the yip blog

2011-03-31T12:14:00.000-07:00

My letter to Derek Thompson at the Atlantic Magazine

2011-01-06T09:18:00.000-08:00

Dear Derek,

While I of course understand that it is not the Atlantic's job to help avert disaster, I know I can always go to you for excellent post-disaster analysis of where we all went wrong! In that spirit, I anxiously await your December 2012 post entitled,

"The Oil Supply Warning Signs Everyone Missed"

by Derek Thompson

"In 2010, while America was preoccupied with a contentious mid-term election and the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis, several respected institutions issued warnings of an approaching oil supply crunch, what is now widely seen as the onset of Peak Oil. In retrospect, the story of overlooked warnings and missed evidence is eerily similar to the run-up of the Iraq War and the 2008 housing/debt bubble. In each case warnings came from several of America's and Britain's most respected institutions, yet fell on the deaf ears of a mainstream media that continued to rely on optimistic predictions of well-connected experts. Now the public is rallying behind President-elect Palin's call to ban the "lamestream media" because "their repeated failures have shown how completely f-ing useless they are."

The first missed warning came in April 2010 from the US Military's top brass. In their yearly "Joint Operating Environment" report, they warned of a "Peak Oil" situation by 2012, where oil production figures would not be able to keep up with demand , with severe oil shortages crippling the American economy by 2015. Amazingly, only one major newspaper, the Miami Herald, reported on the military's warning. http://www.miamiherald.com/201...

The second and third warnings came from Britain in the summer of 2010, where a group of British industrialists led by Richard Branson issued a similar timeline for Peak Oil. Meanwhile, Lloyds of London warned that the "just-in-time delivery model" of retailers like Wal-Mart was in danger of failing, and that businesses who failed to adapt to an oil supply crunch were in severe danger. However, even as key members of government and business clearly saw the danger, in 2010 most still looked on peak oil as a crackpot theory . The public was completely uninformed, and continued purchasing large numbers of SUVs throughout 2011, looking at cheap oil as a birthright.

Today, the main political question is whether President Plain will receive the blame for the long gas lines and ruined financial landscape that is expected in 2013, or whether voters will blame her predecessor Obama, whose reelection was doomed by voter anger over high gas prices and his inability to fix the situation."

Warning. Warning. Imperial Information Feeback System Failure.

2011-01-06T08:21:00.000-08:00

I give the Atlantic credit for at least mentioning that "oil supplies are not keeping up" which is an improvement over the normal MSM spin, but what remains unsaid is:

Oil supplies have been flat sent 2005. I repeat, oil supplies have been flat since 2005! Thats 6 years!!

Why? That is the million dollar question. Of course, luckily only craaaaaazzy people would say its because we are on the bumpy plateau before peak oil. Americans, please go about your business as usual. Do not read such websites as the Oil Drum, they will only induce heart burn and related anxiety disorders.

Watching the MSM sllloooowwwwlllllyyyy wake up to peak oil is going to be great fun over the next year or two. Our society seems to be incapable of seeing major f---- ups before they happen. The Iraq War. The housing/debt bubble. And now the oil supply crunch. The evidence was easy to see for each one of these beforehand, but there is something seriously amiss in the information feedback systems of the Empire.

What's Up With Oil Supply? The Unasked Question

2011-01-05T12:47:00.000-08:00

It is incredible how lackadaisically the mainstream has accepted the permanence of +90 a barrel oil. Something that was unthinkable in 2004, when oil was at $25 a barrel and projected to stay that way for decades to come, is now easily explained away. “Global oil demand is slowly rising as the U.S. and other major economies recover,” says Jerry Dicolo in the Wall Street Journal. Dicolo appear to forget that from 1990 to 2004 global oil demand rose just as fast as it is now, and yet oil prices held steady under $25 a barrel year after year after year. The question “I wonder what’s different now?” does not seem to occur to him.

There is a mental block that seems to prevent the understanding that oil production has been flat since 2005, and that thus a supply problem, not a rising demand problem, might be the reason why oil prices are flirting with triple digits. So the real question is: why is there a mass societal avoidance of recognizing our oil supply problem? Why can't Dicolo and all the others mention this simple fact?

Interview with Anthony Bourdain

2009-01-26T15:53:00.000-08:00

is...............here. I know that some, the Sensation included, are fans:

Q: What differences do you encounter when planning a show at a domestic versus an international location? How do you scout them out?

A: There was a basic change in perspective that happened, looking at a place outside of New York with the same approach I give to foreign countries. Very early on, I was a snob about where we went. The Vietnamese could do no wrong, and I tended to look down upon or sneer at Middle America and the South and Southwest. That's changed a lot for me over time. I eventually started cutting people in the States the same slack that I do for people who believe very different things on the other side of the world. But generally what gets us to a place is we get hooked into a visual or film cue.

Snowbama

2009-01-20T17:50:00.001-08:00

Today, I awoke to a bit of an Election Day miracle. I had been told by my boss,

"Tim, I can't afford to let you take off any Mondays or Tuesdays cause Scott can't cook and it gets busy we're fucked."

So, even though I really wanted to be able to take the day off it wasn't viable financially or responsibly.

Well, this morning as I awoke to white flakes of freedom falling from the beautiful spacious skies; a text message from the heavens proclaimed that there would be no lunch at Wormwoods. So, today I was able to just sit at home and drink coffee and watch CNN to see the live footage.

One thing that I really enjoyed reading today was what will the Bush legacy be. Will history be kind to W. or will we always see him in the manner that we have seen him for the last 6-8 years.

Well, personally today I have found myself being very generous in conversations about Bush. I almost felt that if I were to be inaugurated, which by the way is in many ways funny so go ahead and laugh, I can't think of a better guy to receive the Presidency from.

I guess we must just let bye-gones be bye-gones.

Locked out

2009-01-17T12:43:00.000-08:00

Have now been locked out of the house for almost 24 hours.......

I think the universe is conspiring against me.......very suspicious........

Great paragraphs from Wikipedia

2008-12-28T21:00:00.000-08:00

"Adams made pets of several grizzlies and often wrestled with them. His most delinquent grizzly, named General Fremont (for John C. Fremont), during a playful wrestling match, struck Adams in the head, cracking it like an eggshell. The wound healed, only to be reopened by the "General". Although never fatal, by the fourth time the General severely injured James Adams' head, it left his brain exposed."

F U Penguin

2008-12-19T15:31:00.001-08:00

If you have ever wanted to see people vent their frustration, jealousy, and annoyance at cute animals, you will want to see this website. A sample of their fine work:

Oh, I get it, Kangaroo. You're just hanging out, right? I bet if I asked you what you were doing, you would probably say you were "chillaxin'" or something. You probably think you look pretty cool, but I know better, Kangaroo, because YOU ARE AS A HIGH AS A KITE RIGHT NOW.

Kangaroo, did you ever stop to think about the kids? Do you ever think about anyone other than yourself, and perhaps Mallomars? No, you fucking don't. So fuck you, Kangaroo. You ought to be ashamed of yourself.

The Demon Weed

2008-12-09T17:29:00.000-08:00

This is so bad arse.

To sum up, they baited the police and caught them using illegal cameras to look for pot grow lights, when all they were actually growing were baby christmas trees. The police department financing scheme, ur, "drug war" drags on. Read Balko for more.

MoneyHole

2008-12-03T10:32:00.000-08:00

I love the old black lady.

In The Know: Should The Government Stop Dumping Money Into A Giant Hole?

Bi-pedal Life

2008-12-03T01:29:00.001-08:00

In my search for the awesomest place to live, I came across a website called Walkscore that rates neighborhoods and individual addresses by their walkability. They take into account an address's distance to all sorts of things: stores, schools, parks etc. and gives points when they are closer than 1 mile. It's lovely to look at the rankings of the top 40 most populated cities... look at the map of San Fran, then look at Jacksonville FL. How will it survive?

An Uneasy Feeling

2008-12-01T19:24:00.000-08:00

More than one might expect from a terrorist organization based in remote caves, over the years Al-Queda has shown remarkable sophistication at understanding and influencing American politics. Think back to the famous videotape released by Bin Laden before the 2004 election, which the CIA determined was meant to help Bush win re-election. Along those lines, what will be Bin Laden's reaction as he confronts the fact that America has elected a president named Barack Hussein Obama?

Bin Laden's first thought was probably something along the lines of "well played, sir." In one fell swoop, America has created a powerful propaganda tool to counter Islamic Fundamentalism in the Middle East. As Fareed Zakaria, editor of Newsweek, notes:

President-elect Obama has powers of his own, too. I will not exaggerate the importance of a single personality, but Obama has become a global symbol like none I can recall in my lifetime. Were he to go to Tehran, for example, he would probably draw a crowd of millions, far larger than any mullah could dream of.

Imagine that! Bin Laden must be more than a little jealous right now. He must be thinking, "what can I do to knock this popular newcomer off his pedestal and get back to that whole 'clash of civilizations' paradigm that was working so well for me?"

The answer is easy enough to guess: a terrorist attack on American soil. An attack would hurt Obama politically at home. It would make conservatives whisper that the new liberal president is too weak to defend America, after all Bush stopped the attacks after 9/11. It would force Obama to counter-attack somewhere in the Middle East, reducing his popularity among Muslims. It would also put another shock in the already comatose American economy.

If I were a more well-known pundit or politician, this would be too dangerous an idea to bring up. But I'd be willing to bet that this is a major unspoken worry of all the top people right now, which added even more impetus for Obama to choose experienced, competent folks for national security even if he clashes with them ideologically from time to time. This is a moment of both possibility and peril-- lets hope the American people stand together and refuse to make the same mistakes made after 9/11 if something awful happens.

Okkervil River

2008-12-01T18:19:00.000-08:00

Probably some of the best lyrics ever, says something deeply profound about human relationships.....(listen to the song here)

A Stone

Hot breath, rough skin, warm laughs and smiling,
the loveliest words whispered and meant -
you like all these things.

But, though you like all these things,
you love a stone.
You love a stone, because it’s smooth and it’s cold.
And you’d love most to be told that it’s all your own.

You love white veins, you love hard grey,
the heaviest weight, the clumsiest shape,
the earthiest smell, the hollowest tone -
you love a stone.

And I’m found too fast, called too fond of flames,
and then I’m phoning my friends,
and then I’m shouldering the blame,
while you’re picking pebbles out of the drain, miles ago.

You’re out singing songs,
and I’m down shouting names at the flickerless screen,
going fucking insane.
Am I losing my cool, overstating my case?
Well, baby, what can I say?

