Election night

Yes we can.

More hope, more energy

 

From my day of canvassing to get out the vote, today.

I think it's going to be the day we wanted it to be. I think it's going to end up a very momentous, important, magnificent day.

Yeah, I was blown away, too

After getting together with friends this evening, for dinner, I realized I wasn't the only one who was a bit blown away, emotionally, of all things, by Senator Obama's "informercial" last evening.

It seems the pictures and videos and testimony were all a bit more than at least some of us were expecting.

It reminds me so much of what I think people thought and felt for first John Kennedy and then his brother, Robert.

See if you don't see more suggestions of that comparison in time to come. I think you/we all will.

Anyway, the closer we get to the election, the more overwhelming it all seems. The more incredible it seems, that Barack Obama will be President. (I'm pretty darned sure).

(And I am SO FREAKIN' SICK of this election, otherwise).




On a side note--back to the real and scary world of economics--did anyone see this following little tidbit?

"The Federal Reserve agreed to provide $30 billion each to the central banks of Brazil, Mexico, South Korea and Singapore, expanding its effort to unfreeze money markets to emerging nations for the first time."

See the story link here:
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2008/10/fed-expands-swap-o-rama-to-brazil.html

That's 120 BILLION DOLLARS, all at once, to Brazil, Mexico, South Korea and Singapore.

Holy cow. We're talking real money here.

This all brings on a few rather significant questions, I think:

1) Holy spreadsheet, Batman, what is our government doing??

2) Is what the government is doing the right thing? (Are they the right things?)

3) Who's REALLY in charge of our government right now?

4) Are we going to regret this in short order?

5) Are the people "in control" REALLY in control?

6) Are these same people (you know, the ones in "control") sure of what they're doing?

7) Aren't we throwing one heck of a lot of money around and rather helter skelter, at that? (In the billions, regularly).

8) Are the people in charge REALLY certain of the ramifications of what they're doing?

9) Are some of the things we're doing counterproductive with some of the other things we're doing, simultaneously?

10) Can we be certain of our answer(s) to no. 9 above?

11) Can we be certain of our answers to any and all of the questions above?

12) Are the people in charge certain of the answers to any and all of the questions above?

13) What other "unkowns" are out there that we're unaware of?

14) Are we--all of us, even the ones in charge--totally winging it and in completely new, unidentified territory here, so they really AREN'T sure of what they're doing? (I'm afraid the answer here is a certifiable "yes").

Whole lotta questions, goin' on.

The thinking man (comes to a conclusion)

New take on an old ad

OMG

Once you go Barack...

2 Right Wing Wacko Stories

Right this moment, there are, literally, 2 Right Wing Wacko Stories out.

In the first, Representative (of all people) Michelle Bachman has put out a very public apology to Senator Obama for "her televised comments calling Barack Obama anti-American, according to a Republican source familiar with her campaign’s decision."

link here: http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20081024/pl_politico/24576

Seems Ms. Bachman opened her mouth and put it right in.

At least this Right Wing Republican has the courage and decency to what ought to be done--apologize--unlike too many of her brethren, including Senator McCain and Governor Palin. They fling the accusations out there and not only don't apologize, they keep 'em coming.

And the other story right now, from the Really Really Far Right Wing is about a young woman of dubious mental stability (I mean that seriously and earnestly, not sarcastically) who turned in a now proven false story about being "attacked by a 6-foot-4 black man Wednesday night..." for money, at a bank's ATM.

Hmmm.

Strange thread here, isn't there?

What's nice is that Senator Obama is "off the campaign trail" right now, seeing the gravely ill grandmother in Hawaii who raised him. My original concern was that the McCain camp might try to do some serious damage to Senator Obama's campaign by some shenanigans of some kind.

Instead, it seems the Right Wing Wackos are just self-destructing, all by themselves.

