Aye of Newt, and Dead-Blogging the Live Bloggers

Okay, Circus Boy is officially my GOPer campaign coverage persona.  For one thing, everything Circus Boy warned you about on Wednesday rocked the GOPer world on Thursday:

Iowa announced (sort of) that Senator Sanctimonious won Iowa (sort of)-- not Romney.

Gingrich's second wife made headlines with her interview hours before it actually aired.

After all the public promptings, Cowboy Rick quit the race (Adios, MoFos) and endorsed Gingrich. 

Gingrich continued to climb in the polls.  And now the rumor about those Tea Party leaders is that they will endorse Gingrich, perhaps on Friday.  One day before South Carolina votes.

All that was just Thursday's early show!  The big show under the big tent--in the center ring!--the last GOPer candidate debate before the voting on Saturday! 

Rather than watch the debate, I watched the Live Bloggers on my Internet machine.  Much more entertaining!  And I bring you some of their greatest tricks!

Let's start with the Guardian bloggers because their "yes, but" judgment that Gingrich won the debate in the first five minutes--and their caveats--were echoed by other bloggers:

First question is to Newt Gingrich, asked about Marianne Gingrich's comments that Newt asked her for an "open marriage". "Would you like to discuss that, Mr Speaker," asks John King. "No, but I will," replies Newt. "It is as close as despicable as anything I can imagine. I'm frankly astounded than CNN would take trash like that and se it to open a presidential debate."
He's won this already.

But maybe he made too much of it, going on just a bit too long. Many millions watching would have been unaware of the Marianne Gingrich interview: the former House speaker has just provide great advertising for the ABC interview. He has just ensured many of them will be tuning in to hear it.

This also was a common judgment:

Meanwhile, up on stage, Romney is having his worst debate performance of the entire campaign. Just now he got dragged into a spat with Santorum, with Santorum talking over him. He looks and sounds tired. It may not matter in the long run but this is the precise low point of Mitt Romney's presidential campaign.

Jed at Kos:
So the crowd in this debate ... cheered adultery, lustily ... but that was an improvement, over cheering the death of the uninsured.

6:55 PM PT: Newt says Obama is the "most dangerous" president he has every seen. "Truly frightening," he says. White conservative men across South Carolina are getting that sturburst feeling right about now.

(I googled "sturburst" and it seems to mean something but I don't know what. Most of the hits were of this very statement.)

Though Jed concluded The debate is over. Not much to analyze: Newt killed the field. Big win for him, he was funniest about Sanctimonious:

Rick Santorum really needs to stop saying "bottom up."

Rick Santorum says his concern about Newt Gingrich is that he's always worried "something is going to pop."

Rick Santorum says he's a the grandson of immigrants, and that we don't need any more of them.

Josh Marshall at TPM:

9:05 PM: I feel like I need to read the transcript of what Mitt just said about his taxes but I think I'm going to need to get stoned first.


9:27 PM: I'm sort of amazed how on Gingrich has been in this debate. He's made Romney look like a bystander. Except in the portion where Romney dominated the stage with his epic tax return release meltdown.

His conclusion:
I think Newt Gingrich did very well tonight. I think he knows it. He's right. I've heard a number of people say that Rick Santorum had a really strong debate too and even that he 'won' the debate. Santorum was basically more on his game than I think I've ever heard him. He had a really good debate. I think Newt did better. But here's the key: Gingrich is in a position to capitalize in a big way on a strong debate performance. I don't think Santorum is. So it all comes down to a very strong performance by Newt -- one I think will likely clinch a win for him on Saturday night, notwithstanding the tell-all interview coming later tonight.

Andrew Sullivan:

8.48 pm. Buzzfeed says that Newt won the debate in the first five minutes. Theres still some time to go but that's my impression as well. Romney is being flattened tonight. Santorum's brutal, relentless attacks, Newt's ccontempt, Paul's jocular indifference ... they all contrast with classic, mindless robo-speak from Mr Plastic. Now Gingrich has ambushed him on his tax returns


8.44 pm. A classic Gingrich phrase: "Mildly amazing." Classic passive aggression from the "shy boy" who's now so angry he explodes spontaneously. Then Newt tickles the Southern g-spot, by saying that his debating Obama will be a battle between "knowledge" and a "TelePrompTer." I don't think Newt realizes how his contempt and condescension toward Obama is riddled with racism.

Contempt and condescenion yes, but as a Georgia boy and as his Newtness, he realizes it.

His conclusion:
10.01 pm. A Gingrich triumph. His only concern must be how well Santorum did tonight. Paul performed well, but remains peripheral to the struggle for the orthodox "conservative" candidate. I think Romney is in serious trouble now, and the bottom fell out tonight. He died with that glib response - "maybe" - to the question of whether he'd follow his father's example.

I may be crazy but I think Romney loses South Carolina after tonight. And that means this thing blows wide open again.

Not everyone thought Rick S. did so well--and I never thought I'd be quoting uberconservative Michael Medved: The big loser: Rick Santorum, whose insufferably sanctimonious demeanor answered all questions about why social conservatives have begun to coalesce around Newt Gingrich rather than the former Pennsylvania senator. His decision to issue smug, full-bore attacks on every one of his rivals backfired badly.

Medved is pretty sanctimonious himself, and maybe I'm likewise seeing in Rick S. a tendency in myself.

But I leave the best for last, the Economist quartet:

If Newt's pomposity could be monetized, he'd be a rich man. But would it be taxed at 15% or 35%? Discuss

"How do you revive 'Made in America'?" Rename China?

Grandiosity has never been a problem with Newt Gingrich." Great line from Santorum.

Conclusions:
· Rick Santorum was tonight's stand-out performer. Apparently emboldened by his belated Iowa victory, he came out swinging and I think did some real damage, especially to Gingrich and his grandiose dilettantism. Newt's desperate opening attack on the media for daring to listen to what his ex-wife has to say about him was enthusiastically received by the crowd, but I thought made him look like a snarling, cornered dog. Ron Paul was a comforting Ron Paul-like presence. Romney was on and off, and I don't think his performance made a difference to his prospects in South Carolina. Actually, insofar as Santorum's effective barbs hurt Newt more than Mitt, Romney may have come out of the evening ahead.
by W.W. 7:08 PM
 Nothing that happened tonight will change the fact that Mitt Romney is your Republican nominee. But Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich are moving in opposite directions: Santorum becoming more endearing, Gingrich more repulsive.

It was a strange debate. Newt started strong out of the box, but Santorum went after him effectively, and he ended up looking too pompous by half. Romney was clearly the loser: he stuttered, smirked, dodged and look insufferably smug. He wins the nomination in the end, but I wouldn't be surprised to see him lose SC.

So there are two theories: 1. Newt is headed for victory in S.C., Romney is really wounded.  If Newt wins it may become a real race.  2. Rick S. had a good debate, the second Mrs. G. interview is going to add to doubts, and Rick and Gingrich are going to again split the anti-Rs, and Romney squeaks out a S.C. victory.  And if both Rick and Ging do well, neither will drop out, which also helps Romney.

