To Market, To Market

Eerie thing about the stock market: you almost feel like it's a repetitve cycle, and that you've been here before at some point:

NEW YORK (Reuters) -Caterpillar Inc.'s warning that the housing slump was infecting the wider economy sent U.S. stocks tumbling by the most in more than two months on Friday, in a drop that was made more unnerving as it marked the 20th anniversary of the 1987 market crash.

It was twenty years ago yesterday that the biggest market crash in American history occurred, kicking off nearly fifteen years of economic instability and multiple recessions, saved only by the miracle of Bill Clinton's tax hikes and economic policies.

But that's a different story. Let's read tea leaves today:

Leading up to the "Black Monday" rout on Wall Street, a massive budget shortfall, falling dollar and burgeoning trade deficit clouded the horizon for the U.S. economy, even as the Dow hit a string of record highs.

Sound familiar?

Since the start of this decade, the U.S. budget has swung from surplus to deficit, the dollar has slid to record lows and a huge hole remains in the trade balance -- only now it's nearly twice as big compared to the overall economy.

Transcripts from the Federal Reserve's meeting a month before the 1987 crash show similar issues were on the minds of policy makers.

Investors were also concerned, particularly after a bond market rout in the wake of a precipitous drop in the dollar during the two years leading up to the October 19, 1987, crash.

"Eventually the dollar broke and that crushed the bond market," said William O'Donnell, head of U.S. interest rate strategy and research with UBS in Stamford, Connecticut.

Yikes.

So you have the issues of timing (mid-October) and the economic preface in place. You also have a Bush in the White House (Reagan, at least, listened to his economic advisers, rather than decide things for them). This might not be very pretty to watch, to put it diplomatically.

That's not to say that this is a slam dunk certainty that the markets are poised to tank. By some measures, the stock market is actually undervalued, which means there's plenty of upside left, if you buy that scenario.

I think differently, however, and believe that using 20 year old measures when so much has changed in the marketplace is silly. For example, investors now have access to much more immediate trading based on much more immediate information, and since earnings reports this quarter have been pretty ugly (look at what Catepillar's report did yesterday), to say the market is "undervalued" is likely wrong, especially if people don't "feel" that it is.

And feel counts for so much in stock trading. In a perfect market, people would make rational decisions based on perfect information that they felt they could trust.

We have neither of those, and it's a self-reinforcing cycle of mistrust and irrationality.

The most eerie similarity between this week (and upcoming week) and Black Monday is this: In 1986, the United States economy began shifting from a rapidly growing recovery to a slower growing expansion, which resulted in a "soft landing" as the economy slowed and inflation dropped. The stock market advanced significantly, with the Dow peaking in August 1987 at 2722 points, or 44% over the 1986 closing of 1985 points. On October 14, the DJIA dropped 95.46 points (a then record) to 2412.70, and fell another 58 points the next day, down over 12% from the August 25 all-time high. On Friday, October 16, the DJIA closed down another 108.35 points to close at 2246.74 on record volume.

If you look at the American economy and in particular, the New York Stock Exchange over the past two years, you'll see that you can pretty much fit the curve into the above paragraph with little error.

In 1987, in one day, a billion dollars was lost in the American economy. A drop of similar proportion today would result in the loss of tens of billions, perhaps more.

That's going to hurt, because while the markets have grown five-fold, the US economy has barely doubled in the past twenty years, after accounting for inflation.

The law of gravity applies here, and while I don't expect a 14,000 point drop in the Dow, I also don't rule it out over the long haul. It is only human hubris that makes us think we can suspend the laws of physics and finance.

A Brief Announcement

I feel it incumbent upon me to fulfill my duty as a blogger and primp my reputation a bit:

Today saw my 150,000th reader.

That is all.

Friday Music Blogging

Power Station - Some Like It Hot

I post this in solidarity with the penguins in my too-air-conditioned office who are striking with frozen flippers holding iced herring in the air...

Friday Kitten Blogging

Sister come home from collidge today! YAY!

Nobody Asked Me, But...

YOUR WEEKLY WHIP AROUND OF NEWS

1) Now, let us bow our heads and pray to the Ceiling Cat.

2) I'll gladly accept any submissions for that particular Wiki, by the way. Deposit them in comments here.

3) Remember, you heard it here first, when it happens: either Monday or Tuesday, I anticipate an enormous melt-down in global stock markets, probably triggered by some catastrophic news from America or American markets.

4) Why is it that these things always seem to happen in the middle of October? Black Monday, Black Tuesday...

5) It never ceases to amaze me, speaking of markets, how bad news piles up on top of bad news. Any ideas why that is?

6) Hope they paid the mortgage. They got off easier than this shnook.

7) Note to self: use an inconspicuous car.

8) Maybe he didn't steal it?

9) Note to Bush: Next time, use a better metaphor.

10) Yea, we're fighting them there so we don't have to fight them here. But I don't think they're reading from the same script. How stupid is a policy that sees thousands more die each year in more and more terror attacks, yet claims to be a terror-suppression mechanism?

11) I have SO had it with Ellen Degeneres' dog story! I miss the societal relevance of Britney's pink wig already!

12) Couldn't the fucking adoption agency just vetted the family she gave the dog to, and get this the hell off my TV screen, fercrissake!? "Under fourteen," my ass!

13) The easiest job in the world just became available. Starting salary in the $5MM range. Tums not provided.

14) Seriously, everyone touts the magnificent job Joe Torre did as Yankees manager. Bull-fucking-shit! A chimpanzee could have walked to the playoffs with the teams that were provided Torre, particularly early on in his stint.

15) And I say that as a big fan of Joe Torre as a player, but when he managed the Mets, he wasn't precisely a dazzling strategian.

16) Odd timing on this story, as well as this one and a few others: Last Sunday and Monday, I had been seeing a general warning about MRSA, which I chalked up to a new TV season and news shows trying to pump ratings. Now all of a sudden, there's a frikkin' epidemic?

17) Finally, the old adage "never be photographed with someone prettier than you" applies here. And Donatella Versace is a FASHION DESIGNER!

Shall We Play A Game?

Idiot! Fucking idiot!:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. President George W. Bush warned on Wednesday a nuclear-armed Iran could lead to World War III as he tried to shore up international opposition to Tehran amid Russian skepticism over its nuclear ambitions.

Bush was speaking a day after Russian President Vladimir Putin, who has resisted Western pressure to toughen his stance over Iran's nuclear program, made clear on a visit to Tehran that Russia would not accept any military action against Iran.

Here's the really scary part:

"We've got a leader in Iran who has announced that he wants to destroy Israel," he said. "So I've told people that, if you're interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing them from having the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon."

(emphases added)

Oh good lord! Rachel Maddow of Air America Radio said it better than I ever could on the Today show this morning. Bush isn't threatening war with Iran over nuclear weapons, he's threatening war over the "knowledge necessary" to make nukes, meanwhile, you have an unstable regime in the region that already has nukes, has tested them, and is passing on the "knowledge necessary" to anyone who pays enough (Pakistan).

Against this backdrop comes this curious little news item:

TEHRAN (Reuters) - Russian President Vladimir Putin gave Iran a "special message" on its disputed atomic program and other issues, Iran's chief nuclear negotiator was quoted as saying on Wednesday, without giving details.

Somehow, I'm guessing it wasn't a long distance dedication on American Top 40 with Casey Kasem....more likely, it was "We'll stand by and stop any UN sanctions, but you have to stop picking fights with Bush. Wait until the next administration and maybe we can all sit down and let saner heads prevail."

Speaking of "saner", one of the talking points on the right wing has been about Bush's "tough talk" with Iran (and Russia and China), openly talking about World War III. Apparently, none of them could recall the last time a President said those magic words.

Um, hullo? IT'S BECAUSE THIS PRESIDENT IS AN INSANE FUCKING LOON!, whereas every other President, including Ronald Reagan, was at least close to sane.

