Work tidbit

If you've ever watched TV with the closed-captioning on, you know it's, um, inexact. Part of my job is researching local-tv coverage for big Fortune 500 clients, which sometimes requires deciphering captioning like this:

well, it's a theft investigation that stretches from California to Texas. a woman used Craig's list to sell her weri she claims ria man in league city ripped her off. now she is without herrings and the money she need to pay for medical bills. wendell edwards has the story.

Yes, Wendell, please tell all... I wish I could pay my medical bills with herrings.

Feeling anti-political

It's been a long campaign -- too long -- and at least it ended well for us as progressives. I'm not at all convinced that Obama will be anything other than a traditional bipartisan security-state curator. As liberal as he may be in his own views, he's unlikely to implement revolutionary environmental laws, bring us national health care, return the powers usurped by the Bush junta, or end government wiretapping of its citizens. The K Street lobbyists are firing their Republicans and bringing in Democratic whores, but they're not changing clients. And the military-industrial complex isn't going to give up their cloaks and daggers. Obama may close Guantanamo and end torture, but I don't see that he's going to make any real move left. We've traded in a nutball for a competent centrist, and I'm sure lots of people will be satisfied with that. I'm not.

Obama is a far shrewder political operator than anyone gave him credit for before the election. His disciplined campaign reflected the ultra-disciplined man at the top, who has almost unparalleled management and political skills. While Bill Clinton was a master at reaching voters, I think Obama is a master organizer as well. He's a political chess-player, seeing several moves ahead. He's already made a lieutenant out of Joe Lieberman, and he's flirting with Hillary Clinton as his Secretary of State. She either kneels before him, or he ruins her by vetting her into retirement. Taken together, these moves show he's basically installing into power the foreign-policy philosophy he ran against as a candidate. So all that talk about change? Good-bye to all that, perhaps.

Well, what do I care? He won't be Bush, and maybe that's all we can ask for. We don't get to run the government; we only get to choose which flavor of acceptable moderate the two major parties and their billionaire backers offer unto us. It's like choosing between milk chocolate and dark chocolate. One can pop a vein debating the relative merits, but you're just fucked if you like strawberry.

My wife and I are expecting a child a month from now, and I'm sure that will be my focus over the next few years. Meanwhile, I've come to believe that little great change comes from the government. Real change happens with the people, and when after the people change, the government must follow suit. Civil rights, social security, the environmental movement, worker protections: These things happened because people demanded them, not because elected leaders proposed them.

Sometimes political leaders can accelerate the timetable (Lyndon Johnson and civil rights) and at other times they can delay the inevitable (Bush & Co. and alternative energy), but they're trailing indicators of public opinion. That's why climate change has to be addressed, regardless of which party is in control, and that's why health care has to be tackled at some point. But expect semi-effective half-measures; what government comes up with will ultimately be disappointing because it won't be nearly revolutionary enough to actually solve a problem.

The Future of the Republican Party

Although it may seem like an oxymoron at this point in time, there actually must be some sort of future for the Republican Party in the United States. Having failed in every respect in this election (with the sole exception of the anti-gay-marriage ballot initiatives, which have now taken hold in 30 states total), the GOP must now go through purgatory.

People often take the word to be synonymous with "banishment", but purgatory also carries with it the idea of purification or transformation. For Republicans, many of their partisans are currently in denial and refuse to admit the depth of their own rot, but their intellectual leadership (such as it is) -- including Peggy Noonan, George Will, David Frum et. al. -- have already incurred the wrath of the hard-core faithful by beginning the self-exam. Interestingly, Andrew Sullivan has been beating this drum for years now, but he was written off as a crank by many. It turns out, he was entirely right.