Maybe the most intriguing bit of information I heard is that polling data suggests a gender split in the Tevangelical vote: men like Gingrich, women like Sanctimonious (and are definitely anti-Ging over the wives stuff.  The revelation that Ging and Calista had sex in Ging and wife.2's  marriage bed  could put them over the top on that issue.)

So Gingrich had his best day and his "best" (angriest, most racist) debate, and Romney had his worst and his worst.  Will Romney's free market utopian fantasy-mongering prove stronger than Gingrich's ability to amplify the blind rage of white SC GOPer voters?  Will it matter?  Who cares?  The circus ain't leaving town anytime soon!

The Oil Sands of Time

President Obama accepted State Department advice and killed the Keystone oil sands project, as officially announced Wednesday.  The oil sands of time were running out, thanks to the GOPer congressionals' deadline, so it's bye bye pipeline.

Bill McKibben commented: "this isn’t just the right call, it’s the brave call. The knock on Barack Obama from many quarters has been that he’s too conciliatory. But here, in the face of a naked political threat from Big Oil to exact ‘huge political consequences,’ he’s stood up strong. This is a victory for Americans who testified in record numbers, and who demanded that science get the hearing usually reserved for big money."

GOPers gushing the usual oily bullshit from whichever orifice they use to talk, charge this kills jobs, kills energy independence.  Their inflated figure for how many jobs the pipeline would have created was 20,000.  Actual experts say it would have been closer to 6,000.

But according to the Brookings Institution, the growing clean energy industries already employ some 2.7 million in the U.S., with explosive job growth that outpaced the rest of the economy during and after the Great Recession.  Moreover, "The clean economy offers more opportunities and better pay for low- and middle-skilled workers than the national economy as a whole."

Meanwhile, in one industrial city just north of the U.S. border, a coalition of business, government, environmentalists and labor (including the efforts of one of the most dedicated readers of Captain Future's Dreaming Up Daily--congrats, Cousin Lemuel, otherwise known as Bill Thompson) has brought a major wind turbine manufacturing project to Hamilton, Ontario--with an expected 1900 jobs.  These will be the first offshore wind power assembly facilities in North America.

This is just the beginning, if America would get serious. A new study concludes that a truly serious approach to energy efficiency could alone add up to 2 million new jobs in the next few decades.

So the jobs argument is specious, and is only part of the economic story (if you want to reduce everything to that.)  Opponents to the Keystone pipeline cite tremendous costs to protect water, soil and air against pollution, and even higher costs for accidents and the hidden costs (because families mostly bear them) of bad effects on health.  It's a similar story with clean energy--the health benefits are also economic benefits. 

And of course, there's the economic price of the Climate Crisis--which the Keystone pipeline would hasten to its worst case scenarios---with costs that could include the very concept of "economy" as we know it.

In the transitional meantime, an expanding U.S. oil and gas industry has added some 75,000 jobs since President Obama took office.  There's no truth to even this charge, that the pipeline harms the effort to decrease dependence on foreign oil sources.  But apparently a 13% expansion of these industries isn't enough for some of these fossil fuel hot air billionaires.  They have to own the planet, as they ruin it.

Coming Attractions

I'm starting to feel like Circus Boy (yeah, that's Mickey Dolenz before he became a Monkee.  He starred in the Circus Boy TV show in the 50s.)  I'm enjoying this circus too much.

I'm not the only one. I wonder if anybody at MSNBC will be able to sleep tonight.  There are several potentially big stories that could break in the next day or two that together or separately could turn the GOPer primary circus into real chaos.

One is the ABC interview granted by the second-ex Gingrich wife, expected to air Thursday night, which is potentially explosive.   She apparently once claimed that she could end his political career with one interview.

Another is the possible certification of the Iowa caucuses results (maybe by Friday), which may well change the winner from Romney to Rick Sanctimonious.   Combined with Gingrich's rising in South Carolina (and national) polls, it could create new doubts about Romney, who increasingly  appears to be vulnerable, if not to fellow GOPer attacks, then to the same attacks mounted by Dems in the general. 

But what if BOTH of these things happen?

And oh yeah, a couple of Rabid Right "leaders" have called for Cowboy Rick to drop out before the voting in South Carolina, in favor of Gingrich, who was endorsed by Sarah Palin Wednesday, as well as another megachurch minister.  There's also rumor that some sort of Tea Party coalition is going to endorse a candidate before S.C. votes.

Meanwhile His Romneyness is slowly being bronzed as Richie Rich, the guy who thinks his speaking fees--which in one year added up to seven times the average US annual income--don't amount to much.  Not when he probably has many millions in offshore tax shelters.

And what happens in South Carolina if this ABC story gets traction?  That while at Bain, Romney directed millions of dollars worth of investments to the Mormon Church.

In his New York Magazine piece entitled "Romney Caricatures Himself," Jonathan Chiat concludes:

"Whatever the merits, the total self-portrait Romney has helped craft is utterly devastating: the scion of a wealthy executive, who helped create, and benefited from, revolutions in both the market economy and in public policy in the last three decades that favored the rich over the middle class, and who appears blithe about the gap between his privilege and the lot of most Americans.

As I’ve said before, Romney has been positively associated with “electability” because he is more electable than most of his rivals. But he is the one-eyed man in the land of the politically blind. Romney, by normal standards, is a terrible candidate. He is nowhere near as formidable as John McCain was four years before. The latest poll from PPP has his favorability rating at a miserable 35 percent positive, 53 percent negative. He may win – he probably will win if the economy dips back into recession – but he is a weak candidate who in many ways embodies the public’s distrust of his party."

I'll add this caveat: while the political mood seems to be strongly against Richie Rich, the appeal of a powerful rich guy can't be dismissed.  There's an undeniable "participation mystique" thing that goes on when ordinary people are confronted with the rich and powerful: they may identify with them, imagine what it would be like to be them, and want to be like them--want to be recognized by them, and included within their aura.  It's a powerful pull and can't be dismissed.  Romney has shown no signs of being able to capitalize on this, but it's a long time until the election.

Romney as without core beliefs is an image that won't go away.  There's the opposition research book put together by the McCain campaign in 2007 that's just been leaked.  One observer commented: "In extensive detail, the book documents Romney’s various turns on major issues—how he changed his mind on the Bush tax cuts, gun ownership, abortion, and immigration, just to pick a few issues. Romney’s flip-floppery is so pervasive that it cannot be summed up except to say that it is a fundamental part of his political self."

Its possible effect in the general election is dramatized, cartoon style in this Gingrich campaign ad which shows President Obama debating Romney.  The Obama voice is actually pretty good.

Today's Fix

A number of prominent web sites including wikipedia are down today or otherwise limited to focus awareness on a couple of bills in Congress that threaten to turn over significant control of the Internet to corporate interests.

While I fully support these sites, I do worry about you twitchy readers out there with less to read.  So as a public service for desperate net dependent addicts who stumbled onto this site, I will provide content.  Contented?

That's not as good a pun as Lawrence had Tues. evening, concerning Romney's revelations about the minuscule tax rate he pays: he was talking about taxes, "which Republicans are wont to do, but not in the way Republicans want to do it."

