The Boston Globe this morning published a story that at first doesn't sound like a very big deal, but could turn out to be an explosive issue in this campaign: It would appear that Mitt Romney lied on his résumé. Here's the first two paragraphs:
Government documents filed by Mitt Romney and Bain Capital say Romney remained chief executive and chairman of the firm three years beyond the date he said he ceded control, even creating five new investment partnerships during that time.
Romney has said he left Bain in 1999 to lead the winter Olympics in Salt Lake City, ending his role in the company. But public Securities and Exchange Commission documents filed later by Bain Capital state he remained the firm’s “sole stockholder, chairman of the board, chief executive officer, and president.”
(But you should read the whole thing.) This is kind of a checkmate situation for Romney. The Romney campaign has been denying his involvement with several of Bain's most egregious layoffs and outsourcings by saying Romney wasn't employed at Bain at the time. But if this Boston Globe story is true, this means that either Bain committed fraud by advertising Romney's involvement when he wasn't really involved, or Romney was lying to wiggle out of his involvement with several of Bain's dirtiest deals.
So which is it? This is important. Politico's Dylan Byers points out that it gets even more serious:
Earlier this month, FactCheck.org stated that if Mitt Romney had not left Bain Capital in 1999, he "would be guilty of a federal felony by certifying on federal financial disclosure forms that he left active management of Bain Capital in February 1999."
The Romney campaign will try to obfuscate the story, but this could turn out to be a big fucking deal.
1
2
5
7
Dickens wants his readers to be careful that the same revolution that so damaged France will not happen in Britain, which (at least at the beginning of the book) is shown to be nearly as unjust as France. But his warning is addressed not to the British lower classes, but to the aristocracy. He repeatedly uses the metaphor of sowing and reaping; if the aristocracy continues to plant the seeds of a revolution through behaving unjustly, they can be certain of harvesting that revolution in time. The lower classes do not have any agency in this metaphor: they simply react to the behaviour of the aristocracy. In this sense it can be said that while Dickens sympathises with the poor, he identifies with the rich: they are the book's audience, its "us" and not its "them." "Crush humanity out of shape once more, under similar hammers, and it will twist itself into the same tortured forms. Sow the same seed of rapacious licence and oppression over again, and it will surely yield the same fruit according to its kind."
With the people starving and begging the Marquis for food; his uncharitable response is to let the people eat grass; the people are left with nothing but onions to eat and are forced to starve while the nobles are living lavishly upon the people's backs. Every time the nobles refer to the life of the peasants it is only to destroy or humiliate the poor.
8
15
16
17
20
21
22
24
25
29
30
32
33
34
Comments (37) RSS