Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditProtestations of competence notwithstanding, Hillary Clinton is failing the test as a manager. After starting her campaign with tens of millions of dollars, she was jolted to learn that she was out of money, the mother's milk of politics, as California's late Jesse Unruh called it.
The suddenly milkless Clinton was forced to make the campaign a $5 million loan. Apparently, she knew nothing about the campaign's financial situation until it had gone broke. And today the New York Times reports her major donors are beginning to question what's been done with their money.
Did this campaign have a budget? If not, why not? If it did, was it poorly constructed? Or did people running the campaign simply overspend? Anyway you slice it, the money mess throws into serious question her ready-on-day-one executive ability.
Clinton fired her campaign manager, Patti Solis Doyle, who was reportedly afraid to tell her boss the bad news about the squandered money. Lesson one for organizational disaster: A boss whose subordinates are scared to give her bad news. See Lyndon Johnson and Vietnam for what can happen.
Why was Doyle campaign manager in the first place? She had been a scheduleer and had never run a major political campaign. The gossip is that Doyle was the nominal campaign manager, not the real boss. Then why fire her?
Doyle has been replaced by Maggie Williams, a long time politico with a background in public relations and Hillary's major domo during the Clintons' White House years. Hers is a good resumé, but it does not include running a political campaign. But she is said to be a Hillary loyalist. In Hillaryland, loyalty and secrecy are prized over competence.
So far, Obama seems able to manage money better and raise more of it faster than Clinton, who has had the lobbyists, special interests and the Democratic Party's bull elephants lined up from the word go.
He has out-organized her in the precincts; his videos are incomparably superior; his television and mail is better; there is no comparison between his ability to recruit and use volunteers and hers; his people are masters of the iInternet, of the art of the advance and of political logistics.
Obama's oratory and inspirational power would have lost in Illinois had he not been able to bring it to the voters through superior organizational, tactical, administrative and inventive ability. Somebody is ready on Day One and it isn't Hillary.
Sounds like an inevitable trainwreck is leavin' the station..... But, I'll bet it's not stopping until it gets to Denver, crashing the convention ala the Silver Streak.....(heh,heh)
Posted by TransitDave at 02/22/2008 @ 4:32pm
I love the "$100,000 went for party platters and groceries before the Iowa caucuses"....a caucus she LOST!
and "Rooms at the Bellagio luxury hotel in Las Vegas consumed more than $25,000; the Four Seasons, another $5,000"....remind me of Slim Pickens reading off the "survival kit" in "Strangelove"..."Hell, a guy could have a great weekend in Vegas with all this stuff!"
Posted by Mask at 02/22/2008 @ 4:38pm
Masky,
One thing's for sure, Hillbillary might be on her way out, but she's goin' first class......(heh,heh)
Posted by TransitDave at 02/22/2008 @ 4:44pm
VON HOFFMAN: Did this campaign have a budget? If not, why not? If it did, was it poorly constructed? Or did people running the campaign simply overspend? Anyway you slice it, the money mess throws into serious question her ready-on-day-one executive ability.
Long before The Nation became critical of Hillary and hopped on the Magic train very, very recently, us conservatives have known for a decade+ of her shortcomings, including her Mark Penn-ed `experience'.
However, to question her "executive ability" in budgeting for this campaign, and raising just the right amount (or more) of money for said campaign, is ludicrous. This isn't a relatively simple business case of projecting demand and lining up supply! Who can project how many candidates are at the Start Line, when some drops off or stumble, how unexpectedly one or more candidate outdo projections, etc.......
Now, if you have some solid dirt as to truly wasted money or embezzlement, or diversion of campaign funds for $400 haircuts, then, different story!
One thing is clear, you Lib writers just don't have any experience beyond managing your own finances....and probably not even good at that!
Posted by Happy at 02/22/2008 @ 4:55pm
In Hillaryland, loyalty and secrecy are prized over competence.
sound familiar?
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/22/2008 @ 4:58pm
Democratic Party's bull elephants
i thought they were asses.........
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/22/2008 @ 4:59pm
Well, you know girls aren't any good at math -- especially "Wellsley girls," as Von Hoffman calls them.
Posted by RLawrence at 02/22/2008 @ 4:59pm
masters of the iInternet
shit!
did steve ijobs but the tubes?
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/22/2008 @ 5:00pm
then how on Earth is she going to handle the US budget?
Posted by ZERO 02/22/2008 @ 4:46pm
how on earth is THE EARTH going to handle the us budget?
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/22/2008 @ 5:02pm
Posted by HAPPY 02/22/2008 @ 4:55pm
Can we go back and quote John McCain on the 2001 Bush tax cuts?
Posted by Mask at 02/22/2008 @ 5:03pm
Posted by HAPPY 02/22/2008 @ 4:55pm
why are you in such a bad mood?
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/22/2008 @ 5:06pm
Well, you know girls aren't any good at math
Posted by RLAWRENCE 02/22/2008 @ 4:59pm
nonsense.
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/22/2008 @ 5:07pm
"I'm going to be honest: I know a lot less about economics than I do about military and foreign policy issues. I still need to be educated."
john mccain,
Wall Street Journal interview by Stephen Moore, November 26, 2005
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/22/2008 @ 5:10pm
I'm glad whenever they cut interest rates, I wish interest rates were zero.
john mccain,
The Republican presidential debate, October 9, 2007.
wow. he does have a lot to learn.....
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/22/2008 @ 5:13pm
In Nicky von Hoffmann's text, he refers to "The suddenly milkless Clinton."
Is he making a sly allusion to a Shakespearean female character of boundless ambition and cold-blooded calculation? Would he be referring to Lady McClinton? Hmmmm. ... .
"Come, you spirits / That tend on mortal thoughts, unsex me here . . . Come to my woman's breasts, / And take my milk for gall."
In the words of the goggle-eyed Marty Feldman in Young Frankenstein, "Too late!" Already a done deal, many long years ago. "You idiot, Bill! Why did you bring the daggers from the place?!"
Nice touch, Nicky lad. Keep up the chops.
Posted by goyadad at 02/22/2008 @ 5:20pm
On the other hand, the post's headline seems like it was lifted from a John Prine lyric:
"There's a hole in Billary's polls where all the money goes . . ."
Posted by goyadad at 02/22/2008 @ 5:26pm
test.
Posted by Tatoo at 02/22/2008 @ 5:29pm
where did all the money go? long long time ago....
Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/22/2008 @ 5:37pm
test.
Posted by TATOO 02/22/2008 @ 5:29pm
indelible.
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/22/2008 @ 5:41pm
The donors, my guess, is wanted their money's worth, and some of those that aren't might be coming in contact with the press and "expressing their concerns".
Posted by ZERO 02/22/2008 @ 5:35pm
THE DONORS
This fall on ABC, "The Donors", a tale of espionage and betrayal.
Don't miss it!
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/22/2008 @ 5:43pm
....the Clintons probably planned on having no competition and simply running a pricey campaign where a lot of people got a slice of a big pie, with no worry....
Posted by ZERO 02/22/2008 @ 5:35pm
You nailed it! She, or her high level handlers like Penn, probably figured they would have money left over to help down ticket Dems running in Nov.!
Given the Big Time operations that are modern day Presidential Runs, I doubt Hillary or Obama, gets involved in the nitty grities of how money is spent, except at the margins subject to some debates/disagreements among the senior staff/consultants!
Posted by Happy at 02/22/2008 @ 5:50pm
Posted by ZERO 02/22/2008 @ 5:35pm
"I find the criticism of Hillary on the grounds of campaign finance management and campaign management in general being a poor reflection of readiness for executive management to be some of the better criticisms"
I wonder if folks think this measure applies equally to all candidates. It seems that Mad Mac had a pretty good warchest going into the pre-primary season and then suddenly found that he'd spent himself into last place. That was when he fired nearly all his staff & dusted off the old bus to carry on with the little cash he had left.
He admits he doesn't understand economics. Seems like this is proof positive. That plus he fails to see the fiscal disadvantages of carrying on a 100-year war in Iraq.
Posted by goyadad at 02/22/2008 @ 5:50pm
why are you in such a bad mood?
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 02/22/2008 @ 5:06pm
I guess you can say that! You may know I'm working part time now....