Andrew Sullivan was making waves on Tues. with his Newsweek cover piece making the case for President Obama's "long game" and the delusions of those who don't see his actual successes.  His basic premise about the Obama record of solid accomplishment  (not unfamiliar to readers of this site) is "So many people have been taken in by fantasies - on both sides - that are demonstrably untrue."

He was defending the piece against rightward and some High Left critics all day on his blog, and had this to say about Obama leading from behind, specifically on gay rights (gay marriage specifically) and medical marijuana/decriminalization:

"Oh please. If you accept my premise - that he "leads from behind" for a "long game" - you can begin to see my case. Obama is not going to crusade for either cause. But he is not going to oppose them either and has quietly encouraged them. Hence instructing the DEA not to interfere with state laws on medical marijuana and withdrawing a legal defense of DOMA. Yes, there's been some regional slippage in California on allowing states to determine their medical marijuana laws, but that hasn't apparently come from Obama's office. Combined with the breakthrough on gays in the military, this has been the most productive period for gay equality in a long time. And it's more durable because Obama didn't do it. We did. Which was the fucking premise of his entire campaign."

Something along these lines occurred to me earlier in the day before I read this concerning one of the more hopeful signs of the year: the democratic rebellion in various states against GOPer oligarchical power grabs and antidemocratic laws, restricting the right to vote and to organize in unions.  Specifically the news in Wisconsin, where over 1 million signatures were gathered to recall its governor--which is nearly equal to the number of votes that he got in his election.  When all of this controversy started, there were calls for Obama to get directly involved, and cries of anguish when he didn't. He didn't make big speeches, though he did mention his support for these efforts, and the White House issued statements.  And yet, the people through their unions and local organizing have successfully recalled several bad laws in several states, and are ready to recall awful officeholders.  This is community organizing--something that Barack Obama understands pretty well.  And it's just as Sullivan says: it's more durable because Obama didn't do it. We did. Which was the fucking premise of his entire campaign."

After this choice reading experience, if you're still hungry for Internet pleasure, you might check out the new kid on the block, Bill Moyers, with video from his new web and TV projects, including a lot about income inequality.  Seriously, it's great to have him back (even if he never really went away.)

Circus News

I'm sorry, I just can't resist.
Monday began with Jon Huntsman dropping out of the race (because he was polling behind Steven Colbert, according to Rachel) and endorsing Romney.  This led to several video compilations of all the nasty stuff Huntsman said about Romney, especially about how he has no beliefs and can't beat Obama.

Rachel gleefully catalogued the ongoing fight within the Evangelical preacher corps over whether they did or didn't really endorse Rick Sanctimonious--accusations of deceit, dirty tricks, ballot-stuffing etc.--all the things GOPers are good at.  What goes around...

And all this was before the FOX clown show, aka debate.  As conventional wisdom swings definitively behind the certainty that Romney will be the nominee--and that the GOPer establishment is pushing this narrative--Romney had an awkward debate, Sanctimonious and Gingrich did better--with Gingrich demogoging the heartlessness and mindlessness of the assembled S.C. GOpers.  Some choice reaction from folks who actually watched it:

Jed Lewison at Kos: The one nice thing about this debate is that even though it's obvious that Mitt Romney has the nomination nearly locked down, it's equally obvious how much Rick Santorum, Rick Perry, and Newt Gingrich dislike Mitt Romney.

Conservative Ron Dreher: There goes Gingrich with the food stamp thing again, blaming Obama for "putting more people on food stamps than any president in American history." It wasn’t Obama that did it, Gingrich, it was the depression recession. This is food we’re talking about. This is people struggling to feed their families in the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. And Gingrich is playing racial and cultural politics with it. To listen to Gingrich, you’d think that Obama signed up all those layabouts for food stamps just so he could throw government money at them.

And two gems from the Economist live blog:

 This is Jon Huntsman's best debate by far.

I think this crowd will be disappointed when informed that there will not in fact be a public hanging later in the evening.

MLK Day in Retrospect

Martin Luther King is in that middle area of figures considered "great" enough to have a holiday: he was too long ago to be real to most people, and he's not yet a figure so remote that he's going to be used to sell used cars or shill for a sale on his Day, as are the figures of Washington and Lincoln.  But when GOPers who stoked the suspicion and hate that enveloped him in a penumbra of violence for what was left of his young life are blithely praising his idealism and "hope for the future," then the attempted co option has reached beyond reality.

It's pretty clear that while culturally and in certain legal areas, African Americans are better off than in the 1960s, in other ways they are in worse circumstances that are worsening.  The indefensibly high rates of incarceration of black men generally, and specifically for crimes that whites much more often escape such penalties, is clearly racist in effect and to a great extent in cause.  This is one of the more obvious remnants of racism.

The promises of the 1950s and 1960s have not been fulfilled in other ways.  De facto segregation of schools, separate and unequal, are still the law of the land, however formally illegal.  De facto retrenchments of voting rights are rising, with the poll tax substitute of ID laws.  And an entire state of Michigan is denying entire cities with majority black populations of the right to vote for any local official, by installing GOPer governor appointed dictators.  This is as clear a tyranny as any this continent has ever seen.

But of course the most telling fact is the economic injustice that has swollen the wealth of the inconceivably wealthy 1% and is sending more and more people off the cliff of ordinary life, among the 99%.  People without homes, without enough food, without medical care, without the means to have a decent life--those numbers are growing, and growing fastest among the most vulnerable populations, which certainly includes minorities, and certainly includes African Americans.

In that context, the South Carolina GOPers who assembled for their debate on Martin Luther King Day--as other GOPer audiences in other primary debates--are showing  faces of America carefully hidden behind suburban doors and suburban secret codes, small town murmurs and city euphemisms, for decades.  But these days the mobs are whipping into a frenzy again, and the white sheets are there for all to see.  Their hate extends to all other colors, to any other religion or culture (they even booed the idea of applying the Golden Rule), and even to any foreign language (French, say, or science.)  These are shock troops of the Dark Ages, and if they succeed, those times will hasten. 

The Dreaming Up Daily Quote

"Our problem today is that we have allowed the internal to become lost in the external. We have allowed the means by which we live to outdistance the ends for which we live...Enlarged material powers spell enlarged peril if there is not proportionate growth of the soul."

Martin Luther King, Jr.
Nobel Peace Prize Acceptance Address

Weekend Update

God apparently took Saturday off, allowing his Saints to lose, and sending Tim Tebow and the Denver Broncos straight to hell, which in their case was New England.  He split the difference on Sunday, teaching some humility to the defending champion Packers but allowing the overrated Ravens another week of hubris.  Next week it's the Niners vs. the NY Giants, and the Patriots vs. the Ravens.  God's message so far: don't diss the defense.

In circus news,  the weekend began with elements that suggested a Gingrich revival, beginning in South Carolina.  He was near even with Romney in some polls, and he picked up a few Tevangelical preacher endorsements.   So the stage was set for the purist preacher summit in Texas to consolidate behind the strongest anti-Romney.  So of course they didn't.  They endorsed Rick Sanctimonious, purer perhaps but polling in single digits in South Carolina, with uncertain prospects (to be generous) in Florida and following states.  (E. J. Dionne has a more optimistic view.)   So despite the reputed "hit" that Romney takes on this, he is probably the winner of that confab.  The biggest loser was Cowboy Rick, who is likely now to drop out sooner rather than later, maybe even before the South Carolina voting.  If that happens, and Gingrich drops out if he fails to win South Carolina, Sanctimonious has another shot to consolidate the Anti-Roms, but as the likely fourth place finisher in S.C., he's likely toast.