One of the more bizarre aspects of this posturing on Bush's part (one can only hope that he's secretly playing "good cop, bad cop" with Putin's assistance...but I doubt it) is the flimsy evidence that Iran has developed anything close to the capability to even develop the "knowledge necessary," beyond what a college freshman might learn in a physics class.

After all, we invaded Iraq on "evidence" that, at least on its face, was far stronger for Saddam Hussein having WMDs (after all, we had the receipts to prove that) which turned out in fact to be bogus, setting aside even the question of weapons inspectors for a moment.

Who figured Hussein was more truthful than Bush? It was easy to believe Bush, frankly because we wanted to and the nation was itching for a fight.

This time, however, the sense I get is that the rhetoric has been ratcheted up, which tells me that the evidence is even more flimsy and even more bogus (Iraq, at least at one time, had WMDs).

The Bush brinkmanship doctrine doesn't even have a clear offsetting nuclear power to keep it in check at this time.

Russia would of course stand up to us. It would have to, but it would do so reluctantly, and it's not clear that it would do it in a sufficiently timely fashion in order to avoid a nuclear exchange. China might get involved, but then again, it might see an opportunity to let the world go to hell in a handbasket, then pick up the pieces and pluck the ripe fruit. With that much land to hide in, there's really no reason for it to get involved unless forced to.

Which brings us back to the sanity clause...

Presidential Foot Stomping

A defensive President Bush insisted that he was still relevant this morning in a news conference dominated by his bitter complaints about the Democratic Congress.

Asked how he found himself vetoing a children's health insurance bill that had passed Congress with bipartisan support, Bush insisted that using a veto is "one way to ensure I am relevant."

Shorter Bush: "I am relevant! I am! I am! I am! Mommmmmmmeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!"

Just. Go. Away!

Hump Day Comedy Blogging

Harry Potter and The Dark Lord Wal(de)mart

Hey, Some Of The Boys Are Coming Home!

If only it was for the right reasons....:

Commanders in Iraq have decided to begin the draw down of US forces in volatile Diyala province, marking a turning point in the US military mission.

Instead of replacing the third Brigade of the first Cavalry Division soldiers from another brigade in Salahuddin province will expand into Diyala.

In this way, the number of US Army ground combat brigades in Iraq will fall from 20 to 19.

It will also mark the start of what President George W Bush has billed as a shift in the American military mission.

The December move, not yet announced by the Pentagon, was described by Col Stephen Twitty, commander of the fourth Brigade, first Cavalry, in a telephonic interview.

Two clues tell you what's really going on here:

1) The area, Diyala, is hardly what one might term "settled", the way that Bush has touted the Anbar province as "settled".

2) Rather than have Iraqi forces stand up, we're merely spreading out our remaining forces to secure what is a hotly contested region.

Meaning, basically, we're throwing our troops DEEPER into harm's way.

Thanks a lot, jackass!

The Hardcore Quarter

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Deepening unhappiness with President George W. Bush and the U.S. Congress soured the mood of Americans and sent Bush's approval rating to another record low this month, according to a Reuters/Zogby poll released on Wednesday.

The Reuters/Zogby Index, which measures the mood of the country, also fell from 98.8 to 96 -- the second consecutive month it has dropped. The number of Americans who believe the country is on the wrong track jumped four points to 66 percent.

Bush's job approval rating fell to 24 percent from last month's record low for a Zogby poll of 29 percent. A paltry 11 percent gave Congress a positive grade, tying last month's record low.

Well, that's good news for Congress...apparently, as many people who are going to blame Congress for the nation's problems have already blamed them *snark*

Bush's approval drop seems to be tied to the veto of S-CHIP legislation, which explains why the Republican right wing attempts to smear a twelve year old (and now a TWO year old! I thought Republicans were against killing fetuses?) failed so miserably.

With Bush's depature a known quantity, and the overwhelming "throw the bums" out mentality in the nation, can we truly expect to see a Democratic Congress AND President?

Short answer, yes. Long answer, yer damned right!

While a third party effort (sorry, folks, Gore has said no. Again.) for the Presidency could conceivably gain some traction this time around, just as it did after the last Bush presidency, it's highly unlikely a rabble effort like that would do anything except solidify the Presidency for Hillary Clinton, which is pretty much a foregone conclusion as it stands.

Further, a grass roots movement to install third party candidates in Congress might garner a few maverick districts (much like Bernie Sanders in Vermont), but these mavericks would likely end up caucusing with Democrats anyway, so what's the point?

Duverger's Law is intact, for at least one more election cycle.

I can forsee no scenario which unfolds where anybody BUT a Democrat (and frankly, anybody but Hillary Clinton) ends up as President and any party BUT the Democrats control a (now-unnecessary) veto-proof Congress. The forces of history are stacked high against Republicans (which is likely why some half dozen have announced their retirement from Congress with next year's election), and even higher against an insurgent candidacy.

24% is hardly a base anymore, it's more of a foolish consistency, a shadow of cognitive dissonance. Sadly, that 24% who still support Bush, even at this late date, is still a bigger number than currently support any Republican candidate to replace him.

That, among all the numbers and wonkitude I've thrown out here, may be the saddest commentary of all on the 2008 Presidential Elections.

Putting The Other Foot Into It

"What say we burn down some Bush?"
As Larry Craig's travails and reclamation effort dominates the national news scene, little noticed on the mainstream media was America's attempts this weekend to create an "us v. them" handicap tag team match in the global wrestling ring:

BEIJING (Reuters) - China expressed fury on Tuesday that the United States is to honor the Dalai Lama with an award and warned that the activities of his supporters were increasing in Chinese-controlled Tibet.

The Dalai Lama, who has lived in exile in India since staging a failed uprising against Chinese rule in 1959, is to receive the U.S. Congressional Gold Medal on Wednesday after being hosted at the White House by President George W. Bush.

"We are furious," Tibet's Communist Party boss, Zhang Qingli, told reporters. "If the Dalai Lama can receive such an award, there must be no justice or good people in the world."

Now, say what you will in admiration of the Dalai Lama-- and I do-- the timing on this award is suspect, to say the least.

First off, you have Secretary of State Condi Rice (no full names here, she hasn't earned that distinction) picking a fight with the Russians. That little masterful piece of idiocy came hard on the heels of Vladimir Putin treating Condi and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates like unruly schoolchildren the day before, making them cool their heels for 40 minutes outside his office before scolding them for the new missile defense program.

I think we know whom he really wanted to scold, the Boy King in the White House, but he settled.

And now this dust-up with China. The Chinese issue with the Dalai Lama is simple: they can't harm him directly, since he lives in exile in India.

Think of the Dalai Lama as China's Castro, and you have an inkling of the difficult position China has found itself in. Now add to that the fact that the Dalai Lama is the spiritual leader of nearly a billion Chinese (despite the official atheist stance of the government), Tibetans and Mongolians.

It's as if Castro was a high Israeli Rabbi. The Dalai Lama has enormous influence in China by not being there.

Talk about a moment of Zen!

The only legitimate reason I can think of (bear with me, I'm thinking as I type this) for pissing off BOTH Russia and China in the same week is to create a three-way dynamic of mistrust.

China and Russia have improved relations in the past twenty years in a way that China and America have not, and in opposition to the way America and Russia have frosted their relationship during the current administrations (Bush and Putin's, I mean). To drive some sort of wedge in between them woudl probably limit any concerted efforts on their part to foment opposition to any moves we might make in the Middle East, including invading Iran, if indeed that is on the table.

But to be sure, not only is this a stupid strategy in terms of accomplishing its goal ("the enemy of my enemy is not my enemy"), it's flat out dangerous for America.

So, in the past four days, the United States President has embarked on a mission of antagonistes, taking direct aim at human rights violations by our two biggest rivals, and sticking their noses in them.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm...I don't see a whole lot of upside to this, do you?