This whole week, several tasks I'm working on, haven't budged an inch....because of others NOT placing the same priorities on what I am able to maintain laser focus on. Reminds me of all the reasons why I prefer to run my own show......If you want something done quickly and done right, DO IT YOURSELF.....unfortunately, I can't hack other peoples' computer systems for the information I need!
F*%k, all I'm trying to do is help minority kids who desperately need alternatives--charter schools--to the hopeless inner-city, teachers' union centric, job-protecting pass-the-kids-along `schools'!
Posted by Happy at 02/22/2008 @ 5:58pm
TALKING POINT:
experience. hillary has experience. obama has talk.
talking point:
experience!
Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/22/2008 @ 5:58pm
fiscal disadvantages of carrying on a 100-year war in Iraq.
Posted by GOYADAD 02/22/2008 @ 5:50pm
actually, that will be very good for "business".
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/22/2008 @ 5:58pm
talking point:
hope? CULTISH!!! HOPE UNGOOD!
Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/22/2008 @ 5:59pm
Posted by HAPPY 02/22/2008 @ 5:58pm
sssuuuuurrreee you are.
Posted by Dr Decibels at 02/22/2008 @ 6:10pm
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 02/22/2008 @ 5:58pm
that will be very good for "business".
Not very good economic analysis, FROSTY, sorry to say. Good for Halliburton/Carlisle/Parsons business in the short run, but very bad in the mid to longer run. We have quite sufficient "Bush Bucks" in circulation right now, thank you very much. Currently, the Pubs are taking cash out of other unimportant items in the budget like roads & infrastructure, research funding, public health & education, etc. But you can't run a $350 billion a year war forever off the books. At some point you're going to have to convert those debts into cash payments: China & Bahrain already have all the US paper they want. When you try to pay those things off, you got only a few choices: 1) print more money (hyperinflation); 2) starve your people a lot more than you have already done; 3) begin a war of conquest to take wealth from others or extort them into granting tribute.
We did this once before with Vietnam, running the debt up and not paying for it years on end. And what we got was the "malaise" of the Carter years, stagflation and interest rates 20% and above. We see the start of it now. Give McCain 4 years more to add to the mess, and we'll see thousands living in cars and under bridges just like the glory days of St. Ronald the First.
Posted by goyadad at 02/22/2008 @ 6:26pm
PS.--Why do you think the Loony is doing so well against the Greenback? Good for you Great White Northers, not so good for us 'Mercans.
Posted by goyadad at 02/22/2008 @ 6:30pm
Ever wonder why the go-go '90s were such a good economic times? It's simple. Clinton wrung much of the pork out of the Pentagon and made all of those sunk costs available for reinvestment in the domestic economy. That's where we got all the money for the internet startups and the tech boom generally. The fact that we turned the firehose away from military spending to the domestic economy is what produced the "irrational exuberance" that Greenspan worried about. It wasn't emotion--it was all that liberated cash that didn't know where it was supposed to go that created the dot.com bubble.
Thank God for Bin Laden. He gave the Bushies a pretext to redivert all that cash back into the Pentagon. If he hadn't existed, he would have had to have been invented. In fact, he was. There wasn't enough Bin Laden to go around for a full-on GWOT, so we had to throw Saddam to the mix for good measure.
Posted by goyadad at 02/22/2008 @ 6:46pm
Posted by GOYADAD 02/22/2008 @ 6:26pm
i was referring to the bombmakers et al.
of course, running up such a huge debt on such a huge folly is folly.
the cdn dollar is up because we are running a budget surplus, paying down the debt, and the u.s. and china are buying lots of rocks, trees, and oil.
but mostly, it is because the u.s. dollar is crashing.
people always use the 9 trillion figure for u.s. debt.
but that's nothing. don't forget to add 12 trillion in consumer debt and 10 trillion in business debt.
here, watch dr. paul make mr. bernanke squirm:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=efrt2h1AH_A
our inflation is being hidden on the backs of the exploited worldwide and in the skies and rivers of places like china.
rubber money.
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/22/2008 @ 7:00pm
Posted by GOYADAD 02/22/2008 @ 6:46pm
don't let mr. clinton off the hook.
a big part of the subprime fiasco is his and rubin's fault.
they're the ones who pushed for the repeal of glass-steagall and led to the rise of bankbrokerlender behemoths.
read this:
TOTALLY SPENT
By ROBERT B. REICH
Published: February 13, 2008 Berkeley, Calif.
WE'RE sliding into recession, or worse, and Washington is turning to the normal remedies for economic downturns. But the normal remedies are not likely to work this time, because this isn't a normal downturn.
The problem lies deeper. It is the culmination of three decades during which American consumers have spent beyond their means. That era is now coming to an end. Consumers have run out of ways to keep the spending binge going.
The only lasting remedy, other than for Americans to accept a lower standard of living and for businesses to adjust to a smaller economy, is to give middle- and lower-income Americans more buying power -- and not just temporarily.
etc.,
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/13/opinion/13reich.html
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/22/2008 @ 7:06pm
too much junk bought on credit based on rubber money.
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/22/2008 @ 7:07pm
In deep doo doo right now. Don't tell Krugman, though. He doesn't believe it, even though he dared utter (actually type) the dreadful "stagflation" expression in his column today. Or yesterday. Whatever.
He should come to my neighborhood if he needs proof. Hint: it's not Princeton, NJ.
TATOO, after test comes ting! I learned that when I played in a rock band about 100 years ago.
Posted by jackwells at 02/22/2008 @ 8:01pm
I'm so confused with what Hillary is doing. I thought she was going to bow out gracefully now I hear that she is going to smear Obama again by some claim that he got funding from someone who is from a radical group from the 60's. What is she trying to show that he is too far to left? Why would another democrat do that?
I can see what Ed Shultz meant when he said if Hillary doesnt get out of the race right now she is going to tear the democratic party apart.
Why doesnt she understand that people just like him better and if she continues with this negative smear it just turns them off her more.
Carol
Posted by harriscrl3 at 02/22/2008 @ 8:58pm
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 02/22/2008 @ 7:06pm
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 02/22/2008 @ 7:07pm
Uh, FROSTY, didn't you read the last line?
"The only lasting remedy... is to give middle- and lower-income Americans more buying power -- and not just temporarily."
Doesn't sound like the FROSTY "cut back" economy, does it?
Posted by Mask at 02/22/2008 @ 8:58pm
Doesn't sound like the FROSTY "cut back" economy, does it?
Posted by MASK 02/22/2008 @ 8:58pm
more buying power instead of more CREDIT doesn't necessarily mean you have to buy more CRAP.
it can also mean that you've enough MONEY to actually pay for the things you actually NEED.
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/22/2008 @ 9:09pm
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 02/22/2008 @ 9:09pm
hope that's clear.
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/22/2008 @ 9:10pm
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 02/22/2008 @ 9:10pm
No...not at all, actually.
So, the stuff won't be bought "on credit" (according to Reich)...but in cash.
Either way, it's "more stuff". Now, if you have no problem with "cash on the barrel-head" consumerism...just "credit" consumerism???
Posted by Mask at 02/22/2008 @ 9:21pm
Goya,
The tech bubble was the result of overinvestment after the telecome deregulation act in an effort by many agents at once to corner markets. The companies financed their investment the way they always do, with loans. There is no way for the kinds of educational and infrastructural investments Clinton focused on to bear fruit that quickly. The bubbles were the result of irresponsible economic practices and a lack of willingness to reign the irresponsible practices in during a boom time.
Posted by dentedpat at 02/22/2008 @ 9:43pm
Back on-topic....maybe Solis Doyle really did QUIT the Hillary campaign, and wasn't fired.
She jumped ship before the checks started bouncing!
heheh
Posted by Mask at 02/22/2008 @ 10:26pm
Posted by MASK 02/22/2008 @ 9:21pm
if the chinese (for example) become us, we've got a biggerer problem on our hands. (no, not limit them; wouldn't a super-efficient balance be optimal?)
if we don't make our subsistence on this planet more efficient rather quickly,
we're going to have muchos problemitos,
perhaps ones ultimately beyond our control.
******************************************
commerce is excellent. i have neither the space nor the resources to feed myself and family buying cultivating my own food,
and i also enjoy being a musician. so it is through the buying and selling of services that i am able to continue my existence in a fashion that will (fingers perpetually crossed) lead to a long and happy existence on the planet that i am made from.
technology has provided us with the internets, medicines, etceteras, that allow human knowledge and happiness to increase in a quasi-exponential fashion.