Late news update: numerous reports say Jon Huntsman will officially quit the race on Monday, and back Romney.

Got Envy?

It's possible that Thursday will become known as the day that the starkest possible battle lines of the 2012 were drawn.  With Romney insisting that any questioning of the justice or the damaging  economic and social effects of income inequality amounts to nothing but envy.  With Gingrich and Perry continuing their attacks on Romney's record as ceo of Bain, and its record of job killing, including a Swiftboat-style documentary and ads cut from it.  And with President Obama's chief economic advisor making a high profile speech laying out the realities of income inequality.

What's fascinating some political observers is that the attacks on Romney are coming from other GOPers, with the Dems preparing their own, reportedly even more devastating attacks.  And the potential for the damage this can do to Romney and the GOPers.

What fascinates me is that what goes around comes around--that GOPers are so used to their toolbox of lies, distortions, simplistic and inflammatory charges, and piling on repeated extreme attacks, that they cannot have an internal disagreement without employing them all.  Long practiced in the scorched earth politics of destruction, they are incapable of doing anything else, and so are employing the same extreme tactics against each other. 

It's spectacle at this point, but maybe pretty meaningful.  The official GOPer freakout over the Gingrich/Cowboy Rick attacks on Romney's predatory business practices has to be seen to be believed.  In this case, TPM's 100 seconds is worth 1000 words. 

Clowns Go South

Newt Romney gets to be head clown this week.  That's the outcome of the New Hampshire GOPer primary, which notably was badly attended by GOPer voters.  Romney finished close enough to 40% and Huntsman's surge didn't materialize to north of 20%, with Ron St. Paul getting a solid quarter of the vote to come in second.  Much if not most of his votes came from self-declared Independents.

What it all means is that the clown show continues with the same cast for another week, moving down to South Carolina where there are lots of Tevangelicals but also a history of traditional GOPers chosen.  Since neither Rick Sanctimonious nor Mitt Gingrich were significantly stronger than each other (or anybody else), they will see if either can break out in S.C.  The anti-Romney ad blitz there has already begun, but Romney will have a sizeable media presence there too (and some are attributing his retaining his poll margin in New Hamp to a last minute ad buy over the weekend.) With his faint pulse of credibility (third place gets him Anti-Romney status but second would have given him Huntsmentum), Huntsman will try again in S.C. to attract moderate and/or sane conservatives.

So what is likely to happen in S.C. is either somebody finally beats Romney, or he ekes out another victory by less than overwhelming margins.  What's likely to be more interesting is what happens then.  If Romney wins his third in a row, but Gingrich and Sanctimonious still go on (or Cowboy Rick, who got less than 1% in NH)--or especially if they somehow finally combine forces to support a single non-Paul Anti-Romney--while the rest of the world proclaims his Romneyness as the presumptive nominee--what does that say about the GOP, and what does it do to the party and the candidate?

The latest wrinkle in the clown show is that Cowboy Rick and Gingrich are getting pasted by some FOXite conservative media types for what they said about predatory capitalist Romney--Cowboy Rick was compared to one of those envious Occupy Wall Street anticapitalists, and Gingrich was called a socialist!   Meanwhile, it looks like the Gingrich-paid ads slamming Romney--which are excerpted from a "documentary" created by the folks who brought you Swift Boating--are far worse than the Dems would ever use, employing the usual tools of distortion that GOPer groups can't help but use even against the guy who might well be their nominee.

Meanwhile there's a rumor that the next GOPer candidate debate will be held in a bakery that specializes in cream pies...

Walkabout

Some say quickly, some say more gradually, all say painfully, but this is all going to end.  It's still such an odd feeling to have my end in sight at the same time as human civilization and much of the natural world as we know it perhaps. 

Meanwhile there are lovely days like Monday, another sunny one, so I took a walk in the community forest.  It's not supposed to be sunny in January.  We should be in the middle of our rainy season.  Last year the rains were late also, but we wound up with our normal amount of rain or a little more.  But quantity isn't the whole story of normal, and normal is what the ecosystem depends on.  We're hearing of drought effects in some places hereabouts already this winter.  These redwoods, second and third growth in this forest, need a specific climate, and if this is the pattern of the future, they'll be endangered.

But a lovely day is a lovely day, warm in the sun, and quickly cold when it went down.

Circus Violence

Violence in the circus--verbal, that is.  And to think that the circular firing squad used to have a Democratic patent.  His Romneyness opened the doors wide to the circular circus firing squad with two eminently soundbitable statements that played directly into the top candidate for the most damaging non-flipflop charges against him: his rich guy ego plus his predatory behavior plus his politician hypocrisy.  He's a circular firing squad in himself.

His first statement was a variation on the phony regular guy I'm one of you (and I'm not a witch) pandering he's awkwardly tried before, but this one was really ill-timed.  He said he knew the pressure people were feeling, they might lose their jobs, because he's been there--he's been afraid a few times of being fired, of getting that pink slip.

Okay, so you know that there are only about 3,000 Americans in total who are richer than Romney.  Much of this wealth was inherited, so he's never, ever had to be afraid for a micro-millisecond that he would miss a meal or a mortgage payment or a health insurance premium.  People may not know much about him, but people living on the edge are likely to know that he really is not.

He then committed another unforced error by uttering the words, "I like to fire people."  Though he was talking about a health care system that enables people to fire their insurance provider, the words play perfectly into the growing attacks based on the predatory practices of Bain, the place where he got all that vaunted business experience.  (Bain even sounds like some evil kingdom in a comic book mythology.)  But even before the DMCers could reach for their editing tools, Romney's fellow GOPers were taking his words exquisitely out of context with all the temeritry his Romneyness used to take Barack Obama's comments completely out of context.  Jon Huntsman zinged him--Romney wants to fire people, he said, but I want to get jobs for people.  Gingrich has some really awful paid ads already hitting Romney on this, and his Newtitude jumped on it. 

But one candidate put both statements together with true eloquence.  And that candidate is--you're really not going to believe this--Cowboy Rick.  First he quoted Romney: "I know what’s it’s like to worry whether you’re going to get fired. There were a couple of times I wondered whether I was going to get a pink slip.”  Then he fired away: I mean, he actually said this,” Mr. Perry told more than 100 diners at a breakfast gathering here. “Now, I have no doubt Mitt Romney was worried about pink slips — whether he was going to have enough of them to hand out because his company, Bain Capital, of all the jobs that they killed,” Mr. Perry said. “I’m sure he was worried that he would run out of pink slips.”

