Sub Lumen

Getting Fooled Again

noreply@blogger.com (Sub Lumen) — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 15:11:00 +0000

Crooks and Liars is the first political blog that I ever read regularly. The enjoyment/catharsis I found there is at least indirectly responsible for my eventual decision to try the little project you see here. I don't always agree with the points of view expressed there (e.g., 2nd Amendment rights), but I generally admire the quality of writing as well as their perpetual vigilance.

While I was still fighting off the effects of brunch overindulgence, they were [i.e., Susie Madrak was] catching this:

Obama To Appeal Ruling That U.S. Can't Retain Suspects Without Judicial Oversight

I can't wait for the usual comments about how this means the opposite of how it appears, Obama's extended super brilliant chess game, etc.:
The Obama administration said Friday that it would appeal a district court ruling that granted some military prisoners in Afghanistan the right to file lawsuits seeking their release. The decision signaled that the administration was not backing down in its effort to maintain the power to imprison terrorism suspects for extended periods without judicial oversight.

[. . . .]

Tina Foster, the executive director of the International Justice Network, which is representing the detainees, condemned the decision in a statement.

"Though he has made many promises regarding the need for our country to rejoin the world community of nations, by filing this appeal, President Obama has taken on the defense of one of the Bush administration’s unlawful policies founded on nothing more than the idea that might makes right," she said.

In 1971 The Who released a song entitled Won't Get Fooled Again. The song is essentially about the futility of political revolution, the unlikelihood of real political change. As the lyrics progress first there is an uprising, then the rebels overthrow those in power, then in the end, the new regime becomes just like the previous one.

The song ends with the depressing announcement: "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."

I've been trying to combat the feeling that we're seeing life imitating art with Obama for months, since before the General Election. His campaign was almost entirely void of pledges to repair the damage to the Constitution and the rule of law effected by the Bush administration. Then came Obama's concrete act of capitulating to the dark side in his vote on the issue of telecom immunity -- a vote against individual liberty made without justification or even the barest political need.

Since he's been in office, I've seen nothing more than cosmetic changes in many of the worst Bush policies (e.g., "we're not going to call them enemy combatants anymore").

I would dearly love to see real, tangible, verifiable change. Restoring Habeus Corpus would be a nice start. Aggressively pursuing justice by seeking prosecution for war crimes committed by the previous administration -- from the top to the bottom -- would be another.

Instead I see dictionary games being played (terrorist acts now are "man-caused disasters," the ill-advised wars in which we're enmeshed are now "overseas contingency operations," etc.) while the administration wastes its "justice" department resources on endless defenses of Bush atrocities.

Instead I hear the constant mantra of, "we want to look to the future, not the past," as if they want us to believe that objects in the rearview mirror do not really exist.

Santaya, anyone? Most of us have heard some version of: "Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it." It is, however, even more appropriate and more illuminating to look more fully at the passage in his Reason in Common Sense from which the famous line comes:

Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness. When change is absolute there remains no being to improve and no direction is set for possible improvement: and when experience is not retained, as among savages, infancy is perpetual. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

Paul Krugman and Market Mystique

noreply@blogger.com (Sub Lumen) — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 15:03:00 +0000

Anyone who knows me well knows that I like Paul Krugman. What's not to like? The guy has a towering intellect, a Nobel Prize for Economics on his mantle and a great beard. And compared to many of the guys with whom Obama has surrounded himself for economic advice, like Jonathan Mann, I find myself wishing sometimes that he was in the place of the likes of Geithner or Summers.

In his most recent NYT piece, Krugman writes:

On Monday, Lawrence Summers, the head of the National Economic Council, responded to criticisms of the Obama administration’s plan to subsidize private purchases of toxic assets. "I don’t know of any economist," he declared, "who doesn’t believe that better functioning capital markets in which assets can be traded are a good idea."

Leave aside for a moment the question of whether a market in which buyers have to be bribed to participate can really be described as "better functioning." Even so, Mr. Summers needs to get out more. Quite a few economists have reconsidered their favorable opinion of capital markets and asset trading in the light of the current crisis.

But it has become increasingly clear over the past few days that top officials in the Obama administration are still in the grip of the market mystique. They still believe in the magic of the financial marketplace and in the prowess of the wizards who perform that magic.

[ . . . . ]

Much discussion of the toxic-asset plan has focused on the details and the arithmetic, and rightly so. Beyond that, however, what’s striking is the vision expressed both in the content of the financial plan and in statements by administration officials. In essence, the administration seems to believe that once investors calm down, securitization — and the business of finance — can resume where it left off a year or two ago.

To be fair, officials are calling for more regulation. Indeed, on Thursday Tim Geithner, the Treasury secretary, laid out plans for enhanced regulation that would have been considered radical not long ago.

But the underlying vision remains that of a financial system more or less the same as it was two years ago, albeit somewhat tamed by new rules.

As you can guess, I don’t share that vision. I don’t think this is just a financial panic; I believe that it represents the failure of a whole model of banking, of an overgrown financial sector that did more harm than good.

At my peril I've elided here Krugman's sketch of America's post-Depression financial policy. You really should read the whole thing. The reason I left it out? It's with no small amount of trepidation that I say: I think he's a bit wrong about some things.

Dr. Krugman sees the world through Keynesian lenses. That's the macroeconomic model that is his foundation. I'm no economist. A's in Principles of Econ 1 and 2 qualify me for nothing. So to say that I'm not a Keynesian is virtually meaningless. I don't know enough about the subject matter to say that I represent any school of thought. Yet, I do have a distinct feeling for what makes the most sense to me, and at this point in my life (until, perhaps, I become more enlightened) that's the Austrian School, founded by the likes of Hayek (who also had a Nobel Prize on his mantle) and von Mises.

The folks at LewRockwell.com do a pretty good job of breaking down Austrian Economics for the masses (like me), and Bill Anderson disagrees with Dr. Krugman's vision of history without being disagreeable.

You really should read Krugman and then read Anderson to fully understand where the differences lie. The purpose of this posting is maybe more of a personal thing for me -- sort of declaration, a delineation of what/where my "home turf" is as I endeavor to do the heavy lifting involved in coming to an understanding that satisfies ME of the probably causes of and potential cures for our current global economic woes.

See? I didn't call it a "global economic shitstorm" this time. I'm becoming much more mature! And as for Paul Krugman, call me a fanboy if you will, but I (like Jonathan Mann) still think he's an all around cool guy.

Kindred Spirit

noreply@blogger.com (Sub Lumen) — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 06:20:00 +0000

I heart Jonathan Mann. O.K., more accurately, I heart every Jonathan Mann song I have heard so far. Below are two fine examples thereof. Watch them both, and by so doing enrich your life for a grand total of four minutes.