Why This Might Matter To You

You might consider this payback for our arrogance over the past seven years, and undoubtedly there's a bit of that in there.

You might consider this a bitof "get even" for our economic hegemony that sees Wal-Mart in China and Hooters in Saudi Arabia.

Or you might consider this the natural progression of economic evolution:

Investors would like to believe that a portfolio which is diversified across both developed and emerging markets would continue to perform well, even during a U.S. recession, because Chinese economic growth is creating insatiable demand for raw materials in particular.

The U.S. accounts for about 25 percent of world output and in past business cycles investors have suffered as world stockmarkets have weakened when U.S. economic growth has slowed, as it has this year, or slipped into recession.

"A lot of my colleagues are arguing that it is different this time around," said Andrew Milligan, head of global strategy at the investment arm of UK insurer Standard Life Plc

It's true.

It used to be that, when the US sneezed, the world caught the flu. We only need look within our lifetimes to see that, after the 1987 market crash and the (chronologically, not causitively) subsequent economic depression in the US, the world suffered as well (after a bubble in the Japanese markets which caused them to have to shovel money into assets overseas...but that's another story).

A curious thing happened in this past Bush recession: other markets strengthened. Led by China and India, Asian markets absorbed our economic hits in 2001 and 2002 (and a mini-hit in 2003), and took advantage of them by expanding their trade with the US (our trade deficit went from $400 billion to $700 billion.)

There are probably many reasons for this, of course. The one that occurs to me most quickly is the fact that, in the 1990s, the global economic playing field levelled.

No longer was it necessary for a country to have access to vast resources in order to grow economically. Information was the engine of growth now, and information had no borders. The Internet saw to that.

Which is why when you call Verizon to fix your DSL service (don't get me started!), you now either speak to someone in Mumbai or Mexico City, depending on the operating system you use: there's no need for a physical presence inside our borders, because the cost of the call is nominal when you factor in wage differentials, and the same database of information is available to Ricardo or Sajni as it is to Joe or Claire.

Too, the ability to digest data and churn out information no longer meant being physically on Wall Street to cop tips while out at a luncheon: it was there, out in the public, which is why London, with its easier banking and stock regulations is now the financial capital of the world, despite the New York Stock Exchange being the single largest exchange in the world.

In other words, the new economic model rewards efficiency over resources. Do it faster, cheaper, with less waste, and you're going to make money.

The Europeans and Asians have been working in that mode for centuries now. Ever been in a British shower?

Ever wonder why a British shower is as unfulfilling as it is? Maybe it's because the world has recently undergone the kind of transformation that the US will now have to undergo: a contraction of expectations.

Bill Clinton, during his administration, foresaw this. Like him or not, he was correct when he stressed the need to retrain and re-educate American workers as their jobs went overseas, thanks in part to NAFTA but overwhelmingly because of this economic trend of rewarding efficiency.

In a land where it used to make sense to drive an hour in each direction to a job, it makes less sense: companies can't compete when they have to take an economic hit every morning there's a traffic jam.

In a land where it used to make sense to drive lumber across country to build a house, it no longer makes sense: the price of fuel is way too high, and the inefficiencies of wood construction are magnified when that fuel cost is added in.

In a land where Playskool used to manufacture toys in Milwaukee and ship them worldwide, it no longer makes sense when China can do it far cheaper (and far more dangerously!), and still keep retail prices affordable.

Do you see how ridiculous that is? A toy is designed here in the States, and it's still cheaper to have a factory in China (buying substantially all its raw materials from the greatest resource store in the world, America) build that toy and ship it here to sell in a Tyos R Us in Paramus, NJ, a round trip of some 15,000 miles, give or take.

What does this mean to us?

It means that we'll be shipping more and more raw materials overseas. It means that, as China and other Asian and European countries see their citizens becoming wealthier, American retail markets will have to fight harder (meaning higher prices) for things we take for granted. Like toys. Like cars. Like clothing.

It means, in short, a forced move to the progressive agenda of doing more with less, of conservation, and of progressive tax codes.

Will that happen? Yes.:

Large new sources of demand have emerged in China, India and elsewhere, and may be sufficient to counter the impact of a U.S. recession, argued Milligan, who directs investment strategy at Standard Life Investments which has about $280 billion in assets under management.

In addition, in the event of a U.S. recession, the Chinese government could increase its spending to ensure China's annual economic growth does not slip below its recent average of around 10 percent before the 2008 Beijing Summer Olympics, he said.

World stockmarkets have recovered since a global credit and liquidity crisis in mid-summer, and in some countries stocks have rallied to new highs, partly because of the belief that Chinese economic growth is offsetting the impact of a weak housing sector on the U.S. economy.

Will we still have impact? Yes. As noted, the US is the single largest economic bloc in the world, roughly 25% of the global economy. Together, China and the other Asian countries make up nearly that much.

But China's economy alone is growing at an annual 10.5% rate, while the US can barely muster 2.5-3% under the failed policies of the Bush administration (thank the tax cuts!). China is poised within the next two years to become the world's third largest economy, surpassing Germany and lagging only England and the US.

Then all hell breaks loose. While the US could wage an economic "Cold War" with China, ultimately, the momentum is in China's hands: to our 300 million people, China can mobilize over 1.3 billion: that's the United States, PLUS one billion more folks.

It's a war we cannot win, and thanks to the loss of prestige engendered by this ridiculous invasion of Iraq and the utter insolence and hubris demonstrated by the Bush administration (most recently in Russia), we can't even be assured that we can steal a chunk of it away from China now.

Are We Picking Yet ANOTHER Fight?

On the heels of yesterday's tense meeting between Condi Rice, Robert Gates and Vladimir Putin of Russia, comes this stupid spewing from the Secretary of State:

MOSCOW (Reuters) - U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told Russian human rights activists on Saturday she wanted to help them build institutions to protect people from the 'arbitrary power of the state'.

The meeting could irk the Kremlin, which is sensitive to Western accusations it is rolling back democratic freedoms and suspects foreign governments of trying to influence the outcome of next year's presidential election.

I have two points to make here, both of which I can sum up in an anecdote.

Imagine, if you will, Nikita Kruschev coming back from the grave, and standing up in front of, say, Yearly Kos, and saying essentially the same thing.

OK, my two points:

1) What the fuck is Rice trying to do, ignite a nuclear holocaust?

2) When will Condi stand up for the rights of Americans to protect us from the arbitrary power of the state?

That is all. I'm too angry to write much else.

Friday Music Blogging

Billy Joel - Pressure

My favorite Billy Joel song of all time. He had a period about twenty years ago where he really dealt with his inner demons through his music. I have no doubt that once he stopped, he started his real drinking.

I met him back in the early 80s in a bar in Roslyn, NY, where he was celebrating a friend's birthday, and my buddies and I were in the next booth.

Really nice guy. We sat for a little while with them, drinking and laughing. It was a good way to get laid for a few months afterwards...

Friday Kitten Blogging

Who da bessest kitten onna planet?

Dass right, ME! Not sum stoopid hairless pussy...

Nobody Asked Me, But...

BREAKING NEWS EDITION!

When news breaks, I pick up the pieces.

1) Turn your closet into a pantry!

2) That's now TWO THREE FOUR former Presidents of the United States who have won Nobel Peace Prizes! Congratulations, Mr. President!

3) Pooty-Poot looks like he's going to take up the Dixie Chicks mantle. First, he made Condi Rice and Robert Gates cool their heels in his antechamber ("Professor, the Dean is furious! He's waxing wroth!" "Is Roth out there, too? Tell Roth to wax the Dean for awhile." baDUMching!), then he threatened to cancel an anti-ballistic missile treaty over Bush's posturing with a new missile defense shield.

4) At least someone can stand up to this monster.

5) It looks like I'll finally be able to come out of the closet. Maybe there really is a Crusade about to take place.