Finally, an aside, before we go, as if the above isn't enough, Sarah Palin is quoted as saying--and I'm not making this up--she would have named her next child "Zamboni", if she'd have had another. She said she always wanted to name a child Zamboni.

If the economy just keeps gettin' worse, this stuff just keeps gettin' better.

Have a good weekend, y'all.

Barack Obama here in Kansas City

I just shot this, this evening at the Barack Obama rally here in Kansas City. It was a great turnout. We know there were 100,000 people who gathered in St. Louis this morning for him. We hope to find out tomorrow that as many or nearly that many were there tonight. There was great energy in it all. It was a fairly brief speech but that was okay. We only just wanted to be there, all of us, and hear him speak.

This lady was very nice, and very nice to let me take her picture. She said she was, as the sign says, a "Latina Mama for Obama", literally. She also wanted to be sure I knew that the t-shirt she was wearing had been her husband's. He had very recently died, she said, so she wanted to be sure to wear it for him and his memory. I got the strong sense she felt he was there, with her, because of it and their time together, I'm sure.

On to November!

Even Rednecks Love Obama!

I just caught these guys from Yahoo! See more about them--they're for real--at http://www.rednecks4obama.com.

Change?

Unbelievable, once again.

This is, without doubt, the most unpredictable, nearly insane election the United States or, indeed, possibly, the world has ever seen.

Ever since the Republican National Convention, Senator "McSame" or, as he was accidentally referred to at that same gathering, John Bush, has been claiming he and his ticket are the "change" America needs.

WTF?

Are you kidding me?

Here's a 72 year old rich, white guy--a Senator--someone absolutely FROM WASHINGTON, who has worked there on the inside for years and he claims he and his reactionary, "take us back in time" female sidekick are the party of change?

Wisely, the Democratic Obama campaign has shown videotape of the good Senator, bragging of how he has voted with the current President (who got us in our messes, by the way) "90% of the time."

What's more unbelievable is that PEOPLE ARE FALLING FOR IT. I know it's temporary--it is, after all, only a poll and it's the extremely fickle American Public but right now, Senator "I haven't got any fresh ideas" is running ahead of Sen. Obama.

I'm not going to panic because there's 56 days between now and the election but it's pretty unfathomable that people would fall for this line.

Also nearly completely unbelievable is that people who would have voted for Sen. Hillary Clinton are, at least some of them, swinging toward voting Republican for and because of Sarah Palin.

Can they not think?

Sarah Palin is virtually completely against everything Sen. Clinton EVER stood or campaigned for.

Here's another unbelievability: a "swing" voter, undecided as to whether they should vote for McSame & Co. or Barack Obama.

Are you kidding me?

Could they possibly represent more different ideas and groups?

It's like not knowing if you're for the North or South in the Civil War. It just shouldn't happen.

No way.

Talk about clay for brains.
__________________________________________________________________________

On a different, closing note: Get this. On the way in to work this morning, I heard of an Army soldier in nearby Fort Riley, Kansas who declared himself to be an atheist.

It seems someone--a Christian, sadly, again, unbelievably--has threatened this person's life, saying they would kill him, apparently, unless he became a Christian and disavowed his non-belief.

If just doesn't get much better, for a laugh, or sicker, than that, does it?

You want funny?

Do you want to see funny stuff on and from this campaign?

Go to this website:

http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/blinsanity-archive.htm

It has terrific stuff, some of which is David Letterman, Robin Williams and a lot more.



Have a terrific weekend!

The question

Quoted from "The Bill Maher Show", this past Friday night:

"The real, big question of this election is, will America be able to see the larger mistakes of the Bush Administrtion and Republican Party of the last 7 years and vote for a Black man?"



Good question.

Sarah Palin?

Okay, Biden I get now, of course.

And I get the choice of Sarah Palin, too. She fits right in with the right-wing, conservative, religious, intolerant gun-toters. It's easy to see the appeal to that group.

But really. How easy is this?