A Venti of Truth on Morning Joe

noreply@blogger.com (Sub Lumen) — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 05:02:00 +0000

I was delighted (and a little surprised) to see Peter Schiff of Euro Pacific Capital on MSNBC's Morning Joe this [Wednesday] morning. His take on the causes of and the cure for the current global economic shitstorm are about 180 degrees away from the fast-talkers who frequent the show from sibling network CNBC.

In my book Schiff has just a wee bit more credibility than the average talking head on this subject, insofar as he did predict quite accurately what was coming -- back in mid-2006! Just how many times does this guy have to be right when everyone else is wrong before Washington/Wall Street crowd will listen?!?

Absolute MUST Reading

noreply@blogger.com (Sub Lumen) — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 06:16:00 +0000

Matt Taibbi is a journalist and political writer currently working at Rolling Stone where he authors a column called "Road Rage" for the print version, and an additional weekly online-only column called "The Low Post". He has also recently been a regular contributor to Real Time with Bill Maher.

There are things upon which I disagree with Taibbi, for example he equates people who think the official story of 9/11 is less-than-true with extreme religious right Armageddonists.

But I will admit that he is intelligent, articulate and occasionally near brilliant. The article he has recently written for Rolling Stone about the current global economic shitstorm is, quite simply, the best thing I've read on the subject.

The title is "The Big Takeover," and its subtitle of sorts is: The global economic crisis isn't about money - it's about power. How Wall Street insiders are using the bailout to stage a revolution.

Here's the intro (edited ever so slightly for those with delicate sensibilities). Read this, then go read the whole piece if you have not done so already. Read every damn word of it. Consider it a huge steaming bowl of wake-the-f*ck-up!

It's over — we're officially, royally f*cked. No empire can survive being rendered a permanent laughingstock, which is what happened as of a few weeks ago, when the buffoons who have been running things in this country finally went one step too far. It happened when Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner was forced to admit that he was once again going to have to stuff billions of taxpayer dollars into a dying insurance giant called AIG, itself a profound symbol of our national decline — a corporation that got rich insuring the concrete and steel of American industry in the country's heyday, only to destroy itself chasing phantom fortunes at the Wall Street card tables, like a dissolute nobleman gambling away the family estate in the waning days of the British Empire.

The latest bailout came as AIG admitted to having just posted the largest quarterly loss in American corporate history — some $61.7 billion. In the final three months of last year, the company lost more than $27 million every hour. That's $465,000 a minute, a yearly income for a median American household every six seconds, roughly $7,750 a second. And all this happened at the end of eight straight years that America devoted to frantically chasing the shadow of a terrorist threat to no avail, eight years spent stopping every citizen at every airport to search every purse, bag, crotch and briefcase for juice boxes and explosive tubes of toothpaste. Yet in the end, our government had no mechanism for searching the balance sheets of companies that held life-or-death power over our society and was unable to spot holes in the national economy the size of Libya (whose entire GDP last year was smaller than AIG's 2008 losses).

So it's time to admit it: We're fools, protagonists in a kind of gruesome comedy about the marriage of greed and stupidity. And the worst part about it is that we're still in denial — we still think this is some kind of unfortunate accident, not something that was created by the group of psychopaths on Wall Street whom we allowed to gang-rape the American Dream. When Geithner announced the new $30 billion bailout, the party line was that poor AIG was just a victim of a lot of shitty luck — bad year for business, you know, what with the financial crisis and all. Edward Liddy, the company's CEO, actually compared it to catching a cold: "The marketplace is a pretty crummy place to be right now," he said. "When the world catches pneumonia, we get it too." In a pathetic attempt at name-dropping, he even whined that AIG was being "consumed by the same issues that are driving house prices down and 401K statements down and Warren Buffet's investment portfolio down."

Liddy made AIG sound like an orphan begging in a soup line, hungry and sick from being left out in someone else's financial weather. He conveniently forgot to mention that AIG had spent more than a decade systematically scheming to evade U.S. and international regulators, or that one of the causes of its "pneumonia" was making colossal, world-sinking $500 billion bets with money it didn't have, in a toxic and completely unregulated derivatives market.

Nor did anyone mention that when AIG finally got up from its seat at the Wall Street casino, broke and busted in the afterdawn light, it owed money all over town — and that a huge chunk of your taxpayer dollars in this particular bailout scam will be going to pay off the other high rollers at its table. Or that this was a casino unique among all casinos, one where middle-class taxpayers cover the bets of billionaires.

People are pissed off about this financial crisis, and about this bailout, but they're not pissed off enough. The reality is that the worldwide economic meltdown and the bailout that followed were together a kind of revolution, a coup d'état. They cemented and formalized a political trend that has been snowballing for decades: the gradual takeover of the government by a small class of connected insiders, who used money to control elections, buy influence and systematically weaken financial regulations.

The crisis was the coup de grâce: Given virtually free rein over the economy, these same insiders first wrecked the financial world, then cunningly granted themselves nearly unlimited emergency powers to clean up their own mess. And so the gambling-addict leaders of companies like AIG end up not penniless and in jail, but with an Alien-style death grip on the Treasury and the Federal Reserve — "our partners in the government," as Liddy put it with a shockingly casual matter-of-factness after the most recent bailout.

The mistake most people make in looking at the financial crisis is thinking of it in terms of money, a habit that might lead you to look at the unfolding mess as a huge bonus-killing downer for the Wall Street class. But if you look at it in purely Machiavellian terms, what you see is a colossal power grab that threatens to turn the federal government into a kind of giant Enron — a huge, impenetrable black box filled with self-dealing insiders whose scheme is the securing of individual profits at the expense of an ocean of unwitting involuntary shareholders, previously known as taxpayers.

There's been far, far too much noise lately about the rising tide of populist anger, the grassroots outrage over the AIG bonuses. Yes, there's plenty of reason to be furious, but please do not spend your righteous indignation on what is a mere single pixel in the true big picture here. If you don't see that, reread Taibbi's article.

Get mad, yes. Before you pick up a sign or buy a bumper-sticker or write a letter to your senator or email your congressman -- to borrow from Howard Beale -- you have to get mad. You need to get mad as hell, no matter how cliched that phrase has become!

Nothing is going to change, certainly nothing is going to change for the better as long as we remain an -- at most -- temporarily irritated nation, accepting the tepid pablum that our current leadership is trying to feed us, all the while equaniminously droning on about the need to look to the future and not dwell on the past.

What we need is justice, and as things stand right now we are not going to get it. As is often the case, in order for justice to be achieved bad people must be punished. We do not seem to have anyone in a position of power who possesses the will to even pursue such.

This situation is not going to change from the top down. Our only hope is to not just swallow it, to spit it back in their faces.