You know I never claimed that I was a stone.
And you love a stone.
You love white veins, you love hard grey,
the heaviest weight, the clumsiest shape,
the earthiest smell, the hollowest tone -
you love a stone.

You love a stone, because it’s dark, and it’s old,
and if it could start being alive you’d stop living alone.

And I think I believe that, if stones could dream,
they’d dream of being laid side-by-side, piece-by-piece,
and turned into a castle for some towering queen
they’re unable to know.

And when that queen’s daughter came of age,
I think she’d be lovely and stubborn and brave,
and suitors would journey from kingdoms away
to make themselves known.

And I think that I know the bitter dismay
of a lover who brought fresh bouquets every day
when she turned him away
to remember some knave
who once gave just one rose, one day, years ago...

The Vital Center

2008-12-01T18:16:00.000-08:00

To add to the Chronicler's post on the vital center , this is a great piece by Matt Taibbi of Rolling Stone. I just finished reading a book by Taibbi called The Great Derangement, where he infiltrates various American subcultures and reveals their tenuous grasp on reality-- Pastor John Hagee's fundamentalist christian church; the military; the 9/11 "truth" movement; and Congress itself. His thesis was that as America split further and further apart into various conspiracy theories and religious fantasies, the real threats to our nation--corporate control of government, idiotic wars, energy policy--were being ignored at our nation's peril.

So I was surprised to hear Taibbi sounding upbeat in his latest column, something he does not do once in his 300 page book (published in 2007, before the election). He makes some great points:

Like millions of Americans, I watched Barack Obama's victory on Election Night in a state of amazement.... Of all the problems facing this country by the end of the Bush years, the biggest is the absence of a unifying national idea. Since the end of the Cold War, America has been grasping left and right for an identity. We tried being a "world policeman" in Somalia, which didn't work so well. We tried retaining our Cold War outlook by simply replacing communists with terrorists. We created two bubble economies that blew up in our faces, and headed into 2008 a struggling capitalist state with a massive trade deficit and an overtaxed military that suddenly had to ask itself: For the supposed world leader in the community of nations, what exactly is it that we're still good at? Who are we, and what do we represent to the peoples of the Earth here and now — not in 1775 Concord, or 1945 Paris, or 1969, from the surface of the moon?

When Obama took the stage in Grant Park as president-elect, that question was answered. We pulled off an amazing thing here, delivering on our society's most ancient promises, in front of a world that still largely thought of us as the home of Bull Connor's fire hose. This dumbed-down, degraded election process of ours has, in spite of itself and to my own extreme astonishment, brilliantly re-energized the American experiment and restored legitimacy to our status as the world's living symbol of individual freedom. We feel like ourselves again, and the floundering economy and our two stagnating wars now seem like mere logistical problems that will be overcome sooner or later, instead of horrifying symptoms of inevitable empire-decline.

In other words, the momentum has been taken away from the fringes and returned to the pragmatic, forward-thinking center. I might add that my own family has been a microcosm of this evolution. Before Obama came along, one voted for Bush, one was an eclectic libertarian, and a couple were not really that interested in politics. And somehow Obama got us all pulling, and literally working, in the same direction. Not that the Lindquist's are representative of the world, but......its not a bad start.

Which do I choose?

2008-11-19T11:05:00.000-08:00

Beards and Moustaches

I'm thinking third row to the right, six rows down. How distinguished!

A glimpse into what we were against

2008-11-05T20:12:00.000-08:00

Scary. So scary.

The new patriotism

2008-11-05T00:07:00.000-08:00

I just heard on CNN, Spike Lee say that "President Obama could only happen on one country in the world....America". Who thought patriotism could ever be cool again?

The value of this event will not be measurable in GDP, or interest rates, or the DOW Jones Industrial Average. But I know, I know, it will be worth more than any number any economist or any pundit can muster.

Politics is history in the present tense. Thats what a CNNian just said. Thats why I'm still sitting up at 1 am mountain time after being up for almost 24 straight hours, typing on a keyboard to remember what it felt like.

It happened, it actually happened

2008-11-04T23:30:00.000-08:00

If I may speak for my generation, I may say that Barack Obama has saved us from apathy. He has saved us from not believing. He has saved us from the cold realizaiton that nothing we do matters. He has saved us from the night a couple of years ago, when I was struck by a group of my peers sitting around a campfire saying that neither political party had a shred of difference between them.

And this is all essential to saving America. If the smartest, savviest, most practical, most educated generation of all time gave up on America, what hope would be left for the world? If my friends, if my family, if my generation had given up on a united purpose, a call to public service, a belief in making this world just a little better than we had found it, what hope would be left? If we are all in this together, this global stew of races and ages and religions, who would lead it if not America? Who would lead it if not Barack Obama?

If Barack Obama has inspired us all to be poets, and to shed a tear on behalf of a world we had given up on in the past, has he through that alone already accomplished his purpose? Or is it just the beginning of what we must accomplish, if we are to leave the world better than we have found it?

Optimistically nauseous

2008-11-04T14:49:00.000-08:00

Thats how one Obama aide described the feeling right now.

Bill O'Reilly: Bastion of Sanity

2008-11-02T15:38:00.001-08:00

Sounds crazy I know. I was flipping around the AM dial and landed on his show. He took the first caller whose question was: "How long do you think before Obama tries to kick you and other conservatives off the radio and TV?"

Bill responded with derision: "If you think Obama is a muslim, or faked his birth certificate, or will try and kick conservatives off the air, you are crazy. He is a practical politician, and he knows the courts would never allow it."

The second caller was pissed at O'Reilly: "You know, there are a lot of us out here who think you have been an apologist for Obama these past few months."

Bill was even more pissed: "nobody who has interviewed Obama has asked him tougher questions than I did. But I am going to be fair to the guy." Or something like that.

Amazingly enough, in the coming conservative civil war, O'Reilly has chosen the side of sanity.

dangrously addictive

2008-10-28T18:35:00.000-07:00

This link has somewhat taken over my thoughts. I have

become like a 13 year old with his new video game. Play with

the create your own map and it's like you are a CNN analyst.

God and the Constitution

2008-10-26T01:10:00.000-07:00

Linking button is still not working, but I had a thought in response to the claim on the Chronicler's blog that the Constitution was founded on Biblical principles. Could somebody point out to me where in the Bible the principles of the Constitution are located? Did King David write a psalm about the importance of separation of powers and freedom of the press? Did Paul take time out in his letter to the Thessalonians to discuss checks and balances or to set up an early christian electoral college and democracy?

Pardon my fascetiousness, but I would be interested in how someone who believes in a Biblical constitution would answer that question. Democratic governemnt was, In a very broad sense, a product of Judeo-christian thought. But most accurately the Constitution was a product of the Enlightenment and Western thought. I don't see a direct link to anything that is discussed in the Bible.

conservatism, again

2008-10-26T00:44:00.000-07:00

The Chronicler takes another look at the direction of conservatism discussing EJ Dionne's article (my linking button is not working for some reason, sorry), which gives me a chance to come back to our earlier discussion on the subject. The Chronicler saw close up for fifteen years the healthy side of conservatism, and I agree that it was a strong pillar of thought. But after mulling it over for a while, what I think I was trying to get at is that the difficulty conservatism has faced, and will face, is that it is an intellectual movement on top of a base that does not value intellectualism. That was what I was trying to get at in our earlier exchange.

American conservatism will always face this internal contradiction. Like a birthday cake, an outer layer of conservative thought will always surround a much larger "conservative gut" that will always be essential for the movement's electoral success. These people have no idea who Kirk, or Buckley, or Strauss is. And they couldn't care less, although they share many of the same values and ideas. But the key point is that this conservative gut will go places that the conservative brain will not go, and have the numbers to carry the movement in that direction. This is why conservatism inevitably devolves to Bush and Palin. The urge to prevent change from happening, that visceral style of tribal politics that I identified as the core of conservatism eventually overwhelms a principled, thoughtful conservatism through sheer force of numbers.

So that is why when I hear the Andrew Sullivans and the Chroniclers of the world claim that "true" conservatism is being overrun, I am skeptical that they have ownership over what conservatism is when they are, alas, so outnumbered. And they always will be unless sales of Buckley start to rival Limbaugh's ratings.

Flash-In-The-Pan

2008-10-24T04:44:00.000-07:00

The Caretaker speculates below on who might win Republican nomination in 2012.

I think in this environment, with the Republican Party about to collapse and burn, and the Conservative movement beginning to form a circular firing squad, it is simply impossible to foresee who will emerge to lead the 'new and improved' Republican party. It's probaby somebody that hasn't even showed up on the political radar yet.

My gut level is that while Sarah Palin will not disappear, she is still the equivalent of a flash in the pan. Too much superficiality (even her voice is annoying) and not enough substance to go very far beyond Alaska.

"the seventh seal is broken"

2008-10-23T19:32:00.000-07:00

Email from a republican consultant focus grouping negative Obama ads that I mentioned last week:

Reagan Dems and Independents. Call them blue-collar plus. Slightly more Target than Walmart.

Yes, the spot worked. Yes, they believed the charges against Obama. Yes, they actually think he's too liberal, consorts with bad people and WON'T BE A GOOD PRESIDENT...but they STILL don't give a f***. They said right out, "He won't do anything better than McCain" but they're STILL voting for Obama.

The two most unreal moments of my professional life of watching focus groups:

54 year-old white male, voted Kerry '04, Bush '00, Dole '96, hunter, NASCAR fan...hard for Obama said: "I'm gonna hate him the minute I vote for him. He's gonna be a bad president. But I won't ever vote for another god-damn Republican. I want the government to take over all of Wall Street and bankers and the car companies and Wal-Mart run this county like we used to when Reagan was President."

The next was a woman, late 50s, Democrat but strongly pro-life. Loved B. and H. Clinton, loved Bush in 2000. "Well, I don't know much about this terrorist group Barack used to be in with that Weather guy but I'm sick of paying for health insurance at work and that's why I'm supporting Barack."

I felt like I was taking crazy pills. I sat on the other side of the glass and realized...this really is the Apocalypse. The Seventh Seal is broken and its time for eight years of pure, delicious crazy....

Baseless Speculation: Palin in 2012 edition

2008-10-23T18:47:00.000-07:00

Just because it will be fun to look back and see how wrong I was:

The question going around the blogs right now is, assuming an Obama win, how do things go for Palin in 2012?

