Friday, May 9, 2008

I've Got Your Vice President Right Here...

Senator Hillary Clinton, Senator Barack Obama. Campaign 2008.

Obama: “Obviously she'd be on anybody's short list”

Reuters reported Thursday, Obama is open to Clinton as his Vice President.

Reuters

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democrat Barack Obama on Thursday did not rule out selecting rival Hillary Clinton as his vice presidential running mate if he ultimately defeats her in a race in which he has an almost insurmountable lead.

"There's no doubt that she's qualified to be vice president, there's no doubt she's qualified to be president," Obama told NBC News.

In a CNN interview, he said he had not wrapped up the Democratic presidential nomination, but when he does, he will start going through the process of selecting a running mate.

"She is tireless, she is smart. She is capable. And so obviously she'd be on anybody's short list to be a potential vice presidential candidate," said Obama.

According to a CBS News/New York Times poll released last week, a majority of both Obama and Clinton voters say they would favor a so-called "Dream Ticket" involving both candidates.
The most interesting part of this to me is:
According to a CBS News/New York Times poll released last week, a majority of both Obama and Clinton voters say they would favor a so-called "Dream Ticket" involving both candidates.
I'll say that ONE MORE TIME (emphasis added.)
According to a CBS News/New York Times poll released last week, a majority of both Obama and Clinton voters say they would favor a so-called "Dream Ticket" involving both candidates.
A majority say they would favor a so-called "Dream Ticket."

Huh.

Not on this blog. *cracks up*

But then, GNB READERS DO NOT REPRESENT either the
  • Democratic Party or
  • General Election voters.
We (at GNB) are much more the future/technological side of the Netroots Party.

Many of you hate Senator Clinton. Or at least, her politics. (Frankly, it's kind of hard to tell with some of you.)

I don't think Clinton would take the VP slot if offered, and I don't think Obama will make such an offer. We talked about this yesterday in How Clinton Might Leave.

That said, discuss:

a) the election pros/cons if Clinton is on the ticket.

Having Clinton on the ticket shores up the Hispanic and women's vote, as well as the older white poor, working-class and middle-class vote. Yes, it gives the Hillary-haters something to get angry about, but frankly, the right-wing who were going to be angry in the general election at Hillary, were going to be going nuts already at having an African-American heading up the ticket. Overall, I think it's a boost, and ensures a win.

b) the signal it sends about business as usual politics v the transformation of politics as usual.

This is the biggest problem, by far in my view. It ties Obama to the past, instead of the future. On the other hand, being President isn't about the person at the top, so much as it's about the team around you. I'm MUCH more interested Obama Cabinet choices than I am about his VPOTUS choice. The Cabinet runs the country, day to day. The Vice President goes to funerals.

c) if Obama can just wait it out, or if power politics call for him to put an end to this now.

I don't know what her price is. I gave you my speculation yesterday, and doubt it's the Vice Presidency. However we've got this Reuters article all alone out there, and Senator Obama himself talking about Senator Clinton and the VP slot, so I'm posting up.

DOES THE SITUATION (Clinton's almost 1700 delegates) require Obama to act, or can or should he wait it out? Remember... the point is to win the nomination, not to purge the party of the Clinton's, attack the DLC, strike out against the Blue-Dogs, or all that jazz people get so hepped up about. Obama's intent here is to win the nomination, and go on to win the Presidency. That's it. Everything else is gravy.

Got it?

a) pros/cons of Clinton being on the ticket,
b) "politics as usual" v. Obama's current campaign, and
c) does the situation (the politics) require Obama to make a VP offer?

Discuss. (Play nice please.)
There's more...

Thursday, May 8, 2008

McCain is the huh?


Best Metaphor Ever



Primary Results: Should Clinton Get Out of the Race?

Video courtesy The Young Turks. (Check them out.)

There's more...

How Clinton Might Leave



Political Analysis

Back on March 30, I wrote Obama: Clinton Welcome To Keep Campaigning.

He took the high road then

Obama's taking, if not the high road, at least the moderate road now, in a memo to Superdelegates, calling the Clinton strategy "entertaining" but not "legitimate."

This owes a debt to Dan Conley's Salon article, What does Hillary want?

Second, this is analysis, not what I necessarily think personally is the best solution for the country or for either the Clinton or Obama campaigns. It is however, what I think is happening, from a political point of view, and what will get Campaign Clinton to concede the nomination fight.

In the face of the Clinton campaign's promise to fight on -- which they must say to show strength for their negotiations over terms of quitting -- what are the promises from the Obama Camp which would induce Clinton to quit, and support Obama with her full strength, not just for show?