I can't wait 'til the debate.

Question: If a 17 year-old young lady is pregnant, isn't SOMEBODY guilty of statutory rape?

Just askin'.

Thoughts on a holiday

So many things going on.

First, unfortunately, the timing of this Hurricane Gustav worked against both the Gulf Coast and the Democrats--and everyone against John McCain, George Bush and the Republican Party. Instead of having our peerless leader speak at the "Dark Side" convention opener tonight, he gets a pass because of that same storm.

Dang.

Hearing and seeing that boob speak of the last 7 years was going to be something I cherished. Trying to put lipstick on that pig would be a big hoot--if not infuriating.

Then, did you see this? Right out of the shoot, Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin said she was against the "bridge to nowhere" for $223 million dollars from Anchorage to a small town of a few dozen people. Uh-huh. Well, we're used to Republicans rewriting history but that one just isn't going to fly. She was all for it and was on the record as such. I guess Alaskans are--rightly--upset about this about-face and slap in theirs.

Great. She's already shown her true, shallow colors.

I think the one debate between her and Sen. Biden and the three between Senators "McSame" and Obama should be a real hoot. Intelligence and experience vs. short-term goals and experience with the Veeps while the old white guy with no new ideas--who supported wrong, horrible ones--goes against a young, energetic, eloquent guy with ideas and inspiration. I hope they're as good for us as I think they can be.

Then, yesterday, Sen. McCain, in a really feeble attempt to distance himself from President Know-nothing, Greedhead Bush, went on "Marshmallow News" Fox Network with Rightist Chris Wallace and said waterboarding is torture, that we did it, apparently, (really? no kidding) and that it's wrong.

Well, Senator--far too little and far too late.

For the last 7 years, you've largely supported George W. Bush and his administration and look where it's gotten us:

A wrong war, for the wrong reasons, full of deceipt and deception, if not out and out lies; the largest debt in the history of the nation and more ways for our government to reach into our private lives than ever before. (WOULD SOMEONE PLEASE TELL ME WHAT WAS EVER CONSERVATIVE ABOUT GEORGE W. BUSH??)

Too late, Senator McCain.

You're more of the same and you're the wrong man for the wrong time, period.

Anyway, it's been an insane, wild, completely unpredictable and new election and these last 60 days should be more of the same ride.

Let's hope it has the conclusion to it we want--and need.

It should be.

Joe Biden?

That's the best we can do?

Joe Biden?

What is that about?

What is this, the "reassuring old white guy to calm down the racists"?

Let's face it, the racists aren't going to vote for Obama, no matter what.

Who, exactly, does Joe Biden bring to the table, in terms of votes come November, that we wouldn't already have gotten?

Hillary would have brought more votes.

Same with Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas--or any intelligent, capable woman on the ticket.

But Joe Biden?

Don't get me wrong, I think he's smart and capable and, yes, God knows he's experienced and he's on the correct side of a lot of issues. His work has been good and admirable. And, sure, he knows how the system works and yeah, we hope he won't just be a "yes man" in Obama's Administration but geez, what exactly does he add to the ticket?

What, we didn't have the requisite "old white guy" on the ticket so we have to counter-balance the opposition?

I don't get it.

What part of "Change" is this?



On a completely different subject and as part of a trend I've described and discussed here in the past, the nation's 9th bank failure occurred last evening, in case you didn't see or hear of it.

Senator Obama is right about Iraq--still and again

This just out, on Yahoo! news:

Rice says US-Iraq coming together on timetables

So, lets' see, Senator Obama was right about voting against the original invasion of Iraq, to start with, and now, once again, he's right about a "timetable" (ooh, that word!) for having the US military withdraw from Iraq.

Hmmm. It seems there's a distinct trend here, isn't there?

Senator Obama demonstrates good, intelligent and prescient judgement on important national and international issues.