6) Finally, a reason to buy a Wii:

7) You have sixty minutes before an asteroid hits the planet and wipes us out. Quick? What would you do for sixty minutes? Me, I think I'd do number two. And not just the one on the list!

8) Obviously, this bug has been married.

9) Shaun of the Engine Room.

10) $250 million for what? Good grief, is this payback for beating them in a war?

11) No. This has been another edition of "Obvious Answers To Ridiculous Questions."

12) Is it just me, or is this starting to sound like the plot from the first Batman movie?

13) The oldest wall painting yet discovered was revealed this week (see photo above). Apparently, it even predates Clement Greenberg as no scathing review accompanied it. Thanks to Miss Cellania, let me clarify: Lascaux predates this painting, but this was painted on a constructed wall and is art for art's sake.

14) Oh...and ThumbPer asked me to remind you to boycott this weekend's NYC Cat Show, since he was not personally invited to attend. He's very insulted. He barely gobbled down two bowls of cat food over the past 24 hours.

I Em Angree!

I sawr thes arteckle on the innertubenets taday, and et made me so mad!:

NEW YORK (Reuters) - The claws will be out in New York City this weekend as hundreds of pedigree cats, with stage names such as "Disco Nofurno" and "Leonid the Magnificent," compete to win "Best of the Best" at the Cat Championships.

Dass MY titel, cuz dadby sed so! An dese stoopid cats are tryin to take et away from me?

OHNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!! Dey be steelin mah titel!

Look at dis little pussy!

I cud scartch hes eyes out, no problem! Butt hem want to be bessest qat?

I don fink so!

Or dis wun!Look at det! Hem has to jump tru hoops an I'm stell a bester qat!

Yes, you keep steckin yer tongue at me, keyboard boy...I scartch your eyes out too, you dancingcat!

I no whare you lib!

Maybe, Just Maybe.....

...the Democrats are starting to get their acts together:

Item 1 - House panel backs Internet tax ban extension:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A U.S. congressional committee on Wednesday endorsed legislation that would extend a moratorium on state Internet access taxes for four years.

The U.S. House of Representatives Judiciary Committee voted unanimously to endorse extension of the Internet tax ban after defeating Republican amendments that would have either extended the prohibition further or made it permanent, a committee spokeswoman said.

Curiously, I'm behind the Republicans on this one, but what the hey...we all know they did that to prevent the original bill from being approved, thus allowing states to impose a tax on Internet access.

Item 2 - House backs bill to end private tax collections:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The House of Representatives voted on Wednesday to end a Republican-backed program allowing private debt collectors to pursue tax debts owed to the federal government.

The House voted 232-173 for a bill ending the program enacted in 2004 by the then Republican-led Congress.

Democrats, who now control Congress, and unions opposed the program, saying it was a costly way to collect tax debts that could more efficiently be collected by Internal Revenue Service employees.

This one is close to my heart at the present time. It's a lot easier for me to negotiate with the IRS, believe it or not, than with a private tax collection agency, simply because the tax collection agency has a threshold where it will no longer make a profit on any tax I might owe. The IRS has no such bottom line, and so I might be able to discount anything I owe them.

Since I'm currently being audited, this is a relief to me.

Item 3 (and the biggie) - House Democrats defy Bush, approve spy bill:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Defying President George W. Bush, Democrats voted on Wednesday to bolster civil liberties safeguards in his anti-terrorism spying program and refused to shield phone companies from pending lawsuits.

Just hours after Bush warned Democrats they would be rolling back efforts to protect the United States, the House of Representatives Judiciary and Intelligence committees approved legislation to ensure congressional and court oversight of the surveillance of suspected enemy targets.

The party-line votes by the two panels were 20-14 and 12-7, respectively.

FINALLY, a spine begins to emerge from the fetal soup that Pelosi et co have been stewing in!

Mind you, there's a contingency, almost blackmail, to the bit about the phone companies:

Bush insisted the new bill "must grant liability protection to companies who are facing multibillion dollar lawsuits only because they are believed to have assisted in the efforts to defend our nation."

Democratic Rep. Bart Stupak of Michigan replied: "The president's remarks today raise further questions about how the administration might have pressured or induced telecommunications companies to participate."

House Democrats say they will not consider retroactive immunity unless the White House hands over records of detailing what the companies did. The House bill would protect the firms from future lawsuits, but not from pending ones.

In other words, "Bush? Your cronies are on the chopping block unless you start ponying up material in our investigations."

Based on how this administration is responding and cooperating with Congress, you begin to get the sense they feel Nixon didn't fight hard enough to create the imperial Presidency and that Ronald Reagan was a wimp.

Of course, those two men labored under the apparent delusion that the Constitution was more than a piece of parchment hung on the wall of the Skull & Bones frat house.

Item 4 - House panel OKs Armenian genocide resolution:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A U.S. House committee approved on Wednesday a resolution calling the 1915 massacres of Armenians genocide, brushing aside White House warnings that it would do "great harm" to ties with NATO ally Turkey, a key supporter in the Iraq war.

The House of Representatives Foreign Affairs Committee approved the resolution 27-21. It now goes to the House floor, where Democratic leaders say there will be a vote by mid-November. There is a companion bill in the Senate, but both measures are strictly symbolic and do not require the president's signature.

OK, this one I might have a bit of a problem with, not for the sentiment expressed (it's pretty clear Turkey owes Armenians an apology and acknowledgement of the slaughter, at the very least), but for the timing:

ANKARA (Reuters) - Turkey's prime minister will ask parliament next week to authorize a military push into north Iraq to fight Kurdish rebels amid Turkish anger on Thursday at a U.S. vote branding Ottoman Turk killings of Armenians genocide.

Analysts say a large Turkish cross-border incursion remains unlikely, but Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan's government will seek authorization for it after a public holiday which ends on Sunday, a ruling party member told Reuters.[...]

Ankara says 3,000 rebels from the outlawed separatist Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) are based in northern Iraq from where they stage deadly attacks into Turkey.

We need to prevent this, somehow, and hobbling Bush and Condoleeza Rice with this wet towel that Erdogan can smack them around with is probably not helpful.

Too, Turkey is a vital pipeline into Iraq for munitions, troops, and fuel. Pissing them off is effectively cutting funding for the troops, which while a noble goal, needs to be done some other way, more directly, instead of this passive aggressive bullshit featuring a staunch Muslim ally.

So, we'll score yesterday's session a B+, with plenty of room for improvement, but its clear they've started to take their jobs seriously.

Hump Day Comedy Blogging

A real toe tapper...

How To Shoot Yourself In The Foot

Since this is extracted from a New York Times article, I'm going to quote from it more extensively than usual, since I don't know how quickly they'll archive it.

If you've been paying attention to the blogosphere these past few days, a storm's been brewing over the Democratic response on September 29 to President Bush's weekly radio address. 12-year-old Graeme Frost urged Bush not to veto legislation that was then pending in Congress (and subsequently passed):

WASHINGTON, Oct. 9 — There have been moments when the fight between Congressional Democrats and President Bush over the State Children’s Health Insurance Program seemed to devolve into a shouting match about who loves children more.

So when Democrats enlisted 12-year-old Graeme Frost, who along with a younger sister relied on the program for treatment of severe brain injuries suffered in a car crash, to give the response to Mr. Bush’s weekly radio address on Sept. 29, Republican opponents quickly accused them of exploiting the boy to score political points.

OK, so far, no harm, no foul. The anger the Republicans felt was directed where it should have been: at the Democrats, not Frost or his family.

And then the Republicans called in their orc stormtroopers...:

In recent days, Graeme and his family have been attacked by conservative bloggers and other critics of the Democrats’ plan to expand the insurance program, known as S-chip. They scrutinized the family’s income and assets — even alleged the counters in their kitchen to be granite — and declared that the Frosts did not seem needy enough for government benefits.