(after all, sometimes humans get stuck developing a dumb idea; hopefully big-ass climate mess up is one of them)
and that is excellent.
commerce is excellent.
*******************************************
money has always been based on stuff. chocolate, gold, and perhaps a basket of globally needed commodities such as minerals, foods, etceteras would serve us well now.
but to base money on a reputation seems rather risky to me.
and we've gotten to a point
where, just maybe, the explosion of credit
and credit based consumption based on reputation of the ability to produce wealth --rather than "solid evidence "--
-- wealth that, by the way, is ultimately generated from the planet we are made from (thanks sun!)
be it a rock, a food, or a song (yes, brain stuff too). --
has exceeded the capacity of our understanding of how to extract that wealth from the earth we are made from
in a fashion that is
healthy for the "environment" (i.e. you and i),
and to the humans hoping to benefit from said extraction of wealth from the earth we are made from.
********************************************
scientific perception is like any other brain endeavour in that it evolves an ever more finely tuned "eye" with which to "understand".
and so i must trust that eye because it has enabled me to survive in the fashion i currently enjoy.
and now the brainiacs say "uh oh!" because their ability to understand "earthly" workings has increase quasi-exponentially
and they say its because of "A" causing "B".
A being our pollution caused by (i feel -- antimaskian disclaimer) creating wealth beyond our ability to control the resources we are trying to take advantage of;
B being a giant ice cube melting on greenland, or transpacific dust storms from china's deserts (for example)
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/23/2008 @ 12:32am
in other words,
he buys good products,
hopefully made by his neighbours in a healthy fashion,
that will operate efficiently, produce minimum pollution,
and very importantly,
last a long time.
he tries to learn to differentiate between need and want
and
tries, as well,
to understand the ramifications of the production his purchase causes to happen
so that he may be able to help his fellow humans
and keep the earth that he is made from clean and productive.
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/23/2008 @ 12:43am
Dent, Frosty, et al. . . .
I don't think we really are disagreeing, just talking about different parts of the same phenomenon. What happened during Vietnam & the Cold War arms race is essentially what's happening now. We diverted a huge amount of GDP toward war junk that we either blew up or buried in the ground. This is the old "broken window" theory of economic stimulation. If you have a sag in the economy, start throwing rocks through windows, then the glazers will have work, put more money into other areas of economic activity, etc. The problem is that an economy is based on production of real economic value (goods & service that actually benefit people-- food, shelter, education, health care, etc.)and the free exchange of the material benefits produced in such an economy. The problem with the economy that Pubs always want to build is that it's inevitably smoke & mirrors and a carnival barker's attempt to sell an alluring nothing to the rubes in exchange for the real value they produce & expend. That's why as domestic productivity continues to rise, real wages continue to decline. Ask Bob Reich about that one. He's always harping on it, but no one cares to listen.
Anyhow, 3 years into Mad Mac's administration when we have double digit inflation, double digit unemployment, and interest rates approaching 20%, remind me how mistaken my analysis was back in 2008.
Posted by goyadad at 02/23/2008 @ 12:52am
Posted by ZERO 02/23/2008 @ 12:47am
Thanks, Zero-- perfect case in point. We lose the equivalent of 2.5 B-2 bombers every week in the GWOT, and have nothing to show for it.
BTW, those airframes make for some spectacular Shock & Awe, but they are essentially a flying brick. The software that keeps them in the air consists of some 6 million lines of code. If the co-pilot spills his coffee into the wire harness, that baby's going down because there's bugger-all the flight crew can do without the avionics.
Posted by goyadad at 02/23/2008 @ 12:58am
Ask Bob Reich about that one. He's always harping on it, but no one cares to listen.
Posted by GOYADAD 02/23/2008 @ 12:52am
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/13/opinion/13reich.html
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 02/22/2008 @ 7:06pm
i've been asking myself for sometime now.
just got my electric bill.
we used 33% less electricity
this very cold january
than we did last year.
we're quite proud.
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/23/2008 @ 01:14am
i.e. with electric heat.
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/23/2008 @ 01:15am
but it's not just the military.
ain't no trees left in china........
(or in southwestern ontario for that matter).
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/23/2008 @ 01:16am
well, at least she ain't gonna be the pres. thank god for barack obama.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/23/2008 @ 01:23am
well, at least she ain't gonna be the pres. thank god for barack obama. Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 02/23/2008 @ 01:23am
Hear, hear ... as we hold our breaths. Now how low will the GOP & its Owners go to sink Obama? Or have the Owners decided its money isn't well spent, backing the loser.
Better to concentrate on the new crowd?
Posted by sloper at 02/23/2008 @ 02:28am
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 02/23/2008 @ 12:32am
FROSTY, that's a very nice almost e.e. cummings-style post...
but has NOTHING to do with what Robert Reich was talking about.
Unless you edited out the part about "gold and chocolate".
Posted by Mask at 02/23/2008 @ 07:27am
Hillary (Nurse Ratchet) assumed that her political machine was invincible. She had over $100 million, and most of the superdelegate/party hacks lined up. All she had to do was show up and look regal. Actually, the emporer (emporess) had no clothes: She is a boring, irritating speaker. Her campaign was incompetent. There was nothing there but money and fatcat connections. She met a real candidate. And we see the results. Let Hillary slither back to her carpetbagger Senate seat and shut up. And loudmouth Bill too.
Posted by philbq at 02/23/2008 @ 08:50am
Let loudmouth redface Slick Willie go back to his women. (Hillary is cold, with thunderthighs.)
Posted by philbq at 02/23/2008 @ 09:00am
Rush Limbaugh( Fresh Limburger) was right about one thing: in commenting on a Democratic debate with all the Demo candidates, he said" Hillary is the only one on stage who can't cross her legs".
Posted by philbq at 02/23/2008 @ 09:03am
Posted by PHILBQ 02/23/2008 @ 09:03am
So I'm guessing you're firmly in the "Obama camp"???
Posted by Mask at 02/23/2008 @ 09:11am
Posted by MASK 02/23/2008 @ 07:27am | ignore this person
in other words,
he buys good products,
hopefully made by his neighbours in a healthy fashion,
that will operate efficiently, produce minimum pollution,
and very importantly,
last a long time.
he tries to learn to differentiate between need and want
and
tries, as well,
to understand the ramifications of the production his purchase causes to happen
so that he may be able to help his fellow humans
and keep the earth that he is made from clean and productive.
that's what i mean
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/23/2008 @ 09:37am
Posted by HAPPY 02/22/2008 @ 5:58pm
Think of it as an opportunity to learn a skill. There is nothing more difficult to master than to try to get people to help you get something done whom you have no authority over. Once you got that, managing direct reports is a piece of cake.
Posted by srjenkins at 02/23/2008 @ 11:03am
Obama's ability to organize has been historic and I've been a supporter for years.
But I do not make the analogy that a campaign that is spending money unwisely--Clinton's--is the fault of the candidate directly and that it reflects on a fiscally irresponsible would-be President Clinton. She may have made a mistake in choosing people loyal to her, but what are the alternatives? Joe Trippi? Dick Morris? Chuck Todd on the MSNBC yesterday put it correctly when he said losing campaigns always have spend their money unwisely..or something to that effect.
Posted by hrayovac at 02/23/2008 @ 11:31am
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 02/23/2008 @ 09:37am |
Again, where was ANY of that in what Reich wrote?
I think you posted RR's article a bit before thinking. He's talking about "more buying power" and you think he means "Oh, and they'll only buy local products, environmentally-friendly, and NOT MUCH ANYWAY since they'll all do with a less, despite having more buying power"...
I didn't see that.
Posted by Mask at 02/23/2008 @ 11:33am
Yes, Mask...I support Obama. At least there is a possibility of progressive policies with him. Hillary, like Bill, is basically a moderate Republican. Look at Bill's policies when he was Prez: NAFTA, most favored nation trade status for China, no decrese in the bloated military budget,etc. These policies hurt the middle class deeply. Obama supports giving tax incentives to corporations keeping jobs here in this country. Hillary would attack Iran to please Israel. I doubt Obama would. So yes, I support Obama.