1) Clinton needs her campaign debt paid off by Obama, so she leaves the campaign not owning anyone money. This includes her personal loans to the campaign. This part is simple. Clinton will fight and fight and fight, till Obama agrees. The winner paying the loser's debts is also fairly traditional.

2) Clinton will want some promotions -- say, President Clinton to the next Supreme Court opening, and her to Senate Majority Leader. That has the advantage of being such a powerful position she'd be unlikely to ever run again for President. Further, it plays to her strength. She's much more a legislator, than an executive.

3) She needs a major plank, perhaps health care, which has always been her signature issue, to go her way. Then Elizabeth Edwards will be happy, and Clinton can say to her supporters that my campaign made a difference. It stood for something. It changed what we have fought for all these years. Finally... finally health care in America is going to change. YOU made that happen. Together we won. THAT would be worth the whole campaign to her, in the years to come, politically... to be able to take credit for health care, especially if as Senate Majority Leader she was then in a position to not just sponsor the legislation, but oversea and control its passage.

4) Lastly, Clinton doesn't need Campaign Obama to let her control the VP pick, but she'll want a veto over Bill Richardson, because she and President Clinton are PISSED at Richardson right now. Heh.

Does Clinton want to be VP herself? I don't think so.

The up-side for Clinton being Vice President would be that the odds of Obama being assassinated during two terms of office, which are much higher of course, for an African-American Democratic President than any President we've ever had before. The race-bating has already started as LM and Maggie point out.

The down-side is, being VP is a thankless, powerless job (Cheney not withstanding) and Clinton would unquestionably be locked out of power in an Obama administration. Her style is the opposite of Obama's, and to Obama's most fervent supporters (admittedly, the Obama-manics are at best, perhaps 10-15% of those who will hopefully vote for Obama) Clinton is the epitome of everything wrong with Democratic politics; putting Clinton on the ticket would upset this part of the party.

Further, if Obama should die with her at VPOTUS, Clinton would instantly become the center of the worst paranoid conspiracy shit-storm in U.S. history. Clinton is a fiercely intelligent woman, who must also balance out the opportunity to get close to her life-long dream of becoming President of the United States. Perhaps it is necessary in this sexist country for a woman to become Vice President before one can become President. Everything considered, I suspect Senator Clinton will go for the surer route to real power -- Senate Majority Leader.

Give her these four points, a major photo op with Clinton and Obama where they make lovey-dovey and endorse, and she pulls out May 21, the day after the next major round of primaries (so she goes out after a major victory.)

Don't, and Clinton goes scorched earth at the May 31 meeting, working to get Florida and Michigan seated, and takes it till stopped by the Super Delegates, Dean, or Denver.

These are my predictions. Remember -- I'm usually wrong on short-term political predictions. *laughs* My track record on technology is first rate, same with long term speculation about the future... I'm not as good as Sara is as I don't have the discipline and training she has, or the vocabulary (thus, the distinctions.) But my track record is good.

Short-range politics... not so much. But it's fun to play.

Enjoy yourself in comments (and please, no personal attacks.)

There's more...

Wednesday, May 7, 2008

This is what sea level rise looks like...

(h/t Paul Kedrosky)

Large portions of Myanmar appear to be under water.

According to Richard Horsey of the U.N. Office of the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, 5000 square kilometers (almost 2000 square miles) of the Irrawaddy delta are submerged by a storm surge of up to 3.5 meters.

FYI, the USGS predicts that when the Greenland ice sheet melts, it will raise sea level by 6.5 meters.

There's more...

Doesn't Matter

Let people who want to believe its not over, believe its not over. Its does not matter. -- Joe Trippi.
There's more...

Wednesday Wire

In which John says:

Clinton would need 198 of the remaining 270.5 unpledged Super delegates or 73.2%. As Chris Bowers noted in Open Left dot com, the remaining Super delegates are generally not in favor of Clinton, but have various reasons for not stating their choice, the major one of which is that the Clinton have done much for individual elected officials and senior activists in the party and the Supers don’t want to appear to be ungrateful. That will now change. Bowers also notes that the media collectively changed its tune last night and are saying what WW readers have known since the Wisconsin primary – it’s over. --WednesdayWire.com
There is certainly more...
There's more...

Dear Paul Begala and Chris Matthews...


Thank you.

Thank you for your clarity.

Your unvarnished truthfulness.

Your bigotry-spawned “going to ground” over what this election is truly about for yourselves and I'm guessing the majority of your co-horts in the nattering chattering class.

