Mark Adams favors us with the first report (that I have seen) on Markos’ antagonist/counterpart, KKKarl Rove.

Rove: Rhymes With Spoofiness by Mark Adams

As Mark points out, KKKarl devotes his first column to Hillary the anti-Christ.

The direct Newsweek link in case you wish to dispense with my and Mark’s editorial, though it might be nice if you slipped him a tip in the jar as you pass through.

Update-

Markos’ new piece is up too.

Make the Bush Record the Issue

^{Absent amnesia-which only happens on soaps-Democrats will be fine.}

I owe this tip to SusanG.

As an Admin, she doesn’t need love but it’s always good for your karma to show respect.

Update 2– She points out in the comments of Mark’s diary that this second piece is the one that’s going in the print version, the original was on-line only

Something extremely fishy is going on in the US-Pakistan negotiations.

The world press is reporting that when Deputy Secretary of State Negroponte visited with Pakistani President Musharraf Saturday, urging Musharraf to ease off the “state of emergency” and schedule elections under acceptable conditions, Musharraf responded with a threat.  Essentially saying, “Nice world you’ve got there, be a shame if anything happened to it,” Musharraf told Negroponte that if the Pakistani Army lost control of the government, nukes could get loose.

This is being reported in The Times of India and the UK Telegraph, for example, as a harsh and decisive rebuke of US interference in Musharraf’s affairs.

However, there is something else going on.  Just as word of this remarkable rebuke by Musharraf comes out, we read in The New York Times a new story.  The United States, under a secret Bush plan, has been helping Pakistan secure its nuclear arsenal for years, with a hidden-budget supply of security equipment.

The fishy thing is that the New York Times has been sitting on this story for three years, at the request of the White House.  But we read this sentence in the New York Times story, now: “Early this week, the White House withdrew its request that publication be withheld, though it was unwilling to discuss details of the program.”

What is going on here?

Why would the White House release a hold on this secret information days before Musharraf’s “unexpected” threat to Negroponte that a non-military controlled Pakistan might be unable to secure its nukes?

Is the White House setting-up a reason, in concert with Musharraf, to sustain the state of emergency in Pakistan?  Or, on the other hand, is this some sort of move and counter-move by two genuinely adversarial parties, with nuclear weapons as the game pieces?

I’ll run through the info.

First, the world press is initially reporting Negroponte’s visit to Pakistan and President Musharraf as a total failure.  Times of India:

Musharraf thumbs his nose at US

17 Nov 2007, 2317 hrs IST,Chidanand Rajghatta,TNN

WASHINGTON: The Bush administration has egg on its face after its long favoured military dictator Pervez Musharraf bluntly rejected its demand that he lift Emergency, and instead put the fear of “loose nukes” into Washington if the west pressed too hard.

Musharraf told Washington’s No.2 diplomat John Negroponte on Saturday that the Emergency is meant to reinforce and strengthen the law enforcement apparatus in the fight against militancy and extremism.

— snip —

The UK Telegraph:

Pervez Musharraf ‘protecting nuclear arsenal’

By Colin Freeman, Chief Foreign Correspondent

Last Updated: 1:25am GMT 18/11/2007

Pakistan’s military ruler defended his iron grip over the country yesterday, saying it was the only way to prevent his nation’s nuclear arsenal from falling into “the wrong hands”.

As he sought to justify continuing the emergency rule that he declared two weeks ago, President Pervez Musharraf raised the nightmare spectre of Islamists getting hold of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons.

— snip —

This seems to be the common interpretation of Negroponte’s visit.  Now, I don’t mean to say that this interpretation is available much in the US press.  I haven’t looked extensively, but in the US press all I see is that Negroponte talked tough but got no concessions.  No mention of the nuclear threat from Musharraf is made.  For example, in a seperate New York Times story, we read, “A Western diplomat declined to provide details on the meeting but said it would take time to determine whether the American message had an impact. “In diplomacy, things don’t happen instantaneously,” said the diplomat, who spoke on condition of anonymity. “He came with a very strong message and he delivered a very strong message.”

This is merely to be expected.  The US press might report on Musharraf’s extravagent demonstration of his nuclear trump card in the face of US pressure, but then again the US press might not.  Neither would be surprising.