Perhaps a die-hard progressive like me ought not help Republicans find their way out of the wilderness by offering them my suggestions, but I'm not deluding myself into thinking they're trolling my blog anyhow. But I do think it's important to have two vital, positive parties to contend for power, in order to prevent corruption and promote progress. So between you and me, here are my observations:

1) The Republican Party cannot win national elections again until they "walk the walk" of racial inclusiveness. Perhaps the one thing that George Bush "gets" that the rest of his party hasn't caught on to is that the Republican Party's traditional message of self-reliance, small government and opportunity can be very appealing to the growing Latino community in the United States. But they simply won't vote for a party that harbors the likes to Tom Tancredo, George "macaca" Allen, or Good ol' boys like Trent Lott. Two years ago, Corker won the Senate seat in Tennessee with a campaign which used a lot of coded racial messages to defeat Harold Ford, Jr. That might work as a local tactic in a single election, but as a strategy for a national party, it's bankrupt. For every vote it won for Corker, that approach turned off dozens of other voters elsewhere. The world of under-40 voters does not tolerate racism as an electoral strategy. The future is multi-ethnic diversity. The GOP had better get used to it; embracing this reality isn't optional.

2) The jury's in on Global Warming, and the Republicans were wrong. The next generation of Republican leaders can't hope to win nationally by flying in the face of the preponderance of scientific evidence. It's like denying evolution: Simply not a tenable position for a party aspiring to majority status. As with race, there is a generational shift regarding the environment. 21st Century conservatism MUST offer a philosophy which embraces the goals of the environmental movement and must offer an alternative vision of how to achieve those goals. The kids are green -- it's not a fad, it's a deep cultural shift.

3) The Republican Party needs to become more honest. I know that's like asking a leopard to change its spots, but the GOP has gone past the point of self-serving spinning to the point where they've convinced themselves they can sell wholesale fictions to the American people. Over time, a party simply can't do that. These things only work in the short term, but "the truth will out." Some of the baldest lies: Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, and we know where they are; Iraq was involved in 9/11; Oil will pay for the war; Global Warming's a hoax; Republicans don't rig elections or suppress votes; The fundamentals of the economy are strong; Wealth trickles down; etc.

4) Respect the Constitution, and constitutional rights.

So how do these things translate to policy goals? Present realistic plans to actually cut carbon emissions. Recruit more non-white candates, and repudiate the confederate flag as anti-American. Apologize for the Katrina response (and for putting Karl Rove in charge of the reconstruction). Make a visible campaign against racism, using party money. Push sensible immigration reform which doesn't vilify and alienate millions of Latino voters. No more unfettered spying on Americans' lives.

It will take the party a while, but eventually Republicans will have to bend to reality, or suffer another 40-year minority.

Dancing in the Streets

It's a term you've heard a thousand times, but sometimes, it really does happen.

Congratulations Ann Arbor... You've waited a long time.

A great point, well-put

From the BBC News blog "Justin Webb's America"

Looking at the McCain crowd in Arizona, you realise that the Republican party is in trouble. To base a party on white and elderly and socially conservative people is to base a party on a dwindling electoral resource. To manage to lose Hispanic people, as McCain appears to have done, is beyond careless. The Republicans will find someone to gather a new coalition together but it will not be Sarah Palin.

I've been trying to say that, but have not put it nearly so well.

Where we're at

So, it's 24 hours until America votes -- that is, except for the 30-odd million who have apparently already voted in an avalanche of early voting.

I'm currently listening to Sarah Palin address a crowd in Jefferson City, MO., and say, with no apparent sense of irony, that Barack Obama is untested, unready to lead, and an unknown quantity who can't be trusted. This, coming from a woman who Americans had not heard of as of the 4th of July. This, coming from a woman who made her national political debut during the same season of NFL football currently unfolding before us, and who has not yet been able to count a single vote in any precinct outside the state of Alaska. And this Neiman-Marcus-wearing hockey mom is telling the crowd that Obama isn't who he says he is? Ahem. Yes, well...

I'm listening her tell a ravening crowd how excited she is about their plans to mine, baby, mine for coal and drill, baby, drill for oil and natural gas right here in the United States, and they love this idea like few others they've ever heard. They're just out of their minds with delight about the prospects of thousands of wells in our national forests and parks, dotting our coastlines and fouling our waters. This, despite the emerging international consensus that these are exactly the sources of energy we need to migrate away from in a wholesale national movement. The jury's in on Global Warming, but she's as oblivious of the verdict as that other fine Alaskan, Ted Stevens, is of his own conviction. Apparently, such facts cannot stand in the way of the Red Meat Express.