Posted by philbq at 02/23/2008 @ 11:50am
Posted by PHILBQ 02/23/2008 @ 11:50am
And you REALLY think Obama is going to cancel NAFTA or even remove MFN for China, if he wins?
Posted by Mask at 02/23/2008 @ 12:31pm
Posted by SLOPER 02/23/2008 @ 02:28am | ignore this person
obama's strategy of fessin up to his skeletons from the get go was smart. unless the repugnants can dig up some real dirt, and i gotta think that at this point - if it was there, they would have - i guess they will have to just lie, like they usually do. not sure that will fly this time, though.
otherwise its CPTN kommisar, LOVELIARS, RIOBULLSHIT, and company screeching "HUSSEIN! HUSSEIN! HUSSEIN!" incessantly. if thats all they got...
unlike 00 or 04 schmuko nation is paying attention and figgered out what a pack of corrupt, money grubbing, boy buggering, hypocritical, liars most of the repugnant party is and always has been.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/23/2008 @ 2:01pm
Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 02/23/2008 @ 2:01pm
It's funny the charge used to be that LIBERALS thought the American people were stupid...
but those guys think that folks are going to say "I want to re-elect the guys who gave us a quaqmire in Iraq....monstrous budget deficits and "bridges to nowhere"...Katrina....Terri Schiavo....no stem cell research....
because the Other Guy's middle name sounds fer'reign!"
Posted by Mask at 02/23/2008 @ 2:57pm
Posted by MASK 02/23/2008 @ 2:57pm
once pandoras box is open its hard, within the space of a few short years, to stuff that nasty stuff back in...impossible, i'd say.
but let them keep it up. just makes them look shrill, stupid, and full of shit.
HUSSEIN HUSSEIN HUSSEIN HUSSEIN HUSSEIN! BARACK OBAMA'S MIDDLE NAME IS HUSSEIN!!!!!!!! JUST LIKE THAT GUY WHO FINANCED 9/11! MAYBE HE IS BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA IS REALLY HIS SON!!!!
yeah, we get it. his middle name is hussein.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/23/2008 @ 3:05pm
Posted by MASK 02/23/2008 @ 2:57pm
damn - my response got time warped all the way back to page one...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/23/2008 @ 3:07pm
"In Hillaryland, loyalty and secrecy are prized over competence."
Huh. Sounds exactly like the rules in Bushland as well. Not a good sign.
Posted by EEU at 02/23/2008 @ 5:18pm
Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 02/23/2008 @ 3:05pm |
Caught it anyway, IBB.
Problem HAPP and the Right-wing Boys will have is...coming up with NEW stuff.
Hillary's goons have already thrown everything THEY could at Obama to stop him...and it failed.
They can try to appeal to the RIO "Moos'lums are all around us and 'Alibama' is probably thur sek'ret agent!" types....but they aren't voting for a "Demon-crat" anyway...so who cares?
The mods and indies don't believe that kind of bulls**t anymore. "Chicago corruption" will sound weak, especially if McCain is schtupping a lobbyist. "His woman hates America" was tried. "He did drugs" was tried. "He's inexperienced" was tried. He "plagiarized".
And it all flopped.
Posted by Mask at 02/23/2008 @ 5:28pm
I didn't see that.
Posted by MASK 02/23/2008 @ 11:33am
so?
i posted that in response to goyadad's assertion that clinton had made sound economic decisions.
mr. reich talks about restoring ways of returning purchasing power to people left drained and impoverished by current economic folly.
that is good. people got to eat.
i guess i'm taking his ideas to the next level,
one that ultimately will be sustainable.
people have been hypnotized into believing their happiness will come from stuff and so
in their search for happiness they have bought more and more junk they really don't need.
first, both parents started working, (but there's only two)
then, people started working more and more hours. (but there's only so much time in the day)
then, people started borrowing. (beyond their ability to pay back)
but as the subprime fiasco shows us, borrowing has its limits.
giving people the ability to BUY, NOT BORROW FOR, what they need
COMBINED WITH
money of value not prettypaper
AND
a conscience of the environmental impact of their purchases
WILL
lead us to an economy that thrives and is able to handle an ever-expanding world population.
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/23/2008 @ 5:34pm
Doesn't sound like the FROSTY "cut back" economy, does it?
Posted by MASK 02/22/2008 @ 8:58pm
actually, the FROSTY ECONOMY is one of reasoned sustainability.
for most of the world's residents it would actually mean an improvement.
and if "cutting out" USELESS JUNK from your life is anathema to you,
then enjoy your trappings,
for who am i to tell you what to do.
i can only hope to persuade through evidence.
i've been persuaded by the evidence of science,
evidence that tells me "holy moly! we're on the brink of not being able to deal with the ramifications of our unabashed raping of the earth we are made from."
and if science is wrong,
or if, just our luck, science is able to develop technology quickly enough to mitigate our greed,
i'll be content in knowing that at least my consideration of the environmental impact of my decisions will help my less advantaged brother across the planet live a better life.
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/23/2008 @ 5:45pm
Problem HAPP and the Right-wing Boys will have is...coming up with NEW stuff.
Posted by MASK 02/23/2008 @ 5:28pm
The McCain campaign itself and upstanding conservatives like me, really don't need any "NEW stuff".....just constantly calling out Obama for what he is, the most Liberal Senator and exposing his being far, far from the mainstream, will be enough.....OLD stuff, like what George McGovern experienced....and what Dukakis tasted.
You can't admit it to yourself, but there is no quesiton in my much sharper political mind, clearly one reason Clinton can't make much headway, is their policies share too much similarities for the activist-centric Primary phase.
Too bad for the Dems, if Obama has Clinton's (more centrist) voting record, or if HRC has Obama's `magic', the Dems really will sweep this fall and kick the Repubs down to the % it was before Reagan.
Posted by Happy at 02/23/2008 @ 5:59pm
and i stand by this:
more buying power instead of more CREDIT doesn't necessarily mean you have to buy more CRAP.
it can also mean that you've enough MONEY to actually pay for the things you actually NEED.
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 02/22/2008 @ 9:09pm
sure people will buy stuff. good for them. and good for the people that make it. hopefully, improvements in efficiency will enable people to improve their standard of living at a reasonable rate that is also less damaging for the planet we are made from.
but many of the products we buy now are made in environmentally damaging processes by exploited peoples,
from materials obtained in environmentally damaging ways by exploited peoples,
using energy produced in the dirtiest way possible.
so i try to minimize my association with said products because i just don't like what's going on.
if you don't care, well that's not my business.
enjoy your trappings.
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/23/2008 @ 6:08pm
Posted by MASK 02/23/2008 @ 5:28pm |
jeezus pleezus this is beginning to creep me out...
a decent, smart, competent half black guy has come along, who is the embodiment of the civil rights movement, who's middle name is HUSSEIN in these specific times...who obviously a genius in that in terms of policy has almost never disagreed with me...who inspires positive involvement, looks like he can "get things done", and....
hell...i think even your cynical ass has a mancrush on him!!!
LMAO
and with good reason - he's hot!!! lol ah...obama grrl!
and it looks like he's gonna get elected...
i think at worse we might get 4 years of jimmy carter - and in my book thats not so bad - we might be so lucky as to have 8 years of jimmy carter!!!!
Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/23/2008 @ 6:17pm
btw
i expect nothing from politicians
i expect nothing from industry
i expect nothing from consumers
after all, living a plush lie is easier than sharing and being clean.
if things change, i'll be pleasantly surprised.
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/23/2008 @ 6:39pm
i think at worse we might get 4 years of jimmy carter - and in my book thats not so bad - we might be so lucky as to have 8 years of jimmy carter!!!!
Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 02/23/2008 @ 6:17pm
ssshhhhhh
don't even bring up carter. that's the repubs secret weapon for november.
imagine the commercials:
pictures of throbbing crouds of crazed islamofacists.........
soft on blah, blah, blah........
ELECT THIS MAN AMERICA, AND YOU'LL HAVE TO WEAR SWEATERS!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/23/2008 @ 6:42pm
hell...i think even your cynical ass has a mancrush on him!!!
Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 02/23/2008 @ 6:17pm
mask has been trying to hide his optimism for some time now.
heheh.
he's gonna counter with hillary convention blah blah
and mccain november blah blah,
but he's actually even "smiled" about obama a few times lately
something i've only seen him do about star trek and hot chicks..........