What is very surprising is part two of the “2 and 2” I’m putting together, here.

On this same day, The New York Times runs a story they’ve been sitting on for three years, with White House approval.

U.S. Secretly Aids Pakistan in Guarding Nuclear Arms

By DAVID E. SANGER and WILLIAM J. BROAD

Published: November 18, 2007

WASHINGTON, Nov. 17 – Over the past six years, the Bush administration has spent almost $100 million so far on a highly classified program to help Gen. Pervez Musharraf, Pakistan’s president, secure his country’s nuclear weapons, according to current and former senior administration officials.

But with the future of that country’s leadership in doubt, debate is intensifying about whether Washington has done enough to help protect the warheads and laboratories, and whether Pakistan’s reluctance to reveal critical details about its arsenal has undercut the effectiveness of the continuing security effort.

— snip —

The White House is feeding a lot of scary-scary to the New York Times, adding to the power of Musharraf’s threat.  Details of the publication of this information are:

The New York Times has known details of the secret program for more than three years, based on interviews with a range of American officials and nuclear experts, some of whom were concerned that Pakistan’s arsenal remained vulnerable. The newspaper agreed to delay publication of the article after considering a request from the Bush administration, which argued that premature disclosure could hurt the effort to secure the weapons.

— snip —

The Times told the administration last week that it was reopening its examination of the program in light of those disclosures and the current instability in Pakistan. Early this week, the White House withdrew its request that publication be withheld, though it was unwilling to discuss details of the program.

The New York Times story is fairly long; I am still reading through it.  But this coincidence of news events is amazing.  Someone is playing a very troubling game of nuclear gotcha, here, and it’s not immediately clear who is playing with whom: the White House vs. Musharraf, or both, in collusion, against the world.

This is a review of Peter Barnes’ book Capitalism 3.0; Barnes, an eco-entrepreneur from the flowing meadows of northern California (where I got my Master’s degree), still “believes in” capitalism, but offers a number of ideas worthy of consideration to non-capitalists as well, as well as a fairly sketchy version of capitalist history and a theory of the commons that, though sloppy on the details, is worthy of consideration.  Barnes’ book can be regarded as an especially ethical example of a current vogue in thinking: eco-capitalism, and it will here be both praised and critiqued as such.

(Crossposted at Big Orange)

Part One: The Book Review

Book Review: Barnes, Peter.  Capitalism 3.0: A Guide to Reclaiming The Commons.  San Francisco CA: Berrett-Koehler, 2006.

A Siegel asked me a few days ago if I’d read Peter Barnes’ Capitalism 3.0, and since I hadn’t, I decided to read it, since both A Siegel and Peter Barnes appear to be more well-established as environmentalists than I think I am, and since Capitalism 3.0 touches on two subjects very near and dear to my heart, the history of capitalism and the critique of Garrett Hardin’s “tragedy of the commons” concept.  Barnes was also a president of Working Assets, my phone company.

The summary of Capitalism 3.0 is Robert Costanza’s review of this book in Nature is apropos:

He (Barnes) argues that the previous (1.0) and current (2.0) versions of capitalism that evolved up to the twentieth century, under conditions that no longer hold, are in serious need of an operating system upgrade.  Version 3.0 must address the conditions and problems we face now.  Barnes fully recognizes the benefits of capitalism, and does not recommend replacing it wholesale with something completely different.  But he also recognizes the major flaws in version 2.0, and describes some of the features that will be needed in version 3.0 to fix them. (673)

Now, I have pretty much gone on record as claiming that we ought to be looking at non-capitalist alternatives for the future, as I don’t see more capitalism arising from the future of capitalist history.  But this is the most innocuous defense of a “new form of capitalism” that I’ve seen yet, acknowledging the weaknesses of the current system and proposing alternatives to what “we” are doing now.

The body of this book is expressed in three parts.  Part One, “the problem,” offers us a “short history of capitalism,” and then gives us two chapters on government and privatization to suggest that his alternative involves neither.