I thank you gentlemen for at the very least, exposing yourselves for what you are and letting the world and me know just what the twisted, fear-crafted movement inside you is that makes you tick-tick-tick.

You sirs, and your fellow travelers have removed all doubt for me. At last I know where I stand with you—or rather, five steps behind you .

From Chris Matthews last month:

MATTHEWS: Senator Claire McCaskill of Missouri is an Obama supporter. Senator McCaskill, did you advise Obama to go out and try to bowl the other day?

McCASKILL: Well, listen, I grew up in a small town where you learned to do two things: You learned to bowl and you learned to roller-skate. I can’t wait to challenge him to a game of bowling.

MATTHEWS: OK. Let me ask you about how he — how’s he connect with regular people? Does he? Or does he only appeal to people who come from the African-American community and from the people who have college or advanced degrees?


And this from the revelatory Paul Begala during the heat of last last night's rollercoaster primary coverage:


BEGALA: When people say things — I love Donna and we go back 22 years. We’ve never been on different sides of an arguments in our entire lives. But if her point is that there’s a new Democratic Party that somehow doesn’t need or want white working-class people and Latinos, well count me out.

DONNA BRAZILE, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: Paul, baby, I did not say that.

BEGALA: We cannot win with egg heads. Let me finish my point. We cannot win with egg heads and African-Americans. OK, that is the Dukakis Coalition, which carried ten states and gave us four years of the first George Bush.

President Clinton — reached across to get a whole lot of Republicans and Independents to come. I think Senator Obama and Senator Clinton both have that capacity. They both have a unique ability—well it’s not unique if they both have it. They both have a remarkable ability to reach out to those working-class white folks and Latinos. Senator Clinton has proven it; Barack has not yet, but he can. And I certainly hope he is not shutting the door on expanding the party.

(CAMPBELL) BROWN: OK. Let — egg heads and African-Americans? That’s the new coalition?

BRAZILE: First of all, Paul, you didn’t hear me right. Maybe I should come and cook you something because you’ve got a little hearing problem. I was one of the first Democrats who were going to the white working-class neighborhoods, encouraging white Democrats not to forget their roots. I have drank more beers with “Joe Six Pack,” “Jane Six
Pack” and everybody else than most white Democrats that you’re talking about.

In terms of Hispanics, you know Paul, I know the math. I know Colorado; I know Nevada; I know New Mexico. So that’s not the issue. I’m saying that we need to not divide and polarize the Democratic Party as if the Democratic Party will rely simply on white, blue collar male—you insult every black blue collar Democrat by saying that. So stop the divisions. Stop trying to split us into these groups, Paul, because you and I know both know we have been in more campaigns. We know how Democrats win and to simply suggest that Hillary’s coalition is better than Obama’s, Obama’s is better than Hillary’s — no. We have a big party, Paul.

BEGALA: That’s right.

BRAZILE: Just don’t divide me and tell me I cannot stand in Hillary’s camp because I’m black, and I can’t stand in Obama’s camp because I’m female. Because I’m both.


There is nothing that warms my African American heart more than being told that I am not a “regular person”—whatever that is, or that my vote is some sort of statistical anomaly, or simply having my vote flat-out discounted.

Hey, let me show you a picture.



It's a bit blurry and you've probably never seen it before, but here are some details on it. It was captured on film on June 12, 1963—the year I was born. What does it show? A two-tone '57 Chevy Sedan parked in a Jackson, Mississippi home's carport. There's a stain on the ground trailing away from the driver's side and ending in a pool at the far left. I grabbed this from a video chronicling that night.

Let's look at it a little closer, shall we?



I've highlighted that “pool” area so you can understand what it is.

That's blood.

Starting in a thin stream and then gouting from a gaping wound in a man's back courtesy of a Ernfield 1917 30.06 rifle bullet. Said man dragged himself about 25 feet from where he was struck initially and then collapsed near his front door where that pool collected.

That man's name was Medgar Wiley Evers. And he was assassinated for fighting for civil rights and most importantly near the time of his murder, voting rights for African Americans.

Yes. People put their lives on the line and sometimes—too many times—saw their lives snuffed out for fighting to obtain and maintain that right. So, when I hear the likes of a Matthews and revealingly, a Begala flushing the votes of nearly 14 million African Americans down the crapper because they don't like where those votes are being cast and for whom, I think of Medgar Evers on that night, getting out of his car, taking custom-made T-shirts reading “Jim Crow Must Go!” out of the back seat, and then a cowardly sniper's bullet ripping through his back and him bleeding out on his front steps as his wife and kids opened the door to see him there, life ebbing away with every millisecond.

