Sucker Punch

If this oil spill in the Gulf doesn't cause soul-searching on the Right about energy and the environment, then they are blinder and more ideologically indoctrinated than I thought.

Let's Get This Straight

My Divinity School Classmate, Barry Hollar, writes this on Facebook:

So let me get this straight - Larry King is getting his 8th divorce, Elizabeth Taylor is possibly getting married for a 9th time, Britney Spears had a 55 hour marriage. Jesse James and Tiger Woods are screwing EVERYTHING, yet the idea of same-sex marriage is going to destroy the institution of marriage?? Really? REALLY??

Toothless Lion

Historian Niell Ferguson, via Andrew Sullivan, writes a gloomy note about the Brits:

The situation of the United Kingdom in fiscal terms is in fact worse than the situation of Greece. That may come as a surprise to you, but if you look at the most recent paper on the subject published by the Bank for International Settlements, it is very clear. The trajectory of U.K. public debt over the next 30 years, absent a major change of policy, will take it to a mind-blowing 500% of GDP, which is about 100 percentage points worse than Greece. If Britain had done what many right-thinking people thought it should do and joined the euro, the situation of Britain would be worse than that of Greece today. The only reason that Britain isn’t an honourary member of the PIIGS club, along with Portugal, Ireland, Italy and Spain, is that it stayed outside the eurozone and therefore reserves the right to debase the currency as an exit strategy. I don’t know about you, but I don’t find that very cheery as a prospect

So, Britain has a massive fiscal crisis that is just about to break. Whoever wins this election … they are going to have a ghastly task on their hands to try to reform a system of entitlements and welfare and state subsidy that has hugely expanded under Gordon Brown since 1997.

Tragedy

Not Afraid to Criticize

Glenn Greenwald, a pretty courageous writer, puts this out there:

Politico's Josh Gerstein and Patrick Gavin have a long article describing the growing anger of the White House press corps towards the Obama White House. Many of the grievances are petty, though some are serious and substantive (involving lack of transparency and media manipulation), but the passage that I found most revealing is this one:

Much of the criticism is off the record, both out of fear of retaliation and from worry about appearing whiny. But those views were voiced by a cross section of the television, newspaper and magazine journalists who cover the White House.

Just think about that for a minute. National political reporters are furious over various White House practices involving transparency and information control, but are unwilling to say so for attribution due to fear of "retaliation," instead insisting on hiding behind a wall of anonymity (which Politico, needless to say, happily provides). Isn't that a rather serious problem: that the White House press corps is afraid to criticize the President and the White House for fear of losing access and suffering other forms of retribution? What does that say about their "journalism"? It's the flip side of those White House reporters who need the good graces of Obama aides for their behind-the-scenes books and thus desperately do their bidding: what kind of reporter covering the White House would possibly admit that they're afraid to say anything with their names attached that might anger the President and his aides? How could you possibly be a minimally credible White House reporter if you have that fear? Doesn't that unwillingness rather obviously render their reporting worthless?

Birds and Blades

While we're thinking about oil spills and marine animals, Doug Hoffman writes about wind turbines and birds:

Birds, eagles in particular, are zealously protected by nature lovers in America and around the world. Yet a July 2008 study of the wind farm at Altamont Pass, California, estimated that an average of 80 golden eagles were killed there by wind turbines each year. The study, funded by the Alameda County Community Development Agency, estimated that about 10,000 other protected birds were being killed along with the eagles every year at Altamont. Where is the outrage over this slaughter? It would seem ecologists have a blind spot when it comes to the wind energy industry. As a result, the carnage caused by wind turbines, the “Cuisinarts of the Air,” is getting greenwashed. And birds are not the only creatures wind turbines kill—they kill bats and people as well.

In the US, birds are protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, which dates back to 1918. Over the past two decades, the federal government has brought hundreds of cases against energy companies for killing wild birds in the operation of their businesses. For example, in July 2009, the Oregon based electric utility PacifiCorp paid $1.4 million in fines for killing 232 eagles in Wyoming over a period of two years. The birds were electrocuted by poorly-designed power lines. At the same time, wind-powered turbines are killing a vast number of birds each year yet their owners are not being prosecuted.