Palin has got a large group of base supporters if she wants them. But enough to win the GOP nomination? I don't think so. And this is why: I continue to believe that the next republican primaries will be heavily influenced by who was for and who was against the $700 billion bailout. McCain's last chance to steal this election was to come out against the bailout. It would have differentiated him from Obama AND Bush. But he didn't do it, and it will cost him. I saw a recent poll that said that 50% of Montanans are still against the bailout, with only 22% in favor of it. I would expect this is a common figure throughout the country.

This is why the bailout is key: after Obama and the Dems take over and the economy continues to sink the GOP will start to blame the crappy economy on government intervention. Nobody will believe them (at least for a while), but its the only card they know how to play. The bailout battle has been somewhat forgotten in the heat of the election, but I predict it will come back as the true litmus test for conservatives. Who was for it, and who was against it?

Unfortunately for her, Palin is tied directly to McCain and the bailout. Don't know how she gets out of that one.

Huckabee was pretty vocally against the bailout.

Romney, was for the bailout (he's a wall street kind of guy).

So I see the 2012 primaries shaking out this way: Palin is strong among the Limbaugh and "Obama is a Muslim" crowd. They will never vote for Huckabee because he is not a pure free marketeer nor willing to sound like a racist. That's still not enough for Palin to win though.

Romney takes the economic conservative/social liberal people and the wall street-money people.

And Huckabee rails against the bailout and big government while still offering his trademark compassionate message, and at the same time stealing southern evangelicals and joe six packs away from Palin.

Who wins out of all of this?

I think it would be close. But I'd put Huckabee at the top of the heat narrowly.

young'uns

2008-10-23T18:05:00.000-07:00

This excellent discussion at Salon gets at the good side of our current youth generation, something I've thought about alot: we are liberal, but practical:

In the '60s and '70s, a lot of it was all about idealism. I think what we have today, in addition to all those wonderful demographics we heard about, these kids are very practical. Very pragmatic. This isn't about, be all good and all be altruistic and if we all make sacrifices, everything in the world will be fine in two weeks. This is a very practical, pragmatic group that understands, it's hopeful pragmatism, if you will, and that requires taking some action.

The night before christmas

2008-10-23T17:54:00.000-07:00

A commenter at TPM describes how Democrats feel right about now:

It's like it's almost Christmas, and it looks like there's a new bike wrapped up under the tree.

But my abusive parents have given me boxes of shit on the last two Christmases. So, emotionally crippled, I can't help but suspect that it's a bike made of shit.

Hilarious.

Obama's last two years in pictures

2008-10-23T17:36:00.000-07:00

The caption reads: These two boys waited as a long line of adults greeted Senator Obama before a rally on Martin Luther King Day in Columbia, S.C. They never took their eyes off of him. Their grandmother told me, "Our young men have waited a long time to have someone to look up to, to make them believe Dr. King's words can be true for them." Jan. 21, 2008.

Me again: This is one of the things that I truly get teary eyed over sometimes. Thinking of the black kids I've worked with in schools, and what it will mean for them to have Obama to look up to, what it will mean for the country.

Caption reads: I loved that he cleaned up after himself before leaving an ice cream shop in Wapello, Iowa. He didn't have to. The event was over and the press had left. He is used to taking care of things himself and I think this is one of the qualities that makes Obama different from so many other political candidates I've encountered. Nov. 7, 2007.

Prediction time

2008-10-23T17:23:00.000-07:00

Ok throw them out. Winner gets king or queen for a day at Topsail next year. Here's mine:

Obama wins by 11.
353 electoral votes.
Senate gets 59 Dems.

Thank God he gets it

2008-10-23T17:17:00.001-07:00

A great interview with Obama by Joe Klein of Time Magazine. I'm happy enough to pee my pants to hear the following riff on energy:

I was just reading an article in the New York Times by Michael Pollen about food and the fact that our entire agricultural system is built on cheap oil. As a consequence, our agriculture sector actually is contributing more greenhouse gases than our transportation sector. And in the mean time, it's creating monocultures that are vulnerable to national security threats, are now vulnerable to sky-high food prices or crashes in food prices, huge swings in commodity prices, and are partly responsible for the explosion in our healthcare costs because they're contributing to type 2 diabetes, stroke and heart disease, obesity, all the things that are driving our huge explosion in healthcare costs. That's just one sector of the economy. You think about the same thing is true on transportation. The same thing is true on how we construct our buildings. The same is true across the board.For us to say we are just going to completely revamp how we use energy in a way that deals with climate change, deals with national security and drives our economy, that's going to be my number one priority when I get into office, assuming, obviously, that we have done enough to just stabilize the immediate economic situation.

Energy: its the one ring to rule them all.......

Changing our perceptions

2008-10-23T09:55:00.000-07:00

I thought this was a pleasant part of Kristof's commentary on Obama and the US. It's a conversation with a friend in Beijing.

She: Obama? But he’s the black man, isn’t he?

Me: Yes, exactly.

She: But surely a black man couldn’t become president of the United States?

Me: It looks as if he’ll be elected.

She: But president? That’s such an important job! In America, I thought blacks were janitors and laborers.

Me: No, blacks have all kinds of jobs.

She: What do white people think about that, about getting a black president? Are they upset? Are they angry?

Me: No, of course not! If Obama is elected, it’ll be because white people voted for him.

[Long pause.]

She: Really? Unbelievable! What an amazing country!

It'd be nice to think of ourselves that way again.

Bravery and Generosity Is What We Will Need

2008-10-20T19:58:00.000-07:00

James Howard Kunstler, the peak oil dystopian, makes his endorsement:

I'm voting for Mr. Obama. While I believe he will make a much better president than the addled old mad dog Mr. McCain has become, I feel sorry for anyone who is placed nominally "in charge" of things this coming year. The best a President Obama can do is offer some reassurance to a public that is totally unprepared for the convulsion now upon us. Mr. Obama will certainly not have "money" to "spend" on any of the promised social support programs that have been endlessly debated. But he could clearly articulate the reality we're facing, and ask not necessarily for "sacrifice," as the common plea goes, but for something more and better: for bravery and resolute spirit, for intelligence and resilience, for kindness and generosity -- among a people long unused to consorting with the better angels of their nature. He's already begun to set the example by appearing in public with his sleeves rolled up. The change that has been in the air all year -- that Mr. Obama has talked so much about -- is coming in a bigger dose than anyone expected. I hope we're ready to get with the program.

Turning the Tables

2008-10-20T18:57:00.000-07:00

I loved how today Obama put in his speech how McCain's robocalls are even "below the standards of negative campaigning of Governor Palin, which isn't easy to do" or something like that.

Taking the initiative like this does a couple of things: it gets the media's attention and shows Obama playing offense; it focuses the media on the robocalls and negative campaigning of McCain in a catchy way; every minute the media shows that clip it is not talking about Ayers or any of the things McCain wants to talk about.

In 04 and 00, I do not remember Gore or Kerry being this good at driving the media narrative. It always was the Republicans attacking and the Democrats defending. But when you hear Obama talk or you watch Keith Olbermann or Roland Martin lay into McCain and Palin, there is a confidence and aggressiveness that is heartening to see. Another good one was when Obama's adviser Robert Gibbs went on Hannity and just totally turned the tables on him by bringing up his past anti-semitic guests. He was totally calm and unflappable. Obama seems to have lent the entire liberal movement his sense of easy confidence and smart aggressiveness.

Why Not All States?

2008-10-17T23:11:00.000-07:00

I am so impressed with the North Carolina voting system. It truly exceeds all

expectations. It is great to be able to inform people that haven't even registered

to vote that they can on up until nov. 1. I don't understand why more states

don't fall in line with this system.

p.s. I do not know why my paragraph structure is so messed up.

Even Osama Couldn't Derail Obama Now

2008-10-16T04:55:00.000-07:00

A poll last night showed that 67% of Americans did not want another debate. That's interesting. They've made up their minds. Even a terrorist attack couldn't turn this thing in McCain's favor, because Obama has shown himself to be the steady hand and the calm, soothing, reassuring presence. I think it's going to be a landslide, if all the youth and blacks get out to vote like they're supposed to. It could be 54% to 44%, with a few percent going libertarian.

the last debate in 08

2008-10-15T23:13:00.000-07:00

Obama is at his worst when sitting. When he stands behind a podium he gains in stature and in energy. When sitting maybe Obama feels like he's riding the pine during a basketball game, and gets a little more sleepy looking, a little more lethargic.

That said he still won easily tonight, as all the polling shows. The Republican descent into irrelevancy continued, with McCain repeatedly mocking Obama's line "I want to spread the wealth around". Hello??? We are in the beginning of a depression caused by the rich getting richer while everyone else got poorer but just paid the rich a huge bailout. I think the average american is in favor of spreading the wealth around right now.

I am also getting very peeved at the pundits who insist that Obama declare what programs he will cut due to the economic crisis. WE NEED TO SPEND during the recession. There I said it.

In other news, it sounds like several long time conservatives at work are thinking of voting democratic this year. I also like the thing Sullivan linked to where a Republican consultant was freaking out because his focus group believed Obama might be a terrorist but would still vote for him because they will never vote for another g-d republican in their frickin lives. Awesome.

McCain/Palin Meltdown

2008-10-14T13:59:00.001-07:00

Did you see the McCain Rally video clip yesterday where he was doing his standard brand gestures (arms pumping awkwardly and thumbs up, looking for all the world like Richard Nixon), and then he turns around and throws Sarah Palin a thumbs-up? Her expression doesn't change at all, and it looks for all the world like she is thinking to herself: "Would you please leave so I can speak?" or something worse.

They are not happy campers right now in the McCain/Palin campaign.

The party of Limbaugh, Hannity and O'Reilly

2008-10-14T10:48:00.000-07:00

A commenter on Talking Points Memo, NCSteve, lays out what I've been trying to say perfectly:

Republicans, however, have become a simmering kettle of mutually antagonistic interests. Libertarians vs. authoritarians. Anti-immigration activists vs. the people who employ the immigrants. Theocrats vs. the corporatists who want maximum freedom to cater to our most base desires. Isolationists vs. neocon militarists. And, of course, professionals and intellectuals (a few real, most psuedo) who want government by reason vs. the ignorant hateful rabble who want government from the gut.

The only thing that held them together was that they hated us (liberals) and a common nearly patholocial fear that our policies would lead to social, economic and moral collapse. Now that their policies have led to social, economic and moral collapse, however, all those differences have boiled over and the stupid people appear to have won.