He said that people in nearby Gaffney, S.C., in particular, “would find his comments incredible,” because it is where Mr. Perry said Bain shut down a plant and fired 150 workers. “That didn’t happen until Mitt Romney’s private equity firm, they looted that company with more than $20 million in management fees.”
He also charged that Mr. Romney’s firm took $65 million in management fees out of a steel company in a deal in which 700 steelworkers in Georgetown, S.C., and Kansas City lost their jobs, their health insurance and “large portions” of their pensions.
“There’s nothing wrong with being successful and making money — that’s the American dream,” Mr. Perry said. “But there is something inherently wrong when getting rich off failures and sticking it to someone else is how you do your business. I happen to think that that is indefensible.” “If you are a victim of Bain capital’s downsizing, it’s the ultimate insult for Mitt Romney to come to South Carolina and tell you he feels your pain — because he caused it,” Mr. Perry said."

Both quotes--but especially the "I like to fire people" clip--went viral all day Monday.  Today--Tuesday-- is voting day in the New Hampshire primary.  We're going to learn how many smart phones there really are in that state, which is likely a measure of how fast this soundbite spreads.  Because the trend lines were already showing Huntsman moving up and Romney moving down.  Most pundits say that not enough time has elapsed for Huntsman to actually overtake R's huge lead, but that he's in position to come in second, closely followed by Ron St. Paul. 

But an emotional backlash can come on faster than a headcold.  If some hefty percentage of New Hampshire GOPers were preparing to delicately hold their noses and vote for the guy who seemed most likely to compete in the general, they might be simultaneously feeling enough disgust to deny him their votes, while suddenly realizing that Huntsman is a pretty good alternative. 

If the final vote of the primary has Romney at 30%,  Huntsman north of 20%,  with St. Paul getting 15% and Gingrich north of 10%, then South Carolina and Florida begin to look less inevitable for his Romneyness.  There's also the theory that if Huntsman does well, his own fabulously wealthy father will open the bank vaults, and his Romneyness will face wall-to-wall Anti-R ads from both Gingrich and Huntsman.  And those ads are on TV sets in places where not just GOPers can see them. 

Emerson for the Day

"Our limbs indeed have room enough but it is our souls that rust in a corner.  Let us migrate interiorly without intermission, and pitch our tent each day nearer the western horizon."

H.D.Thoreau

The Circus and the Last Dark Horse

Over the weekend there were two episodes of the ongoing reality series circus called GOPer debates.  The first on Saturday night inspired former GOPer Committee Chair Michael Steele to tweet, "What the hell kind of debate are we having right now? The Obamas are starting to order the china pattern for the second term."  It inspired one traditionally GOPer voter to donate $25 to the Obama campaign, and the spouse of another to inquire, "do these guys know they are running for President?" 

The bickering among the anti-Romneys left his Romneyness untouched, went the wisdom on that one.  But Sunday morning Romney got touched up a few times, including a hopefully memorable plea by Gingrich to Romney to "drop the pious baloney."  How could he do that?  Without pious baloney he's naked.

While some pundits (like Joe Klein) citing some numbers as well as the debates are declaring Romney the certain nominee, there was at least some trouble brewing--and some different poll numbers.  Josh Marshall at TPM highlighted the $5 million that yet another Rabid Right billionaire has used to fuel the Gingrich attack ads against Romney, with lots more where that came from.  Marshall suggests this could seriously complicate Romney's march, especially if the money keeps coming.  And don't forget those Tevangelical preachers getting together this week to try to pick a single Anti-Mormon, sorry, I meant Anti-Romney.  Nothing inspires serious consideration more than the scent of cash.

While the bulk of the negative ads against Romney are being targeted in South Carolina, the next primary state, there are some polls that suggest things may be moving in New Hampshire.  Romney has been slipping in tracking polls, while Ron St. Paul and Huntsman are moving up (Gingrich so far is his usual fourth, while Rick Sanctimonious is fading, and Cowboy Rick says he wants to return troops to Iraq immediately, where he may have a better chance at a presidency.)

Most of the pundits ignored Huntsman's good moments in Sunday's debate, but if those clips get around, he could move up further.  New Hamp loves an underdog, and everybody knows he's a better fit there than the Ricks.  It depends on how disgusted New Hamps are with this entire field--Huntman positioned himself as the sane alternative. Sane in this crowd anyway.  He might make this interesting after all.

There We Were

The Steelers lost to Denver and their quarterback Tim Tebow in overtime on Sunday.  The reason of course is that Tim Tebow is a devout fundamentalist Christian, and so God was on the side of Denver.  God saw to it that two more Steelers were injured early in the game, so the entire defensive line was second and third string.  When Steelers receivers had easy catches with the end zone in sight, God knocked the ball out of their hands.  God shone His light in the eyes of Steeler coverage when St. Tebow threw the ball to his receivers, especially the Steeler corner called Gay (get it?)  Obviously God has not yet forgiven Big Ben--having already hobbled him and made it harder for him to pass accurately, He knocked the ball out of his hand when all he needed was a few yards to set up the winning field goal.  And then of course, His Lightning struck in the first play of overtime. St. Tebow be praised.  Amen.

Here We Go Steelers

Here's one of the newest Pittsburgh Steelers fans---Margaret's grandson Beckett.  I don't know if Beckett will be watching the Pittsburgh-Denver playoff game on Sunday but I will.  I don't expect to enjoy it much, though.  The Steelers are heavily favored, but sports writers in Pittsburgh at least are expresssing caution.  It's likely to be low scoring, sloppy and painful to watch.

The Steelers have been painful to watch pretty much all year, and they are entering the playoffs as a Wild Card with a lot going against them. In terms of further success, playoff experience has proven to have minuses as well as pluses.  The two more important factors are the physical health of the team and momentum from the last several games.  The 2005 Steelers won the Super Bowl as a Wild Card team, but key players were coming back from injuries and they were healthier than they'd been all year as they began the playoffs.  This year they're starting with way too many injuries.  Their running back is out for the playoffs, and other key personnel--including their marquee players (Big Ben, Troy Polamalu, James Harrison)--are playing hurt.  Any one or two or more of them could be sidelined at any point.

That 2005 team also had tremendous momentum.  It was obvious as the season ended last year that Green Bay was going all the way, although another surprising Steelers team came close in the Super Bowl.  They were hampered by key injuries, and their outstanding running back in that game (although he committed a key fumble) won't be playing at all for these playoffs.  As for this year's momentum, the Steelers have none really, especially on offense. I think most thinking Steelers fans are hoping that they get by a weaker Denver team, but don't get humiliated in the next round.  Of course, as they say, anything can happen in the playoffs.

The NFL this year does have some teams that are fun to watch, at least theoretically, and all of them have a better chance to move on.  I see the Super Bowl being between either Green Bay or New Orleans and either New England or the boring Baltimore, with San Francisco as a sleeper possibility.  But if I'm forced to choose, I'd say this is New Orleans year.  They've got momentum, a quarterback that's having a record-setting year, a healthy team, and a better defense than Green Bay.  But the best game of the playoffs is apt to be Green Bay v. New Orleans (assuming it happens), in the year of the high-scoring pass offenses.

But every year recently I keep thinking that this one will be the last year I'll be watching.  How much longer can I endure moronic commercial after offensive commercial, surrounding brief moments of millionaires giving each other concussions?  Truth is I haven't watched an entire game in more than a year.  We'll see. Or not.         