Don't believe the lie that there are companies which are "too big to fail." Any company we collectively accept as "too big to fail" is a company that will perpetually have us by the throat, a company that will continue to operate as above the law, a company whose operational miscarriages will continue to be paid for by us ...until such time as no element of the global economy will lend to us anymore, until such time as our currency utterly collapses and we find China and all our other creditors at the door demanding payment, until such time as this once great country slides into the obscurity of being a third-rate third-world nation.

But if that worst of the worst of the worst-case scenario comes to be, rest assured that a leader will arise then in our darkest hour... and explain that we need to look to the future and not dwell on the past.

Another Sign of the End Times

noreply@blogger.com (Sub Lumen) — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 04:59:00 +0000

Sometimes I feel that I'm part of an endangered species, that each plodding day brings me a bit closer to extinction. I saw something on tonight's Colbert Report -- personally verified a short while later -- that is making me think the velocity of the journey toward oblivion has just been accelerated.

There it is.

The new logo for the network formerly known as The SciFi Channel.

The change-over took place on March 16, and like a grazing diplodocus I didn't even lift my head and notice.

The network is seeking to shed their geeky image and attract a broader audience. CEO Dave Howe offered this spin:

What we love about this is we hopefully get the best of both worlds. We’ll get the heritage and the track record of success, and we’ll build off of that to build a broader, more open and accessible and relatable and human-friendly brand.

I think I just threw up a little bit in the back of my throat.

The network's news site proclaimed the dawning of a bright new day thusly:

"Imagine Greater" will become the new brand message and tagline, inviting both consumers and advertisers into a new era of unlimited imagination, exceptional experiences and greater entertainment.

[. . . .]

By changing the name to Syfy, which remains phonetically identical, the new brand broadens perceptions and embraces a wider range of current and future imagination-based entertainment beyond just the traditional sci-fi genre, including fantasy, supernatural, paranormal, reality, mystery, action and adventure. It also positions the brand for future growth by creating an ownable trademark that can travel easily with consumers across new media and nonlinear digital platforms, new international channels and extend into new business ventures.

Yeah, I'm definitely going to be sick.

I suppose in a way it shouldn't matter to me, shouldn't feel like just another emblem of the end of civilization as I knew it. While over the years there has been some SciFi Channel programming I've genuinely enjoyed, very very very little of that programming was what I would really have rather been watching: Science Fiction.

The SciFi Channel has always offered a watery mixture of the things they claim to be now preparing to add in -- fantasy, supernatural, paranormal, reality, mystery, etc., etc. For the old-school, hard-core, science fiction purist it's been a meager broth from the beginning.

But I know what I like and I'd bet that, though the numbers may be dwindling, I'm not alone.

Back in the early 1990s for a while I was the local Network Coordinator for FidoNet (a worldwide computer network that was used for communication mostly between bulletin board systems that was most popular in the early 1990s, prior to the introduction of easy and affordable access to the Internet). FidoNet had a protocol called Echomail that supported topic-based public discussion groups similar to Usenet newsgroups.

One of the Echomail discussion groups I particularly enjoyed was named, "SF." The "SF" stood, naturally, for Science Fiction, and it was a haven for those who believed that in order for a story/novel/movie/whatever to be good science fiction, the science had to be good. This is a purism lost, of course, on the makers and broadcasters of such cinematic gems as Ice Spiders, Mansquito and Chupacabra: Dark Seas.

A "tagline" often appended to messages in the FidoNet SF group ran something like this:

Dear reader, you may wonder why
That it's SF and not sci-fi.
Well, you see, there's a fine line
Between Robert Heinlein
And "Revenge of the Two-Headed Fly."

So fine, "SyFy," go ahead and turn the whole damn channel into a 24/7 reality show featuring vampire ninja ghost lizard-wizards. I just may do what I probably should have been doing all along: read a book.

Accessory After the Fact

noreply@blogger.com (Sub Lumen) — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 18:42:00 +0000

Last night Rachel Maddow interviewed professor of journalism at UC-Berkeley Mark Danner, author of Torture and Truth: America, Abu Ghraib and the War on Terror.

Mr. Danner has been the recipient of a leaked report by the International Committee of the Red Cross on treatment of detainees held at CIA "black sites" that describes a variety of interrogation techniques which the report says "constituted torture." Danner published excerpts from the report in a lengthy article for the New York Review of Books.

As I understand things, The International Red Cross, while not the decider of guilt or innocence of accused individuals, IS the arbiter of whether torture -- as a violation of the Geneva Conventions -- has been done. This report says rather unequivocally that the Bush Administration DID cause prisoners to be tortured.

George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and the rest of their accomplices are chargeable with war crimes. Further, if we as a signatory nation do not respond and bring war criminals to justice, then are we not accessories to their crimes? I fear that we are, and I have the even greater fear that the current government of our nation does not have the courage, the stomach to do what is right on this.

Below is the text of an email that I sent to Ms. Maddow today.

I enjoyed last night's interview with Mark Danner regarding the International Red Cross report on the Bush administration's use of torture. The excerpts from that report that have been leaked to, and published by Mr. Danner place the final stamp of authenticity on what many Americans have long believed was being done without their consent, in their name. In researching this report today, however, I have become aware of a couple of things that puzzle me, things that I would really, really like to see you address on your show before this story has a chance to fade from the national consciousness... drowned out by the clamor over the AIG bonuses, etc., etc.

I discovered that this report dates from over two years ago -- February 2007, to be precise. If (as I understand it) the IRC is the body charged with determining whether torture has been committed under the definitions of the Geneva Conventions, why did no one act on this report?

Why was this a confidential report?

The IRC is not denying the report's existence, but is saying they regret that the information attributed to the IRC report has been "made public in this manner."

When, if ever, do they intend to make the full report available? And when, if ever, will anyone act upon its contents?!

Even if the proposed Senate "truth commission" becomes a reality, I strongly suspect that at best they will do no more than produce still another condemnatory report upon which no action will be taken toward holding our war criminals accountable for their actions. And that, it would seem, makes the current government -- and by extension, the American citizenry -- accessories.

Thanks for your time and attention. Hope to see you address this further.

Though in the email I made reference to "excerpts" that had been received by Mr. Danner, my understanding was subsequently clarified: he did apparently receive the report in its entirety but only published "excerpts." I still hope to find answers for the questions of why the report was essentially kept hidden for two years, and why no action has been taken upon its findings.

Another One

noreply@blogger.com (Sub Lumen) — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 07:35:00 +0000

The fleshing out continues apace of an administration that with each passing week resembles more a third term for The Clintons than a new one for Barack Obama.

Monday it was announced that former Clinton White House Chief of Staff, Leon Panetta, has been tapped to be the next Director of the Central Intelligence Agency. This is change in which I do not want to believe.