This in sharp contrast to what Senator McCain says, thinks, wants and plans. "McSame" voted FOR the war before it began and now keeps saying he wants to keep us over there, at great personal and financial cost.

The differences--and choice--between the two seems extremely clear and keeps getting more so, don't you think?

(Original story here:http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080821/ap_on_re_mi_ea/us_iraq)

And then, as if that isn't enough, there's this, just out:

John McCain Unsure How Many Houses He Owns

That's gonna hurt.

Full story here: http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080821/pl_politico/12685

Wanna' see his "cribs"? Go to this link:

http://www.mccainvminnesota.com/cribs.html

McCain questioning Obama's judgement on Iraq

Unbelievable.

Barack Obama was "dead-on" with his votes on Iraq. Iraq was the wrong war at the wrong time and for the wrong reasons and Barack Obama voted against it.

Good for him. If only the rest of Congress did the same.

So first, Sen. McCain questions his patriotism about voting against it. Then, today, he says--yet again--that he's only questioning "whether America wins or loses."

What nonsense.

Man, if people bite off on that one, believe it and vote accordingly, for one, they're not very bright and second, they're gullible to an extraordinary degree.

Let me say again: Barack Obama was right about his vote against the Iraq War.

We were led into it on false pretenses, at least, if not out and out lies and Sen. Obama had the wisdom and courage enough to go down in a vote, saying it was the wrong thing to do even then, with what information he had at the time.

With more time and information, it turns out he was absolutely correct.

And now Senator McCain wants to say he's wrong because he, Sen. Obama, may or may not want America to "win"?

So, all of a sudden, winning or losing is the big issue?

How about right vs. wrong, especially when American soldier's lives are at stake?

That seems to be a much more important factor and facet, rather than whether we lose, particularly since "losing" this war simply means we walk away, smartly, from a wrong war. At this point, it seems we really should work with the Iraqis the way they want us to, organize and get out. Maybe bring in the UN, in the meantime, as they've volunteered, and, again, get out.

Doesn't seem like a loss to me.

"Obamacans"--all over the 'net and news right now

Former U.S. Rep. Jim Leach of Iowa, former Senator Lincoln Chaffee of Rhode Island and former Alaska legislator Jim Whitaker announce their support for the Democratic candidate.

Barack Obama likes to talk about "Obamacans" -- Republicans who he says approach him at political events and quietly pledge their support for his presidential candidacy.

See the original articles here:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-trailleach13-2008aug13,0,515257.story?track=rss

http://www.projo.com/news/politics/content/campaign_journal_13_08-13-08_SPB6UGG_v10.403bead.html?npc

All this while McCain kind of explodes with declarations that we should, figuratively, go kick some Russky butt, over in Georgia. There's some level-headed thinking.

It just keeps gettin' better 'n better, I think.

But it's a long way to November.

Success, it seems

If you've been paying any attention to Barack Obama's trip to the Middle East this week, you would know that it seems to be extremely successful and well-received. His different meetings with Al-Maliki, of Iraq, and the Israeli and Palestinian leaders, have all been met warmly and with, again, it seems, good results, considering its mostly a fact-finding tour for the assumed Democratic Candidate for the US Presidency.

It seems the whole world has not only "gone on" from this lame duck Presidency we're all suffering through, it's as though the United States and the world, both, are almost starved for intelligence, eloquence and thoughtfulness. This trip has ended up being almost a coronation for this next President.

Meanwhile, "Senator McSame" is thrashing about, trying come up with labels he can throw out for the Senator from Illinois, that he can make stick. It's sad. He's made verbal gaffes about different regions of the world and about the Sunni vs. Shiite sects in Iraq, among other things. He seems to be desperate in so many ways: desperate for good media coverage, desperate for voters in America to get behind him, desperate for young people to get excited about him and his campaign (oh, yeah, that's gonna happen. I can see it now: "Young 20's for the Rich, Old White Guy!").