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/23/2008 @ 6:48pm
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 02/23/2008 @ 6:48pm | ignore this person
the audacity of hope!!!!!!!
lol - yeah - its kinda creepy...lol
Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/23/2008 @ 6:51pm
carter was ahead of his time. hillary and mccain are behind theirs...barry o is exactly where he should be...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/23/2008 @ 6:55pm
i guess i'm taking his ideas to the next level-----Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 02/23/2008 @ 5:34pm |
Right....you're guessing.
Posted by Mask at 02/23/2008 @ 7:09pm
Right....you're guessing.
Posted by MASK 02/23/2008 @ 7:09pm
so, what do you propose?
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/23/2008 @ 7:13pm
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 02/23/2008 @ 7:13pm
Come on, FZ...you KNOW what I propose...the Age of Plenty, not of Plenty of Stoicism.
Realistic looks at the economy AND the environment. And Reich is too, unless you have Googled up where he wants to go to a 'minimalist consumer' economy, where folks 'only buy what they need' from 'local producers' and somehow we keep unemployment under 5%?
Posted by Mask at 02/23/2008 @ 7:45pm
Posted by MASK 02/23/2008 @ 7:45pm
results of shifts in how people create wealth are not necc so easily predicted. plus if the big economic dipshit is approaching...5% unemployment, 8% unemployment may be good - join the army!
Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/23/2008 @ 8:07pm
Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 02/23/2008 @ 8:07pm
FROSTY may be caught in a moral dilemma. A hugely reduced economy DOES initiate a "cut back" "use less" "buy less junk" economy after all.
Does 8% or MORE unemployment and any accompanying pollution cut-back "balance" out?
Posted by Mask at 02/23/2008 @ 8:17pm
Posted by MASK 02/23/2008 @ 8:17pm |
don't want to get all alarmist but there is a global slowdown economically. some healthcare solutions and government being capable and on the side of the consumer is overdue. time for a little keynsian economics, directed at retooling the country to be more efficient, more equitable and happier.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/23/2008 @ 8:22pm
and greener...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/23/2008 @ 8:23pm
FROSTY may be caught in a moral dilemma. A hugely reduced economy DOES initiate a "cut back" "use less" "buy less junk" economy after all.
Does 8% or MORE unemployment and any accompanying pollution cut-back "balance" out?
Posted by MASK 02/23/2008 @ 8:17pm
i say lower your thermostat 1 degree and you say HUGE.
i say buy less tupperware and you say STOICISM.
I say help your neighbour keep his job and you scream UNEMPLOYMENT.
i say reduce the debt and you say KEEP THE MIRAGE ALIVE.
the age of plenty isn't going to happen in 40 years, i don't care how smart mr. kurzweil is.
or have his ideas suddenly become mainstream and 22 trillion dollars are being invested in them as we speak.
you are dreaming in 3-D technicolour.
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/23/2008 @ 8:57pm
for example:
Economics [of fusion power]
It is far from clear whether nuclear fusion will be economically competitive with other forms of power. The many estimates that have been made of the cost of fusion power cover a wide range, and indirect costs of and subsidies for fusion power and its alternatives make any cost comparison difficult. The low estimates for fusion appear to be competitive with but not drastically lower than other alternatives. The high estimates are several times higher than alternatives.[citation needed]
While fusion power is still in early stages of development, vast sums have been and continue to be invested in research. In the EU almost 10 billion was spent on fusion research up to the end of the 1990s, and the new ITER reactor alone is budgeted at 10 billion. It is estimated that up to the point of POSSIBLE [uppers -- fz] implementation of electricity generation by nuclear fusion, R&D will need further promotion totalling around 60-80 billion over a PERIOD OF 50 YEARS OR SO [ups -- fz] (of which 20-30 billion within the EU)[5]. In the current EU research programme (FP6), nuclear fusion research receives 750 million (excluding ITER funding), compared with 810 million for all non-nuclear energy research combined [6], putting research into fusion power well ahead of that of any single rivaling technology.
Unfortunately, despite optimism dating back to the 1950s about the wide-scale harnessing of fusion power, there are still significant barriers standing between current scientific understanding and technological capabilities and the practical realization of fusion as an energy source.[citation needed] Research, while making steady progress, has also continually thrown up new difficulties.[citation needed] Therefore it remains UNCLEAR that an ECONOMICALLY VIABLE fusion plant is even possible."[9] An editorial in New Scientist magazine explained that "if commercial fusion is viable, it may well be a century away."[10]
An important aspect of fusion energy in contrast to many other energy sources is that the cost of production is inelastic. The cost of wind energy, for example, goes up as the optimal locations are developed first, while further generators must be sited in less ideal conditions. With fusion energy, the production cost will not increase much, even if large numbers of plants are built. It has been suggested that even 100 times the current energy consumption of the world is possible. [HOORAY! WHEN? CLIMATOLOGISTS SAY IN A HUNDRED YEARS WILL BE IN DEEP DOO DOO]
[this next part is great! when? climatologists say in a hundred years will be in deep doo doo]
Some problems which are expected to be an issue in the next century such as fresh water shortages can actually be regarded merely as problems of energy supply. For example, in desalination plants, seawater can be converted into pure freshwater through a process of either distillation or reverse osmosis. However, these processes are energy intensive. Even if the first fusion plants are not competitive with alternative sources, fusion could still become competitive if large scale desalination requires more power than the alternatives are able to provide.
Despite being technically non-renewable, fusion power has many of the benefits of long-term renewable energy sources (such as being a sustainable energy supply compared to presently-utilized sources and emitting no greenhouse gases) as well as some of the benefits of such much more finite energy sources as hydrocarbons and nuclear fission (without reprocessing). Like these currently dominant energy sources, fusion could provide very high power-generation density and uninterrupted power delivery (due to the fact that they are not dependent on the weather, unlike wind and solar power).
Several fusion reactors have been built, but as yet none has produced more thermal energy than electrical energy consumed. Despite research having started in the 1950s, no commercial fusion reactor is expected before 2050. The ITER project is currently leading the effort to commercialize fusion power.
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/23/2008 @ 9:09pm
mask, why does the ontario government include conservation as replacing coal power in its plan for electrical production in the next 50 years?
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/23/2008 @ 9:11pm
Realistic looks at the economy AND the environment. And Reich is too, unless you have Googled up where he wants to go to a 'minimalist consumer' economy, where folks 'only buy what they need' from 'local producers' and somehow we keep unemployment under 5%?
Posted by MASK 02/23/2008 @ 7:45pm
median incomes are falling......................
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/23/2008 @ 9:11pm
trade deficit is almost at the trillion mark.
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/23/2008 @ 9:15pm
or have his ideas suddenly become mainstream and 22 trillion dollars are being invested in them as we speak.
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 02/23/2008 @ 8:57p
not that they shouldn't be.........
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/23/2008 @ 9:18pm
i don't know where you get this stoicism crap.................
EVERYBODY SHOULD HAVE A CAR!!!!!!!!!!
EVERYBODY SHOULD HAVE ELECTRICITY!!!!!!!!!!!!!
EVERYBODY SHOULD HAVE A COOL COMPUTER!!!!!!!!!!
EVERYBODY SHOULD HAVE THE THINGS THEY NEED!!!!!!!!!!!!
but we need to find reasonable ways of creating and powering these things soon.
popular mechanics dreams won't negate the burden our overbearing presence has on this planet fast enough.
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/23/2008 @ 9:25pm
popular mechanics dreams won't negate the burden our overbearing presence has on this planet fast enough.
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/23/2008 @ 9:25pm
popular mechanics dreams won't negate the burden our overbearing presence has on this planet fast enough.
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/23/2008 @ 9:25pm
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 02/23/2008 @ 9:25pm | ignore this person
well...if there's a world slowdown economically its partly a result of the limitations of a very important resource and the unnatractveness/ultimate limited nature of it.
why's oil so high? gee - don't take no MEGACEPHALUS to figger that out. so part of the swing back to keynsian economics will need to be in a green readjustment.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/23/2008 @ 9:38pm
More species slide to extinction
By Richard Black
Environment Correspondent, BBC News website
The polar bear and hippopotamus are for the first time listed as species threatened with extinction by the world's biodiversity agency.