People talk about her as a candidate for 2012. As a proponent of the record of John McCain, I must concede that she's somewhat effective. Not only does she excite the GOP base with aplomb, but she's certainly a talented cantor of her talking points. She speaks with assurance and makes the appropriate flourishes.

But imagining her running against an incumbent Obama in four years requires her to overcome the challenges of winning a Republican primary: This means building an effective national campaign organization, campaigning coast-to-coast and defeating a slate of talented campaigners who will have a lot more experience and in many cases more political savvy than she has. She would then have to face Obama without the fig leaf of McCain's experience to protect her. Unable to argue that he's inexperienced (after his 4 years in office), presumably unable to make hay of his associations with Bill Ayers, his preacher or anyone else from his past, having to defend her own picayune ethical transgressions as mayor of Alaska, and on the wrong side of Global Warming (and evolution), she'd have a steep hill to climb. To put it mildly.

The point which seems to be lost on so many is that she's not the Veep candidate through any real merit of her own, but because the guy at the top of the ticket took a shine to her. She hasn't WON anything, and if her current ticket goes down to spectacular defeat, the appetite for her might be somewhat suppressed. No, it seems more likely to me we'll see Palin in the Senate, if anywhere.

Anyhow, it's the silly season, and Sarah Palin is indisputably its Queen.

Get out and vote, folks.

The Thing Forgotten

Politicians are inherently reactive creatures. In the mean, they must respond to the will of the voter, or they shall quickly forfeit their office. It does not matter whether an individual official bends to the will of the voter; If he does not, his replacement will. In the long view, political leadership will mold to the views of the electorate.

Presidents are particularly reactive creatures. They may arrive in office with the thought that they will implement a bold proactive agenda. But Presidents have responsibilities, and they inevitably find themselves forced to react to events, and spend the greatest part of their time engaged with issues they did not anticipate. In the end, they almost always must settle for implementing some rump of their plans -- and that is almost always the part of their agenda most amenable to the polity at large.

The philosophy of a president can be deeply influential. But rather than helping to drive an agenda, it serves most often in helping to shape his response to events. It emerges from a long series of decisions -- some large, some small -- which are then judged by the people as a whole. The effects of this philosophy are weighed, both consciously and unconsciously, by voters, and that may influence future votes. And a President has an unrivaled platfrom from which he can attempt to influence the values and philosophy of observers with his words. Thus, Roosevelt left a legacy within the federal bureaucracy and judiciary, but he also left a legacy within the electorate, and deeply shaped the philosophies of a generation. The same can be said of Reagan.

Politics, then, is a Darwinian game. You can be a paragon of princple if you like, but if that principle is unpopular, your time in the sun will be very short. And that is as it should be.

For a healthy political system, it is absolutely necessary to have adversaries, and necessary for the widest range of opinions to be represented, at least among candidates standing for office. Even candidates who have no chance of winning are important to the process because they can become significant to the outcome of some election. They can influence by offering contrast. Even with just a small fraction of the electorate behind them, they can become forces to be reckoned with. The major political party who suffers most at their hands is forced to incorporate some aspect of the minor party's philosophy, in order to absorb some of their supporters. This is the true role of politicians like Ralph Nader or Ron Paul. Even Nader's gruff and unpolished exterior is a meme in this Darwinian battle, if only as a reminder of what it sounds like when a man tells you what he really thinks.

What Al Gore realized was that by not being president, an individual is able to focus much more intently on changing the ecosystem in which political creatures must live. Unhampered by the burdens of the Presidential office -- and maybe more importantly, now unhampered by such ambitions -- he is able to focus on a proactive agenda, and he has been astonishingly successful (though not soldiering alone). Gore realized that once you change societal awareness and opinion on an issue, you have moved the ground beneath the feet of the politicians.

We now have an election where the presidential candidates of both parties acknowledge that Global Warming is real, is man-made, and must be addressed. Both of them are dealing with the issue far more realistically than either candidate did four years ago. That's because there has been a sea change in the electorate. A different electorate would have produced -- in fact, did produce -- different candidates. Denial of the reality of global warming, which was considered a respectable political position within the last decade, is now virtually an impossible position for a national candidate.