Guess what? Medgar Evers was “regular people”. We are regular people. And these weak-assed attempts to chump off the Black vote when it doesn't play to conventional wisdom or fit a desired template pisses on the memory of those who fought the hardest and sacrificed the most for it. We make up 13.5% of the electorate. You court us when you need votes for “X”, then diss us when we vote for “Y” and “Y” ain't what you're down with.

“Regular people.” “African Americans and Eggheads.”

Let me ask a simple question here. If Black folk only make up 13.5% of Americans, and college educated folks make up 29% (allowing for overlap between the two groups, as well as overlap between college educated voters and GOP-inclined ones), where in the name of Dr. George Washington Carver is the rest of this nettlesome, apple-cart upsetting vote coming from? Or has the dreaded Black Genius Camp and the MIT-educated numerical wizards from the movie “21” banded together in cahoots to unfairly freaknomic-ize this year's primary results? Trotting out this patently racist sour grapes bullshit would be maddening if it weren't so sad and revealing about the people perpetrating it.

And whether you're a hard-core member of “Obamanation” or a pom-pom waving “Clintonista”, common sense should prevail and allow anyone with eyes to do the simple math and realize how specious, divisive and destructive this framing is.

The numbers don't support it. Silly people's fears and naked spite do.

““Regular People” are turning out in record numbers this year just in the primaries not as some statistical blip. It's clear that something is up in America. Gas down the block from me is $3. 91 a gallon for Regular. They're tacking foreclosure notices to houses like they were cellophaned copies of “Pennysavers”. This asinine war has infuriated people beyond belief and trust in the way “things have been” has eroded mightily. Habeas Corpus is under siege, and a government that promised to be hands-off has been revealed to be totally “hands-in”, as in up our asses judicially via manipulation of US attorneys and privacy-wise in terms of FISA. These seven and a half years of Bushian presdiential awfulness is what's driving things change-wise.

But you don't want to look at that.

That's too big a thought for your walnut-sized, political bronto-brains to digest. Oh no, no, no, no, no, no.

It's the “elites” who have fucked this thing for you. “The Creative Class”. Eggheads. And of course, the n*ggers.

I'm one of seven kids, born to North Carolinians with a family tree going back to and fading out at Pre-Emancipation. I'm also a writer, actor and visual artist as well as a former college boy. I suppose that makes me the magic and dreaded electoral trifecta of evil according to these two clowns and their co-conspirators in piss-pot punditry.

And apparently, I don't fucking count. Me, the great-great -great grandchild of slaves. People who built this country under a whip of leather and second-class citizenship. My vote and the votes of people like me don't matter a whit. A vote Medgar Evers took a bullet in the back for. Whose vote counts? Ones from the likes of those who shot him down for daring to assert personhood for 13.5 million Black folks. And if not them, then those who quietly have no problem with his murder and what it represented.

“Regular people” “Real America” The mother-fucking “Heartland”.

Thank you Paul Begala. And thank you Chris Matthews. For coming clean on how you really feel. I'm no sage, and while I may not know exactly what America herself is or is not ready for, I know what you two and your ilk are clearly not ready for. You've spent your adult public lives playing at high-mindedness, but now...you've come clean.

The mask is off and I see you for what you are. What's that old saying about “The devil you know vs. the devil you don't know”?

I know you now. Benefit of the doubt shielded you before. But no more.

“Desperation is the flashing, trembling hand that snatches away the veil of false propriety.”

Who said that?

Why, I just did.

Just your typical, discounted, influential-beyond-my-wildest-dreams, and might I say, educated Black person.

At last, I know where I stand.

And because of that, I will fight that much harder. Against injustice. Against a corrupt and twisted system. And yes, against you. Because you see, as well as knowing where I stand...I also know, and will never forget...



...where Medgar lay.
There's more...

Obama's Speech

There's more...

Tuesday, May 6, 2008

Hillary Wins Indiana


By a nose...

Clinton  638,192 51% 34
Obama 615,753 49% 30
There's more...

Gary, Indiana!

Trouble in River City...

56% Reporting in Gary. 65%/35% Obama... If it stays abve 57% or 58%. Obama wins Indiana...

Clinton 606,497 51% 32
Obama 589,888 49% 29
Holy Crap.

Drudge and Russert have called it for Obama.
There's more...

Boo fucking hoo


OK, I just heard Hillary say it again. And I've had enough. I'm going to scream now.

The Clinton campaign is making much ado about how important it is that Every State Gets To Vote. They should all have their say. If Florida and Michigan aren't counted, it will be some kind of fundamental violation of every small-d democratic principle America holds dear. She won't be able to be president for the whole country if only 48 states get their say. (Yes. She actually said that.)