Obama's people [now there's an endangered species!] pitched Panetta as a non-controversial choice, a man respected by both sides of the isle in the body responsible for his approval.

It was argued that as Bill Clinton's Chief of Staff, Panetta learned how a president receives and digests intelligence on a daily basis and that this was a qualification for the job. This surreal portrait of DCIA as an intelligence caterer is something I cannot, will not buy. There is so, so much more responsibility called for in this position in an agency (as the NYT observed) that has been notoriously unwelcoming to directors perceived as outsiders.

Also, Panetta is a former Republican. It seems fair to wonder just how many GOP senators have much love for a turncoat.

The only other qualification I've heard mentioned is that Panetta has been an opponent of torture. Hell, so have I, yet I have received no call from the transition team.

All I can see through the harsh lens of political reality is that the real reason for his appointment is that he was and is a loyal Clintonite... or Clintonista, whichever is correct.

I'm starting to suspect that we'll see the rehiring of The Clintons' chef and gardeners as well. Then what, Chelsey Clinton for Secretary of Commerce?

Ron Paul on the Invasion of Gaza

noreply@blogger.com (Sub Lumen) — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 20:04:00 +0000

Speaking Saturday, Congressman Paul made this statement regarding the invasion of Gaza by Israel, and its implications for this country.

If the above video does not play, go here.

Dr. Paul called it a sad day for the whole world since (among other things) it means that "the whole idea of preemptive, preventative war is spreading."

Yes, we may not be doing a great job of exporting "freedom" to the Middle East, but we've clearly managed to export The Bush Doctrine™. Pay attention, Sarah Palin, this may show up on a quiz later.

Top 5 Israeli Lies

noreply@blogger.com (Sub Lumen) — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 19:46:00 +0000

Make no mistake -- I do not regard Hamas as having clean hands as to what's happening in Gaza currently, but neither do I subscribe to what has been the standard American outlook... best expressed by the mantra, "Israel is our friend and they can do no wrong."

With that preface, here are the top five lies about Israel's assault on Gaza, as expressed by Jeremy Hammond:

Lie #1. Israel is only targeting legitimate military sites and is seeking to protect innocent lives. Israel never targets civilians.

Lie #2. Hamas violated the cease-fire. The Israeli bombardment is a response to Palestinian rocket fire and is designed to end such rocket attacks.

Lie #3. Hamas is using human shields, a war crime.

Lie #4. Arab nations have not condemned Israel’s actions because they understand Israel’s justification for its assault.

Lie #5. Israel is not responsible for civilian deaths because it warned the Palestinians of Gaza to flee areas that might be targeted.

Please read the details at Dissident Voice with an open mind and at least be exposed to what you won't hear from out MainStream Media.

This Is How You Do It

noreply@blogger.com (Sub Lumen) — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 08:03:00 +0000

Tuesday night Mike Huckabee, former Arkansas governor and former GOP presidential candidate, appeared for the Nth time as a guest on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart.

As I've mentioned here various times previously, I kind of like Mike. He was not a bad governor and is a very personable individual. There always have been issues upon which I disagreed with him wholeheartedly, and it seems that I've noticed more of those now that he has his own show on Fox News ...Fox Noise ...Faux News ...whatever. Nonetheless, he is intelligent (if narrow-minded on certain things), articulate, quick-witted and generally possessing a high degree of good humor. All of these attributes make him relatively attractive as a talk show guest, and he makes the rounds of most all of them... even when not formally running for office.

As any regular reader here can attest, I also kind of like Jon. For that matter, the casual observer might think that this blog is a virtual Daily Show fan-site. The truth is that, thanks to the efforts of Jon and the writers, the program regularly delivers some of the most on-target, pithy political commentary around. It's the most consistent source of high quality political satire that's been on U.S. television in decades.

Tuesday night, though, it seemed as though Stewart elevated his game to a new, even higher level. The time he spent with Huckabee (who was there ostensibly to plug his latest book, Do The Right Thing) was truly a thing of beauty to watch. It was half interview, half debate and half intellectual sparing match.

I have never seen anyone interview Mike Huckabee so well, and I cannot recall any interview done by Jon Stewart that would equal this one. Jon's questions were pointed, probing and relentless yet both men seemed to be having a great time. Nobody yelled, nobody got mad, but canned responses were not accepted as payment in full for direct interrogatories.

One of my favorite lines, coming in a discussion about limiting the size and scope of government, was when Stewart said something to this effect:
So you're o.k. with government having tanks and nukes, but you don't want to entrust them with giving cheese to poor people?
A few minutes into this interview, the program ceased for a while to be a "comedy show," and became instead something that would have made the likes of the late Tim Russert proud. Yes, I was proud of Jon Stewart, and only somewhat less so of Mike Huckabee.

Below is the video in two parts. Please watch it and enjoy. I promise that these are the last Daily Show clips I will post this year.

If the first video does not play, go here.

If the second video does not play, go here.

Why I Still Watch Some Television - Part 0011

noreply@blogger.com (Sub Lumen) — Sat, 06 Dec 2008 08:26:00 +0000

What does it mean when satire program, a comedy show that throws in the occasional fart joke, is the source for some of the most down-to-earth, explain-it-to-everyman analysis of and commentary upon our current financial crisis. I don't know. I just know that my mental (and probably physical) health is better for Jon Stewart and his crew do.

This clip is about six minutes long and it's all good, but it gets really good at about the four and a half minutes mark. Enjoy.

If the above video does not play, go here.

Who's Afraid of the Big Bad Three - Revisited

noreply@blogger.com (Sub Lumen) — Sat, 06 Dec 2008 08:12:00 +0000

Guess who sounds a bit like Michael Moore?

If the above video does not play, go here.

The Reverend, Revealed

noreply@blogger.com (Sub Lumen) — Sat, 06 Dec 2008 06:49:00 +0000

Remember the "Saddleback Civil Forum" back in August? It wasn't a debate, but it was the first post-convention match up for McCain and Obama -- organized by the head of the southern California mega-church where it was staged, Rev. Rick Warren.

Coming into the event, Pastor Warren was portrayed a benevolent, moderate, centrist, non-partisan type. That's not the vibe that I picked up when watching it, however. It felt very much like McCain was the home team and Obama the visitor. Maybe that had something to do with the way the pastor addressed the GOP nominee as "John," while his opponent was "Senator Obama."

Fast forward to November 4th. Obama wins the election.

Fast forward to December 3rd. Pastor Warren appears on Fox News's Hannity and Colmes, ostensibly to promote his latest book The Purpose of Christmas.