NCSteve goes on to detail how the splits in the Republican party will play out and whether the party is likely to survive at all. The point I would add is that Obama is the democrat who is most likely, simply by virtue of his name and skin color, to further drive a wedge in the GOP as well as maximize the power of the crazy wing, thus making the demise of the GOP that much more likely. What seemed to be his deficiencies as a presidential candidates are actually, in this rapidly changing political environment, turning out to be his strengths. All he has to do is stay calm and lead, and watch the GOP flail into the abyss.

I'd stopped thinking I would be right after all

2008-10-13T20:27:00.000-07:00

Way back in the winter/spring of 08, I could be found arguing in the comments sections of Ezra Klein or Matt Yglesias on Obama's behalf, arguing that he would do better than Hillary at uniting centrist Americans while at the same time isolating and revealing the far right in their extremist views. I subscribe to the theory of America known as the 30% crazification factor: the percentage of Americans who STILL support Bush after he did his darndest to bring on the End of Times. To my powers of prognostication, Obama looked like the safe bet because he looked so damned presidential all the time but would drive this 30% crazy, making the non-crazy conservatives question the drooling neanderthals they were sharing the party with and thus delivering a Democratic victory.

Well that was before Reverend Wright came out. And then the polls stayed close and McCain actually took the lead in September. At that point I was thinking, man I like Obama but maybe we should have played it safe and gone with a white male, or at least the well known if not well liked white female.

But now Obama-as-uniter is looking likely again. And if you watch TV you are likely to see a republican yelling "terrorist" or holding an "obama bin lyin" sign or praying for God to prove he's bigger than Obama's god or something. It reminds me of something I heard recently about how TV played a huge role in shifting public opinion during the 60s civil rights struggles. People all over America sat in their living rooms and saw cops in Alabama turning fire hoses on peaceful black protesters, beating them in the streets. And maybe the same thing is starting to happen today. The same intolerance is being revealed on live TV. The people who for years have called themselves the "real" americans and held themselves up as paragons of virtue are being revealed as the cheap liars and crazies they have turned into. I know I keep harping on the state of the conservative movement, but its really fascinating the speed at which it they have fallen from rulers of the universe down to being nudged unceremoniously into the bin of bankrupt ideologies. The dissonance between Obama's undeniably reasonable personality and his exotically scary name exploded simple minds, and goaded conservatives into positions and statements and beliefs that uncovered their ridiculousness to everyone but their shrinking pool of fellow inmates. And it has separated the wheat from the chaf, forcing the smart conservatives and honest christians to step forward and decry the direction of the GOP.

And I don't think anyone could have done it but Obama, with an assist from the happy accidents (or not?) that brought a person with his unique attributes to this moment in history.

Which Candidate is ready to lead?

2008-10-09T06:48:00.000-07:00

He's got it all together.

Obama's Organizers

2008-10-08T16:44:00.000-07:00

There is a lot of depressing stuff going on out there these days. But if I may bloviate a little, if we have one unadulterated force for good in the world right now I think it may be the Obama campaign and what it is doing to bring people together and build the infrastructure and social capital that is absolutely necessary to creating a healthier nation. Most of us here have felt it at least in some small way. This is a great, great (and long) article about how the Obama organizers are doing things differently than ever before, and succeeding beyond their wildest dreams:

In the middle of a good organizing campaign, volunteers will stop and tell you that they are becoming better people. That's sounds cheesy, doesn't it? But I'll tell you, I wrote that line in a first draft of this article while waiting for my own neighborhood team meeting to start in Westport, Kansas City, Missouri. I looked at it and thought, "People won't buy that." I figured I'd delete it.

Then, at the end of our meeting, my neighborhood team leader, Jennifer Robinson, totally unprompted, told me: "I'm a different person than I was six weeks ago." I asked her to elaborate later. She said, "Now, I'm really asking: how can I be most effective in my community? I've realized that these things I've been doing as a volunteer organizer—well, I'm really good at them, I have a passion for this. I want to continue to find ways to actively make this place, my community, a better place. There's so much more than a regular job in this—and once you've had this, it's hard to go back to a regular job. I'm asking now: Can I look for permanent work as an organizer in service of my community? And that's a question I had not asked myself before the campaign. It never occurred to me that I could even ask that question."

Family Tree

2008-10-08T15:21:00.000-07:00

I listen to a lot of music, since I read all day; I found these lyrics especially meaningful and relevant to this group. (A darker version of one of Adam's songs, perhaps.)

Family Tree – TV on the radio

Under my love
Wake up to your window
The day calls in billows
It’s echoing moonlight on to the blue nightmare of your heart
In cosy red rainbow
It’s shaking off halos
And the memory of our sacred so and so’s

Oh take my hand sweet
Complete your release and bury your feet
And married we'll be
Alone in receiving ours is a feeling not that they would see
They don’t know that we could be
That way your cradle escaped the sea
?

Were laying in the shadow of your family tree
Your haunted heart and me
Brought down by an old idea whose time has come
And in the shadow of the gallows of your family tree
There's a hundred hearts soar free
Pumping blood to the roots of evil to keep it young

I’ll be your mind
Is it safe to say that we’ve waited patiently
Call me on time
And well go over to nanas place disgracefully
Fall into line
There's the garden grave and a place they've saved for you
I'll fall by your side
?

Were laying in the shadow of your family tree
Your haunted heart and me
Brought down by an old idea whose time has come
And in the shadow of the gallows of your family tree
There's a hundred hearts soar free
Pumping blood to the roots of evil to keep it young

And now we’ll gather in the shadow of your family tree
In haunted harmony
Brought down by an old idea whose time has come
And in the shadow of the valley of your family tree
There's a hundred hearts soar free
Pumping blood to the roots of evil to keep us young

Heh indeedy

2008-10-08T00:28:00.000-07:00

Tyler Cowen at Marginal Revolution writes:

Bush, Paulson, Bernake.....we think of them as leaders. The Chinese think of them as the customer services department. I bet they get straighter answers on our economy than we do.

re: conservatism

2008-10-06T20:05:00.000-07:00

I don't know Chronicler, I think you are agreeing with me! In each political era you describe, the conservatives, be they monarchists, Jeffersonian agrarianists, robber barons or social conservatives, they all are resistant to change. I don't see what other thread could tie these disparate groups all together. A couple groups you mention that deserve special comment:

Neo-conservatives: you are right that they are the very opposite of conservative--they are revolutionaries, neo-jacobins. BUT, the means they use to sell their revolution to the American masses are very conservative in that they trick people into believing that their policies will help prevent scary changes. They play off fears of muslim hordes invading a christian nation. They play off traditional gender roles to portray democrats as the "mommy party" and republicans as the masculine daddy party. Bill Kristol is the king of this strategy.

social conservatives: yes, in a narrow sense they do want to change the current laws on guns and abortion. But its more accurate to say that they never accepted those laws and want to turn back the clock and pretend they never existed. As Joe Biden would say, thats not change, thats more of the same! The same is true of the Ron Paul revolution. Its not a revolution, its a regression.

To respond more broadly to your reading of conservatism, liberalism, and radicalism through history: I think my main difference is that I see the main forces in history as coming less from the idea-makers, the philosophers and thinkers, and more from the geographic and cultural evolutions of history. Most accurately, history is created through a Hegelian interplay between the world of ideas that filter down and the geographical and cultural situation which filter up.

Thus, to me the French Revolution is not primarily caused by a group of evil Jacobins who were then the model for other intellectuals who caused the Russian revolution. Rather the ground for these revolutions was sown by the unique culture and geography of Europe and Russia, respectively: the growing recognition of nation-states based around a shared culture, the history of failed monarchs who were increasingly out of touch with the times, etc, etc. This is why Communist leaders came to resemble czars much more than Russia came to resemble a communist ideal: the culture is a stronger force than the ideas. Thus , it can be difficult to tie these disparate movements to one another through easy lines of causation. Each had unique causes and unique outcomes, with varying degrees of good and bad tied to each which would take a long time to discuss. Probably book length. This is not to suggest moral relativism, only that I believe the good and bad of it all is more complicated than often presented.

By the same token, yes, America was extremely fortunate to have been influenced by great thinkers such as Locke and Jefferson and Madison, but the form of American government was also heavily influenced by our geographical and cultural situation. Given the geographic isolation of most American citizens and cultural variety of our young country, would a stronger form of central government even had a chance to prevail? From the bottom-up, Americans were and are a rebellious people. I think that it is more accurate to say that the Constitution was as much responding to an already existing situation as it was a "choice" made by the Founding Fathers (though no doubt that it was an exuisitely elegant structure of government). Remember that the Constitution was a more statist version of the Articles of Confederation; so the founders were trying to move a reluctant America towards a stronger central government.

Still even an American government based on noble principles still took part in what can only be called radicalism in the form of westward imperialism and the importation of millions of black slaves, and has at times been heavily influenced by a radical christian fundamentalist theology that seeks to remake the world and society in its own image. I guess my main point is that radicalism is present in every society, and it is often hard to predict what will allow it to run rampant.

SNL

2008-10-06T19:46:00.000-07:00

It was......amazingly funny this week. Its been a while since I made it through all 90 minutes. If you didn't see it look up Andy Samberg in "Mark Wahlberg talks to animals." classic.

Waiting for Schaudenfreude

2008-10-06T17:14:00.000-07:00

I really like this essay on what has happened in America these last years. As the author describes, somehow we ended up with all the wrong people with all the money and all the power:

“These were the guys who, in college, I used to step over on Sunday mornings when they were lying in a pool of their own vomit,” he said. “And now they’re earning millions and millions – in bonuses alone.”

It was about a sense that the wrong people had inherited the earth.

Here's another point that I have thought of but have not heard any experts expound on: that the explosive incomes of the wealthy played a large role in driving up real estate values all over the country.

They had taken over everything. Their salaries (and bonuses in particular) had pushed real estate costs and living expenses sky-high. Their values had permeated every aspect of life. And their choices seemed to have become the only acceptable — even viable — ones possible.

Reflections on Conservatism, Liberalism, and Radicalism

2008-10-03T17:33:00.000-07:00

Human beings are naturally 'conservative', meaning 'prefering the status quo', in that we are creatures of habit and for the most part prefer things to remain the same. One extremely simple example is that church members almost always sit in the same place in church. And if a visitor sits in their place, they feel that something is wrong. Expand this to all kinds of social patterns, and the point is made. But this 'natural' conservatism is not the same thing as 'political' conservatism.

In Medieval Europe, the political pattern that became accepted by virtually everyone was throne and altar. Kings ruled in the temporal realm, and the Catholic Church ruled in the spiritual realm. This became Western political 'conservatism' par excellence. Any political opinion or theory that opposed this was non-conservative and thought to be upsetting to the eternal order of things.

