I’ll tell you this: when I hear talk of “tax reform” I know my world is about to get rougher (and more expensive) because I know that the more rich people are allowed to hoard, the less there’s going to be for everyone else…

If you like what you read when I write, you don’t have to wait for the hit-and-miss of Facebook to see these musings.  You can come directly to my website at MyBaconPress.com.  Even better, you can come to MyBaconPress.com and click on the little button at the bottom of the page.  A form will pop up asking for your email address.  (It looks like they want you to “join” but there’s nothing to join and it’s free.)  From then on, The Bacon Press will be delivered directly to your inbox.  You can even comment from there…

Equifax, the credit reporting agency that tells lenders whether or not you’re dependable enough to receive a loan, has been breached in a data hack.  Yeah, modern times, these things happen.  Well, except these defenders of accountability were hacked in…May.  The company finally realized it in July – the 29th to be exact – and promptly made the announcement of same in August.  But in the meantime, three executives sold off a bunch of stock.

“Oh,” the company assures us, “those executives had NO IDEA the company was about to experience a downturn in stock prices associated with the revelation of the hacking because they didn’t know about the hacking.”  Really?  One of those executives was the Chief Financial Officer, John Gamble.  I’m supposed to believe the CFO wasn’t informed of events within the company that were definitely going to have such a significant impact on the financial operations of the company going forward?

Not buying.

“Well, then, er…um…okay, but it was only a million dollars worth of stock the guy sold.  Why,” asks the company, “would he sell off such a small chunk of his Equifax holdings if it was insider trading?”  Well, could it be because it was an unscheduled sale?  (It could.)

I think we should let Martha Stewart be the final arbiter of the deal.

Speaking of arbiters, Equifax is offering credit monitoring for a whole year!  You’re just supposed to forget the fact that the hackers have your vital information for…EVER!  Oh, and if you accept the “free” monitoring, the fine print includes an “agreement” from you that you won’t sue or join a class-action suit.  Nice…

Well, the preseason is underway.  Soon the regular season kicks off.  And, here I sit, unable to work up any real interest.  I’ve been a football fan for as long as I can remember.  My first favorite Quarterback to Receiver tandem was Roman Gabriel to Jack Snow, so…there’s a reference.  (Some people know, some are like, “who?”)

Truthfully, I don’t give a rat’s tail about Colin Kaepernick’s “protest.”  Well, no, that’s not right.  I don’t object to the protest.  In fact, I’d say he has a point.  I’m not going to boycott the game because some players think bad cops shouldn’t murder people.  I wish I was more surprised that so many of my fellow Americans think Kaepernick is out of line.

As I’ve indicated in the Gabriel-to-Snow reference, I’ve been watching a LONG time.  I don’t object to changes to the game, either, so long as the changes in question are for the better.  I know, who gets to decide what qualifies as “better?”  In this case, me…because this piece is about how the NFL is losing (has lost?) me…

I don’t mean to go all, ‘you kids get off my lawn’ or ‘back in my day’ on you.  I don’t hate the game.  In fact, I really like the change to the PAT and overtime rules.  I expect to watch games this season.  I feel certain I’ll watch the playoffs and their stupid “Big Game”.  (Apparently, the NFL sues anybody who makes reference to the Supr Bwl without paying the fee…)  To quote Hamlet, “…ay, there’s the rub.”  The money.  I’m of the opinion that, as is so often the case, the pursuit of the almighty dollar has damaged the overall product – in my case, to the point where I’m just not as interested in consuming that product.

If you want to watch a football game on television, you need to expect to give up three and a half hours.  According to the clock, football is played for sixty timed minutes.  With normal stoppages (timeouts, reviews, injuries, etc.) I could see two hours being consumed strictly with football-related events.  So that leaves an hour and a half…for commercials!

Every year, the NFL announces rule changes, insisting the idea is to “shorten the game” or speed it up, depending.  But it keeps being three and a half hours.  So, if they’re speeding up the game but I’m still dedicating three and a half hours, what’s changing?  More commercials.  I know, corporations have to make money.  The product cost has to be covered.  But you know what?  I don’t watch football to find out which beer I should be drinking or which truck I should be driving.  I watch for the game.

Sixty minutes of game time.  One hundred and fifty minutes of NOT game time.  That’s only 29% of the time dedicated to ONE game that’s actual game.  That’s a pretty massive waste of time.  It was bad enough when it was contained to Sundays and Monday night but then the NFL – ever mindful of yet another dollar – added Thursdays to the mix, as well.