While the total number of birds killed in the US each year fluctuates, Michael Fry of the American Bird Conservancy estimates that US wind turbines kill between 75,000 and 275,000 birds per year.

A Short History of America by R. Crumb

Kunstler Vs. Blankfein

If I [James Howard Kunstler] was questioning Lloyd Blankfein in a hearing room:

JHK: Is English the principal language that Goldman Sachs conducts most of its business in?
Blankfein: I... do you...? Well, the context... I... do you have an exhibit number....
JHK: How old are you, Mr. Blankfein?
Blankfein: I, uh... do you mean counting from conception, uh...?
JHK: No, just from your last birthday.
Blankfein: I, uh, well, um... I... fifty-five.
JHK: Were you raised from childhood speaking English?
Blankfein: I, uh, let me see... you mean in the context... uh, do you... uh, have a... I... uh....
JHK: And how many years have you worked at Goldman Sachs speaking English there?
Blankfein: You want...I... well, if the context... of course we... yes.
JHK: In your time on Wall Street, have you ever heard the term 'a shitty deal?'
Blankfein: It depends on... I mean, uh, what do you mean by... we don't do deals, we quote prices.
JHK: Could you state your understanding of what that phrase, 'a shitty deal,' means?
Blankfein: I, uh... the context is... um, I don't... it depends on... I... we make markets... um.
JHK: Will the sergeant-at-arms please take Mr. Blankfein into the cloakroom and shoot him.

Oil

Lord, have mercy.  The news about the oil spill in the Gulf is so depressing.  I had been ignoring it for a few days since I was out of the loop in Erie with my brother.  And the right wing in this country seems clearly unable to handle the fact of the massive spill, given that it so contradicts their ideology, so they are trying to distract everyone with talk of sabotage. 

Who knows, maybe it was sabotage, but by environmentalists who want to try and save the environment by destroying it?  Unlikely.  Maybe there's a branch of Al-Queda on the Gulf Coast.  It's not impossible.  In any case, there are over 3,500 oil rigs out there, I hear.  Plenty of targets for them, if that's what they want to do.

There are no good answers.  If we continue to use as much oil as we have in the near past, then we'll have to both import massive amounts from the Middle East, and we'll have to protect it by our military, which will burn up a good percentage of it.  Also, our trade deficit will continue to skyrocket, causing a few problems with our currency.  We'll also have to 'drill, baby, drill', everywhere and take the risks that go with that.

Or we can begin to conserve and become more energy efficient, and cut down on the amount of oil that we use, plus go with alternative fuels.  Difficult for us, because we think abundant oil is our birthright.  But it's not.

Meanwhile, the stock market continues to rise, or should I say, levitate.

Terrifying Prospect

Andrew Sullivan is convinced that Palin will run against Obama in 2012:

This is the conventional view in Washington [that Palin will not run for President]. I think it's completely wrong, dangerously complacent, and out of touch with profound shifts in media, fundraising and politics. The political parties are weaker than they once were. The elites cannot control grass-roots Internet-driven phenomena. Look at Obama. He seems a natural president now, but Washington dismissed his chances - as they are now dismissing Palin's - right up to the Iowa caucuses. And because Palin is such a terrifying - truly terrifying - prospect for the US and the world, I think such complacency, rooted in cynicism about Palin's mercenary nature, is far too reckless.

Look: what we have seen this past year is the collapse of the RNC as it once was and the emergence of a highly lucrative media-ideological-industrial complex. This complex has no interest in traditional journalistic vetting, skepticism, scrutiny of those in power, or asking the tough questions. It has no interest in governing a country. It has an interest in promoting personalities and ideologies and false images of a past America that both flatter and engage its audience. For most in this business, this is about money. Roger Ailes, who runs a news business, has been frank about what his fundamental criterion is for broadcasting: ratings not truth. Obviously all media has an eye on the bottom line - but in most news organizations, there is also an ethical editorial concern to get things right. I see no such inclination in Fox News or the hugely popular talkshow demagogues (Limbaugh, Levin, Beck et al.), which now effectively control the GOP. And when huge media organizations have no interest in any facts that cannot be deployed for a specific message, they are a political party in themselves.

Add Palin to the mix and you have a whole new machine in American politics - one with the capacity, as much as Obama's, to upend the established order.