With the rise of first Puritanism, then the Age of Reason and the Enlightenment, different non-conservative ways of thinking about politics began to gain currency. The Puritans in England in the 17th century argued for Republicanism, and for a few years, overthrew the King in England and established the Commonwealth. Puritan John Milton argued for freedom of thought and press.

Later, in the 18th century, John Locke, Adam Smith, Montesquiu, Voltaire and other intellectuals elaborated on what the Puritan Republicans had begun and developed what would become the original 'liberal' political perspective, which argued for more 'liberty': in politics, in the economy, in culture and religion. This 'liberal' political position especially grew in England during the 18th century, resulting in a strong Parliament countering the power of the King and other 'freedoms of the British subject.' This 'liberalism' migrated to America and became the dominant political position during the American revolution, resulting in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights.

So it is actually quite accurate to say that 'liberalism' was the founding political philosophy of America. It became our 'conservatism', so to speak, in the sense that it was the status quo, and to defend it was the American 'conservative' position. So one could call our original political philosophy, 'conservative liberalism' or 'liberal conservatism.' It stressed small, representative government, freedom from arbitrary government, civil liberties, private property, due process of law, and so on. Within this overall consensus, the conservatives tended to be the Federalists, who were often Puritans or high-church Anglicans and oriented to a little more active government, versus the 'liberal' Jeffersonians who wanted less central government, more independent farmers, more individual 'liberty'.

At the same time as American liberalism became the norm, the radical Enlightenment Jacobinism of the French Revolution was the first modern 'radicalism', opposed as it was to the both European conservatism of throne and altar, and the European liberal tradition. It was a more absolutist perspective, wishing to thoroughly transform the society and culture to conform to the ideals of the 'philosophes' (think eliminating Christianity and replacing it with the Religion of Reason), and was thus a very real forerunner of the communist/socialist revolutionary philosophies of the 19th century.

In the 19th century, the American 'conservative-liberal' position was challenged by the socialist revolutionary position coming out of Europe. This took place in the context of the rise of industrialization that led to the rise of the huge corporations and wealthy on the one side, and urban worker masses on the other. This move away from rural agrarianism to urban industrialism changed the political situation fundamentally, leading to a complete social darwinist laissez-faire philosophy on the one hand (conservatism?) or industrial socialism on the other (liberalism?). At the same time in Europe, the rise of Soviet Communion led to an equal and opposite reaction called Fascism, both of which were forms of political absolutism, totally alien to American political philosophy.

After the Crash of '29 and the Great Depression, a new coalition and approach to American politics developed under Franklin Roosevelt called the New Deal. It was to become known as 'liberalism', but it was something new: a mixed philosophy of private property and market economy, some nationalization, government regulation of industry, union recognition and support. In other words, it was not a pure philosphy of conservatism, liberalism, or socialism, but a sometimes awkward mix of all three. Some compare it to 'social democracy' of European governments.

For a while, American 'conservatism' disappeared as a coherent political philosophy, until its resurrection under the intellectual William F. Buckley, which brought a coalition of libertarians, throne/altar conservatives, anti-communist hawks, free-enterprise industrialialists, nationalist patriots, and finally, religious social conservatives together in one movement, which took over the White House in 1981 under Ronald Reagan. It is that coalition that is now falling apart after basically a generation in power (even Clinton acted as a 'neo-liberal', having to cooperate with a Reaganite House of Representatives and a powerful conservative movement in the media).

I think in these first years of the 21st century in America, we are returning to a New Deal 'liberalism', that will have to be updated. Obama is most like F.D.R. in this sense, and it's amazing that we are facing a financial crisis some are likening to the Great Depression.

What a chastened and reformulated 'conservatism' will look like in the future is yet to be determined.

Conservatism (cont.)

2008-10-03T16:38:00.000-07:00

In response to the Caretaker's response, I guess that I would say that the simple definition of 'conservatism' as 'resistance to change' is only partially true.

Let us take the example of the pro-life movement and the Roe v. Wade decision. The conservatism of the pro-life movement is devoted to a principled overturning of Supreme Court decision that is now quite a few decades old. Granted that this is with the 'reactionary' purpose of returning to the status-quo ante. So perhaps 'reactionary' would best describe the pro-life movement rather than conservative. In any case, what they advocate is restriction on the availability of abortion. If this is the status-quo, they are resistant to change. If it is not the status-quo, they try to change it.

The same with the NRA and guns. If guns are freely available, the NRA is for the status-quo and against change. If they are not freely available, the NRA will try to change the status-quo and are therefore for change.

Many Joe Six-packers would resist any change in the availability of their big trucks. If however the law made trucks less available in order to, say, lessen global warming, those same good old boys would become radical antagonists of that law, trying to change it.

Wall Streeters are a curious example. Their conservatism has generally in the past advocated laissez-faire and non-government intervention in the markets. Now that their grubby, greedy, risktaking behavior has led them to bankruptcy, they are hungering for government intervention and protection. Perhaps this is just an example of unprincipled conservatism, i.e. greed, as in get the wealth anyway you can, with or without the government.

Nationalistic conservatives of the patriotic variety are mostly concerned about respect for the flag, love for the nation, and the display of uniformed military. If some politician doesn't wear a flagpin, he is immediately suspect. If you lack enough fervor for the current enemy of the day (Iran, Russia), you are not 'conservative.' So again, it's not so much a 'resistance to change' as it is this worship of the nation.

For libertarian conservatives, whose basic principle is individual freedom and being left alone, they clearly are not 'resistant to change', because they believe that even now, the government has come close to squeezing all freedom out of society. Libertarians are among the most 'revolutionary' of conservatives, advocating radical change a la Ron Paul.

The neo-conservatives are radical Jacobins, according to some thinkers, with a radical democratizing mentality most akin the ideology that took over the French Revolution in its latter stages, leading to the Terror and the effort to invade and transform all of Europe from its medieval throne/altar power structure to an Enlightenment democratic structure.

So political 'conservatism' as it is currently defined is many things, but it is not very often pure resistance to change.

Re: the right and conservatism

2008-10-03T16:07:00.000-07:00

I do generally agree with your distinction, Chronicler. My only hold-up is that it can be easy to slip into a theoretical idea of what conservatism "is", when it is questionable whether it has ever actually lived up to those ideas among its common practitioners (much in the same way that many said that communism's success or failure could not be judged because it has never been truly tried).

For the average conservative joe 6-pack out there, I think conservatism can best be summed up as a resistance to change. They will resist change whether it involves the values of caution and prudence or whether it requires less temparate and more radical resistance.

Of course, sometimes change does need to be resisted, and thats why, as I said before, it is important to have a principled conservative movement. Again, I think we mostly agree, but I feel like attributing values like caution and prudence to a political movement is a bit of an over-generalization when you look at the history of how said political movement has behaved.

The Difference Between Conservatism and The Right

2008-10-03T14:35:00.000-07:00

In response to the last post by the Caretaker, I think we need to carefully distinguish between conservatisim and the political Right, because they are not the same thing. There is much that I agree with in conservative thinking, but there is little I agree with the Right about.

One can hardly call Bush a true conservative; in many ways, he is a radical, as is much of the Right. His invasion of Iraq, along with his rhetoric defending it, was a truly radical act, planned as it was primarily by the Jacobin neo-cons. His ignorance of basic economic principles, leading to the housing bubble, trade and federal deficits, and the present crisis, is certainly not conservative in any way. His defying of the scientific consensus on global warming is not conservative, but radically fundamentalist.

Obama, on the other hand, exhibits many conservative characteristics, as many have pointed out (including George Will): prudence, caution, balanced, intelligent, historically grounded, etc. Both his foreign policy positions and economic positions are very centrist, pragmatic, and establishment, which in many ways defines conservatism (at least Burkean). Actually, I think it can be argued that 20th American liberalism has a profoundly conservative side to it.

Libertarianism is the true odd-man out here. I think they have some important things to say to us, (as does paleo-conservatism, which tends to be more economically protectionist and internationally non-interventionist). Murry Rothbard is the father figure here for many, as well as Hayek and Von Mises. Lew Rockwell.Com is interesting along these lines, particularly in their anti-war views and anti-statist views in general. Hence the popularity of Ron Paul, who is the reigning political leader of Libertarianism.

The Leaderless Conservative Movement

2008-10-03T13:23:00.000-07:00

Glenn Greenwald hits the nail on the head:

"The Right in this country -- meaning the faction that followed George Bush for the last eight years -- long ago ceased being a movement of political ideas and is driven by two, and only two, extreme emotions: (1) intense, aggressive rage towards their revolving door of enemies, and (2) bottomless self-pity over how unfairly they're being treated. As their imminent defeat looks increasingly likely (potentially on a humiliating scale), these two impulses are in maximum overdrive, feeding off one another in endless self-perpetuation (the more they lose, the more victimized they feel, the more they rage against their enemies who oppress them, etc.)."

To be clear, I don't think conservatism is always wrong, and conservatism in itself can be a force for good. In fact it is often an important counterweight to the utopianism of the left. But under Bush the right has morphed into something truly disgusting and dangerous.

And they are currently leaderless. This is an odd predicament for a movement so dependent on hierarchy and authority. The direction of the conservative movement will depend on who emerges as a leader. Will it be a decent and civil Mike Huckabee type? Or will it be a raving fascist Michael Savage type? (If you have ever listened to Michael Savage, it is genuinely frightening.)

the larger slice of the pie

2008-10-03T11:53:00.000-07:00

My last post has got me thinking. So we've got a lot of very uniformed, very pissed off people out there. Most of them have no trust in either party, and are only going to get angrier as they can no longer afford to gas up their 4-wheeler, or take the trip to Las Vegas.

As I write the Dow has dropped about 300 points since the bailout bill passed. It is clear that the bailout will not stop a difficult recession. The republicans, or somebody else, will find a politician who opposed the bailout and build on the popular anger at the destruction of our way of life. You might think that the illogic and abject failure of extreme free market capitalism and cultural conservatism would lead many to give Obama a chance. And many will. But just as many will listen to their increasingly hysterical chain emails and whatever politician rises to take advantage of the popular anger. Of course, the illogic and proven failure of the right-wing will lead many intelligent conservatives to drift towards the Obama camp. So I guess my prediction is that America will divide along educational lines more than anything. We will see which side is larger in this realignment.

two Americas

2008-10-03T11:27:00.001-07:00

The dividing line between them, I'm beginning to realize, is those who get the majority of their news from chain emails and (if they are particularly well informed) right-wing talk radio; and those who generally dwell in reality.