They are included in the Red List of Threatened Species published by the World Conservation Union (IUCN) which names more than 16,000 at-risk species.
Many sharks, and freshwater fish in Europe and Africa, are newly included.
The IUCN says loss of biodiversity is increasing despite a global convention committing governments to stem it.
"The 2006 Red List shows a clear trend; biodiversity loss is increasing, not slowing down," said IUCN director-general Achim Steiner.
"The implications of this trend for the productivity and resilience of ecosystems and the lives and livelihoods of billions of people who depend on them are far-reaching."
WHAT ARE THE THREATS?
Human activities threaten 99% of Red List species
Habitat loss and degradation are the main threats, affecting more than 80% of listed birds, mammals and amphibians
Climate change is increasingly recognised as a serious threat
Other issues relating to human activity include introduction of alien species, over-exploitation and pollution
Overall, 16,119 species are included in this year's Red List, the most detailed and authoritative regular survey of the health of the plant, fungi and animal kingdoms.
This represents more than a third of the total number of species surveyed; the list includes one in three amphibians, a quarter of coniferous trees, and one in four mammals.
"The more species we assess, the more threatened species we find," commented Jean-Christophe Vie, deputy co-ordinator of IUCN's species programme.
"And because it is such a massive effort to assess a species, to gather all the data, get it all peer-reviewed and so on, 16,000 is a massive underestimate of the true problem," he told the BBC News website.
***************
Jean-Christophe Vie believes there is a vast gap between what governments have promised and the action they are taking.
"Everything we find shows that it doesn't happen," he said, "and there is very little chance to achieve this goal UNLESS THERE IS A DRASTIC CHANGE AND GOVERNMENTS DECIDE TO TACKLE THE ROOTS OF SPECIES EXTINCTION."
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/23/2008 @ 9:38pm
gonna clone all that?
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/23/2008 @ 9:39pm
gonna clone all that?
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 02/23/2008 @ 9:39pm |
collecting genetic material would be wise.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/23/2008 @ 9:49pm
well...if there's a world slowdown economically its partly a result of the limitations of a very important resource and the unnatractveness/ultimate limited nature of it.
why's oil so high? gee - don't take no MEGACEPHALUS to figger that out. so part of the swing back to keynsian economics will need to be in a green readjustment.
Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 02/23/2008 @ 9:38pm
oil is so high for numerous reasons.
one of the most important ones is that the dollar (which oil is priced in)
is so diluted because of 22 trillion in debt.
to whit:
Welcome to the vicious cycle
And this is where the vicious cycle kicks in. Every dollar increase in the price of a barrel of imported oil increases the size of the U.S. trade deficit, which puts more pressure on the value of the U.S. dollar, which leads to a weaker dollar, which makes OPEC countries want to raise the dollar-denominated price of a barrel of oil to make up for the dollars fall, and so on.
**************************************
Energy efficiency helps -- over the long haul
The United States pulled off exactly this kind of energy play beginning in the 1970s. Faced with two rounds of energy price shocks, the U.S. economy doubled its energy efficiency between 1975 and 2004. A similar doubling of efficiency is certainly possible. (If you want to see how, go to the Winning the Oil Endgame Web site.)
But notice that were not talking about a quick fix so much as a process that plays out over years.
ta da!
http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/P100650.asp
see also these graphs comparing oil prices in different currencies as compared to the dollar (sorry only up till '04:
http://www.mees.com/postedarticles/oped/image002.gif
http://www.mees.com/postedarticles/oped/image004.gif
http://www.mees.com/postedarticles/oped/image006.gif
(i imagine newer stats would be even more telling)
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/23/2008 @ 9:53pm
collecting genetic material would be wise.
Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 02/23/2008 @ 9:49pm
and when will cloning all these animals be feasible enough to produce healthy populations capable of sustainable reproduction be available?
and who's gonna pay for it?
and where will these animals who have become extinct because of habitat loss live?
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/23/2008 @ 9:55pm
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 02/23/2008 @ 9:25pm
Okay, that's the right track....give me a list. 50 things people "deserve to have" and 50 (or more) things that you think are "un-necessary crap".
See, this is the problem we keep running into....you say "reduce" "buy locally" "stop making crap that hurts the environment"....and TO ME, to DO that realistically and effectively, it means stoicism.
To YOU, it's just "cutting back a LITTLE bit"....but "a little bit" doesn't do all that much.
So...let's get specific?
Posted by Mask at 02/23/2008 @ 9:58pm
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 02/23/2008 @ 9:55pm
We brought back the bald eagle...we brought back the buffalo...we brought back red wolves and otters in the Appalacians.
And a "ecology activist" in 1970 would show the same doubts you do today at ANY of that happening.
Posted by Mask at 02/23/2008 @ 9:59pm
its gonna cause inflation (oil crunch) which will force interest rates up...private supply side economics has its limits.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/23/2008 @ 10:07pm
Posted by MASK 02/23/2008 @ 9:58pm
ha ha ha
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/23/2008 @ 10:14pm
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 02/23/2008 @ 10:14pm
Going to bed, but answer this....I don't think it's a joke, FZ.
"Do a little bit"...does a little bit. Even on a mass scale (again, another problem you'll have, as we've discussed, getting it TO a 'mass scale' in any USEFUL time-frame. 90% of the North American population isn't going to be with you for TWENTY years, if not more).
"Real change"?...means really BIG change. And that means "cutting back" and re-structuring the economy to a point where we're living with less. But that means that somebody ISN'T MAKING the stuff we're living less with.
"Less tupperware"?...fine, you just cut the workers at the Tupperware factory down by 50%....what do they do now?
And as for specifics, I'm not joking either. Sure we can save energy A BIT (cutting back thermos, better CAFE standards, etc.), but you're not going to roll back MASS GNP in the US (or Canada) without a BIG hunk of folks from Starbucks to McDonalds to Wal-Mart to Toys R Us...losing their jobs.
And when they do? The folks THEY buy goods and services from will lose THEIR jobs (Barista at SB's loses her job because folks are deciding they "don't need that latte and the styrafoam cup hurts the enviro"...she can't buy the dress she wants at Penney's...which means Penney's cuts back on their staff...which means the staff buy less stuff...and the cascade continues.)
That's the way the world works.
Posted by Mask at 02/23/2008 @ 10:31pm
We brought back the bald eagle...we brought back the buffalo...we brought back red wolves and otters in the Appalacians.
And a "ecology activist" in 1970 would show the same doubts you do today at ANY of that happening.
Posted by MASK 02/23/2008 @ 9:59pm
of course. these are excellent developments.
i saw a pair of bald eagles flying over the city on valentines day.
they're here because we banned DDT. why was it banned and who wanted it banned?
a problem often overlooked is the impact of LOCALIZED extinctions, often leading to collapse of ecosystems.
a few hundred thousand buffalo confined to their "reservations" has nothing to do with the 10s of millions once present.
Earth facing 'catastrophic' loss of species
· Scientists call for action in biodiversity crisis
· Warning that world faces next mass extinction
Ian Sample, science correspondent
The Guardian, Thursday July 20 2006
The Earth is on the brink of "major biodiversity crisis" fuelled by the steady destruction of ecosystems, a group of the world's most distinguished scientists and policy experts warn today.
Nineteen leading specialists in the field of biodiversity, including Robert Watson, chief scientist at the World Bank, and Professor Georgina Mace, director of the Institute of Zoology, are calling for the urgent creation of a global body of scientists to offer advice and urge governments to halt what they call a potentially "catastrophic loss of species".
Destruction of natural habitats and the effects of climate change are causing species to die out at 100 to 1,000 times faster than the natural rate, leading some scientists to warn we are facing the next mass extinction.
Nearly one-quarter of the world's mammals, one-third of amphibians and more than one-tenth of bird species are threatened with extinction. Climate change alone is expected to force a further 15%- 37% of species to the brink of extinction within the next 50 years.
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/23/2008 @ 10:37pm
Going to bed, but answer this....I don't think it's a joke, FZ.
"Do a little bit"...does a little bit. Even on a mass scale (again, another problem you'll have, as we've discussed, getting it TO a 'mass scale' in any USEFUL time-frame. 90% of the North American population isn't going to be with you for TWENTY years, if not more).
neither are any alternative sources of energy or production.