Sounds innocent enough, right? Somehow, though, things went in a decidedly un-warm, un-holiday direction. Via Steve Benen:

Hannity insisted that United States needs to "take out" Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Warren said he agreed. Hannity asked, "Am I advocating something dark, evil or something righteous?" Warren responded, "Well, actually, the Bible says that evil cannot be negotiated with. It has to just be stopped.... In fact, that is the legitimate role of government. The Bible says that God puts government on earth to punish evildoers. Not good-doers. Evildoers."

Here's the transcript.

HANNITY: Can you talk to rogue dictators? Ahmadinejad denies the Holocaust, wants to wipe Israel off the map, is seeking nuclear weapons.

WARREN: Yes.

HANNITY: I think we need to take him out.

WARREN: Yes.

HANNITY: Am I advocating something dark, evil or something righteous?

WARREN: Well, actually, the Bible says that evil cannot be negotiated with. It has to just be stopped. And I believe....

HANNITY: By force?

WARREN: Well, if necessary. In fact, that is the legitimate role of government. The Bible says that God puts government on earth to punish evildoers. Not good-doers. Evildoers.

Matt Duss dissects the Pastor's pontification.

Does Warren really consider it part of his ministry to sanctify the inch-deep theologizing-cum-warmongering of thugs like Sean Hannity? If so, who else does Warren think Jesus would bomb?

I contacted Pastor Warren's office for clarification, specifically to find out where, exactly, the Bible says that "God puts government on earth to punish evildoers" like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. They said they'd get back to me. I'll update if and when they do. I suspect Warren was referring to Romans 13, in which the Apostle Paul admonished Christians to submit to governing authorities (Hear that Hannity? Submit!), and also addressed the power of civil government to punish criminals. This has nothing to do, as far as I know, with invading foreign countries and killing their leaders, which is the context in which Warren is speaking.

It would seem that my insticts about the good pastor were accurate. He appears to be as far to the right as Pat Robertson, who specifically advocated the assassination of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez.

One final note: Pastor Rick Warren was in the news a couple of days prior to his little love-fest with Hannity. On Monday (which was World AIDS Day), the good reverend awarded the very first "International Medal of PEACE" to none other than George W. Bush.

Don't misunderstand, this was not a "peace" award, it's the P.E.A.C.E. award. That acronym represents a global action program authored largely by Warren, and its meaning has changed over the last few years.

Originally the P stood for "plant churches," which was later changed to "partner with existing churches," which has more recently been changed to "Promote reconciliation to address the giant of spiritual emptiness." Yes, honestly. Doesn't that make you immediately think of George W. Bush?

Here's the latest translation of the acronym according to ThePeacePlan.com which is a web site linked to from RickWarren.com.

Promote Reconciliation
Equip Servant Leaders
Assist the Poor
Care for the Sick
Educate the Next Generation

Certainly laudable ambitions all, but George Bush? Really??

In his remarks at the award ceremony, Pastor Warren declared that "No man in history, no world leader, has ever done more for global health" than the out-going President.

I'll give him credit for what he has done regarding the world-wide AIDS epidemic, but I'm not so sure I'd extend that to global health in general. I do, however, remember his contribution to World Malaria Awareness Day last year. (Malaria being a gravely serious disease that accounts for one death every 30 seconds in Africa alone.)

If the above video does not play, go here.

Oh yeah, Pastor, give than man a medal.

Oh, Canada

noreply@blogger.com (Sub Lumen) — Sat, 06 Dec 2008 05:11:00 +0000

We tend to think of you as our nicer, saner neighbor to the north, so WTF?

Canadian PM Shuts Down Parliament to Avoid No-Confidence Vote

Very recently re-elected Prime Minister Stephen Harper, in a completely unprecedented maneuver in Canada, has suspended parliament, locking the doors to block an opposition attempt by a majority coalition to topple his minority government.

It can't happen here. It can't happen here. It can't happen here. It can't happen here. It ca....

The Perfect Metaphor

noreply@blogger.com (Sub Lumen) — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 19:32:00 +0000

In crystallizing the nature of the current financial crisis, The Onion so nails it, as they are wont to do.

God bless The Onion!

Who's Afraid of the Big Bad Three?

noreply@blogger.com (Sub Lumen) — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 05:58:00 +0000

The Chief Executive Officers of the "Big 3" U.S. automakers were back in Washington today (having actually driven from Detroit in cars this time), more humble and more hungry. This time they were asking the Senate Banking Committee for $34 billion in federal loans, up from their request two weeks ago for $25 billion.

They were selling both the magnitude of the need and its urgency, getting help on that point from UAW President, Ron Gettelfinger, who said: "I believe we could lose General Motors by the end of this month."

The auto exec's new tone of contrition mitigated the amount of hostility from the senate panel, but they found few prospective buyers for their sales pitch. Ranking minority member, Sen. Richard Shelby, said: "If you made this presentation to get a bank loan I suspect that any sensible banker would summarily reject your request." However, committee chair Chris Dodd, said, "We're not going to leave town without trying" to help, and that without help "we're looking at a death sentence." [AP]

The Big 3 will try to make their case at a House hearing on Friday, and Congress could take up rescue legislation next week in an emergency session. My suspicion is that they'll meet an equally chilly reception in the House, and at this point I'm not even going to guess at the final outcome.

I've been back and forth on this issue in my own mind. The Hammerin' Hank Paulson $700 Billion Extravaganza has left me with a wee bit of discomfort concerning the whole concept of our government giving away billions of dollars that they don't have in order to reward incompetence. But at the same time, I'm more than a little pissed off at the disparity between the treatment the banks and financial services people received from Congress and the way the mental pygmies on Capitol Hill are dealing with the car companies.

It seems that if you're in the manufacturing sector, if you actually make usable, physical, tangible products, then you get a very public [and in this case, mostly very deserved] whipping... and you may or may not get the money you need to survive.

If, on the other hand, you're in the financial sector, if you lost godawful sums of money buying and selling derivatives and other instruments so exotic you had to hire physicists to create them, then Uncle Sam doesn't even ask you how much you need... he just hands you his wallet on faith. I swear there have been times I've looked at Treasury Secretary Paulson and thought for a moment I was seeing Jack Nicholson's "The Joker" in the first Batman movie, cackling:

"And now, folks, it's time for 'Who do you trust.' Hubba, hubba, hubba! Money, money, money! Who do you trust? Me? I'm giving away free money!!"

I've been hearing other people voicing similar sentiments. One of them is Michael Moore. I've never been a huge fan of Michael's, though we do share a common waistline. On this issue, though, I'm not finding a lot upon which we disagree.