“Part Two” is four chapters that suggest a wholesale reorganization of society; the meat of Capitalism 3.0.  Chapter 5 is about creating a “commons sector”; Chapter 6 is about creating trusts to hold power over the commons,” Chapter 7 is about leveling the playing field as regards life-opportunities; Chapter 8 is about culture.  The rest of the book, “Part Three,” is about what we can do to make Capitalism 3.0 possible.

Part Two: Barnes’ take on capitalist history

Capitalism 3.0 is based on the suggestion that there have been (so far) two stages of capitalism.  The first stage is what Barnes calls “shortage capitalism,” in which the reality was of scarcity.  That was Capitalism 1.0.  After 1950, Barnes tells us, we had “surplus capitalism,” Capitalism 2.0, in which an excess of goods and an excess of needs were produced, at great cost to the environment.  The environmental damage done by Capitalism 2.0 is the reason we need Capitalism 3.0.

Barnes’ notion of capitalist history is provincially US-centered.  Today’s “surplus capitalism” still doesn’t (and never did) grant the bottom half of the world’s income-earners a living beyond maybe $2/day.

The notion of “scarcity capitalism” appears as a sort of contradiction of the notion of capitalism that Barnes promotes in the Preface:

In retrospect, I realized the question I’d been asking since early adulthood was: Is capitalism a brilliant solution to the problem of scarcity, or is it itself modernity’s central problem?  The question has many layers, but of each layer led me to the same verdict.  Although capitalism started as a brilliant solution, it has become the central problem of our day.  It was right for its time, but times have changed.  (xii)

If capitalism was a brilliant solution to the problem of scarcity from the get-go, then what is “scarcity capitalism” about?  Might we better argue that it was the advent of “Capitalism 2.0” (and not 1.0) that solved the problem of “scarcity,” at least from the US viewpoint?

Now, I have no problem with the notion of Keynesian populism, if promoted as a transitional phase toward some version of ecosocialism; this is probably what Bolivia under Evo Morales is about.  But in depicting it as “Capitalism 2.0,” Barnes’ history dissolves in a muddle.  In the preface, Barnes says:

Part I focuses on our current operating system, a version I call Capitalism 2.0.  (Capitalism 1.0 died around 1950, as I’ll explain in chapter 2.).  I show how this system devours nature, widens inequality, and makes us unhappy in the process. (xiv)

With this concept of “Capitalism 2.0”, Barnes conflates the period of populist Keynesianism before 1973, in which America’s middle class was growing, and the period of neoliberalism after 1973, in which it was shrinking.  I think, however, that we do well to keep them analytically distinct, as many people in America would still like a return to populist Keynesianism while disdaining neoliberalism.

Barnes is on more interesting, though also contradictory, ground, when discussing his proposed solution to abrupt climate change.  Barnes wishes to get government to grant power to trusts, who will auction off CO2 pollution rights to highest bidders; the proceeds will then be granted equally to members of the public.

The plan seems to hinge on the notion that government’s proper role is to “assign common property rights to trustworthy guardians who will” manage the commons.  (47)    The solution is described on p. 91:

• The pollutees (including future generations) are collectively represented by trusts.
• The initial pollution rights are assigned by government to these trusts.
• In deciding how many pollution permits to sell, the trustees’ duty isn’t to maximize revenue but to preserve an ecosystem for future generations.  The trustees therefore establish safe levels of pollution and gradually reduce the number of permits they sell until those levels are reached.  (91)

Barnes has some trouble here with the idea of “assigning” things.  Governments do indeed “assign” property rights in the sense he suggests, as waivers of general laws against pollution, but insofar as that symbolic game is at all meaningful, governments enforce such rights.  Barnes thinks, moreover, that he himself can assign “to preserve an ecosystem” as the role and duty of trustees.  Will the trustees of his system actually preserve ecosystems?  Maybe they will just “fake it,” or maybe they will be overwhelmed by circumstances beyond their control.  C’est possible?  Barnes thinks nonprofits should be empowered to bring the trusts to court if they neglect their duties; but, then, which way will the courts rule?  And will the nonprofits be sufficiently vigilant?