There is a certain disingenousness about attacking a 12 year old (and you'll note the White House silence on this so far) and his family to the point where in truth, these blogophericals have stalked the Frosts.

The critics accused Graeme’s father, Halsey, a self-employed woodworker, of choosing not to provide insurance for his family of six, even though he owned his own business. They pointed out that Graeme attends an expensive private school. And they asserted that the family’s home had undergone extensive remodeling, and that its market value could exceed $400,000.

One critic, in an e-mail message to Graeme’s mother, Bonnie, warned: “Lie down with dogs, and expect to get fleas.” As it turns out, the Frosts say, Graeme attends the private school on scholarship. The business that the critics said Mr. Frost owned was dissolved in 1999. The family’s home, in the modest Butchers Hill neighborhood of Baltimore, was bought for $55,000 in 1990 and is now worth about $260,000, according to public records. And, for the record, the Frosts say, their kitchen counters are concrete.

Oops.

I suppose this all wouldn't be nearly so ugly if it wasn't for the confrontational attitude that many in the media, particularly Michelle "Jackpot Baby" Malkin who has a history of invading people's privacy while hypocritically bitching when the tables have been turned on her, having been forced to move (and admitting it on her blog) when Jesus' General posted general directions to her house at his blog.

Poor Jackpot Baby, but when you lie down with dogs, you wake up with fleas...

Back to the Frosts:

Certainly the Frosts are not destitute. They also own a commercial property, valued at about $160,000, that provides rental income. Mr. Frost works intermittently in woodworking and as a welder, while Mrs. Frost has a part-time job at a firm that provides services to publishers of medical journals. Her job does not provide health coverage.

Under the Maryland child health program, a family of six must earn less than $55,220 a year for children to qualify. The program does not require applicants to list their assets, which do not affect eligibility.

In a telephone interview, the Frosts said they had recently been rejected by three private insurance companies because of pre-existing medical conditions. “We stood up in the first place because S-chip really helped our family and we wanted to help other families,” Mrs. Frost said.

Now, you'd think this is precisely the kind of family that Republicans would want to help!

After all, among the major reasons people give for filing bankruptcy and then going on public assistance is (drumroll, please) major catastrophic medical expenses not covered by health insurance.

As I said, you'd think...

But Michelle Malkin, one of the bloggers who have strongly criticized the Frosts, insisted Republicans should hold their ground and not pull punches.

“The bottom line here is that this family has considerable assets,” Ms. Malkin wrote in an e-mail message. “Maryland’s S-chip program does not means-test. The refusal to do assets tests on federal health insurance programs is why federal entitlements are exploding and government keeps expanding. If Republicans don’t have the guts to hold the line, they deserve to lose their seats.”

No. It doesn't means test.

Neither do SBA programs that are intended to rebuild businesses after a catastrophe like Katrina. Or tax deductions for property taxes. Or tax credits for farmers (Michelle, are you listening?). Or oil exploration credits. The interstate highways don't charge fees based on how expensive your car is.

And Iraq swore it didn't have WMDs, but no one bothered to wait around until that was "means tested" by Hans Blix, either.

The simple truth is, blogosphericals, that people suffer tragedies and can't afford to recover from them, even if they appear to be in fairly decent shape. Those of us who have the means to be able to recover shouldn't make fun of or harass those who don't.

Just as those of us who were born here of legal American citizens shouldn't denigrate the citizenship of jackpot babies. Thems the law, and that's the rule we play by.

The Nader Of The GOP

The lessons learned of the 1992, 1996, and 2000 elections apparently did not sink in to the Republican party:

To many values voters, Giuliani's rise is one more insult in the wake of the serial GOP sex scandals in Congress, the failure of George W. Bush's Administration to amend the Constitution to outlaw gay marriage, and a hunch that religious voters register on the Republican radar only when Election Day is in sight.

No duh!

We get a bit of an insight into why Karl Rove bailed out on the Republican party just when they need him most: for the past seven years, his hand-picked choice for President, the man to whom he delivered 3.5 million additional conservative Christian votes in 2004, has failed miserably, not just in imposing freedom in Iraq, but also in imposing a clear, conservative Christian agenda on America.

Sure, he's made inroads, no question about that: the nominations of Justices Roberts and Alito have all but cinched a conservative agenda for the next four decades in the court system, barring a sudden change of heart with a new President.

But look what hasn't happened, what was promised to the religious right: an anti-gay marriage amendment to the Constitution, overturning Roe v Wade, an end to the sex scandals that plagued government during the Clinton administration (suddenly, Monica Lewinski giving the Big Dog a hummer doesn't seem nearly so outrageous, when he was derided by people who "meat up" in men's rooms in airports), and other Christian stances that were, in fact and deed, repudiated by Bush (on issues such as saving the environment and assisting the poor such as in the Katrina tragedy).

There are two dynamics at work here: the first and overarching one is the hubris the Christian Coalition has shown over the past twelve years when in point of fact, its harsh stances and inflexibility has created many of the legislative logjams and moral morasses we see now.

After all, would Larry Craig have been such an huge hypocrite if his constituency, egged on by people who have their own moral matters to contend with-- like Ted Haggard or Ralph Reed-- hadn't insisted he tow a hard line in order to win their votes?

Pardon the pun.

On the flip side, the Republicans bear a lot of the responsibility here, too. Just as Democrats are often accused of taking (pick your minority/interest group) for granted, the Republicans assume that Christians have no alternative, having painted themselves as the final arbiters of Jesus' work here on earth.

*AHem*

If you take abortion off the table, the Democratic positions are much closer in fealty with Jesus' teachings than the Republicans, which is why the GOP is terrified of a Hillary nomination.

She's truly the only candidate of either party who is in a position to take a nuanced stance on abortion, as both a women and a Christian, and her "let's make abortion rare, safe, but legal" stance resonates with many more Christian middle class women than overturning Roe v. Wade does, while maintaining a strong position for liberals to embrace.

Meanwhile, the GOP doesn't have anyone in the race or on the horizon who could accept the full embrace of the Christian Coalition while having a plausible presence in the rest of the country's mind as a President.

In other words, the Christian Coalition is looking at itself in a mirror, thinking it sees the country, which it does not.

The sort of hubris that Ralph Nader's supporters saw in 2000, and look what that got us.

OK, that's not entirely fair. Al Gore lost the election (despite the stealing of Florida) for any number of reasons, not least of which was his failure to win his own damned Congressional district, much less Florida.

And yet, Nader got into the race, as his campaign staff put it "to put George Bush in the White House," in order to punish the Democrats for drifting from the left.

You'll notice they've tacked ever closer to the center and actually started winning some elections, Ralph. You might have done more good for the progressive cause by sitting out the 2000 election.

In many ways, this uprising by the conservative Christians is more damaging than Ralph Nader's was. Having seen the failure for two terms of their hand-picked candidate, and the moral incompetence of their handpicked Congress, for them to pull out now would be like taking heroin from an addict.

But then again, Christians were never particularly tolerant of people's weaknesses, even if their Lord is...

Drive By Posting

My DSL provider has seen fit to suddenly become all Keystone Kops with my connection. I'm, um, borrowing a neighbor's WiFi connection to make this hit and run posting.

I'm fine, just a three day weekend and a stupid bureaucracy is all that stands between me and actually shooting my mouth off as usual...

“Figures lie and liars figure”

From Danny Schecter, the News Dissector at MediaChannel.org

Is The Economy Out Of The Woods?

New York, October 8, 2007: On Sunday, October 6, the Public Editor of the New York Times pointed to all the discrepancies and conflicts in the violence figures coming out of Iraq. He called for more nuanced reporting and increased public skepticism. He noted that the perception of progress there has been bolstered by the release of questionable statistics.