Oh, please. As IF.

In every election between 1976 and 2000, I voted in California. For those of you not familiar with this state -- or unaware that it's actually allowed to vote -- let me tell you what this means.

The Golden State has a population of roughly 36 million people (there are, in fact, more Californians than there are Canadians). That means that one in 7 Americans - roughly 15% of the country -- lives under the big white Bear Flag. That's a lot of Americans. In fact, that's almost as many Americans as you'll find in the next two most populous states combined.

You'd think that a state that whopping big and important should definitely have a say in who gets to be president. You'd be wrong.

Thing of it is: Until this last election, California always brought up the rear in the primary season. Every one of the seven elections I've voted in had the primary on the first Tuesday in June. Of course, by that point, the candidates had invariably long since been settled on -- so our votes counted for absolute squat. If it wasn't for all those weird propositions that come out of our bizarre initiative process, there would be pretty much no point in showing up at the polls at all.

People in Iowa and New Hampshire all get to have dinner with candidates. It's all very sweet and kissy-face. The candidates know their kids and dogs by name and send them birthday cards and drop by just to sweep their porches. But out in California, it's rare for the candidates to come visit during the primary season at all (unless they're hitting Hollywood and Silicon Valley fat cats up for money. Democrats don't get elected without big pots of California money.). There are no rallies. There are no debates. There are no public speeches. There is no point: by the time the circus gets around to us, it's all a done deal.

The last time California had a say in choosing a presidential candidate was when we put Bobby Kennedy over the top in 1968. And he got shot on his way out of giving his victory speech that same night. Which meant even that didn't count in the end, either. See what I mean?

Our total non-participation in the primary process is a fact of life that Californians have grumbled about for decades. Nobody, of course, has listened -- at least, not until this year, when my home state finally got to vote on Super Tuesday like everybody else. (I, of course, now live elsewhere.) If you're a Californian under 50, March 5, 2008 was the first time you've ever in your life cast a primary vote that counted. (Was it everything we hoped it would be?)

So all this whinging and hand-wringing and pearl-clutching and hyperventiliating about how we can't disenfranchise those poor Michiganders and Floridians, because it wouldn't be fair, and everybody deserves their say -- I'm sorry. I just have a hard time finding a lot of sympathy. Nobody said boo when 36 million of us lived our whole lives being shunted off to the far left side of the process, and now you want me to care? Not happening. You're not special. Being left behind in the delegate count may be a new and stunning development for you; but there's a huge part of the country for whom this is just how it is. We pulled on our big-girl bikinis and got over it. Bet you can, too.

It's not that I don't think the situation is sticky, nuanced, and important. I just think it needs to be argued on other grounds -- grounds that aren't totally insulting to the country's most populous and wealthiest state, which is only now being invited to the party for the very first time ever.

There's more...

Geez

People in Indiana sure do count slow. You would think they would be faster, what with the Indy 500 and all.

There's more...

Largest Homebuilding Company DR Horton: $1.3 billion Loss


Analysts still can't figure out the home builder stocks. D.R. Horton - the country's largest home builder, reported a loss Tuesday that was 10 times as large as Wall Street expected.
Wallstreet still seems to have no idea what is going on, or the extent of this industry's problems. Is it just me, or is this a classic case of the blind leading the blind? More.
There's more...

Indiana 52 - 48

Indiana is still too close to call. Another round on the house


Clinton 473,040 52% 15
Obama 429,093 48% 11

That's a 4 point spread and a +4 delegate count to Clinton right now.

Obama apparently has conceded Indiana to Clinton in his speech in North Carolina where a whompin' took place.
There's more...

Indiana 54 - 46

With 63% reporting.

Clinton 416,438 54% 7
Obama 359,589 46% 3

They still aren't calling this race. South Bend came in 53/47 Obama. North Carolina is at 62/36 right now.
There's more...

Operation Chaos

Question: How many more votes will the Democratic 2nd place finisher in Indiana get than Johnny "Free Ride" McCain?

Bonus Round: Will that number beat the Clinton/Obama spread?

There's more...

Indiana 55 - 45

With 50% Reporting


Clinton 320,596 55%
Obama 262,783 45%

Some big counties not in yet. Also South Bend. CBS has called it for Clinton, but nobody else yet.
There's more...

Obama Wins North Carolina


With 11% Reporting, North Carolina is called for Obama.

Obama    215,330 63% 20
Clinton 120,657 35% 13
There's more...

Indiana Primary

5% Reporting...