My point is that Barnes wants to put in all kinds of barriers to the politicization of the system of trusts in ways he hopes will protect the environment; granting the trustees lifetime terms in office for instance.  But in the end there’s really no escape, and government power will have to save the day for Mother Earth.  (Actually, I think the problem is too complex even for governments; the people-as-a-whole will have to learn how to live in a sustainable fashion.)  Barnes has just spent chapter 3 complaining that government has usually been in the domain of corporate control – but if his ideas are to actually happen, there would have to be some great degree of social consensus behind environmental protection.  If this consensus were to exist for the sake of doing something effective about abrupt climate change, in fact, it would have to marshal itself against activities that we today consider normal; idling cars in traffic jams, for instance.  Do remember the warning given in the Monthly Review:

The truth is that addressing the global warming threat to any appreciable degree would require at the very least a chipping away at the base of the system. The scientific consensus on global warming suggests that what is needed is a 60-80 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions below 1990 levels in the next few decades in order to avoid catastrophic environmental effects by the end of this century-if not sooner. The threatening nature of such reductions for capitalist economies is apparent in the rather hopeless state at present of the Kyoto Protocol, which required the rich industrial countries to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by an average of 5.2 percent below 1990 levels by 2008-2012. The United States, which had steadily increased its carbon dioxide emissions since 1990 despite its repeated promises to limit its emissions, pulled out of the Kyoto Protocol in 2001 on the grounds that it was too costly. Yet, the Kyoto Protocol was never meant to be anything but the first, small, in itself totally inadequate step to curtail emissions. The really big cuts were to follow.

In creating his “Capitalism 3.0” framework Barnes is especially sensitive to the history of the commons, that area of “common ownership” outside of the sphere of private ownership demarcated by the term “real estate.”  The framework he chooses follows the economics of Ronald Coase, who thought the commons could be “privatized” — but “privatization” in this context merely means assigning rights within the commons so as to protect it.  And  there are all sorts of other commons protections in Barnes’ plan.  Chapter 7 suggests a series of “universal birthrights” – common inheritances for future generations – that will line up government power behind a series of rights that would greatly enable “equal opportunity” for future generations.  Single-payer health insurance is one of them.  Chapter 8 argues for a number of measures to strengthen the commons: taxes on copyright use, for instance.

Much of what Barnes has in mind is greatly appealing, and could be used effectively, I reason, as preliminary steps toward – socialism!  The most important thing about the notion of the commons is that with social order that grants a stake to everyone, allegiance to common interests can be aligned – most importantly, the common interest in environmental sustainability, in a future with an ecosystem robust enough for survival.  Capitalist societies develop a sense of community, as well; but capitalist community tends to be a shallow source of real power — what really counts, under capitalism, are contracts between individuals, or class interests.  The future world-society will need a form of social power to be exercised for the sake of everybody, and is best nurtured by a society in which everyone has a stake.

Part 3: What do you say to those caught up in capitalism?

Barnes tells the capitalists: “give up some of your excess takings now, and the rest when you die” and “if fellow citizens ask for an upgrade” to Capitalism 3.0, “don’t fight them.” (158)  I’d probably say that, too.  Is there a better thing to say to the capitalists?  I’m looking for an “in” within a system in which most people have little power to do much of anything.

Barnes’ heroes of the present day are, ultimately, what he calls the “commons entrepreneurs.”  Here are his words of praise for them:

A commons entrepreneur, like a private entrepreneur, is a visionary, a catalyst, a starter.  You see a need that isn’t being met, and a way to meet it.  You bring people together, come up with a plan, and make it happen.  (158)

What private entrepreneurs do, really, is match “effective demand” (i.e. consumers with money) to a product for sale – but never mind.  Barnes continues:

Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn’t.  The difference is, a commons entrepreneur doesn’t get stock.  You’re motivated by a different force, a desire to give back.  You aren’t selfless; you enjoy success, recognition, and even money.  But on balance, your desire to contribute to shared wealth outweighs your desire to accumulate private wealth.  Accordingly, you choose the commons over the corporate sector.  (158)

How is being a “commons entrepreneur” supposed to work?