What’s true of reporting from Iraq is also true about the job figures that the government releases monthly gauging the health of the U.S. economy. Can they be trusted? And what about the reporting on them? This is an especially timely issue as Fox News gets ready to launch its own heavily-hyped new Business Channel.

For weeks, we have heard all these warnings about the financial crisis sharpening and a possible recession. Reality intruded after a big subprime relief rally sent stocks soaring. Wall Street was quickly back in swamp, and it looked like the Federal Reserve Bank would have to cut interest rates again to further bail out the markets.

But then, on Friday, the Bush Labor Department announced a new jobs report and much of the coverage turned upbeat.

The report offered preliminary data claiming that the economy added 100,000 jobs in September. Suddenly, lower job figures from July and August were also magically revised upwards.

Wall Street went crazy. The S&P went up and the headlines went positive.

Here are two examples of the spin:

The New York Times: “JOB GROWTH LOOKS ROSIER, EASING RECESSION FEARS.”

The Wall Street Journal: “US ECONOMY DOWN, NOT OUT.”

The new numbers accounted for the turn around? Bear in mind, back in the 90s, in the Clinton years, 200,000 new jobs was expected on a monthly basis to assure economic growth. That was the gold standard. Now that number has been cut in half and is suddenly being treated as Great Leap Forward. How did the job numbers turn around? Or have they?

More here.

Friday Music Blogging

King Missile - Detachable Penis

Show me a man who cannot relate to this song and I'll show you a man who hasn't woken up still drunk.

Nobody Asked Me, But...

1) So he now has 50 cents?

2) In all seriousness, while Ron Paul appeals to me in a sort of renegade way, I don't trust him, and since he's running as a Republican, I think I have good reason not to. I get a sense out in Blogtopia (© Skippy, the Bush Kangaroo) that there are a number of lefties who would consider him, but they could also be cleverly concealed right wingers.

3)

4) And heyyyyyyyyyyyy here on Actor212 Radio W-A-S-S, we have a special shoutout to Miss Cellania...seriously, lest you think Oxycontin is a problem only for overweight bloviating right wing "talk" show hosts who are afraid to face anyone with a responsible opposing opinion, not so much.

5) Finally, a pepper sauce hot enough for my tastes!

6) Possibly the saddest sports related story of the year. Not for the victim or what happened to her, but for the country at large. Role models are harder to come by these days.

7) I got a suggestion, Big Dog: Keep a low profile, and rebuild that bridge to the 21st Century.

8) The clock is ticking. You've been warned. Might amount to nothing, but it might be tragic.

9) It's only a game, folks! But this is obscene from a cultural standpoint.

10) This is just wrong. JUST. WRONG! I expected better from Will Smith.

11) It's getting so philanderers everywhere will have to stop giving expensive gifts to get laid.

12) Say it with me, everyone: Nobel Prize Winner Al Gore. The only thing sweeter would be to add "former President" to that title.

13) I wonder if there's an orangutan Christian Coalition, and do they know about this?

14) It is nice to know that orangutans and I have something in common, tho.

15) She must have some big-ass tits.

16) OK, I apologize. I should have said hooters.

17) Say goodbye to Fred Thompson:

A Convergence In The Force

One of the Democrats see-saw battles internally has been over free trade/fair trade. On the one hand, middle-to-middle-left Democrats see free trade as a good thing, an almost Republican position if you believe the smears.

On the other hand, more left-of-center Democrats believe free trade is a mask to cover predatory capitalism's exploitation of poorer nations and people, including poorer Americans, and that fair trade or barriers to trade are needed.

Both, sadly, are correct positions, which is what makes trade an issue that is not easily resolved at the grass-roots level, and has given the Republicans an economic and foreign policy plank in their platform, not to mention reinforced their arguments regarding tax cuts.

Until now.:

WASHINGTON -- By a nearly two-to-one margin, Republican voters believe free trade is bad for the U.S. economy, a shift in opinion that mirrors Democratic views and suggests trade deals could face high hurdles under a new president.

The sign of broadening resistance to globalization came in a new Wall Street Journal-NBC News Poll that showed a fraying of Republican Party orthodoxy on the economy. While 60% of respondents said they want the next president and Congress to continue cutting taxes, 32% said it's time for some tax increases on the wealthiest Americans to reduce the budget deficit and pay for health care.

Six in 10 Republicans in the poll agreed with a statement that free trade has been bad for the U.S. and said they would agree with a Republican candidate who favored tougher regulations to limit foreign imports. That represents a challenge for Republican candidates who generally echo Mr. Bush's calls for continued trade expansion, and reflects a substantial shift in sentiment from eight years ago.

Note the slightly subtle undercurrent in general Republican opinion, apart from the trade issue: tax hikes on the wealthiest, and protections for poor working Americans.

All this comes on the heels of seven years of "unfettered economic improvement" (I'll get back to that in a moment), a rising if faltering stock market, and a President who goes out of his way to remind people of how his tax cuts put a lot of money in their pockets.

Um. Yea. Not so much...

If you take a look around the current economic landscape, you see the ghosts of our past fiscal party draped over the furniture: easy credit, rocketing house values, low interest rates, predatory lending.

None of which has anything to do with tax cuts. Where tax cuts could have and should have helped middle class Americans, putting more money in their pockets through reduced tax bites and, more important, higher wages, never happened. Wage growth was actually down for the first term of Bush's administration and it wasn't until 2006 that the average caught up and surpassed the average wage in 2000, adjusted for inflation.

In point of fact, the last seven years' spending is probably the result of one unintended impact of Bush's tax cut and one other factor that had nothing to do with taxes whatsoever.

When Bush cut taxes, three times, the logic should have flowed like this: tax cut equals increased spending by businesses and the public equals higher interest rates as credit tightens (companies leveraging their new-found money into capital purchases, people buying bigger homes).

What happened instead was something a little different: tax cut equals increased dividends and capital gains recognition equals lower economic activity equals a further lowering of interest rates to avoid recession.

That extra money, in other words, flowed to wealthier people who didn't need to spend it, instead investing it where they could get a great return. That would normally be a good thing for America, but here's the unintended consequence and why this happened: the rest of the world's economy was starting to ramp up and catch up to the American economy.

Those extra dollars weren't invested here, but in Europe and Asia, particularly China and India, which explains how, while our economy is basically stagnant at the consumer level, our corporations are still making money hand over fist on their overseas activity and the stock markets, never a good economic indicator except in retrospect, are breaking records.

The other factor? The psychology of September 11 and the fear that the administration has made certain to simmer since.

You get panicked and you need to be comforted. In America, that leaves one thing to do: shop. Bush's speech on this point was unnecessary. People weren't in economic hardship, so they weren't about to stash money in their mattresses, waiting for the rabid Islamist horde to come ravage their daughters and raid their banks.

Material acquisition, for reasons I'm not qualified to truly explore, seem to comfort us. Perhaps it's the whole "keeping up with the Joneses" mentality we've been inculcated with, or perhaps it's merely the feel that, in some bizarre way, we've "conquered" something and gained wealth.

It's the wealth angle that strikes me about the past seven years. The rising housing prices, the increased equity people gain in their homes with each mortgage payment, the ability to trade up, quickly turning a $250,000 investment into a $500,000 one by selling the $250K house for $300K, then buying the $500K house with the proceeds, minus the vig for yourself, and a bigger mortgage, feeds right into this acquisitive mentality.

And now we're seeing the bitter fruit of the leftover market. Sure, some people made a ton of money, early on, in the boom, but now you're seeing house prices slipping, and interest rates creeping up, which means house prices will slip further. Now, add to that the baby boomers downsizing their houses as the kids move on, and you've got a really chance of a shrinkage in wealth not seen since the Great Depression.

And people have less and less money to spend. And now, the job market is starting to catch up.

This is not going to be pretty, but the good news is the other half of the country is starting to wake up and realize how bad things really will be. It's a Pyrrhic victory we financial wonks on the left are celebrating, to be sure, but it bodes well for recovering from this horrible tragedy to come.