This is the conversation I just had with a fairly representative member of the former camp.

Co-worker: Are our politicians stupid or what?

me: why's that?

Co-worker: if they would have split the $700 billion among taxpayers we would have each gotten $600,000! Economic problems solved!

me (breaking out the calculator): ummm, not exactly. $700 billion divided by 200 million people is about $3,000 per person.

co-worker (confused look on face): that can't be right. I'll forward you the email, its from some economist.

me: Are you sure it wasn't from a third grader? (actually I didn't say that)

A country cannot function when its citizens are this easily swindled.

Normally Sober People are Sounding Apocalyptic

2008-10-03T08:35:00.001-07:00

Krugman's latest column is a scary one:

How bad is it? Normally sober people are sounding apocalyptic. On Thursday, the bond trader and blogger John Jansen declared that current conditions are “the financial equivalent of the Reign of Terror during the French Revolution,” while Joel Prakken of Macroeconomic Advisers says that the economy seems to be on “the edge of the abyss.”

Okkervil River

2008-10-03T08:19:00.000-07:00

I've been listening to these guys a lot lately, but for some reason the video won't embed. Black Sheep Boy is an amazing album.

the Palin-Biden Debate

2008-10-03T07:44:00.000-07:00

Man, I was hoping for an epic collapse. Didn't happen. And for that Palin's performance is being hailed as acceptable, or even awesome by the Republican base who are saying things like this:

"Sarah Palin, the Winner By a Wink"

Just step back and think about that. Sure she strung sentences together, a triumph for her, but judged by any other vice-president EVER it was absolutely awful. The woman is a trainwreck. This is how low the Republican party has sunk. I'm sure after they get throttled November 4th they will look back at this period as a mad spasm of crazy.

Another thing that really irritates me about Palin. Anytime you read transcripts of her talking there are weird words thrown randomly in there--"again", "also", "even", like in this sentence:

"Nuclear weaponry, of course, would be the be all, end all of just too many people in too many parts of our planet, so those dangerous regimes, again, cannot be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons, period."

Be all end all? WTF? Why does she say "again" when this is the first time she has said this?

Maybe I'm being too hard on Palin. But after the last eight years is it too much to ask our top executives to have a minimal command of the English language?

Remind Me

2008-10-02T08:38:00.000-07:00

For the time being, as we are battling our own sense of gloom and doom with the economy, I think it's important to look at a place much, much worse off. Zimbabwe is experiencing inflation up to 40 million percent.... that is one of the worst in history, rivaling Germany in the 1920's. Teachers are quitting because their salaries won't even pay for the bus ride to school. This article is like watching a war movie when you're depressed about losing a basketball game.

Ah Venice

2008-09-30T09:04:00.000-07:00

I just want to point out that beautiful Venetian metaphor that the Caretaker wrote:

"Reality has been dammed and channeled into a hundred separate canals, each pooling in different directions until conversation between the fish swimming in their respective ponds is impossible."

And it oftentimes looks as if the water is dropping in level, soon to leave us stranded and worried about the basics... like air.

Donny You are Out of Your Element

2008-09-30T07:20:00.000-07:00

I have been really surprised by the complacency and general lack of interest among most people where this financial crisis is concerned. I'm not sure if it is total ignorance of the severity of the situation or a complacency that most of Americans have been lulled into.
I was just in New York City this passed weekend visiting my family and seeing friends of mine in Brooklyn that I went to college with. We had a good sized group at my friends house on Friday night to make dinner and watch the debate. Most of these kids are my age or a little older and have good jobs in the city that range from web design for large companies like Coca-Cola and GM, to advertising production for cable television shows. While we watched the debate it seemed like most of these people didn't really take any of it seriously. The majority of these well educated, as of now financially stable, friends of mine seemed to be watching the debates in search of that Daily Show moment. When the economy was being discussed on TV, the conversation in the room was on how old Jim Leherer and John McCain are and if his dentures were going to fall out of his mouth.
I was really surprised how these friends of mine really don't realize the severity of this situation, and seem to feel that it will all work itself out. It always has in the past so what is the difference now.
A rubber band can only stretch so far before it snaps and they seem to be closing their eyes waiting for it to rupture.

Open season

2008-09-29T23:23:00.000-07:00

This may be all wrong, but it is how I feel right now so I may as well get it down.

Today we witnessed something unprecedented during the American empire: the breakdown of our domestic political authority. Given the interconnectivity of the world economy, we must ask how our global authority now looks to the rest of the world. Do we appear to be a country that can rationally govern itself in times of crisis? Do we look like a country that the rest of the world can trust to lead? We are the architects of global order, and are looked to as such by all who both love and hate us. Yet at a time of mounting global crisis and when American power is already seriously weakened, we have signaled to every potential adversary, ally, and enemy that our place in the pecking order is open for challenge. I am not calling for American hegemony; merely fearing the consequences of a lack of order. Might this fear turn out to be unfounded? It might, but the point is that I don't think any of us know anymore. There comes a point when a signal has been sent; when a scent has been released; and the "invisible hand" of the world know that control has been abdicated. When there is no one in charge, events can quickly lead us to places that were never imagined.

Those who were against the bailout were betting that the genie can be put back in the bottle, that the dogs once loosed will return placidly to the yard. I hope they are right.

But even if we can continue to convince the world that we are tethered to something resembling reality, among us Americans we can admit that things are dangerously off-kilter. Our political leadership has failed to make the hard decisions today; but we must be clear about one thing. Their hand was forced by a public that demanded, DEMANDED! their own downfall. Congressional offices received calls 100 to 1 against the bailout.

Now there were many who had principled and smart objections to the bailout. But if we are honest, we know this is not true of the masses who called their congressional representative for the first time since the last time a significant bipartisan legislation had a chance to pass in the form of comprehensive immigration reform. These voters know little except the politics of temper tantrums; they react only to things that they imagine directly threaten the shiny objects they keep close within their reach.

We will hear the Anderson Coopers of the world decry our failed political establishment; but the rot goes much deeper then that. Reality has been dammed and channeled into a hundred separate canals, each pooling in different directions until conversation between the fish swimming in their respective ponds is impossible. Somehow we Americans have lost all collective and shared memory--of what the lessons of history teach us, of what has happened to past empires (even benevolent ones) that over reach, of what is necessary to build communities fit for human habitation, of anything except the pursuit of those shiny things that occupy our daily attention. Most of all, we have forgotten how easily our delicately structured civilization can fall apart. And we have forgotten that we are not the first people to forget this, and who then had to remember the hard way.

2008-09-29T20:36:00.001-07:00

Pursuit of Sloppiness, I think I saw your laptop on the Colbert Report!

How will Obama react?

2008-09-29T16:26:00.001-07:00

So far Obama has responded to the crisis exactly correctly: above the fray, calm, reasoned, consistent. But as things progress from bad to worse it is becoming increasingly clear that a lack of leadership is absolutely killing this country. McCain had his try at leadership--it turned out to be a stunt that utterly failed and perhaps mortally wounded his candidacy.

This leaves Obama in a dilemma: how to demonstrate leadership abilities when you have not yet been given authority to lead anything? There will be increasing calls for Obama to step up and do something--anything--to prove that he is deserving of the presidency. But he faces a real difficulty in that he is not yet in control of any part of government. The danger is that he could take a stand on something--like McCain did last week by going to Washington--and then events outside of his control could make him look stupid for doing it.

I think the country will increasingly look to Obama for guidance, almost by default due to the lack of credible authority anywhere else. He has the power of his words, we will see if his oratory can rise to the occasion. The 21st century version of "we have nothing to fear but fear itself."

Wendell Berry's Commencement Address

2008-09-29T15:18:00.000-07:00

A timely message:

"What more than you have so far learned will you need to know in order to live at home? (I don't mean "home" as a house for sale.) If you decide, or if you are required by circumstances, to live all your life in one place, what will you need to know about it and about yourself? At present our economy and society are founded on the assumption that energy will always be unlimited and cheap; but what will you have to learn to live in a world in which energy is limited and expensive? What will you have to know - and know how to do - when your community can no longer be supplied by cheap transportation? Will you be satisfied to live in a world owned or controlled by a few great corporations? If not, would you consider the alternative: self-employment in a small local enterprise owned by you, offering honest goods or services to your neighbors and responsible stewardship to your community?"

The implications

2008-09-29T14:38:00.000-07:00

1. The republicans are having a collective nervous breakdown. On NPR they had a quote from one Republican congressman talking about "being true to the ideology of the free market." This on the day that many Americans lost much of their life savings, I can imagine the middle fingers extending all over America. The modern GOP will become spoken of in the same breath as Herbert Hoover. I think the odds are 50-50 that they survive without a third-party challenge on the far right.

2. My general operating theory about American is that there is about 25% of the country that is batshit insane (Bush's approval ratings are still at that level). This 25% will continue to drift further into a fascist, christianist fantasy. Even as Obama could potentially bring together the rest of the country, this 25% will be enraged by his intelligence, his name, his color, his liberal-ness, his similarities with the anti-christ, etc. If they find the right leader, a Limbaugh-esque politician, they could become truly a danger to the world. I do not say this for the sake of hyperbole, I truly believe in the possibility if things get bad enough.

3. How many banks will we have left standing at the end of this thing? One, two, three? Get out your gameboards kids, its time to play Monopoly!

4. The democrats have so far played this about as well as they can. I hope they keep it up.

5. Obama will soon, if he is not already, be the most trusted politician in America--if not the only trusted politician in America. I agree with the Chronicler: Obama will be president and we are extremely lucky to have a man of his caliber right now. At a time, when it feels like America is splintering into a thousand factions that have lost trust in each other, we have before us a man who has said, and I believe him, that "bringing people together is in his DNA." Literally.

Incredible

2008-09-26T15:19:00.000-07:00

But how can we focus on this when there is so much other stuff to worry about?

Friday

2008-09-25T23:58:00.000-07:00

UPDATE: the stock market is holding steady. I officially have no idea what is going on.

ORIGINAL POST: Tomorrow is shaping up to be one hell of a day.

There is little doubt that the stock market will tank. How much? And will it be enough to shock Republicans and the angry grassroots into supporting this bailout? Will McCain continue to make noises that he is abandoning the bailout? Or, having raised the possibility of doing so, will he swoop back in as the hero, use the market crash to rally republicans to the deal?

The timing of this is interesting. Tomorrow being Friday, the markets will have one trading session to demonstrate the need for a bailout before the weekend comes. And then a rest with time for congress to work out the details before the markets open on Monday again.