Getting Better--and Maybe Getting Healthier

Friday's surprise was the strong employment report, with more jobs created than forecast, and an unemployment rate that was expected to go up instead went down to 8.5%. 

Some 212,000 private sector jobs were added last month, including a healthy increase in manufacturing and even some increase in average wages.  Once again the only sector that lost jobs was government.

Politically it was of course good news for President Obama, especially in rising consumer confidence and spending.  It has reduced his GOPer rivals to obvious lies, which admittedly isn't much of a stretch for them.  There must be something different about conservative GOPer Christianity that encourages lying as well as hatred and cruelty than the brand I learned in Catholic school.  Although it might be different in Catholic school now (both Gingrich and Sanctimonious are Catholic.)

The lie--which was identified by Greg Sargent in the Washington Post and Paul Krugman in the NY Times--is claiming the economy has lost jobs under Obama, by conveniently counting the first few months after their hero GW Bush left the country in the toilet, and before President Obama's policies were enacted, let alone in effect for long enough to show results.  (Krugman also shows what a whopper Romney's claim is that he "created 100,000 jobs.")

They continue to repeat their lies, about big government as well, while government is shedding jobs.  That may also be politically to Obama's advantage, but for the economy and society, it's very bad news.  Jobs are jobs, first of all.  And these are mostly jobs that are necessary for the functioning of this economy and this country.  They are going to wind up costing everyone more in the long run.

There is a paradox in economic growth itself.  It is necessary to put bread on the table for millions of Americans.  But high consumption and wasteful practices also create enormous waste and ruins the environment we depend on for ultimate survival.  But at least some of the current growth is better because it arises from green energy development and manufacturing, and such anti-waste efforts as retrofitting.  Plus despite the government job losses and the criminal failure of Congress to support needed infrastructure construction and repair, there actually is some infrastructure work happening, and construction jobs are up.

The truth is that the Great Recession was so damaging, and so many jobs were lost, that even at the highest levels of growth we've had in the past 20 years or so,  this economy is not going to recover what it lost for years.  That sobering truth is one that the Obama campaign will have to introduce sooner or later.  The global economy is still fragile, and the big shocks from the Climate Crisis have barely begun.  We need to have a sounder, more ecologically responsible economy, and economic justice, because it is unlikely that the kind of prosperity this country squandered and is still squandering will be seen for a long time, if ever again.  That doesn't prevent a spirit of optimism, but optimism in achieving new goals--for a sustainable, resilient economy and society-- as well as again defining old, basic ones, of economic justice and the common good.      

Bending the Arc

President Obama made another bold move on Thursday by announcing a plan to reconfigure the mission of the U.S. military, to downscale, and to slow the increase in the Pentagon budget. 

As Rep. Barney Frank said, this is important more for the change in direction than the extent of the changes.  President Obama made the point that all the Bushwars swelled the military budget and the national debt, and such expenditures aren't sustainable.   

 Romney on the other hand has announced a neocon wet dream of a foreign policy, with threats to expand American military hegemony--while proposing a tax system that has been vetted to show that it will decrease federal revenues at the same time as he proposes to further increase military spending.

President Obama made the announcement at the Pentagon, surrounded by defense department and military leaders.  Though he will be viciously attacked by warmongering GOPers, and some Dems and others will criticize him for not going farther or for taking so long, the presence of those officials testifies to the long process behind the scenes that made this announcement possible.  And once the ship of the huge U.S. military commits to a turn, it turns and keeps turning.

President Obama announced a military budget priority that has seldom if ever received emphasis before:

"We’re also going to keep faith with those who serve, by making sure our troops have the equipment and capabilities they need to succeed, and by prioritizing efforts that focus on wounded warriors, mental health and the well-being of our military families. And as our newest veterans rejoin civilian life, we’ll keep working to give our veterans the care, the benefits and job opportunities that they deserve and that they have earned."

Their True Colors

Automated outrage is unseemly from wherever it originates.  When one of Romney's boys repeated a dumb joke (badly, just like Dad) that included reference to President Obama's birth certificate, it ignited the automated furor, demands that he repudiate the idea, etc.  The kid apologized for repeating a bad joke.  Whatever it says about the Romney family attitude, I doubt he even knew what he was saying.  The reaction seemed disproportionate.

But not to recent statements by Rick Sanctimonius and Gingrich.  Rick was recorded saying,  "I don’t want to make black people’s lives better by giving them somebody else’s money; I want to give them the opportunity to go out and earn the money.”  When he was called on it, he denied saying it.  Here's a link--hear it for yourself.  It's pretty clear he said "black people."

The importance of this is underscored by a statement on Wednesday by Gingrich. "More people are on food stamps today because of Obama’s policies than ever in history....And so I’m prepared, if the NAACP invites me, I’ll go to their convention and talk about why the African-American community should demand paychecks and not be satisfied with food stamps."

This is I believe a key to the entire Rabid Right frenzy of this year.  What they are saying is that in these hard times, black people are being favored with government handouts, which hardworking and hard-pressed white people are paying for in high taxes.  A black President is creating a culture of dependence for black Americans, which is destroying the moral fiber of the country.

It doesn't matter that President Obama talks repeatedly about jobs and providing opportunities for all Americans to "go out and earn the money."  Or his nearly continuous praise for Americans "who work hard and play by the rules," and his emphasis on making it possible for them to earn a middle class life.  Or that any increase in food stamps or other support (including unemployment insurance) has to do with people losing their jobs and losing income, mostly as a result of the economic collapse that was the direct consequence of eight years of Republican mismanagement and misrule, and has no racial component whatever.  Except perhaps that black women are harder hit than other Americans, since they've suffered less discrimination by working in social services, teaching and other jobs that are being cut because the one sector where jobs are still being lost is government jobs.  Not government handouts---government jobs.

So first the facts, as summarized by Think Progress: "The majority of people who participate in the food stamp program, known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), are white. Most of the participants are also either children (who can’t earn a paycheck unless Gingrich gets his way) or seniors who are of retirement age. In 2010, working-women represented only 28 percent of SNAP beneficiaries, and working-age men represented only 17 percent.  What’s more, an increasing number of SNAP beneficiaries actually do have jobs and receive paychecks that are the primary source of their income. Unfortunately, only 15 percent of those incomes are above the poverty line."

This by the way was true in the 1980s and 90s, when Gingrich last pulled this particular trick.  It is on the whole the oldest racist trick in the book, next to all black men are rapists and killers.  It works especially well when lower middle class whites are especially hard-pressed.  There has to be someone to blame, so instead of blaming the 1% for stealing the country's wealth and shipping jobs to slave labor overseas, they are guided by the 1% to blame non-whites. 

I am convinced more than ever that the GOP is deliberately inflaming the lower middle class white anxiety about a black President, and attempting to follow those flames to take over Washington.  It's really all of a piece.  The call for Obama's grades, even the contempt for him because he uses a teleprompter (just like G.W. and everybody else), which are dog whistle appeals to the racist image of blacks as stupid.  Romney's entire campaign is predicated on pushing this: Obama is too dumb to govern, he's screwed it all up.  White people--ALL white people-- are therefore smarter, and the smart white voters should be smart enough to vote for the rich white politicians, who will give enormous tax breaks to their fellow rich white people so that they will provide jobs for their fellow whites of the lower middle class.  So even if some whites are getting food stamps or Social Security or Medicare, well, it's those black hordes who are ruining it by taking unfair advantage.  And Obama naturally is taking care of them, because they voted him in.