One point of agreement is that in order to save the "body" of the car companies, they should be beheaded. Moore had this to say on Larry King a couple of weeks ago:

They're in the spot they're in and they've been in this spot for some time because they haven't listened to the consumer, they haven't been building the right cars ... in fact, they've not only hurt themselves, they've helped to provide some of the fodder for this economic collapse that we're facing because of the arrogant and wrong decisions that they've made over the years. Those people should be removed.

There's video here.

Michael was on Countdown with Keith Olbermann Wednesday evening and didn't pull many punches.

If the above video does not play, go here or here.

Moore also has a lengthy open-letter sort of article on his web site, that he titled "Saving the Big 3 for You and Me." It's very worth reading in its entirety, but here's the pertinent part.

Congress must save the industrial infrastructure that these companies control and the jobs they create. And it must save the world from the internal combustion engine. This great, vast manufacturing network can redeem itself by building mass transit and electric/hybrid cars, and the kind of transportation we need for the 21st century.

And Congress must do all this by NOT giving GM, Ford and Chrysler the $34 billion they are asking for in "loans" (a few days ago they only wanted $25 billion; that's how stupid they are -- they don't even know how much they really need to make this month's payroll. If you or I tried to get a loan from the bank this way, not only would we be thrown out on our ear, the bank would place us on some sort of credit rating blacklist).

Two weeks ago, the CEOs of the Big 3 were tarred and feathered before a Congressional committee who sneered at them in a way far different than when the heads of the financial industry showed up two months earlier. At that time, the politicians tripped over each other in their swoon for Wall Street and its Ponzi schemers who had concocted Byzantine ways to bet other people's money on unregulated credit default swaps, known in the common vernacular as unicorns and fairies.

But the Detroit boys were from the Midwest, the Rust (yuk!) Belt, where they made real things that consumers needed and could touch and buy, and that continually recycled money into the economy (shocking!), produced unions that created the middle class, and fixed my teeth for free when I was ten.

For all of that, the auto heads had to sit there in November and be ridiculed about how they traveled to D.C. Yes, they flew on their corporate jets, just like the bankers and Wall Street thieves did in October. But, hey, THAT was OK! They're the Masters of the Universe! Nothing but the best chariots for Big Finance as they set about to loot our nation's treasury.

Of course, the auto magnates used to be the Masters who ruled the world. They were the pulsating hub that all other industries -- steel, oil, cement contractors -- served. Fifty-five years ago, the president of GM sat on that same Capitol Hill and bluntly told Congress, what's good for General Motors is good for the country. Because, you see, in their minds, GM WAS the country.

What a long, sad fall from grace we witnessed on November 19th when the three blind mice had their knuckles slapped and then were sent back home to write an essay called, "Why You Should Give Me Billions of Dollars of Free Cash." They were also asked if they would work for a dollar a year. Take that! What a big, brave Congress they are! Requesting indentured servitude from (still) three of the most powerful men in the world. This from a spineless body that won't dare stand up to a disgraced president nor turn down a single funding request for a war that neither they nor the American public support. Amazing.

Let me just state the obvious: Every single dollar Congress gives these three companies will be flushed right down the toilet. There is nothing the management teams of the Big 3 are going to do to convince people to go out during a recession and buy their big, gas-guzzling, inferior products. Just forget it. And, as sure as I am that the Ford family-owned Detroit Lions are not going to the Super Bowl -- ever -- I can guarantee you, after they burn through this $34 billion, they'll be back for another $34 billion next summer.

So what to do? Members of Congress, here's what I propose:

1. Transporting Americans is and should be one of the most important functions our government must address. And because we are facing a massive economic, energy and environmental crisis, the new president and Congress must do what Franklin Roosevelt did when he was faced with a crisis (and ordered the auto industry to stop building cars and instead build tanks and planes): The Big 3 are, from this point forward, to build only cars that are not primarily dependent on oil and, more importantly to build trains, buses, subways and light rail (a corresponding public works project across the country will build the rail lines and tracks). This will not only save jobs, but create millions of new ones.

2. You could buy ALL the common shares of stock in General Motors for less than $3 billion. Why should we give GM $18 billion or $25 billion or anything? Take the money and buy the company! (You're going to demand collateral anyway if you give them the "loan," and because we know they will default on that loan, you're going to own the company in the end as it is. So why wait? Just buy them out now.)

3. None of us want government officials running a car company, but there are some very smart transportation geniuses who could be hired to do this. We need a Marshall Plan to switch us off oil-dependent vehicles and get us into the 21st century.

This proposal is not radical or rocket science. It just takes one of the smartest people ever to run for the presidency to pull it off. What I'm proposing has worked before. The national rail system was in shambles in the '70s. The government took it over. A decade later it was turning a profit, so the government returned it to private/public hands, and got a couple billion dollars put back in the treasury.

This proposal will save our industrial infrastructure -- and millions of jobs. More importantly, it will create millions more. It literally could pull us out of this recession.

In contrast, yesterday General Motors presented its restructuring proposal to Congress. They promised, if Congress gave them $18 billion now, they would, in turn, eliminate around 20,000 jobs. You read that right. We give them billions so they can throw more Americans out of work. That's been their Big Idea for the last 30 years -- layoff thousands in order to protect profits. But no one ever stopped to ask this question: If you throw everyone out of work, who's going to have the money to go out and buy a car?

These idiots don't deserve a dime. Fire all of them, and take over the industry for the good of the workers, the country and the planet.

What's good for General Motors IS good for the country. Once the country is calling the shots.

Maybe I'm just being swayed by a similar physique with a glib wit, but I find what he's saying to be pretty dead on target. Tell me where he's wrong.

Chicken Choking

noreply@blogger.com (Sub Lumen) — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 05:14:00 +0000

The number one chicken producer in the U.S. is bankrupt. Pilgrim's Pride Corp. is currently the world leader in chicken production and has approximately 25% of the domestic market. The company filed for protection from creditors under Chapter 11 of the federal Bankruptcy Code on Monday after heavy debt and low chicken prices put them in a squeeze.

O.K., so maybe this doesn't sound like THE big story of the week, and frankly I haven't seen this on any TV news network. But it's kind of a big deal here in my backyard, which happens to be just a few miles from the headquarters of the number two producer, Tyson Foods, who just may be the reason Pilgrim's Pride went over the cliff.

Pilgrim's suffered a triple whammy of large debt, high feed prices and lower prices for chicken amid weakening demand in the U.S. and abroad. USA Today reports:

The economics facing the industry have been brutal. Corn prices were more than triple their five-year average in June, Steiner says. Meanwhile, wholesale chicken prices were off their five-year average by 16.2%. Corn prices have fallen 55% since then, and producers, except for Tyson, have cut production.

Tyson didn't cut production? No. FarmToday discloses:

Tyson actually boosted chicken production in the latest quarter by 6 percent, thus worsening the problem. And the company has vowed not to cut chicken production going forward.