As a commons entrepreneur, your work is more difficult than your corporate counterpart’s.  That’s because you’re treading in uncharted waters.  The commons you seek to protect will probably lack property rights, and getting them can take years or decades.  In fact, rounding up property rights will frequently be the first thing you do.  That’s in addition to rounding up money, which is tough enough.  (160)

Now, this is vague enough to be anything, which is probably as it should be.  “The commons,” here, is any commonly-held asset, and “property rights” are rights to use it.  This is metaphoric language, rich and versatile.  One could, for instance, imagine Che Guevara as a commons entrepreneur, whose commons was the ability of the people to rise up and declare themselves the owners of their labor-time, and whose property rights were to be asserted via revolution.  (Now, let’s not get into a shouting match about Che — the example is meant to show how versatile Barnes’ concept is.)

Last part: CONCLUSION

Barnes expects a capitalist system where “private corporations and organized commons enhance and constrain each other” and where “the state maintains a level playing field.”  (77)  One of the main arguments against capitalism given in Saral Sarkar’s “Eco-socialism or eco-capitalism?” is that, if the capitalist system is to be brought in line with the requirements of ecological sustainability, either enormous (nigh, impossible) increases in efficiency must be invented from whole cloth, or there needs to be a contraction of the capitalist system itself.  Saral Sarkar says this about the possibility of the latter:

Planning would be absolutely necessary in the transition period to ensure an orderly retreat from growing, capitalistic economies.  Only through a planned retreat would it be possible to absorb the strong negative impacts of the destruction of capital to prevent mass unemployment, and so to avert the danger of the economy and society collapsing into chaos, war, and civil war. (179)

So if we are to establish Barnes’ level playing field, government will have to push corporate interests back to a point where the capitalist economy will become sustainable, while at the same time assuring the public a minimum of human necessities.  This will have to be accomplished by maintaining power while going directly against the tendency of capitalist economy to grow.  I don’t, frankly, see how it can be done unless some sort of ecosocialism, if even just temporary, is allowed to flourish.  Since such an event is universally regarded as “unrealistic,” I suppose the next disaster will have to decide things for us, by which time it may be too late.  For capitalism, or “Capitalism 2.0” in Barnes’ jargon, is the Faustian bargain the privileged have struck with the devil of ecological disintegration.

(If we could figure out how to make them notice us doing this and how to make sure they interpret it correctly……….. – promoted by buhdydharma )

[originally at DKOS]

Is this site dedicated to electing Democrats, or Democrats in Name Only (DINOs)?  If the latter, congratulations.  Mission accomplished.

Apparently, The Great Satan himself is incredulous at his own handiwork:

If Reid and Pelosi stand firm [insert laughs] they will finally fulfill one of their key 2006 campaign promises, proving they have the courage to stand tough for what they believe, while giving the vast majority of the American people what they want.

   If they yield [more laughter] they will reinforce perceptions of Democratic weakness. Worse, they will be siding with an unpopular president and an unpopular Republican Party over an unpopular war, and their own popularity will suffer as a result.

   The options to those of us outside of the Beltway are so obvious it’s truly unfathomable that we are still left wondering which path the Democrats will take.

Ahem.  And excuse me.  First, off, Democrats have done NOTHING, except enable Bush.  That is something, but it is a negative something, so it’s worse than nothing.  Their popularity and approval ratings are indeed in the toilet.  However, I strenuously object to the idea that the behavior of Democrats is unfathomable.

Before we try to fathom the core problem, let me share this atrocious piece of advice written prior to the 2006 elections.  Please swallow any liquids completely before reading this:

Finally, and most importantly, all of these problems go away as soon as we win. We’d be able to write the bills, we’d have a party leader/leaders who can set the agenda, and we wouldn’t rely on Republicans to do actual governing. Of course, given the criticality of winning, that means that decisions should be made with an eye on ’06 and ’08. We should be more understanding of efforts to choose fights that are politically popular and be quieter on politically unpopular fights. We should be more understanding of efforts to put the best candidates in the best races and with the best chances. And, we should understand that Democrats may not say or do everything we want because it may not be helpful to the cause of winning.