"Real change"?...means really BIG change. And that means "cutting back" and re-structuring the economy to a point where we're living with less. But that means that somebody ISN'T MAKING the stuff we're living less with.
they aren't anyways. unless they are chinese. and the chinese are choking themselves to death.
"Less tupperware"?...fine, you just cut the workers at the Tupperware factory down by 50%....what do they do now?
go to china to find their old jobs.
And as for specifics, I'm not joking either. Sure we can save energy A BIT (cutting back thermos, better CAFE standards, etc.),
Energy efficiency helps -- over the long haul
The United States pulled off exactly this kind of energy play beginning in the 1970s. Faced with two rounds of energy price shocks, the U.S. economy doubled its energy efficiency between 1975 and 2004. A similar doubling of efficiency is certainly possible. (If you want to see how, go to the Winning the Oil Endgame Web site.)
but you're not going to roll back MASS GNP in the US (or Canada) without a BIG hunk of folks from Starbucks to McDonalds to Wal-Mart to Toys R Us...losing their jobs.
again, the key is investment in technology that can make a difference and provide new jobs. nothing wrong with buying toys. we just need to get smarter about production methods and materials. all these jobs you mentioned are service jobs. why? no manufacturers? why not? where are they? why?
And when they do? The folks THEY buy goods and services from will lose THEIR jobs (Barista at SB's loses her job because folks are deciding they "don't need that latte and the styrafoam cup hurts the enviro"...she can't buy the dress she wants at Penney's...which means Penney's cuts back on their staff...which means the staff buy less stuff...and the cascade continues.)
median incomes are falling. inflation is rising. 22 trillion in debt shows us the fallacy of a "strong" economy.
That's the way the world works.
but the world is in big trouble. it's not working very well.
Posted by MASK 02/23/2008 @ 10:31pm
all i've ever tried to say is we need to be careful with our resources.
we need to be careful with our environment.
we need to manage our economy in such a way that doesn't ultimately lead to massive suffering in the long term.
you seem to think i want people to wear stone underwear and eat grass.
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/23/2008 @ 10:53pm
FROSTY....sorry, wrong-
1. "neither are any alternative sources of energy or production."
No, they're not...but not I said "if not more". I guarentee if both of us headed our respective governments (me USA, you Canada)...in 20 years, I could get more alternative energy online than you could get a energy-equivalent amount of Canadian folks to live "with a little less".
2. "Energy efficiency helps -- over the long haul"
Yes, see above. But now we're back to you saying "the long haul" is fine...whereas before you've said we're in a crises and need IMMEDIATE action.
3. "again, the key is investment in technology that can make a difference and provide new jobs. nothing wrong with buying toys. we just need to get smarter about production methods and materials. all these jobs you mentioned are service jobs. why? no manufacturers? why not? where are they? why?"
And again, "long haul". First you've got to impose tariffs and kill off imports. Then you've got to find a way for the working families who JUST LOST $2500 a year in buying power (there's that word again) to make up the difference. Then you've got to wait 5-7 years for American (and Canadian) factories to be opened and start operations. (Hint- the second part is the TOUGHEST)
4. "median incomes are falling. inflation is rising. 22 trillion in debt shows us the fallacy of a "strong" economy."
All part of the vast governmental deficits (and lack of proper fund allocation)...nothing to do with "cutting back", which would make that situation WORSE by stalling what economy there is.
5. "but the world is in big trouble. it's not working very well."
No, but we must find solutions that WORK and more importantly...are WORKABLE.
Posted by Mask at 02/24/2008 @ 07:34am
No, they're not...but not I said "if not more". I guarentee if both of us headed our respective governments (me USA, you Canada)...in 20 years, I could get more alternative energy online than you could get a energy-equivalent amount of Canadian folks to live "with a little less".
what's wrong with both? every plan for future energy needs i come across includes conservation, either through reduction or efficiency.
Yes, see above. But now we're back to you saying "the long haul" is fine...whereas before you've said we're in a crises and need IMMEDIATE action.
see above
And again, "long haul". First you've got to impose tariffs and kill off imports. Then you've got to find a way for the working families who JUST LOST $2500 a year in buying power (there's that word again) to make up the difference. Then you've got to wait 5-7 years for American (and Canadian) factories to be opened and start operations. (Hint- the second part is the TOUGHEST)
we can't hide inflation forever. the environmental consequences of the present situation in china are frightening. PEOPLE LOST WAY MORE THE $2500 in buying power when they lost their jobs at maytag and started working at mega-lo mart.
All part of the vast governmental deficits (and lack of proper fund allocation)...nothing to do with "cutting back", which would make that situation WORSE by stalling what economy there is.
only 9 trillion of the 22 trillion is government debt. that's 40%. the rest is business and consumer. it's all a mirage.
No, but we must find solutions that WORK and more importantly...are WORKABLE.
the way out of a hole is not to dig the hole deeper. i agree with everything you mutter. i'm just saying OVER-consumption (i.e. if we've got so much debt it is because we've exceeded our capacity to generate wealth) is indicative of things gone very wrong (as is a NEGATIVE savings rate) and that overconsumption is leading to environmental nightmares and an economy of a house of cards quivering at slightest breeze.
after all, the richest few are getting richester and the VAST majority of people (i.e. north americans) are losing ground fast.
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/24/2008 @ 10:07am
Posted by MASK 02/23/2008 @ 10:31pm
The problem with your argument is that it assumes a steady state. You could close Tupperware factories while at the same time promoting policies that promote economically sustainable practices - such as small scale farming, locally produced small scale manufacturing, etc.
I'm not interested in laying out all the arguments, but you could be well served by picking up practically anything written by Wendell Berry to find workable solutions.
I particularly liked this point of Berry's in the context of this conversation: "Understand the ultimate unsoundness of the industrial doctrine of labour saving' if that implies poor work, unemployment, or any kind of pollution or contamination."
Your argument essentially rests on this unsound industrial doctrine.
Posted by srjenkins at 02/24/2008 @ 1:08pm
a few old chestnuts from a republican of lore:
Probably the greatest harm done by vast wealth is the harm that we of moderate means do ourselves when we let the vices of envy and hatred enter deep into our own natures.
But there is another harm; and it is evident that we should try to do away with that. The great corporations which we have grown to speak of rather loosely as trusts are the creatures of the State, and the State not only has the right to control them, but it is duty bound to control them wherever the need of such control is shown.
**********************************************************
Our aim is not to do away with corporations; on the contrary, these big aggregations are an inevitable development of modern industrialism, and the effort to destroy them would be futile unless accomplished in ways that would work the utmost mischief to the entire body politic. We can do nothing of good in the way of regulating and supervising these corporations until we fix clearly in our minds that we are not attacking the corporations, but endeavoring to do away with any evil in them. We are not hostile to them; we are merely determined that they shall be so handled as to subserve the public good. We draw the line against misconduct, not against wealth.
**********************************************************
Every man holds his property subject to the general right of the community to regulate its use to whatever degree the public welfare may require it.
**********************************************************
To waste, to destroy our natural resources, to skin and exhaust the land instead of using it so as to increase its usefulness, will result in undermining in the days of our children the very prosperity which we ought by right to hand down to them amplified and developed.
**********************************************************
"I recognize the right and duty of this generation to develop and use our natural resources, but I do not recognize the right to waste them, or to rob by wasteful use, the generations that come after us."
**********************************************************
"The conservation of natural resources is the fundamental problem. Unless we solve that problem it will avail us little to solve all others."
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/24/2008 @ 2:17pm
Posted by SRJENKINS 02/24/2008 @ 1:08pm
No, actually FROSTY's view is "steady state", believing that we can all "cut back" and have either great impact in the short term on the environment or little impact in the short term on economic growth and employment.
Long term and short term...those are what has to be considered and all those "green collar jobs"?...long term. Nothing against them, but it will take until the END of the FIRST Obama Administration just to get the money flowing and paperwork finished.....the end of the SECOND Obama Administration for the first factories to be up and running at MINIMAL capacities (if we're lucky...likely into 2015 or better).
So...can we wait until 2015, guy, before any real MEANINGFUL changes?...if so, got no argument.