I HATE Thursday Night Football.  It invades my space.  Worse, it ruined fantasy football for me, as well.  I can’t really explain this without you understanding how fantasy football works and either you know or you REALLY don’t care so just suffice to say that it forces you to make decisions you shouldn’t yet have to make on players who really should have a full week to recover but don’t get it because…well, the NFL needs more money…

And, oh, yeah, the players.  No one needs to explain to me about the player’s career being so short or the dangers of the game.  I know.  I get it.  But when I loved football, I LOVED my team.  “My team” was the players, not the uniforms.  “My team” was the philosophy one team would use to beat another team.  There was a time in the NFL when trades didn’t happen as often and WHEN a player moved from one team to another, they couldn’t – couldn’t – take the field right away because they had to learn the playbook and language of their new team.

These days, playbooks have been so standardized, I genuinely believe a player could play for his old team on Sunday morning, get on a plane, and play for their new team the next day, on Monday Night Football.  This happened because players wanted their cut of the pie, too.  I don’t blame them.  They ARE the product.  A football game is a damn boring three and a half hours without players.  But it means there are no teams anymore.  I mean, sure, there are team names and team colors…team statistics and team outcomes.  But the “team” is the group of players who play – individual strengths and weaknesses and how they fit into the whole…

I still admire the athleticism that goes into the game but I’ll tell you this: I want to root for a team, not the laundry.  The NFL only wants the money.  The corporate headquarters constantly works to maximize profits for the league and the players association has maximized profits for the players but, in the process, they’ve turned it into a bad deal for the consumer…

Well, the creature is unhappy with his creator.  By which I mean Steve Bannon is out of the White House and fallen from grace.  Like most people who aren’t racists, I’m pretty happy about it…made my day, in fact.  Apparently, it didn’t make Steve’s day.  It’s going to cause friction.  (Maybe we could call it ‘The War Between the White Supremacists.’)

Steve Bannon was pretty proud of the fact that he had used Breitbart to deceive the minions of the conservative bubble into believing that Donald Trump was more than Donald Trump has ever been.  It took Bannon’s help to get Trump elected through the use of what are called “editorial decisions.”

Editorial decisions are simply decisions editors make regarding what gets reported (and how) and what doesn’t.  Conservatives are all aware of editorial decisions.  They all know that editorial decisions happen in what they call the mainstream media, or MSM.  As a group, though, they remain blissfully unaware that editorial decisions happen inside the conservative bubble as well as the reviled MSM.

Worse, bubble-dwelling conservatives have been conditioned to simply accept as axiomatic that in case of any discrepancy between information they receive from the bubble and information presented by the MSM, the bubble is always correct and the MSM is always “fake news.”  We see it all the time from bubble-dwellers.  “Why won’t the MSM report this?” they implore.  Um, because it’s bullshit…but they genuinely don’t know it.

It’s not entirely their fault.  They’ve been told that by sticking to the bubble they’re receiving information which nobody else in the world knows because, secretly, they’re the smart ones so only THEY get to be in the club.  People LIKE clubs.  They LIKE belonging to something.  Clubs need rituals, of course, to reinforce the feeling of being “in” and, in this case, the ritual is as simple as logging in on a computer, although trolling bubble outsiders seems very important to the process as well…

Remember Frankenstein?  The book, not the movies.  Dr. Frankenstein creates a creature.  The Creature (for reasons that have nothing to do with this simplistic analogy so I’m going to just slide past them) turns on the doctor and destroys everything the doctor ever loved.  So, Dr. Frankenstein hunts the Creature across the planet and (spoiler alert!) they kill each other.  Playing the part of Dr. Frankenstein, in this case is one Steve Bannon.  The Creature, obviously, is Donald Trump.

Bannon owns Breitbart.com, one of the flagships of conservative “thought.”  Bannon “created” Trump in conservative circles by making editorial decisions that made Trump look like a strong, powerful, decisive and even competent leader.  (The bubble dwellers don’t know this.  They think they were just getting the actual news – BECAUSE it conflicted with what they heard in the MSM, see?)  So, what happens now that pissed-off-Steve – who still owns Breitbart – starts making OTHER “editorial decisions?”

Is Breitbart suddenly going to get on-board with the Russia investigations?  “OMG, Breitbart just learned…”  I don’t know, for sure.  But I’ll tell you this: I’m pretty sure Bannon is going to start eroding Trump’s base – in the same way strip-miners “erode” a hillside – and I have to confess: I’m looking forward to watching Creature and creator destroy each other…