Why? Barclays Capital analyst Christopher Bledsoe thinks he has an answer: Tyson is intentionally taking losses in its chicken segment to "force other chicken processors to carry a disproportionate burden of this cycle's necessary production cuts."

In addition to be the second largest chicken producer, Tyson is diversified. They also the second-largest domestic producer of pork, with 18% share of the market. Smithfield Foods holds 25% of the pork market share. And Tyson is the leading processor of beef products in the U.S., with 25% share of the domestic beef market. Excel and Swift Foods are the firm's closest competitors, with 22% and 14% market share, respectively.

Tyson continues to hemorrhage money in its chicken operation, last month reporting a loss of $91 million in its chicken business for the fourth quarter, all the while continue to contribute massively to the global oversupply problem. But they are making enough money on piggies and cows to keep this up for a while.

WSJ thinks the Pilgrim's Pride filing could benefit Tyson by spooking some Pilgrim's Pride customers into seeking another supplier. It's unclear so far just how Pilgrim's will reorganize, but some of its assets could be available for fire-sale prices -- an eventuality on which Tyson would be able to pounce. Doubtless this will give Tyson more leverage to dictate prices to both farmers and consumers.

And that's how they roll here in Big Chicken.

The WSJ puts Pilgrim's fall in a larger perspective of the agriculture sector as a whole:

The Pilgrim [sic] Pride's bankruptcy is among the most dramatic financial fallout yet from the economic slowdown spreading across the Farm Belt. Ethanol producer VeraSun Energy Corp. filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in October. Like Pilgrim's Pride, VeraSun made an expensive acquisition -- the $700 million purchase of rival US BioEnergy Corp. -- just as soaring grain prices inflated its costs of doing business, and then made some grain trades that turned sour.

Pilgrim's Pride reached out to dozens of hedge funds and private-equity funds in recent weeks for rescue financing, but found little interest in providing new money for the company, said two people familiar with the matter. Some hedge funds told Pilgrim's Pride they needed to maintain liquidity to repay their own investors by the end of the year.

What 15 Minutes?

noreply@blogger.com (Sub Lumen) — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 20:27:00 +0000

It's bad enough that my cringe reflex is going to be overworked by the perpetual prospect of being treated to Sarah Palin's grinning visage at any moment for the foreseeable future. You betcha it is, but there's another character from the recently failed McC-P campaign who is trying every bit as hard as is she to extend those 15 golden minutes of fame.

I speak of none other than Joe the Plumber™.

Woe be unto the faucets and toilets of Holland, Ohio. Joe has no time for you now.

Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher, who isn't actually a plumber, apparently did not land the Nashville recording contract he wanted, but he does have a book coming out.

Hardcover. $24.95. Available for pre-order now. And for that tiny price, you'll also get a year's membership to his website SecureOurDream.com (which consists almost entirely of dead links right now). That membership will bestow the privilege of access to Joe's blog... which so far does not exist.

What a bargain.

And lest one think that perhaps Joe's a bit of an intellectual lightweight, a publication no less prestigious than The Economist is reporting on Joe's book recommendations for the holidays. They include:

Temples of Convenience—and Chambers of Delight (Lucinda Lambton): "It shed a great deal of light on the development of the lavatory, or as we say over home, 'the hutch.'" Most of the privies in the book are "the product of non-union labor." A plus!

Flushed with Pride: The Story of Thomas Crapper (Wallace Reyburn): "Just when you think you know everything about plumbing, this book comes along."

Plumber's Handbook (Howard C. Massey): Particularly useful "on the topics of greasy waste systems, outside waste interceptors, and what for me has been a longtime conndrum, local gas codes." It's also water-resistant.

Joe how about giving a selfless holiday gift to everyone? Just go away.

Bad Touch

noreply@blogger.com (Sub Lumen) — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 05:47:00 +0000

O.K., Saxby Chambliss won... again. And again won by playing hard on the fears of his constituents. In 2002 he did his best to make them believe that every man, woman and child in Georgia were going to be murdered by terrorists at any moment unless they voted Republican.

This time around he replaced the image of Osama bin Laden with the specter of President Obama being able to benefit from a true working majority in the Senate. Saxby's message was that heaven only knows what horrors might result from a Republican inability to keep things in perpetual partisan gridlock... or something like that.

Well, it worked, as usual in Georgia. I suspect only the most extremely optimistic Martin supporters actually expected a result to the contrary, and surely Chambliss had to have been pretty confident that he had the election in the bag. Why, then, did he do this?? [Hint: watch his right hand about 24 seconds in]

If the above video does not work, go here.

He absolutely grabbed his granddaughter's boob! Did he intend this to be both a Thanksgiving message from his extended family and an appeal for the independent child molester vote?

It hardly matters. He won. I wonder what kind of fear he'll use next time.

I don't know how long this video is going to stay up on YouTube. One version of it has already been taken down. Here are a couple of stills... just in case.

Have Mouth Will Travel

noreply@blogger.com (Sub Lumen) — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 23:29:00 +0000

In the past I've referred to Ralph Nader as an athlete's-foot-like fungus that keeps coming back. Be it known that I am still searching for a metaphor adequate to describe Sarah Palin's perpetual ubiquitousness.

She and her mouth were in Georgia on Monday, ostensibly at the behest of Republican Sen. Saxby Chambliss who faced a runoff vote today against Democratic challenger James Martin. But as usual, she managed to make a good deal of each of her four campaign appearances more than a little bit about her.

Chambliss gained his Senate seat in 2002 with the demonic direction of Karl Rove by horribly and utterly falsely slandering highly-decorated veteran, triple amputee and bona fide hero Max Cleland.

Frankly, I would have loved to have seen a Cleland-Chambliss rematch. I believe Cleland would have made a stronger candidate than Martin has been, but given what he endured six years ago I can surely understand why he would be done seeking public office. Georgia's loss, our loss.

As I write this, the polls are closed in Georgia -- have been for about two hours. The race has not yet been "called" by any major news organization of which I'm aware, but CNN is showing Chambliss leading with a substantial 20 point margin and slightly more than half of the vote counted.

It would appear that Palin surely did him no harm. Georgia is a perennially red state, but one in which McCain prevailed in the General Election over Obama by only 5 points. The bottom line is that the GOP hangs on to at least one of the last two senate seats to be determined, and Sarah Palin's stock goes up in the party.

This Alaska Governor who has not governed Alaska since mid-August is addicted to the spotlight, aching for attention, ravenous for power and has pure ambition pulsing through her veins. Far from seeing the last of her, I expect no letup in the endless onslaught of her.

But as long as she continues to inflict herself upon us, there will be talented souls creating little joys like the one below... and I'll keep finding them.