I urge you not to bash your brains out, pluck out your eyes from their sockets, or commit ritualistic forms of suicide, however honorable, and however impeccable the etiquette.  Yes, it is true you voted for Democrats in 2006, and you now rightly feel responsibility for their actions in furtherance of the Bush agenda of mayhem, law-breaking, and genocide.  However, in that atrocious and hilarious passage above resides one half-truth and one untruth that are critical to fathoming, and controlling Democrats.  The untruth is obviously this bit of comedy gold:

Finally, and most importantly, all of these problems go away as soon as we win.

Again, I urge you not to kill yourselves yet, because the kicker is in the half-truth, which goes something like this:

Given the criticality of winning, would you dirty unwashed masses who represent our base, Please, shut the fuck up!  We are playing it safe here ONLY TO WIN SEATS, and your criticisms are distracting and detrimental to our effort.  We ignore you only for the purpose of WINNING SEATS.

Implicit in this half-truth (we are playing it safe only in order to win seats), is the obvious untruth (all problems go away as soon as we win).  In other words, give us your vote unconditionally now, and we will repay in kind once we gain our seats of power.  In other words, the base has to be complicit in order for this “playing it safe” strategy to work.

I urge you not to castrate yourselves.

Pols care about one thing only: their seats of power.  They know those seats of power depend on you, but they don’t want you to truly realize the implications of that, because if you did, you would also realize that we don’t need “better Democrats” at some time in the future.  We would have better Democrats now.

Their Only Goal is Seats.

Here is an excerpt from a diary that made a lot of sense in this regard:

The Main Goal – SEATS it is the only thing that matters. Don’t let anyone tell you differently.  Seats are power to wield policy. Seats in congress gives control on all legislation. It essentially leaves the minority powerless except for procedural moves and a lot of public complaining. The White House seat is the second pillar. It can stop congress from doing just about everything. Seats on the court can force states to do even what they do not want to do. These seats truly are the viewed as the most powerful in the land. The main goal NEVER, NEVER changes. Both parties are all about Seats. It may look like it is being set aside for a time but it always business and business means gaining and holding seats

Got it?  They couldn’t care less about your bank accounts, health care, family, jobs, social security, or educations, much less you’re your opinions, demands, philosophies, morals, beggings, pleadings, and hopes.  They don’t give a rip about environmental collapse, wars, natural disasters, epidemics, or even national security for that matter.  Social justice?  Oh my, no.  They wouldn’t lift a finger to save a million Iraqis.  In fact, they actually voted to kill them, because that was politically “safe.”  Nuclear war?  Bring it on, they’ll say casually.  They will say or do anything that keeps them in their seats of power.

The diarist goes on to explain the complicity of the base in this sad state of affairs that arises from allowing Democrats to “play it safe.”

There on basically 5 electorate blocks for DC politicians. Far Right, Center Right, Center, Left Center, Far Left. They only work to get the center.  Under the current political landscape only the center matters. As far as the DC believes the left will always vote DEM. The Right will always vote GOP. Basically because they have no other alternate. They can get as mad as they want but they will still vote the same.  The center however is viewed as really tough. They are perceived as HUGE (I’ve heard numbers as high as (20-30%). They rarely vote except in major elections.

So, here’s a made-up distribution of voters.  To the far left are leftists in blue, to the far right are wingnuts in red.  The leftist vote is taken for completely for granted.  The wingnut vote is not attainable.  This leaves the Democrats free to pander to the center, perhaps even a little right of center.  The exact width and placement of the Pandering Zone depends primarily on much they can take for granted, how much you let them pander to the center, and even right of center, and let them get away with it.

Again, as long as the base gives Democrats their votes unconditionally, Democrats are free to pander to the center, even center-right, and win their SEATS OF POWER, because don’t forget, their intentions are honorable:

Finally, and most importantly, all of these problems go away as soon as we win.

Right.  In fact, as soon as we won, our problems simply got “unfathomably” worse.  We have party leaders setting the agenda alright, instructing the Democrats to specifically obstruct you and enable Bush, all for one reason, and one reason only: they want more Seats of Power, Precious.  Suffering under Bush is great for gaining seats.  The status quo is good, but enabling Bush is even better.  And there is not a goddamned thing you can do about, because you are going to vote for them no matter what.  There is nothing unfathomable about Democrats.  Here is what is unfathomable:  

Democrats will let Bush illegally tap your private communications, and still you’ll vote for Democrats. Democrats will give Bush another $50 billion to continue the genocide, and still you’ll vote for Democrats.  They will let Bush shit in your bed, have Cheney shoot you in the face, destroy the economy, and start a war with Iran, and still you’ll vote for Democrats.