There's a lot of time and events between now and November, to be sure, but it seems that there is a terrific head of steam (the mighty "MO" of momentum in politics) that Senator Obama has, in successes he's created, in fund-raising, in the "buzz" of the electorate, and more, that, hopefully, is virtually unstoppable.

Let's hope that's the case.

From Slate Magazine, yesterday, on Pres. "McSame" (God forbid)

Slick John McCain and the offshore oil ruse

The safety and economics of offshore drilling are distractions from the much larger challenges that humanity faces: Climate change and peak oil.
By Andrew Leonard

Jun. 25, 2008 | An example of leadership or reckless chutzpah? On Monday, John McCain visited Santa Barbara, the scene of one of the great environmental disasters in American history, and proceeded to downplay the potential consequences of lifting the federal moratorium on new offshore drilling. Modern drilling technology is environmentally safe, he told the audience. According to the Associated Press, McCain "cited the examples of Louisiana and Texas, noting they have allowed drilling and weathered two devastating hurricanes with minimal or no oil spills."

McCain exaggerated. A 2007 report by the U.S. Minerals Management Service unearthed by Outside the Beltway documented the damage caused in the Gulf of Mexico by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita: "124 spills were reported with a total volume of roughly 17,700 barrels of total petroleum products."

Now, 17,700 barrels of oil equals 743,400 gallons. Whether you consider that a lot or a little depends on your perspective. Compared with the 1.5 million barrels pumped out of the Gulf every day, it is a trivial amount. But it's also within shouting distance of the 3 million gallons of oil spilled in the Santa Barbara offshore oil disaster of 1969.

That spill is considered the "environmental shot heard 'round the world." The catastrophe crystallized the environmental movement into a potent political force, resulting in the quick passage of the National Environmental Protection Act later that year, the creation of the EPA in 1970 and, ultimately, the ban on new offshore drilling.

But the safety of offshore drilling is a distraction from what's really at issue in the current tussle over energy policy. An oil spill here or there is irrelevant to the much larger challenges that humanity faces: climate change and peak oil.

The truth is, we can probably make offshore drilling as safe as we reasonably want it to be. Norway, with its environmentally aware citizenry and tight coordination between a watchful government and a state-oil owned company, has been drilling for decades in the North Sea with reasonably good environmental results (notwithstanding the horrific explosion of the Piper Alpha offshore platform in 1988 or the spillage of 24,000 barrels of oil just last December). Then again, for an example of how it can all go terribly wrong, visit Nigeria, where lax environmental controls have resulted in a huge mess in the Niger Delta, and where rebel forces attacked an offshore oil platform just this week.

But drilling practices and technology have improved. With the appropriate government oversight and regulation, it may be possible to drill off the coasts of Florida and California without covering the beaches with sludge and killing thousands of seabirds. Provided we acknowledge, of course, that a few nasty hurricanes in Florida will make at least a little bit of mess, and an earthquake in the wrong spot in California could be a slight problem. And provided we are capable of following the example of Norway, where the government and the people tell the oil company what to do, rather than the example set by the current Bush administration, where the energy industry is in charge of policymaking.

But drilling for more oil in the United States will not lower the price of gas in the short term -- even McCain admitted as much when he said on Monday, "I don't see an immediate relief, [but] the fact that we are exploiting those reserves would have psychological impact that I think is beneficial." Bush's own Department of Energy concluded in 2004 that the long-term impact of lifting the moratorium on offshore drilling on oil prices would be "insignificant." The only way that expanded drilling, offshore and in ANWR, could make a difference at the pump is if global production of oil started significantly outpacing the growth of global demand. Which would probably require that Saudi Arabia crank open the spigot and China, India, and the rest of the world's rapidly emerging economies start to lose their enormous thirst.

In other words, not only is it unlikely, it is completely out of our hands.