This is what all the GOPer presidential candidates are saying, almost without saying it.  Although Rick and Gingrich are coming very close to saying it all out loud.

Meanwhile in Ohio

While the Romney and the anti-Romneys blathered, President Obama acted.  Directly defying the GOPer minority in the Senate that has been using its filibuster power to thwart the will of the majority, President Obama appointed Richard Cordray as head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.  It was a bold use of the recess appointment that has GOPers in a furious tizzy.

President Obama made the announcement and stated his case in Ohio, where Cordray served as a popular attorney general and before that as state treasurer.  After explaining that the only reason Cordray hasn't been confirmed is GOPer attempts to subvert the consumer protection law itself (which no one disputes), and after re-stating his continuing intent to work with GOPers in Congress to do the people's business and accelerate economic recovery, President Obama said:  "But when Congress refuses to act, and as a result, hurts our economy and puts our people at risk, then I have an obligation as President to do what I can without them.  I’ve got an obligation to act on behalf of the American people. And I’m not going to stand by while a minority in the Senate puts party ideology ahead of the people that we were elected to serve. Not with so much at stake, not at this make-or-break moment for middle-class Americans."

It was in many ways a brilliant political move: it puts Cordray in place and gets the work started, which GOPers will have to somehow go to court to stop.  It highlights congressional obstructionism, and challenges GOPers to continue.  The President also made the appointment on a day when the new Congress technically begins, which means that under the law, Cordray can serve until the end of 2013, instead of only a few months--which is what would have happened if the appointment had been made just yesterday.

But the substance of the appointment is the most important.  Cordray's appointment means the law can be fully implemented to protect consumers from fraudelent practices by fly-by-nighters but also by the biggest banks and Wall Street institutions (which have all poured millions into trying to defeat the law.)  It is in essence an action that carries out a fundamental role of government: to set and enforce rules of fairness as well as health and safety. 

President Obama stated the principle simply:  "We cannot allow people to be taken advantage of. And it’s not just because it’s bad for those individuals. All that risky behavior led -- helped to contribute to the economic crisis that we’re all still digging ourselves out of. All those subprime loans, all those foreclosures, all the problems in the housing market -- that’s all contributing to an economy that’s not moving as fast as we want it."

President Obama talked about an older Ohio couple who had been tricked by dishonest lenders and almost lost their house. "They earned the right to retire with dignity and with respect, and they shouldn’t have to worry about being tricked by somebody who's out to make a quick buck. And they need somebody who is going to stand up for them, and millions of Americans need somebody who is going to look out for their interests. And that person is Richard Cordray. 

And we know what would happen if Republicans in Congress were allowed to keep holding Richard’s nomination hostage. More of our loved ones would be tricked into making bad financial decisions. More dishonest lenders could take advantage of some of the most vulnerable families. And the vast majority of financial firms who do the right thing would be undercut by those who don't.

See, most people in the financial services industry do the right thing, but they're at a disadvantage if nobody is enforcing the rules. We can't let that happen. Now is not the time to play politics while people’s livelihoods are at stake. Now is the time to do everything we can to protect consumers, prevent financial crises like the one that we’ve been through from ever happening again. That starts with letting Richard do his job."

The "vast majority" is maybe an overstatement, but the principle of regulation is precise: the function of rules and enforcing them is to put noone who plays by those rules at a competitive disadvantage.  Businesses know that bad practices are ultimately ruinous for everybody--but there has to be government to make sure that the bad guys pay the price, and not the guys who are trying to do the right thing.  This is a logic that nearly everybody understood and accepted, until opposing gubment regulation became a mindless mantra.  It taps into the frustration of anyone who has to deal with impossibly complicated or onerous regulations, administered by cynical incompetents.  The answer is to improve regulations and government administration, not turn the world over to the predatory lawless.

President Obama concluded his Ohio remarks:  "I know that you're hearing a lot of promises from a lot of politicians lately. Today you’re only going to hear one from me. As long as I have the privilege of serving as your President, I promise to do everything I can every day, every minute, every second, to make sure this is a country where hard work and responsibility mean something and everybody can get ahead. Not just those at the very top, not just those who know how to work the system, but everybody."   It is the aspiration of being President of the 100%.

President Obama in Ohio--and in High Def

An Iowa Post-Mittem

Cowboy Rick went jogging and was inspired to stay in the race, surprising his own staff.  Maybe God spoke to him again.  And maybe that Voice was heard by way of the upcoming meeting of self-important preachers in Dallas (Texas, get it?) to decide if they can back a single righteous Christian candidate instead of getting beat all the time by one of them goldurn moderates, like Romney, who is to the right of every Republican who ever ran for President before this year, including himself.  They could still back Cowboy Rick, the only one of the remaining three (with Gingrich and Senator Rick Sanctimonious) who allegedly has money to burn.   Gingrich seems more likely to back Sanctimonious. in such a unified effort, but Cowboy Rick still have this last card to play.  If he doesn't get their clear endorsement, he may hear something else whispered to him on a subsequent jog.

The other Rick, Sanctimonious, got a million bucks in online contributions, which he could easily blow in a week of New Hampshire media.  One of his superpacs has dissolved, the other got more professional help, and the jury is still out on whether he will be more than the latest and maybe last anti-Romney flavor of the month. 

Meanwhile, Romney's showing in Iowa is being interpreted as showing weak appeal among GOPers.  "Independents" who participated in the GOPer caucuses generally were there to vote for Ron St. Paul.   There were actually fewer GOPers participating in this year's caucuses than in 2008, suggesting that not only Romney but the GOPer brand is dazed and confused.

What's happening to GOPerland is instructive to Democrats tempted to indulge in their purism, which no human and certainly no governing President could live up to.  Divided, dispirited, and angry with everybody.  Even the candidates are hopelessly incompetent and narcissistic, dragging everybody down to their own level.  John McCain endorses Romney, who he loathes, because he has a worse grudge against Sanctimonious.  Countering the analysis that an extended messy GOPer campaign for the nom is good for Obama, some pundits suggest that the protracted battles between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton in 2008 wound up strengthening Democrats (registering a ton of new ones, for one thing.)  That's true but the analogy doesn't hold.  GOPer participation is flat or down,  and the Obama-Clinton contests forced both candidates to be sharper on issues, whereas the GOPer race so far has been a contest in who can be the most thoughtlessly outrageous.

The GOP is in a cul de sac--a comfortable upper suburban one for some, a modest Southern suburban one for others--but they are on a street that leads nowhere.  By taking the logic of the post-Civil Rights Act 60s to its logical conclusion, the GOP has become the White Peoples' Party, when the proportion of white people in the voting population is steadily declining.  As evidenced in the states where they won in 2010 as well as in their nom campaign, the GOP has gone all in on Rabid Christian Right attitudes towards reproductive rights and privacy, sexual preference, science in schools as well as the 1% war on the global environment, all of which are on the opposite side of most Americans, especially younger ones.  And finally, even in a progressive state like California,  GOPers are incapable of supporting tax increases to support badly needed functions of government that they as well as everyone else depend on.  That will do them in sooner rather than later.  We might end up with a paralyzed government for another four years.  But in the longer run this GOP is doomed.            