It's a mental health issue.

If the above video does not play, go here.

Update (9:12 p.m. EST):
Moments ago CNN projected Saxby Chambliss as the winner of the runoff with 69 percent of the precincts reported. Right now it remains Chambliss 60%, Martin 40%.

They Keep Coming

noreply@blogger.com (Sub Lumen) — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 21:43:00 +0000

More and more and more Clintonites continue to be tapped for positions in what I originally thought was going to be an Obama administration. Two-thirds of the "Obama" transition team itself is comprised of Clintonistas: "At least 85 of the 135-odd members," according to the Wall Street Journal last week. It should be no surprise that an environment so Clintonian-rich would be conducive to the incubation of a third Clinton administration.

What puzzles me is why Obama seems to be so warmly embracing this development. One need not be afraid of snakes to prefer avoiding sitting waist-deep in a pit of vipers.

Some of these are not too directly connected -- Janet Napolitano (Secretary of Homeland Security designate), for example, was appointed to a U.S. Attorney position by Bill Clinton in 1993, but launched her own political career by winning the Arizona Attorney General's office in 1998 and ultimately became the state's Governor.

Other recent choices are more directly connected, for example: Susan Rice, Eric Holder (formerly Bill's Deputy AG in charge of for-profit pardon rubber-stamping), and then there's Hillary who is set to become the nation's first un-fire-able Secretary of State.

Add to that Bush administration holdovers and a Marine general who has longer and stronger ties to McCain than to the incoming president, and for me at least it's becoming progressively more difficult to see that much lauded Change™ that's supposed to be just around the corner now.

Be Afraid

noreply@blogger.com (Sub Lumen) — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 11:14:00 +0000

Bloomberg has done the heavy lifting. They've crunched the numbers and the bottom line looks very, very scary.

The U.S. government is prepared to provide more than $7.76 trillion on behalf of American taxpayers after guaranteeing $306 billion of Citigroup Inc. debt yesterday. The pledges, amounting to half the value of everything produced in the nation last year, are intended to rescue the financial system after the credit markets seized up 15 months ago.

The unprecedented pledge of funds includes $3.18 trillion already tapped by financial institutions in the biggest response to an economic emergency since the New Deal of the 1930s, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. The commitment dwarfs the plan approved by lawmakers, the Treasury Department’s $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program.

[....]

The money that’s been pledged is equivalent to $24,000 for every man, woman and child in the country. It’s nine times what the U.S. has spent so far on wars in Iraq and Afghanistan....

Approaching Political Atheism

noreply@blogger.com (Sub Lumen) — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 09:04:00 +0000

A half-century is a fair chunk of time. That length of span allows plenty of room for personal meanderings, including those political in nature, or at least that has been true for me.

I was raised in a family that voted Democratic in every election, except presidential ones. The only reason my father and mother would never have self-identified as Republicans was that the Republican party did not exist in Arkansas in those days. It barely does now.

On rare occasions the state elects a Republican governor. The victories of Winthrop Rockefeller in the 1960s and more recently Mike Huckabee represented, however, triumphs for charismatic individuals. They were elected utterly without any coattail effects.

In recent decades the one part of the state that's become anything of a foothold for Republicans [read: Republican Congressman] is, perhaps ironically, the northwestern quadrant where I live. Yet opinion research perpetually shows that the state as a whole remains conservative, very conservative.

In my childhood, I thought I was a Democrat, though I had no idea what that might have meant. We were faithful members of a fundamentalist Christian church, and I vaguely embraced any conservative "principle" that could be simplified enough to fit onto a bumper-sticker.

By the time I was half way through high school, my personal political pendulum had swung completely in the other direction. I felt cheated that I had been denied by my youth participation in the student radical movements of the 1960s, but in homage thereto I wrote pamphlets on "Students Rights" that were banned by my school. I penned well-researched legal memoranda that bolstered other students' challenges to dress codes and hair-length rules. By the time I graduated, I had become the most thoroughly political person on campus.

College had lots of very pleasant distractions that served at least in part to dampen my political zeal, but I remained firmly on the left. Before graduating, though, I had the opportunity to seek (successfully) public office -- Justice of the Peace.

In those days the JPs met annually as the Quorum Court, a county legislature of sorts, to set the county's budget for the coming year. As it happened, in my first year our county was facing a minor funding crisis for what was then typically called "ambulance service" and I was appointed to an ad hoc committee charged with finding the money needed to allow the county to assume emergency medical services in the vacuum created by the cessation of operation of the one local private firm in that business.

To make a long story short: ambulance service continued, I married a few couples and did not seek re-election because I moved out of the county to attend law school. I was elected JP as a Democrat. There was not even a Republican primary in our county that year.

The year I graduated from college, Jimmy Carter was elected president and I was as happy as a pig in sh*t. The very idea of a southerner in the White House was enough to get my vote, though I would have supported any Democratic nominee [hated Nixon, hated Ford more for pardoning him].

Unfortunately, the Carter presidency was... well, the Carter presidency and by the end of it I was utterly disillusioned with all things Democratic and by extension, all things liberal. I voted Republican in the next three presidential elections.

Looking back I can see the spiral I was in with clarity that escaped me at the time. Toward the end of my long "conservative binge" I was reduced to mainlining Rush Limbaugh broadcasts every day, and paying per-minute connect rates to CompuServe in order to download transcripts. At perhaps the lowest point, I procured an autographed photo which I framed and gave as a birthday present to my young son.

I know it's an oversimplification, but I can point to one man and one moment that in tandem reversed my direction politically: George W. Bush and the aftermath of September 11. Evidently the smell of the Constitution being burned snapped me out of it.

Since then I have resisted labeling myself as much as possible. I feel as if I'm some sort of hybrid, a political chimera. On some issues I come down hardcore progressive, while seriously flirting with libertarianism on others and realizing that I have some pretty tenacious fiscal conservative roots.

You'll notice that no party names are mentioned, though. As I grow older, I become ever more convinced of the wisdom in my father's observation that in the end there's not a dime's worth of difference between Democrats and Republicans.

Case in point: one of the things I'll always despise about the Bush administration was how they took advantage of the nation following 9/11, using that tragedy to trash the Constitution, discard the rule of law and do horrific things in our names. Damn Republicans.

Fast forward to last Tuesday (per WSJ):

Obama Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, speaking to a Wall Street Journal conclave of business leaders Tuesday, said the economic crisis facing the country is "an opportunity to do things you could not do before."

"You never want a serious crisis to go to waste," Mr. Emanuel said.

Damn Democrats.

A Mental Health Moment

noreply@blogger.com (Sub Lumen) — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 08:28:00 +0000

The work of Julian Beever, street art genius. Enjoy.

If the above video does not play, go here.