And to top it all off, we will have a debate/townhall/Obama infomercial tomorrow night.

Skip work and grap the popcorn!

Fork in the road

2008-09-25T17:48:00.000-07:00

There are two possible scenarios that I see from the events of today:

1. The republicans are staging an elaborate ruse for the benefit of McCain. That is, they are exaggerating the extent of their rebellion against the bailout so that McCain can come riding in at the last moment and form a compromise, making him the hero of the moment.

or;

2. The Republican rebellion is real and McCain is considering joining it. The problem with scenario #1 is that McCain must be asking himself "Do I want to be the hero of a bailout that the American people, and especially Republicans, absolutely hate?"

I think McCain has realized the impossible bind he is in. Support the bailout, and Republicans will crucify him. Kill the bailout and our economy enters....ur......uncharted waters. The nation could quickly switch from railing against a bailout to railing against the "do-nothing" Republicans who caused an economic meltdown.

The democrats must, MUST not pass a bailout without McCain's support. If he will not support it, he must reap the harvest of what happens next.

Out of the frying pan, into the fire

2008-09-25T17:30:00.000-07:00

The problem at its core is that there are no good options. The republican rebels are right that a trillion dollar bailout will bankrupt America. Already, Asia is contemplating whether holding onto all of those US treasury bonds is wise. This would accelerate under a bailout.

On the other hand, I am one who believes that not pumping funds into Wall Street will likely push the economy into a nosedive that will be very difficult to pull out of.

There is no doubt that giving the financial industry a trillion dollars from the taxpayers sucks. I have sympathy to those who say we should help the real economy. But when we sent our real economy off to third world countries and become the world's banker, the financial industry became our economy.

Its like we have looked in the mirror and seen a monster. And we don't want to believe it is us, that we can kill it and survive ourselves. But the monster is what we have become.

The big things we are missing

2008-09-25T17:25:00.000-07:00

1. Pakistani and American troops are firing on each other.

2. The Iraqi Parlament just passed a major bill to allow elections.

3. The republican vice presidential candidate sounds like that beauty pageant contestant from South Carolina.

Normally either of these stories would be THE story. Now its just a footnote in the greater story of America's slide into God knows what. Has their ever been a time like this?

Things fall apart, the center cannot hold

2008-09-25T17:20:00.000-07:00

I'm watching Senator Richard Shelby on CNN take a big step towards utter chaos. Usually you watch politicians talk with some idea that they have a plan, that they know where their actions are taking them.

But right now, events are taking over. They have no idea where things are going.

If only Ron Paul looked more like a president.....

2008-09-24T12:04:00.000-07:00

......this would be his opportunity. The trillion dollar bailout, and the fact that it may slow but not solve our economic crisis, has the potential to radically re-align the political landscape. With Republicans revolting against their leadership and a president at 19% approval ratings, we could be about to see many conservatives willing to join an old-fashioned pitchfork and torches mob against the GOP powers that be in Washington. The combination of a total abject failure AND an abandonment of conservative principles are too much for them to take.

And now it seems that the Democrats are wising up and forcing McCain and the GOP leadership to sign on to any bailout bill (the Anonymous Liberal is one of the best bloggers out there, by the way). If they are successful in tying this trillion dollar yoke around McCain's neck, the opening would be perfect for an old-school Republican revolt against their leaders who have lost their way.

As a democrat I truly mourn the lack of an attractive paleo-conservative leader. It would have the potential to cause a deep split in the Republican Party. But maybe its not too late for one to emerge.....(the intra-party conflict after an Obama win will be beautiful to behold).

Regardless, if the Democrats play their hands right they can only come out big winners in this debacle. Make McCain sign onto the bailout, and he instantly loses all of the conservative enthusiasm that had been riled up by Palin. If McCain won't sign on, let the bill die and let the conservatives be blamed for the economic catastrophe that will hit the country. The underlying principle remains: a bailout this big HAS to be a bipartisan bill. One party cannot bear the brunt of a decision this huge, and the Democrats should stick to that demand. They have every advantage in this negotation.

It really is McCain's choice. Watching him deal with this is going to be fascinating. Country first, or party first?

Dear Democrats: Let the Ship Sink

2008-09-23T16:03:00.000-07:00

The debate over the trillion dollar bailout is getting weirder by the second. In fact, the bailout may be the only thing that could possibly unite the far left AND the far right in hatred towards an idea. Both believe that the bailout is political nuclear waste, and are even convincing themselves that no severe crisis exists. This is really fascinating.

Many on the left sees the bailout as a replay of the Iraq War. They see Bush and Co. once again pimping hysterical propaganda about a "crisis" that must be solved without further debate. Only this time, instead of starting a war for oil, Bush's secret plan is to enrich his Wall Street buddies before he leaves office. At this point liberals doesn't believe a word Bush says, and rightfully so, but is this lack of trust blinding them to a true economic crisis?

Meanwhile, the right absolutely hates the nationalization of the economy and spending taxpayer money. And at this point they couldn't give a shit about Bush either, and have no reason to support his bailout plans. Most of all they see a chance for McCain to regain his Maverick status and become a raging populist against governmental waste and the Bush/Obama bailout plan, possibly pulling out an election that he is likely to lose at this point. Their free market ideology is blinding them to the extent of the crisis, and making them think that no bailout is an acceptable option.

So thats where we stand. The entire political spectrum is ready to pounce on the poor saps in Congress who are earnestly trying to save our economy. The last decade of lies and polarization has left little trust among politicians or the people at large, so that even when it comes to moments of severe crisis we cannot come together. The American people are like a can of whoop ass under enormous pressure right now, and as the economy goes down the tubes they will look for a scapegoat. And a trillion dollar bailout plan would only make the government, and therefore Democrats, that scapegoat.

So you know what I think? The Democrats should let the bailout die and just let the economic ship sink. Its going to anyway. But in the process, it needs to be absolutely crystal clear to America that it was this sick excuse for "capitalism" that has run our country into the ground, and not the last ditch action of the government. Only then will an Obama administration be able to pick up the pieces with a mandate to bring a broken country together.

Now to totally disagree with what i just said....

2008-09-22T16:37:00.000-07:00

The previous post was about the correct solution to the economic crisis after reading economic blogs.

After reading Digby, the correct solution seems dangerous. Why? Because the republicans are likely to pull the biggest and most cynical bait and switch of all time. Have Paulson and Bush propose the bailout, get the Democratic Congress on board, and then have McCain and the Republicans vote against it and rail about the big government liberals bankrupting the country. It would allow McCain to separate himself from Bush. It would put Obama and Bush in the same boat and play off the anger of Americans. Would the Republicans be this terrible? I think so.

Somehow the Democrats have to do what they can to make this a bipartisan bill and make Republicans vote for it, while still making it a good bill. I don't know if that is possible.

I know Dad has pledged to keep his blog from descending into name-calling, but if the Republicans are willing to plunge our country into crisis, and then totally absolve themselves from the consequences while playing games with a trillion dollars like its some political football, there will be no name vile enough for them.

Its time to rethink everything.

2008-09-22T15:16:00.000-07:00

I agree with the Chronicler.

The next few days are the most critical to whether our country survives in any form that is recognizable. It has become clear that the government is willing to spend up to $1 Trillion to fix the economy. My fear, and the major consensus from economists, is that they are about to massively screw it up. We only get one chance at this (unless someone finds another trillion dollar bill lying around), so we better do it right because we won't get another. Congress MUST take their time and gets this right despite the pressure from the Bush Administration and a rapidly deteriorating stock market.

This post on Angry Bear sums it up for me. The problem with the Paulson plan is that it attempts to keep the financial industry as the main engine of our economy. But that is exactly what brought on this disaster in the first place--that Merrill Lynch and Goldman Sachs replaced manufacturing and human capital (meaning how well are people educated, skilled, in good health) as the basis of our economy. America has been massively deluded for so long, thinking that traders selling debt to one another could constitute a healthy economy, but the rude awakening is upon us now. Paulson wants to try for a quick fix that keeps the status quo, when we are WAY past the point where the status quo is workable.

Our leaders must accept, as difficult as it is, that our nation's economy must be entirely restructured and that this will cause massive pain. There is no getting around this fact. So they can spend a trillion dollars propping up a system that is doomed to fail or they can start down the road to a solution.

massive suck

2008-09-22T15:14:00.000-07:00

Wow, Adam that really blows. But a credit to you that you were even able to make losing your laptop funny and informative.

Now Entirely Wireless

2008-09-21T21:56:00.000-07:00

As you may have heard, my laptop was stolen in a break-in late last night. So, obviously this will reduce the amount of time I will spend on the internet, including this blog. But while I'm here I thought I'd give a few tips on going through this process.

First- worry about identity theft.... What passwords did I keep on that computer? What bank statements did I save as draft? What kind of invoices from online stores did I keep on there? Was my credit card info apparent?

Secondly - Be glad this didn't happen: "One finance manager was stabbed in the chest for his Apple Computer Powerbook while sitting at a coffee shop in the city's Mission District, the San Francisco Chronicle reported."

Thirdly - Ponder what this will do to my internet habit. What will replace the minutes hitting 'random article' on Wikipedia? What will withdrawal feel like? Will I itch? How will I overcome feeling vastly underinformed about the latest political scandal? Will I cry when I'm the last to know about PiglapdanceGate?

Fourthly - Realize that the chronicler of my years, the library of my life, the filing cabinet of my person is really as fragile and transitory as life seems to be, become a nihilist (even if it becomes exhausting) and lock myself in a room with Portugese flash cards of office supplies.

This, at least from now is the best way. Luckily I had some backup, so I can't forget the pictures I took of that frog that got on the screen door. Any questions?

Deserving Much Better

2008-09-20T06:11:00.000-07:00

Okay, got my coffee, my laptop's working. It's Saturday morning in mid-September, and the weather is cooling down here in piedmont NC. It was in the low 50s this morning and will be around 75 today, so that's about perfect. MB and I be taking the new bikes and going up to Winston-Salem to ride a trail on Salem Lake, a little off the beaten track. (I've also got to mow the lawn and finish my sermon.)

Smokin' Bullets, Caretaker, and Pursuit of Sloppiness, I hope you're doing well. I miss you, and I love reading your posts. So please keep putting things up. Are you reading the Rude Awakening? It's been really interesting to work on it. I have to say that Andrew Sullivan has been a model for me, what with his pictures and such. Last evening, I was home, but my mind was whipsawed from trying to follow the week's economic news, and I had nothing to say on my blog that sounded right. I wonder if others are turning away from the financial market turmoil, not only because it's just too abstract and theoretical still, and therefore hard to get your mind around, but because it seems like a movie or something, without any personal pain.