As Scheduled

The Quadratids sounds like the name of a band, or maybe a circus act featuring four child siblings.  But it's actually a meteor shower, with its peak last night--and for once, I saw it.

I saw the most shooting stars between 4:45 and 6 a.m.  Not the 120 an hour that probably were visible from prime locations (view of the whole sky without light) but I saw a couple of dozen here...Some were the usual long thin streaks, some were fatter, shorter and considerably brighter than ordinary shooting stars.  I saw several that covered a fair amount of sky and left a vapor trail.  Most traveled from right to left so to speak, but I saw one spectacular one that shot across left to right high in the sky, long enough to look like a rocket.  There were often two within a few seconds of each other, and once I saw two at the same time!

Mostly it was waiting and looking (I started at around 3, came back in, tried again at 4, etc.) in the cold, at times with a cup of hot tea, listening to Beethoven quartets.  It was an unusually clear night for this time of year.  However our house doesn't offer an ideal view of the north and east, where these comet fragments were coming from.  Our best unobstructed, unlit view is more west and southerly.  So I saw the best ones from a small space outside the toolshed and woodpile.  But at last I've seen enough of a scheduled shower to say I saw it.  It's probably the best I've seen.            

Iowa Promises

In his usual dishonest remarks about President Obama,  Romney cited candidate Obama's surprise victory statement after the Iowa caucuses in 2008 as a litany of promises made and broken.  This video from that statement exactly four years ago proves Romney very very wrong.  The only hope that hasn't yet materialized to some extent is a nation less divided.  That's still to come, and if it comes at all, it will be with President Obama.

Iowa Babble

Having again invested too much time in listening to babble about the Iowa caucuses, I will now as usual compound the error by investing too much time writing--or venting--about them.

Romney eventually won by a handful of votes over Rick Sanctimonius, having scored a handful of votes fewer than he did in 2008 when he came in second to Huckabee, who nearly doubled Romney's vote total that year. Romney got almost exactly the same percentage of the vote: 25%.  He remains Mr. 23%

 The news is the Sanctimonious surge peaked at the right time, and the epic fail of the Cowboy Rick campaign, which may well be over in a matter of days.  The Bachmaniac campaign staff urged her to stop, while hinting darkly that they didn't get Evangelical preachers endorsing them because she is a woman.  So far she is resisting this advice, so if she goes on it will likely be with new or no staff (again) as well as no money.  Update: Bachmaniac dropped out, but Cowboy Rick announced he would stay in, and compete in South Carolina. 

The salient fact for the general election in Iowa was something that the Democratic state chair said on MSNBC, though noone there seemed to have heard it: most of the counties that Romney won are solidly Democratic, which means it is unlikely he will win them in the general.  There were Dem caucuses, ignored by the media because there was no opposition to Barack Obama,  but 25,000 Iowans came out anyway, and reportedly these were enthusiastic events.

The other news that bears on the upcoming New Hampshire primary and the rest of the GOPer nom race is the impression that Gingrich (who finished a weak fourth to Rand Paul's dad) is going to make it a personal mission to destroy Romney.  He started in his own rambling remarks, scoring with the assertion that Romney won't transform Washington but will simply "manage the decay."  Earlier, his Superpac "leaked" that it is preparing an anti-Romney blitz in New Hampshire.

 Judging by Gingrich's complimenting Rick S. (as he did in one of the debates as well), it seems he would have no trouble endorsing him if Rick S. proves resilient beyond Iowa, and Gingrich himself doesn't resurge in the South.  It's also worth remembering that the 2008 GOPer candidates were united by one thing: they all wound up hating Romney.  That may turn out to mean something if it happens again in 2012.

There will likely be a parade of GOPer establishment endorsements of Romney, but the conventional wisdom seems to be that he was wounded by this tiny victory.  So those endorsements may mean less than Cowboy Rick dropping out, especially if he endorses Rick S., and ditto Bachmaniac.  St. Paul doubled his 2008 vote in Iowa, so he goes to New Hampshire with some strength.  As someone on Charlie Rose pointed out, Romney has to win 51% of the delegates in these primaries (all proportional this time) by convention time, and if St. Paul keeps getting 20% and the anti-Romneys (probably down to Sanctimonious and Gingrich) keep getting enough votes to add up to more than 50%, the coronation may have to be postponed.
   

How To Profit From the Coming Apocalypse

Well, it's here: the year 2012, which according to dubious interpretations of Mayan prophesy as well as the X-Files finale, is doomsyear.  Several versions zero in on the Winter Solstice of 2012, so we have nearly a whole year to waste.  Unless you're in California, where the apocalypse comes in September: that's when Amazon starts charging sales tax.

I've long been interested in apocalyptic tales as stories about the future.  In modern literature, H.G. Wells The Time Machine set the standard and defined an aspect of the genre: it's a cautionary tale, a prediction (at least metaphorically) of what the future could be if certain aspects of his present were taken to their logical conclusion.  They also happen to be aspects of our present: the great divide between the wealthy and the workers.  In Wells' tale, the wealthy evolved into the Eloi, a race of silly brainless but beautiful children.  The workers evolved into an entirely different species, the Morlocks, misshapen brutes who lived underground and tended the machines that kept the Eloi ignorantly and blissfully alive--for the sole purpose of serving as the Morlocks' lunchmeat.

These days it's hard to find what we're supposed to be cautionary about in most post-apocalyptic tales, which tend to be the literary equivalent of survivalist fantasies, the fascination of how the last doomed carry on as best they can.  The pall of the Climate Crisis is cast over these stories, but seldom explicitly.  There just isn't the creative energy that produced so many apocalyptic tales (many explicitly cautionary) in the shadow of the thermonuclear arms race in the 1960s.  There hasn't even been an environmental apocalypse to match Soylent Green.   Though it could be argued that the fashion for zombies and vampires indicates an apocalyptic mood.

As for the supposed Mayan apocalypse, it lacks much of a good story at all.  Plus it's so cosmic that it can't be cautionary--there's nothing we can do but wait for it.  The truth will be out there!  But there was one interesting observation in a USA Today review of the Mayan apocalypse literature (such as it is):

 "The buildup to 2012 echoes excitement and fear expressed on the eve of the new millennium, popularly known as Y2K, though on a smaller scale, says Lynn Garrett, senior religion editor at Publishers Weekly. She says publishers seem to be courting readers who believe humanity is creating its own ecological disasters and desperately needs ancient indigenous wisdom."

Well, that's not wrong.  The so-called New Paradigm reflects the Native Paradigm, as science has wandered onto the reservation of taking nature seriously.  There's a lot of guff about indigenous wisdom of course, which the Mayan apocalypse fad exemplifies.  But seeing humanity as a part of nature, of our time as part of time, of all life as related, which were profound axioms of indigenous cultures, can still be the basis of human civilization's salvation, if such is still possible.
    

Happy New Year!