Clinton  44,244 59%
Obama 30,872 41%
There's more...

The Never Ending Primary

How I feel, waiting for this primary to end...

There's more...

Crappy Exit Polls!

Here ya go, your first crappy exit polls.

North Carolina
Obama 52
Clinton 44

Indiana
Clinton 54
Obama 45
There's more...

U.S. Special Counsel Office Raided by FBI


WASHINGTON — The office of the official responsible for protecting federal workers from political interference was raided by F.B.I. agents on Tuesday as part of an investigation into whether he himself mixed politics with official business.

The raid took place at the office of Scott J. Bloch, the head of the Office of Special Counsel. Computers and documents were seized by agents trying to determine whether Mr. Bloch obstructed justice by hiring an outside company to “scrub” his computer files, The Associated Press reported. Investigators also searched Mr. Bloch’s home in suburban Virginia after obtaining a subpoena. --NYTimes.com

I really am enjoying watching the walls come crumbling down around the Bush administration. These complete incompetents that Bush hired are walking around in a minefield of stupid. These guys were Karl Rove's toadies, and Bloch himself is one of the homo-hatin' Bush partisans. Lovely people.
There's more...

I Am Your Riot-starter!

Singin' 'Bout “Hot Hate In The Summertime...”

It would appear that a certain OxyContin-ed, sex-touring, um...poorly-circulated someone's, ohhhh I dunno...just a wee bit desperate over November's GOP electoral prospects, wouldn't you say?

I mean, when you're hoping for public mayhem to spark “the base” to vote for your party's dishwater-tepid standard-bearer, wellllll...

Via ABC-7 Qenver:









Rush Limbaugh 'Dreaming' Of Riots In Denver

Talk Show Host Wants America To See Actions Of 'Far Left'

DENVER— Talk show host Rush Limbaugh is sparking controversy again after he made comments that appear to call for riots in Denver during the Democratic National Convention this summer.

He said the riots would ensure a Democrat is not elected as president, and his listeners have a responsibility to make sure it happens.

“Riots in Denver, the Democrat Convention would see to it that we don't elect Democrats,” Limbaugh said during Wednesday's radio broadcast. He then went on to say that's the best thing that could happen to the country.

--------------------------------------------

Several callers called in to the radio show to denounce Limbaugh's comments, when he later stated, “I am not inspiring or inciting riots, I am dreaming of riots in Denver.


Meanwhile, Melissa at Shakesville picks up Rush's flop-sweat and feces-stained ball, and spikes it in his hate-swollen face



All Spin Zone's Richard Blair wonders. given that inciting riot is a crime, "How is it that a GOP attack dog frontman can call for riots in the streets of Denver during the Democratic National Convention, and not be currently residing in a jail cell someplace?" while Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper says, "Anyone who would call for riots in an American city has clearly lost their bearings." That's polite.

--------------------------------------------

That guy is so full of shit he's like a walking compost heap. It's amazing there aren't glorious sunflowers growing out of every orifice.


Rush's Armageddonal wet dream hits on a couple of pathologies at once.

One: He's still pretty damned wan insofar as his ability to conjure any warmth for the-candidate-who-lucked-out-and-survived-the-GOP--primaries-and-is-now-the-de-facto-nominee and knows “the base” is equally “eh” on him as well. McCain on his own inspires about as much feel-good-ism as a four-alarm orphanage fire. So, if you don't get the hoped-for Al-Qaeda attack (and they have been hoping for another one of those pretty much since Sept. 12th 2001) that'd give wingnuts that something to rally around like a flaming...something, you “pray” for the next best thing—civil fucking unrest. It's the old “law n' order” fallback used by the likes of Tricky Dick Nixon, Reagan and scores of governors and legislators (NY's Rudy Giuliani and Nelson Rockefeller come to mind immediately)—except, in the case of Nixon and Reagan (while California governor), they exploited recent, actual instances of America's streets flaming up. Limbaugh is cravenly and desperately staking his guy's election on a prayer for riots, mayhem and death that aren't anywhere near happening. But it's what's needed to insure a republican victory, right?

That should tell you everything you need to know about the GOP's power-brokers internal thinking about their '08 electoral chances.

There's nothing good to say about John McCain as a candidate. And because of that—there being no tangible positive there to move folks to the polls to pull the lever for him, an external catalyst is needed. Riots, motherfucker! Flames and busted glass. Spectres of sweaty, dusky hordes carting appliances down smoke-filled thoroughfares get wingnuts harder than times in '29, as fear—the thing that drives them 24-7—could be the one thing that brings enough of them out of their Bush-malaise hidey-holes to vote.