Democrats frustrate and obstruct you while enabling Bush because it makes the center, and even the center-right, that much more uncomfortable with Bush and the GOP, which is great for Democrats in 2008.  They will use that discomfort to pander as far right as you let them.

Now, imagine what would happen to their pandering zone if your vote [insert laughs] were actually conditioned on the actual behavior and results of Democrats now in power.  For example, if Democrats don’t set a deadline in Iraq, they lose my support.  That would look something like this:

If supporting began calving off the tail-end of the glacier of support for Democrats, probably not much would happen, because the tail of the distribution is small, negligible really.  If just a few of us calve off, it probably won’t affect the pandering zone significantly.  But what if the base began calving off the glacier at unprecedented and alarming rates?

That would be an inconvenient truth demanding action.  If huge chunks of the base began calving, you would notice a sudden leftward shift in the Pandering Zone.  Concrete action would be taken to stave off the  losses.

Either you threaten to throw them out on their asses in 2008 if they do NOTHING (and you must be able to carry through with your threat), or they will blow you off just like they are blowing you off now.  Right now, they are riding high on the mindless support of the suffering nation generally and the netroots specifically.  They are banking on your unconditional love, and they are laughing all the way to the bank.

Don’t be left wondering which path the Democrats take.  Tell them now.  Begging and hoping are not bargaining chips.  If they lose half their base before the election, you can bet things will start getting done now.

Republicans Democrats said there were appalled by Sen. Chuck SchumerCompound F’s comment, reported by The Associated Press on Thursday, that the Bush administration Democrats wouldn’t get a “free lunch.”

…”We need to do more than say to the Iraqis Democrats that our patience has run out and that they need to seize the opportunity that has been given them,” said Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich. Compound F.  “Their dawdling will only end when they have no choice.”

In my book, Democrats have no choice but to deliver now.

Since I am sluggy today and a bit dreamy, I thought I thought I would indulge in a bit of fantasy and share a few men whom I wish were bringing tea and soup. Of course, I have my little “on line crushes” how one can engage in politics without a bit of harmless flirtation is is beyond me.

Although my husband is always number one, he won’t openly admit who secretly thrills him. He isn’t the type to ogle. I suspect he pines a bit for Isabella Rosselini which only confirms that he has good taste, even though I bear absolutely NO resemblance to her.

A few men I might share a sand which with…..

I have a weakness for sexy accents, soulful eyes, good manners, and an air of mystery…

A bit of blues to chase away the “I have a cold blues”….

Who do you want to share a sand which with???????

Please don’t rec pony party, hang out chit chat and then go read the wonderful stuff on our rec’d and recent lists….

A provision of the UCC, as a point of illustration, not necessarily an expression of the governing law in this case (this is not a contract for goods):

Unless otherwise unambiguously indicated by the language of the offer or the circumstances:

An offer to make a contract invites acceptance in any manner and by any medium reasonable under the circumstances. . . .  a definite and seasonable expression of acceptance may . . . create a binding obligation . . .

It has been reported that T. Boone Pickens made this offer:

Texas oilman T. Boone Pickens' offer of $1 million to anyone who can disprove even a single charge of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.

Presuming Pickens did make such an offer to “anyone,” his response to John Kerry's acceptance of Pickens' offer seems at material variance to Pickens' original offer. You see, Pickens now is demanding:

Pickens wrote Friday in a letter faxed to Kerry, “I am certainly open to your challenge,” but he said he would not pay Kerry unless the senator first provided him with copies of his wartime journals, as well as movies he shot while on patrol and his complete military records for 1971 to 1978.

Obviously only John Kerry could provide such documents. But Pickens' offer was to “anyone.” I believe that Pickens has now made John Kerry a second offer for $1 million.

It would be interesting if Kerry also accepted Pickens' second offer. One would expect that Pickens will welch on that one too of course. But it would be fun to watch him squirm.