Posted by Mask at 02/24/2008 @ 3:37pm
No, actually FROSTY's view is "steady state", believing that we can all "cut back" and have either great impact in the short term on the environment or little impact in the short term on economic growth and employment.
Posted by MASK 02/24/2008 @ 3:37pm |
that is utterly foolish.
i believe no such thing.
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/24/2008 @ 3:41pm
Two of those points I'll hit on-
1. " we can't hide inflation forever. the environmental consequences of the present situation in china are frightening. PEOPLE LOST WAY MORE THE $2500 in buying power when they lost their jobs at maytag and started working at mega-lo mart."
----Yep, but now that they ARE working at service jobs, they need that $2500 they save at Wal-mart to make ends meet. Any short-term answer for how they do that if the shoes and clothes at W-M go up 300% from tariffs?
2. " only 9 trillion of the 22 trillion is government debt. that's 40%. the rest is business and consumer. it's all a mirage."---Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 02/24/2008 @ 10:07am
...again, yep. But that debt has been what's kept the economy going. If it ends too quickly or too abruptly, the economy collapses. What happens if people default on ALL their mortgages, car payments, credit cards, etc.? A depression. Even if they cut out ALL NEW loans and credit...it means a recession.
If they cut back a small amount, that's great. But that can only be a SMALL amount over a LONG period of time....or else, recession.
Posted by Mask at 02/24/2008 @ 3:42pm
i'm just not going to wait for godot.
if i can reduce my energy consumption by 33%, how is that going to harm any economy?
if my actions permit my neighbour to keep his $20/hour job instead forcing him out of work because of madeinchina inflation hiding actions,
who does that harm?
please stop trying to pigeon hole the complex ideas i'm trying to express into your little catch phrase of "cutting back"
basta.
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/24/2008 @ 3:46pm
----Yep, but now that they ARE working at service jobs, they need that $2500 they save at Wal-mart to make ends meet. Any short-term answer for how they do that if the shoes and clothes at W-M go up 300% from tariffs?
what tariffs?
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/24/2008 @ 3:47pm
...again, yep. But that debt has been what's kept the economy going. If it ends too quickly or too abruptly, the economy collapses. What happens if people default on ALL their mortgages, car payments, credit cards, etc.? A depression. Even if they cut out ALL NEW loans and credit...it means a recession.
If they cut back a small amount, that's great. But that can only be a SMALL amount over a LONG period of time....or else, recession.
the shit's gonna hit the fan sooner or later.
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/24/2008 @ 3:47pm
you're clinging to ideas that are destroying the american worker.
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/24/2008 @ 3:50pm
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 02/24/2008 @ 3:41pm
So you believe that "cutting back" has NO short-term (<7 years) impact on the environment? Fine, neither do I.
As for unemployment, I guess it depends on what you want to "cut back" on. Again (and we're basing this on SUDDENLY 85% of people follow your advice and stick to it), we're looking at percentage drop in retail sales...which means retail salespeople are laid off.
Posted by Mask at 02/24/2008 @ 3:51pm
the shit's gonna hit the fan sooner or later.
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 02/24/2008 @ 3:47pm
Which?...and what specifically defines "sooner" and what specifically defines "latter"?
Posted by Mask at 02/24/2008 @ 3:52pm
plus, how many times have you scolded HAPPY on the dangers of too much debt?
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/24/2008 @ 3:57pm
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 02/24/2008 @ 3:57pm
Too different types...and not supporting debt. Consumer debt SHOULD be reduced, but not eliminated. It definitely should be slowed...but not quickly.
Government debt too should be reduced SLOWLY. Only way to do it fast are massive cuts in social spending...or massive tax increases...both economy killers.
Posted by Mask at 02/24/2008 @ 4:52pm
look...reserves of oil go down every year, become harder and more expensive to extract, more people using oil, 40% of energy resources already used by us, who do not make up 40% of world pop at all...
we need to lead this fight to survive and thrive environmentally. the US, with a keynsian economic investment "surge", can "engreen" itself in a revolutionary way. we can profit greatly from this and encourage others to do the same.
big-giant-corporation, medium scale business, and even small scale hippy dippy greenies and john maasch wannabees can thrive. i love the idea chicage and some left coast cities have pioneered of encouraging small enterprise and locally grown food...what about a drive to get solar pannels/wind turbines/biomass generators to supplament grid power...vehicle tax breaks for hybrid/electric cars - encourage families to have one electric car for town...the south/country needs an overhaul of its public transportation system...blah blah blah...and if we became the greenest nation a hard workin' money makin' empire of megacephaletics can be...
we can helpsell everyone else implement the same...
but the oil is running out, fueling inflation anf rise in world temp (it really really really appears, like how it really really really appears we descended from apelike creatures and slime, like it really really appears that time distorts at the approach of speed of light)...
and once we conquer our own world fo good by learning how to take care of it...
back to space!!!!!
Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/24/2008 @ 5:09pm
believe me - i know - too much naivete is doubleplusgood ungood, but people do indeed need hope. to denigrate such is in a democracy, a great thing.
but to denigrate it too much will rebound upon those who do so too shrilly. people have hopes and dreams and don't cozen to being ridiculed for such...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/24/2008 @ 5:12pm
oil goes up - all prices go up...inflation...
at what point does fed have to stop cutting interest rates by .235 % and getting a temporary bang out of it? when...we have to UP interest rates to make it worthwhile to lend?
once the housing crash burns out two things need to happen...
someone needs to buy up those mcmansions, cut them up into mini condos, and sell/lease/rent...
then a new levittown needs to get going, providing attractive, affordable housing and housing services...going greenie would be cool...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/24/2008 @ 5:21pm
Sorry Happy, but the progressives are ignorant of money management thing don't wash. You are right that campaigns face uncertainties -- like not sewing things up on Super Tuesdays.
Hilary's uncertainties seem to flow from the beltway consultants she paid $15 million to this year alone. Try $400 socks on those overpaid prima donnas.
It does matter that she is running a high cost, top down campaign and ran out of money without a plan. Tough depending on getting accurate info from people who are getting rich telling you what you want to hear. Common sense suggests running as the first serious female candidate for president should rely on grass roots organizing. Clinton went with the top dog lobbyists and insiders-- paying top dollar and alienating the people she depends on.
Posted by Truffledog at 02/24/2008 @ 6:25pm
So you believe that "cutting back" has NO short-term (<7 years) impact on the environment? Fine, neither do I.
As for unemployment, I guess it depends on what you want to "cut back" on. Again (and we're basing this on SUDDENLY 85% of people follow your advice and stick to it), we're looking at percentage drop in retail sales...which means retail salespeople are laid off.
Posted by MASK 02/24/2008 @ 3:51pm
how about starting with consumption of electricity?
everybody reduces by 25% and a lot less crap goes into the sky.
how about starting with consumption of gasoline?
everybody reduces by 25% and THE PRICE GOES DOWN.
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/24/2008 @ 8:19pm
Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 02/24/2008 @ 5:09pm
yep.
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/24/2008 @ 8:22pm
RE: Mask vs. Frosty
I think mask, you spend too much time dwelling on frosty's lack of consumerism and not enough on the cutting back of power/fuel usage.
The first would do alot of what you submit, the later nothing but good.
Posted by Malcontent at 02/24/2008 @ 10:44pm
I think Hillary was totally expecting to have the nom sewn up after Super Tuesday on Feb. 5. That's why she spent, spent, spent in January, not worrying about a long campaign. Obama's wins caught her and her money people off guard, obviously, and now they're paying the price for being presumptive and arrogant. And rooms at the Bellagio? Are you kidding? Shoulda stayed at Motel 6, Hill!
The "loyalty and secrecy" thing bothers me, too. It reeks of W., and God knows we don't need another jerk like him in office! If Hillary really has hired "yes" men and women for her staff rather than the people who will do the best job, that's a bad sign. And I was going to vote for her until just last week. Her walk is not matching her talk, so I've gone to Obama. Sorry, my sister. I wanted it to be you.
Posted by raine at 02/25/2008 @ 08:27am
"He should come to my neighborhood if he needs proof. Hint: it's not Princeton, NJ."
Posted by JACKWELLS 02/22/2008 @ 8:01pm
Indeed, that seems to sum up a lot about Krugman, at least here lately.
Posted by gloryoski at 02/25/2008 @ 6:58pm