But make no mistake, Rush isn't just talking about things going buck-willy in Denver alone. This pharmaceutically-addled demagogue will take shit blowing up anywhere he can get it—preferably with people of color at the center of the unrest. It's why he's also been stoking the fires over the anger about the Sean Bell verdict. Anything that gets melanin-filled people angry enough to be public with their anger is good-to-go for him. Because all that does is remind the most fearful and race-struck of potential voters about just what that fella from Illinois is and effectively dog-whistles—no...fucking screams like Sam Kinison “By God, you don't want one 'a them TV-stealin nigras up in th' White House, do ya?”

That's what he's/they're left with. I await the photoshop of Obama sitting in Huey Newton's wicker chair with a black leather jacket and beret. Ungowah!

And the second pathology ol' Rush is evidencing here is plain, old shit-stirring. As the GOP's candidate gives him and his listeners nothing to sing about and thus is probably a ratings drag in this election season, he has to spark interest in his show somehow. Fuck red meat—statements like his “riot prayer” is “heart-still-beating, animal-flesh-still-on-the-hoof” for those still inclined to dig on his terrestrial radio hate-schtick. As the faithful busy themselves with other things, conceding a GOP loss, they're not listening to him, not fattening his ratings, and thus, not fattening his coffers. Silly, crazy shit like “the riot prayer” is also said to bring the drifting, lapsed Rushistas back to the ray-did-io and back into the white-sheeted and sooty-handed “activist” fold. Does the bastard believe what he's saying? Yes. But he also realizes that spicing it up with fifty extra shakes of coarse-ground crazy is good for the bottom line as well. Cha-ching, ditto-heads. Fill his ample pockets with barely-earned coin while you scratch your head to figure how to afford enough gas to get back and forth to work this month.

Cha-ching, bitches,

And that's what it's about ya'll. Fear and greed. The two things that have ended every great society of the past that dared take them from the bosom to the blood within. I'd like to say that I'm amazed that people who are the first to squawk about the hot words of folks who are actually being done wrong, have no problem and are rarely censured for their thermonuclear words as they sup at the table of privilege. Fallwell. Robertson. And al the rest, right down to ol' Rushie. I'd love to say I'm amazed...but I'm not. And neither should you be. Remember, this is a place where there are hundreds of thousands, if not several million people who rationalize the acts of Timothy McVeigh and Eric Rudolph as being based on some sort of response to oppression and tyranny.

But I'm glad to see that Limbaugh isn't actually inciting anything with his words. He's merely “praying” I mean...if a blogger were to “pray” that Rush be involved in a fiery auto wreck, with his broken body sprawled alongside the road with flames licking at his paralyzed form, and said blogger was to come upon him there and opt to toss stray kindling, papers and the contents of a vodka bottle on Rush rather than urinate on him to douse the blaze, what would be wrong with that? It would simply be a harmless prayer, right? Not an active desire that a terrible, painful fate befall him or anything. What's the harm in a heartfelt prayer?

We should all “pray” for Rush. Not incite anything, mind you.

Just...pray

Bow your head...and pray on something for the man.

Can't hurt.

P.S. Click on the “album” art at the top of the post for extra song-title goodness!)
There's more...

Econ 101: Supply, Demand, and the Gas Tax Holiday



Basics of Supply and Demand
Anyone who has taken a survey econ course has seen diagrams like the one above, commonly called a supply and demand diagram or supply and demand curves.

The horizontal axis (Q) is Quantity supplied of a product. Q2 is a larger quantity (greater supply) than Q1. The vertical axis (P) is Price to purchase the product. P2 is a larger price than P1.

The blue line labeled S is a supply curve for our product. As with most supply curves, it increases monotonically and tells us that, as the price P rises, the quantity Q of the product supplied also rises. This makes intuitive sense: if someone will pay a lot more for a hamburger, more people go into business selling hamburgers and the supply increases.

The red line labeled D1 is a demand curve for our product. As with most demand curves, it decreases monotonically and tells us that, as the price P falls, the quantity Q of the product demanded rises. This also makes intuitive sense: if the price of hamburgers drops, more people buy them.

These are typical supply and demand curves. There are others. These are representative supply and demand curves, they do not represent any specific product and market. It is possible (given the right sort of data) to generate actual supply and demand curves for actual products.

The point where S crosses D1 is a market equilibrium, where the supply of and demand for our product are equal. At this point, the market price is P1 and the quantity supplied is Q1. Equilibrium indicates that the price and supply will stay there once they are there. If the price is below the equilibrium, less of the product will be supplied (a shortage) and the price will be bid up. The higher price will encourage entry of other suppliers (or current suppliers will increase production if possible), the quantity supplied will increase and the price will drop toward the equilibrium.