That's part of the reason it's happening in the first place, so much has gone on 'behind the screen', with the average person not knowing anything about it. It's just too opaque. That doesn't give me much hope for a real solution, just another attempt to eliminate the symptoms. I think what's happening now in the government is just another attempt to shove the whole thing back underground when it's threatening to pop up its ugly head. Can the goverment just buy all of this bad debt, just like that? That sounds too simple, like the Bolshevik's thinking they can create a modern industrial economy by fiat and government decree. All it ends up doing is creating a big monster that can't work and making things worse in the long run.

I saw an interview on Bill Moyer's Journal last evening with Kevin Phillips, who has one of the most honest and accurate views of our situation that I know of. You can watch it here. He's a conservative (worked for Nixon) who's grown increasingly jaded by the wars and financial shenanigans of the last 25 years. I'm not sure what he'd label himself now politically, but he's a wise observer of the nation and world.

I'm sorry things are so screwed up these days. You kids deserve much, much better.

Have a good day anyway!

The Chronicler

Internet Vigilantes

2008-09-19T16:36:00.000-07:00

I just heard this story on npr and it gave me a bit of a chuckle....the end is kind of twisted.
It is Act I. Hanging in Chad. (five minutes into the show)

just a preview..."if the following email doesn't make you laugh out loud then we would never have fun hanging out, this is pure poetry to me. The email said 'I am begging you in the name of our Lord, Jesus Christ I and my brother are still waiting for you in Abeche in the only cyber-cafe along hospital road. we are still waiting for you, we are still here since the driver is not happy about us....please come...' - that's just pure gold."

this probably doesn't make too much sense, but the email was written by a internet scammer getting some payback. Enjoy!

Walking Through Your Day

2008-09-19T14:33:00.000-07:00

This is truly multi-tasking

You're out of your element, Donny!

2008-09-18T14:28:00.000-07:00

Its pretty clear to me that the Coen brothers modeled the character of Walter Sobjek after David Addington, Cheney's top aide and evil person numero uno. Just look at the guy:

And read how the Washington Post describes him:

A burst of ferocity stunned the room into silence. No other word for it: The vice president's attorney was shouting.

"The president doesn't want this! [1] You are not going to see the opinions. You are out . . . of . . . your . . . lane!"

Shomer Shabas!

Three Shocks to the Economic Body

2008-09-18T08:16:00.000-07:00

I just heard on NPR a good summary of our economic situation. There have been three economic shocks over the last year: the housing shock, the energy shock, and now the finance shock. Like a tasered protester, the American body economic is lying prostrate on the ground. Not dead, just stunned. When it will be able to get up and resume normal life is yet to be seen.

Parrots and Politics

2008-09-18T06:57:00.000-07:00

It really is amazing how much politicians have in common with parrots.

The blog list

2008-09-17T19:25:00.002-07:00

I've added our dear friends over at Rude Awakening to the blog list. Their analysts are hard at work chronicling our nation's situation.

I want to create a bloglist, so how about everybody list their five favorite blogs or websites. Who are your favorites?

Good News for Obama

2008-09-17T19:25:00.001-07:00

The new NYTimes poll finds Obama up 48-43, as well as the following:

"Views of the state and direction of the economy are a factor in vote preferences. Those that say the economy is in very bad shape and think it is getting worse are far more likely to back Mr. Obama and to be confident in his ability to handle it. The Democrat is also broadly supported by those who say their financial situation is worse off now than it was four years ago."

And this poll ended on Tuesday, which was probably before most Americans fully realized how much their 401ks and stock portfolios are getting hammered this week. So there will be a lot more people who "think that the economy is in very bad shape and getting worse" and who are "worse off now than four years ago." In other words, people who realize conservative economics are a massive FAIL.

UNC's anti-globalization propaganda

2008-09-17T19:25:00.000-07:00

Well thats a little bombastic, but I find it interesting that SB's article references the World Social Forum, which I googled and found out was a Noam Chomsky-ish kind of gathering. The idea that these folks will have much influence is somewhat laughable. The bias of the article was also apparent in its claim that the world did not experience an economic boom in the nineties. I'm pretty sure that is not true.

All that said, it was a really interesting article. And I think the basic premise of it, that U.S. aggression is a sign of our weakness rather than our strength, is right on. The Cheney world view is a last ditch attempt to hold onto power to a world that is moving past America. The irony is that the hawks actually hastened America's decline, rather than stopping it.

On the potential for a Russian-European alliance, my first instinct is to say that is not likely. Russia is a society in self-destruction, with a population that is dissapearing due to generations of soul-sucking communism. But this week's financial events have embarked on a path that nobody can be certain where it will end. Perhaps Russia's power over Europe's energy supplies will draw them closer, or it might lead to renewed conflict. Hopefully a President Obama would succeed in strengthening our ties to Europe, and making it clear to them that they hold more in common with us than with Russia, which I think is true in the end. If we lose our European alliances, god help us.

Sound Familiar

2008-09-17T16:59:00.000-07:00

This was the headline on CNN earlier today. This has the essence of Scooter Libby and Andrew Card all over it.

Hands Up!

2008-09-16T22:03:00.000-07:00

Smokin'!!!!

Scooters, vacation, fall

2008-09-16T20:03:00.001-07:00

Yeay SB,

Good to see you around.

With a smattering of wine in me and reading your assignment, just 2 things. The whole Euro-Russo pact idea seemed a bit far fetched for me... of course depending on how our government behaves in the next few years. But do we really think Western Europe is ready to side with Putin's Russia to stamp the US down? Also, I thought there was little mention of China playing a big role. With as much as the Chinese affect the US economy and with them fixating on so much growth it seems they would play a larger role in the future. And what happens as oil prices continue to rise for the next few decades? Didn't that entire period from '45 on rely on petroleum based cheap energy? Where does that put the power? Russia. Saudi. OK yip. Now I'm starting my own blog.. Hah, joke.

Welcome, Smokin' Bullets!

2008-09-16T18:46:00.000-07:00

Well done, Smokin' Bullets! We're glad to have you on board. When I get a chance, I will read your article. And remember, keep on postin!!

Love, the Chronicler

i'm here....finally

2008-09-16T16:02:00.000-07:00

I'll admit I was a bit weary about joining this whole blogging thing...even picking a name seemed challenging...but here I am. Smokin' Bullets (kudos to Ramsey) somehow seemed appropriate(?). Anyway, I'm taking a political geography course and we're currently looking into World-Systems theory. My prof assigned this article and I found it very interesting.

I'd love to hear your thoughts...

yay! my first post!

Cheney is F-ing Crazy

2008-09-16T08:23:00.000-07:00

As we come closer to the merciful end of the Bush Administration, more stories are starting to leak out. If you watched the Daily Show last night, Barton Gellman was talking about his new book about Cheney. The Washington Post is running excerpts from the book, and its high drama.

People have said all along, maybe half-jokingly, that Cheney was the real president. Turns out this was no joke. When the FBI Director and basically the entire Justice Department, led by James Comey, were about to resign rather than continue Bush's illegal surveillance program, Cheney kept Bush in the dark. Cheney would have allowed mass resignations to occur without Bush's knowledge. Only at the last minute did Bush decide to talk to Comey, realize what was about to happen, and fix the surveillance program so that the Justice Department would certify that it was legal.

I've got two questions:

How the hell did Bush not fire Cheney after that kind of insubordination? (I guess the answer is that Bush knew he was totally incompetent, and without Cheney would have been totally unable to govern)

If the surveillance program we eventually found out about was scary, how scary was the previous surveillance program that the conservative lawyers at Justice would not even approve?

Bonus third question: when will we ever find out? Once Bush leaves office, will the people who know start to sing?

relax, you're being very un-dude

2008-09-16T08:01:00.000-07:00

Some reassuring things to think about as you lay awake at night fearing a McCain presidency:

"Third: the Obama campaign has registered 11 million new voters so far. 11 million new voters who have never voted before. 11 million new voters who are now flying almost completely under the radar. No statistical prediction or electoral map can accomodate them. The pundits don't know how they're going to affect the race, and the pollsters don't know how to include them in the polls. But the Obama people know them very well. And they know how to get them out to the polls in November. "

The Chronicler Isn't Going Anywhere!

2008-09-15T20:38:00.000-07:00

Just to prove that the Chronicler isn't going anywhere, here he is with his family in front of a huge block of ice. (Just kidding, it's a piece of marble high in the Rocky Mountains.)

Obama

2008-09-15T20:24:00.000-07:00

My major impression after seeing the man up close was what a natural. He's tall, and just seems to exist so comfortably in his skin. Its weird to watch someone in what was a very intimate setting, a historic barn in the background, an old railcar and farm behind us, and realize that the message being sent is being repeated over and over again across America.

The question is whether it is sticking with people. We all feel a sense of anxiety right now, wondering whether he is sufficiently hitting back against the GOP. I had hoped he would unveil some sharper attacks, but he did not. I guess in the end Obama has done the whole campaign his own unique way, and it has worked for him. So maybe he does know what he is doing.

Reggie Love came out and served as Obama's body double for telepromptering purposes. I yelled Duke sucks. just kidding.

When Money Goes Into Hiding

2008-09-15T20:02:00.000-07:00

A punchy description of where the economy is at:

Risk aversion is ascendant. Risk taking is shunned. Capital is a resource to be husbanded and conserved. Banks which have just funded a special purpose vehicle to provide liquidity to themselves will not be racing to make risky loans to Main Street or Wall Street. Leverage will be disdained and shunned.

Every revolution from the French Revolution to the sexual revolution has ended in excess. So ,too, will this revolution in the financial industry as banks and traders painfully and reluctantly reeducate themselves in the art of prudent risk taking.

All the best.....

2008-09-15T19:52:00.000-07:00

To The Chronicler, we wish all the best in your future endeavor at Rude Awakening. Your contributions to this blog, and yes, this country, shall not be soon forgotten. And yet, like all baby birds you must now leave the nest and return to the bosom of the Pacific Ocean (wait wrong scene).

This is a sad day for anyone who starts a blog, but yet one which gives me great pride. We hope that you shall return here to extend your insights often.

Wherever you go Yip brave. And Yip free.

I never thought of myself as the Jackie O type

2008-09-15T19:46:00.000-07:00

More like one of those chicks on american gladiator.

To Smokin' Bullet

2008-09-15T17:55:00.000-07:00

SB, where are you???? I'm waiting....