My Day Today

...so I'm brainstorming at lunch with an editor from the New York Times, trying to figure out a way to cover poverty and race relations in the country that's comprehensive and would make some good reading...

Hump Day Comedy Blogging

Effin Funny Stand-up - Jimmy Dore

Posted Jul 08, 2007

On today's theme of being scared by our own government, George Bush loves to scare the crap out of you.

The Most Laughable Story You'll Read This Week

This is a joke, right?:

MIAMI (Reuters) - Seven men plotted to bring down the U.S. government by poisoning saltshakers and bombing landmark buildings, a prosecutor told Miami jurors as their terrorism conspiracy trial opened on Tuesday.

The "Liberty City Seven" aimed to create chaos as part of a holy war to pave the way for al Qaeda-affiliated guerrillas to take over the United States, Assistant U.S. Attorney Richard Gregorie said in the prosecution's opening statement.

"We need to make the people go crazy in the streets," Gregorie quoted alleged ringleader Narseal Batiste as saying. "Allah is going to take over through us."

BWAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAH!

OK, some background on this: About fifteen months ago, a huge breaking story that ran across the front pages of newspapers all across the country went something like this: "Terror Plot To Blow Sears Tower Busted."

Note the timing: nearly one year after the 7/7/05 terror bombings in London, and just ahead of the Fourth of July holiday.

Homegrown terrorists, ties to Al Qaeda, massive bombing plot...soopersecret stuff, right? Probably busted wide open by an undercover FBI mole who, as his patriotic duty insisted, turned on his friends and narced.

Eh. Not so much:

Rather than trained terrorists for whom stealth and secrecy is the golden rule, these guys seem to have strutted around a poor African-American neighborhood in Miami wearing military-style garb (sometimes also turbans), standing guard and doing exercise drills. You know, like the S1Ws in the old Public Enemy hip-hop shows. And just like the S1Ws, seems like these guys didn’t have any real weapons either. The indictment against them is pretty hilarious, because it makes clear that the only contact these guys had with “al-Qaeda” was through a U.S. government undercover agent posing as a Qaeda operative. So the indictment says they swore oaths to al-Qaeda and sought its assistance in waging a ground war (yes, a ground war!) against the “devils” on U.S. soil. But, of course, any such “oaths” were administered not by al-Qaeda, but by a U.S. government agent posing as al-Qaeda. (I’m sure the lawyers are going to have fun with this one!)

Sure enough, they will:

Defense lawyers said the charges were "nonsense" scripted by the government and orchestrated by paid FBI informants they called Conman No. 1 and Conman No. 2.

They said the defendants, one of whom was devoted mainly to smoking marijuana, had no weapons or intent to do violence and that it was the informants who suggested poisoning restaurant saltshakers and blowing up buildings.

Now, I don't know about you, but I don't know too many stoners who would even get up off the couch to blow up a balloon (except for a shotgun hit for someone else) much less a building.

But come on! Think about the implications of this preposterous story: seven men, and only seven men, would poison enough salt shakers and blow up enough buildings to foment panic in the streets sufficient for wave upon wave of Al Qaeda fighters to invade our homeland and overthrow the US government?

Yeeeeeeeeea. Someone's been watching Red Dawn and smoking mesc...

However, it provides a neat segue into something I was thinking about this morning: fear.

I was reading a column by Jeffrey Kluger in Time magazine. He made the following observation:

It's impossible to resist comparing the America of 1957 with the America of 2007-- and finding the modern version wanting. There was a clear-eyed quality to the U.S. commitment to space and a frank understanding of what it would take to get there. This wasn't an effort built on tax credits for willing industries or bipartisan earmarking. It wasn't a program financed by cooked books or off-budget accounting. Most important, it was sustained by appealing not to what scared us but rather to what elevated us. There's no need to invoke WMD when you've got MIT.

In a nativist time like ours, it's hard to imagine a national effort so peopled by foreigners--German expat Wernher von Braun building our rockets, New Zealand immigrant William Pickering heading our unmanned program. In a time of flash-paper attention spans, it's similarly hard to picture any agency surviving the setbacks NASA did. Ranger 7 was the first unmanned U.S. ship to land on the moon--following the sequential failures of Rangers 1 through 6. Think that program would make it as far as Ranger 4 today?

Most remarkable, though, was the odd humility that marked our space enterprise. Yes, in the historical mirror, some of it seems overdone: the astronauts in silver space suits (when military green would have served just as well), shedding names like Virgil and Donald and Gordon for Gus and Deke and Gordo. But that was done with a cultural wink, one that belied the workmanlike ethos beneath the effort.

In that most American of plays, Death of a Salesman, Willy Loman, father of two layabout sons, is stunned to find that his neighbor's boy is arguing a case before the Supreme Court and hasn't mentioned it. "He don't have to," his neighbor answers. "He's gonna do it." A coda to that idea is offered in the elegiac new documentary In the Shadow of the Moon. One of the scenes shows the men of Mission Control lighting cigars after the 1969 splashdown of Apollo 11. Behind them, on a control room viewing screen, two words are projected: TASK ACCOMPLISHED. That may be a less triumphal phrasing than "mission," but whatever you call it, Americans knew enough not to boast about a thing until we had done it.

Indeed. The unspoken coda to this article is this photo:

What are our leaders-- and through their reactions and calculated efforts, us-- so afraid of?

What do we have to fear from a terror attack? The best Al Qaeda could do in ten plus years of planning was find a small flaw in our civil defenses and exploit it.

Rather than wasting our energy and more important, squandering our justifiable concern over real terrorist actions over idiotic scams like this Miami plot, we ought to be focusing on finding the people who really want to hurt us and stopping them.

And not making up boogeymen so we can burnish our credentials falsely. During the Clinton administration, the Federal government managed to foil 16 terrorist plots, including the famous plot by Ramsi Yussef to blow up seven transPacific airliners, the precursor to the 9/11 hijackings themselves.

No one talked much about it (mostly because Republicans and the media were focused on a different missile), and things were handled. We need to get back to that, to the attitude that it's not talked about, it's just done.

Breaking News!

Another massive Chinese toy recall is underway...

The "So Be It" Barack

Much has been made about the mantle of inevitability of Hillary Clinton's candidacy, if not her Presidency. I tend to agree with this sentiment, and while I have my reservations about Hillary's abilities to lead this country, from a purely political standpoint, I think she's done a fine job of campaigning for the past six years.

The only other candidate, it seems, with the staying power to compete with Hillary as well as the platform that might topples this juggernaut (including Republicans) is Barack Obama.

Now, I like Obama, too, and should the choice come down to these two at the end of the trail, I'd be hard pressed to choose between them.

On one hand, we have the inevitability factor, as well as far more experience than Obama. On the other, we have the certainty of youth and the creativity of an outsider.

Tough choice. Obama is trying to attack Hillary's experience, tho, and I think that's a really dumb mistake:

"He's basically going to lay out a comprehensive case for why his original opposition to the war demonstrates why he has the kind of strength and experience to lead this country," said Obama spokeswoman Jen Psaki.

Citing aides to Obama, The New York Times reported he will also propose setting a goal of eliminating all nuclear weapons in the world, saying the United States should greatly reduce its stockpiles to lower the threat of nuclear terrorism.

If this is the major theme he's going to attack Clinton on, Obama has some questions to answer, not least of which is why his voting record on the war and war funding since he was elected is nearly identical to Clinton's.

For a strident war opponent, one who nags both Clinton and John Edwards constantly about their vote to authorize, the sense I get from his subsequent votes is that he would have fallen in line right alongside everyone else. I suspect I'm not alone in that impression.

We're Democrats, not Republicans. We can read.

But to go on...:

Obama has tried to turn the tables on Clinton in recent days by saying he has the equivalent experience that her husband, Bill Clinton, had when running for the White House in 1992.