The red curve labeled D2 is an alternate demand curve. Suppose that our product is made available to a new market: at any given price, more people want to buy our product, and the demand curve is shifted right, representing an increase in demand. With this increase in demand comes a new equilibrium, where D2 crosses S. Notice that both the price and quantity produced have increased at this new equilibrium: price from P1 to P2 and quantity from Q1 to Q2.


Markets
"Free markets" are amazing things. Left to themselves, they establish price and production amounts magically, without human intervention. Or do they?

"Free" market sounds like something that is unfettered, unconstrained, unregulated, and well, unreal. Markets are unable to operate without certain preconditions: good governance, stable currencies, security, confidence, etc. Without security and stability, markets fail. Without contract enforcement mechanisms, markets fail. Without producer and consumer confidence, markets fail.

Free marketeers often complain about government regulation. Economists (and remember, there's a reason why economics is called "the dismal science") will use supply and demand curves to show you that almost any government intervention (taxation, price supports or caps, etc.) distorts the free market and generates inefficiencies. And according to the theory, they are correct. However, honest economists will also admit that there are good reasons for governments to regulate markets (pdf), reasons which may go beyond economics.

Market Failures
One of the biggest reasons for government to regulate markets is "market failure". We've just seen an enormous one in the US, the so-called "subprime meltdown". The Long-Term Capital Management fiasco of the late 1990s also comes to mind.

Market failures include things like:

  • Monopoly: where a producer has market power
  • Monopsony: where a consumer has market power
  • Externalities: where a producer or consumer doesn't pay the "real" cost of a good
  • Public Goods: where a producer can't be properly compensated for the real benefit of a good
  • Asymmetric Information: where one side of a transaction lacks relevant information


McCain's Gas Tax Holiday Proposal

John McCain wants to suspend federal gasoline taxes for the three months of the summer holiday. Specifically:

McCain urged Congress to institute a "gas-tax holiday" by suspending the 18.4 cent federal gas tax and 24.4 cent diesel tax from Memorial Day to Labor Day. By some estimates, the government would lose about $10 billion in revenue. He also renewed his call for the United States to stop adding to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and thus lessen to some extent the worldwide demand for oil.
Combined, he said, the two proposals would reduce gas prices, which would have a trickle-down effect, and "help to spread relief across the American economy."

What would such a "gas-tax holiday" actually do, economically, to supply and demand? Since economists aren't physicists, it's impossible to say for sure, but here are a couple of the more believable scenarios:

  • Assuming we are currently at a market equilibrium (a questionable assumption, considering the constant change in gas prices), reducing the price of a gallon of gas by 18.4 cents to the consumer would increase demand for gas. Increased demand should increase supply, but the summertime supply of gasoline in the US is relatively fixed, so the supply cannot increase. As a result, the price will resume the starting equilibrium -- and the total value of the tax reduction will accrue to the oil companies.
  • The tax reduction will be split between the producers and the consumers, as apparently happened in Illinois in 2000, when gas hit $2/gallon for the first time. In the case of a real reduction in price to consumers, demand for gas will rise, raising the price of gasoline, but not as much as in the first scenario. However, gasoline usage will also rise, increasing the US carbon footprint.

Realistically, the gas-tax holiday will have little effect upon the average American. The price of gas might go down, but if it does, the amount of gasoline used will go up, pushing prices back up and increasing the flow of carbon into the atmosphere.

Sounds like a losing proposition to me, on the merits.

But it does appear to be pretty good political theatre.

NOTE: Nothing in this post should be construed as an endorsement of any Democratic candidate for president. It is an article with facts and opinions about politics. I have not made up my mind, and GNB is not endorsing any candidate prior to there being a clear nominee.

There's more...

UK Massive CCTV Deployment Ineffective

3%
of street robberies in London were solved using CCTV. -- Guardian

This in spite of billions of pound investment in basically carpeting England with these privacy invading web of 24/7 data collection. This sounded like a stupid idea, was a stupid idea, and now proven to be both stupid and ineffective.

This sort of use of technology is never effective. Look at this "terrorist watch list", its upwards of half a million people now. There are even Air Marshals on the list. Nelson Mandela is on the list, the guy is like 105 or something. It's just all noise and a complete waste of money. The billion of pound investment here doesn't include the other billion pounds spent paying police to sit on their arse's and watch the stupid things. The scope here is incredible, virtually every inch of London is under surveillance.
There's more...