For those who accept that burning fossil fuels is contributing to climate change and that there are finite limits to the amount of inexpensive oil that can be pumped out of the earth, a new offshore oil rush is a psychological and practical disaster. It would accelerate climate change and, in the unlikely scenario that new drilling even momentarily slowed down global oil price appreciation, would still postpone that inevitable day of reckoning with the even higher fossil fuel energy prices sure to arrive.

The longer we wait to deal with either problem, the more painful and expensive our options for coping with these challenges will become and the more constrained our maneuvering room will be. The sorry truth is that from the perspective of grappling with climate change, and encouraging investment into alternative energy technologies, expensive gas now is far preferable to even more expensive gas later.

Of course, there are plenty of people, mostly on the right-wing of the political spectrum in the United States, who do not accept that climate change is real or caused by human industrial activity, and who believe there are no real constraints to the global oil supply. They'd prefer to blame environmental activists, present-day descendants of the rabid left-wing commies who exploited the Santa Barbara spill to pursue their anti-business agenda, for today's "high" gas prices.

Such accusations are the stuff of daily grandstanding rhetoric from Congressional Republicans and constitute a major, longstanding front in the culture wars.

There's a large contingent of Americans who do acknowledge that global warming is real and that it would be smart to consume less oil. But the prospect of $5 gasoline tends to reduce their focus from the long term to the here-and-now. The oceans haven't flooded their homes just yet, but their pocketbooks are hurting today.

And there's an election campaign going on.

In Las Vegas on Tuesday, Barack Obama delivered a significant speech on energy issues. He criticized McCain's proposal for new offshore drilling and commented that McCain's reference to "psychological impact" is "Washington-speak for 'It polls well.'" No joke.

In Santa Barbara, McCain attempted to assuage Californian sensitivities by saying that his real position on the moratorium on offshore drilling is that it should fall under the rubric of "state's rights" -- meaning that if Californians want to keep their coastline pristine, they will have the power to do so under a McCain administration. But McCain knows he's not going to win California, so it doesn't matter what he says in Santa Barbara. The offshore oil ploy is a calculated gambit aimed at cashing in on the pain that economically stressed voters in swing states far from the coast (as well as Florida, where environmental sensitivities seem to be on less solid ground than in California) are feeling. In Ohio and Michigan, the ugliness of oil derricks blotting out the sunset isn't a number one problem on anyone's priority list.

McCain's goal is to marry the anti-environmentalist Republican base with the I-like-the-environment-but-am-economically-hurting moderates. Call it the coalition of the unwilling to pay high gas prices.

In his speech, Obama set forth a pretty straightforward platform of vastly increased investment in renewable energy, conservation and efficiency, and proposed to ease the pain of working-class Americans with an economic stimulus plan. One can question how he would end up paying for his proposals or whether he will succeed in steering them through Congress, but one thing that must be conceded is that his approach represents a clear difference from McCain.

Suppose that McCain's strategy works. Suppose voters in enough swing states decide that the pain of high gas prices is so great that they will go with the candidate who is promising them the easy way out -- the gas tax holiday and offshore drilling and a nuclear power plant in every pot. What will that tell us about the American ability to suck it up and face down the challenges of the future?

Easy. It will tell us that we've lost the battle before we've hardly begun to fight. It will tell us that the environment is toast. We will have established that we, the citizens of the richest and most powerful country on the earth, are unwilling to pay the price necessary for embarking on a long-term ecologically sustainable path for existence on the planet. If $4 gasoline is enough incentive to lift the moratorium on offshore drilling, then $10-a-gallon gasoline will inspire even more drastic consequences. We will drill for every drop of oil, we will dig up every ounce of coal, we will sacrifice every environmental regulation, because we just can't take the heat. And then we'll fry.

It will also tell us that the environmental movement that took so much power from the Santa Barbara oil spill of 1969 has failed. That sustainability and conservations were luxuries we decided we could not afford.

(The original link:
http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2008/06/25/mccain_offshore_oil/print.html)