"I remember what was said years ago by a candidate running for president," Obama said in New Hampshire on Saturday. "He said, 'The same old experience is not relevant. You can have the right kind of experience and the wrong kind of experience.'

"Well that candidate was Bill Clinton. And I think he was absolutely right," Obama said.

Yea, he said that...as a two-term governor of Arkansas, with experience running a bureaucracy, balancing a budget and being directly responsible for administering a government.

Barack, you've got two election wins under your belt, the bigger one based solely on a terrific speech you gave at the national convention, running against a guy who couldn't have beaten OJ Simpson. That's all. To be comparing yourself to Bill (Greatest. President. Ever) Clinton is a little...cocky, to put it mildly.

A better, and perhaps more valid comparison to make is Hillary with George Bush: a family member of a former President being thrust into contention based almost solely on name recognition, with the opposition party lying in the bushes (er, no pun intended), waiting to pounce.

And then hope no one bothers to read up on her Senate record. They might not, because this line of reasoning at least rings true for people.

Look, people out here want change. Even I'm uncomfortable with the fact that it's highly likely that, for 36 years, we could have either a Bush or Clinton in the White House (going back to Bush the Mature as Reagan's VP). Dynasties are supposed to be missed in a democracy.

Whether we still have one is in question and is the subject of a different post. To the point at hand, experience matters, to be sure, when a country is as unsteady as this one is, but change matters, too.

For Barack Obama to come from behind and win this thing is going to require a ground-up rethinking of his campaign, starting with, from all accounts, his stump speech, which I'm told is about as mechanical as John Kerry without any of the glamourous war stories. He's a more vibrant speaker than his stump speech let's him be. He needs to connect with people.

John Edwards is challenging in the one must-win state for both Obama and Edwards, despite being handicapped in fund raising, because Edwards can touch people. He has some of Bill Clinton's sympatico and common man feel, despite the haircuts and fancy suits.

Too, Obama's tone-deafness in Iowa can't be helping. Iowa is an old state, with a high percentage of over 50 voters. To slough off an AARP debate is practically suicide, even if you believe your staff that the under 30 vote is being wildly undercounted.

When a 50 year old says they're going to vote, they're going to vote. When a 20 year old says it, you'd better damned well hope the St. Louis Rams aren't in the playoffs or it's not finals week.

By all accounts Obama's fund raising strength plus the broad base of small contributors he's built is formidable, but much of that is from people who just hate Hillary and can't take Edwards seriously added to people who genuinely admire Obama and believe he can win.

It also skews very young, which again doesn't bode well for the commitment to Obama they've made.

He has the stuff to survive Iowa and New Hampshire and perhaps to make a game of it in South Carolina, but he has to start running as opposed to just showing up.

Do As I Promise, Not As I Do

Leave it to New York City mayor Mike Bloomberg to put things in perspective:

Bloomberg earlier gave a speech to the opposition Conservative Party's annual conference in Blackpool and took aim at conservative American politicians who ran up budget deficits.

"It seems to me that the Conservative Party in the UK is much more fiscally conservative than many American politicians who call themselves conservative," he said.

"Too many of them want to run up enormous deficits and hope that some way, somehow -- someone else will pay for it. That's not conservatism, that's alchemy, or if you like, lunacy."

Or, create a problem, then pray it goes away.

But Mayor Mike's comments got me to thinking: why is it that Republicans and particularly conservatives, can't keep their peckers in their pants when it comes to running up a bar tab the size of Montana (or a national debt the size of, literally, China)?

After all, conservatives are supposed to be all about fiscal responsibility, personal responsibility, and restraint (of the unfun kind), and yet the last three conservative Presidents have run up massive Federal deficits.

There's a school of thought that says by running up these deficits, conservatives can choke off the money for discretionary spending programs, like Medicaid or welfare or mass transit grants, and to a degree, there's some truth: we probably would have had smaller budget surpluses under Bill Clinton (Greatest. President. Ever.) if we hadn't reformed welfare and cut some of the bloat out of that bureaucracy.

But Clinton's presidency also points out the folly of that plan: unless you can persuade the vast majority...not the majority, the vast majority...of the uselessness of a particular entitlement, all that will happen is a) the entitlement will get funded through deficit spending or b) you're going to have people agreeing to a tax hike to pay for it.

No one objected to Clinton's tax hikes after the fact, because Clinton's tax hikes were directly linked (perhaps justifiably, perhaps not) to the booming economy of the 90s, where Reagan and both Bush's have tax cuts that led nearly directly to recession and even economic depression.

Despite increased Federal spending, something that should mitigate economic slowdowns. Thus you have ballooning deficits, since economic slowdowns produce even less tax revenue than anticipated.

One possible reason, exogenous to any economic or political theory we might examine this issue of conservatives and ballooning deficits, is a psychological one: there are very few fiscally conservative Republicans who had to "come up through the ranks," so to speak, who actually had to scrape from paycheck to paycheck to pay off a mortgage.

And who's businesses always had a bail out at the dead end of the street.

Let that last thought sink in for a moment.

And now let me emphasize this next point:

Don't you think it's odd that the men who have made the most of the American dream, the Bloombergs, the Buffetts, the Gates', the ones who started from the ground up with a business, and struggled and perservered without a hand out, without Daddybucks behind them, are fairly liberal people?

And then there's George W. Bush: a man who has failed at each and every business he's ever run, a man who's had to have handout after handout from the bin Laden family, from the people of the state of Texas, from James R. Bath, from his daddy.

Are we seeing a pattern here? An entirely paternalistic concept-- to let your boy run a business into the ground, then pay off his mistakes-- has become national policy for an entire party.

And we're Daddybigbucks, backing these assholes.

Newt Kapewt

Well, not that this was a huge surprise, but:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Ending months of speculation, former House of Representatives Speaker Newt Gingrich said on Saturday he would not run for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination, citing campaign finance law restrictions.

Gingrich, who previously said he was considering joining the race, told Fox News the McCain-Feingold campaign law would have forced him to leave his American Solutions political organization if he declared his candidacy.

"I wasn't prepared to abandon American Solutions, even to explore whether a campaign was realistic," he said.

Damned ehtical Republicans and their damned ethical campaign finance laws that can be circumvented by a twelve year-old with a tin can and ball of twine.

C'mon, Newt, who you kidding? You couldn't have caused even the barest splash in the fountain with your entrance. Look what happened when "Mr. Law And Order" Thompson jumped in.

Nothing. Not even the hint of momentum towards a rolling up of the Giuliani juggernaut. Even Mitt yawned, and it takes a lot to make Mitt publicly bored.

And yet, Thompson was the closest thing you have to a Reagan Republican running, which means even most Republicans realize the failed policies of that era, including the ill-starred coup to take over Congress, was a bad idea who's time should never have come.

Face it, Newt, you and your ilk ruined this country and may even have destroyed the entire planet with your self-righteous greed and hatred. "Anything for a buck" should have been the subtitle to the Contract On With America. The best thing you can do, Newt, to periphrase William Wallace in Braveheart is to "Lower your flags and march straight back to the Confederation of Southern States, stopping at every home to beg forgiveness for a dozen years of theft, rape, and murder."

We are on the brink of a great progressive evolution in this country. You can sense it in the desperation on the right to battle any perceived foible or alleged miscue of the left, yet try to scrape off the dog crap of a thousand worse insults. Each time they criticize Democrats or the left, they find themselves with four fingers pointing right back at themselves.

And not all the money in the world will reverse the tide. The people, long silenced by those who felt their positions gave them power over people, will no longer consent to be ruled rather than governed, as power truly rests with the people.

It's merely on loan because we don't have the time to live our lives and govern ourselves. The Democrats ought to remember that as well.

So Newt? Don't let the door hit you on the way out. And I'll be waiting for my apology.