If the Republicans had offered a candidate identical to John McCain in every respect, but who denied the reality of Global Warming, he might be behind by 20 or 25 points in the polls, rather than 7 or 10. It's a non-issue in this campaign mostly because there isn't a gulf between the candidates on the topic, and their prescriptions are quite similar. As soon as this election sweeps away the last vestiges of the Republican political ascendancy which obstructed action on global warming, concrete policy changes will ensue. When Republicans return to power in the U.S. in the future, it will be as a party which has accepted the reality of climate change.

Policy battles aren't the same as political battles, and politicians are only one influcene on the opinions of the electorate. Political battles are over which people have actual power. Policy battles are essentially cultural: Leaders must make their case to the people, and win their support. Leaders influence the basic beliefs and values of a society.

So, amid our present obsession with partisan electoral politics, the thing forgotten is this: THESE LEADERS NEED NOT BE POLITICIANS. Indeed, very, very few politicians are actually influential on the thinking of the people, and few real leaders hold political office. Once the electorate embraces a certain vision of the way things must be, the politicians will follow. Because they are inherently reactive creatures.

Say it ain't so, Joe!

So, maybe I missed this tidbit the first time around... But how fitting is it that "Joe the Plumber" isn't really a plumber. And he isn't really named Joe.

Could anyone sum up the outrageous state of modern politics more symbolically than that? It's ridiculous. It's a cultural problem. The political class, of both parties, has gotten so accustomed to blowing smoke up our asses that I guess nobody's really surprised that this guy is -- well, not quite a fraud, perhaps -- but he is certainly not what he seemed.

This is another symptom of my criticism that Sarah Palin is the ultimate post-modern candidate. The same people who unveiled Palin as though they were launching a product were also responsible for the invention of Joe the Plumber.

Then, we find out that the McCain volunteer who claimed she was assaulted over her bumper sticker IS a fraud, and police are calling the whole thing a hoax.

As the Republican Party retreats to rebuild itself over the next 4-8-12 years, perhaps they ought to focus first on changing their own mendacious culture.

Love sponge

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger of Cali. says that Sarah Palin "will get to be qualified" by the time of the inauguration. The reason for his optimism?

Do you have the will to get up to speed? Are you a sponge that absorbs information very quickly? That's the kind of person she is.

If she's such a sponge, how come she hasn't absorbed a little more information at the age of 44? Has she kept her sponge in a vacuum-sealed wrapper all these years?

What a joke: Republicans are trying to paint their veep candidate as a towering intellect -- as maybe the only person in America who can go from "I don't know what the vice-president does" to "Totally the best choice in America to be Vice-President" in just five months. Amazing!

I'm sure there are many brilliant women in Alaska, but none of them are governor. Sarah Palin is a woman of average intelligence and very average education who was plucked from an aerobics class to help put a youthful, energetic face on a plan by Wasilla elders to implement a local sales tax. She discovered that her good looks, naive self-confidence, her penchant for snark and her churchy bona-fides made her a darling to a particular political group which is ascendent in Wasilla and in Alaska generally.

Her approval ratings? It's easy to get good approval ratings when you replace an absolute scoundrel, your state budget is paid for by the oil companies, the roads are paved with federal gold, and you get to send every Alaskan a refund check for several grand each year. Being governor of Alaksa is unlike running any other state in the country -- most governors have to struggle to balance budgets and have to figure out where they're going to get the revenue they need to pay for basic government services. In Alaska, the money just comes out of a spigot.

Quick Quiz!!!

Which prominent figure from the McCain campaign has conducted more live press conferences? Is it:

A) Sarah Palin, vice-presidential nominee
-or-
B) Joe the Plumber, lengendary source of folksy debate anecdotes (and incidentally, apparently not a plumber)

Extraordinary facts

Today, exactly 2 weeks before the United States of America goes to vote for their 44th President, and nearly 6 weeks after the Republican convention at which she was introduced to the world, Sarah Palin gave her first-EVER interview to a reporter for CNN.

Since being selected by John McCain to be his vice-presidential running mate, Sarah Palin has held zero press conferences.

And she has the gall to suggest that we don't really know Barack Obama well enough? What planet are we living on?

Here's a bonus factiod: In her only statewide election for public office, Sarah Palin received exactly 114,697 votes . Prior to that, she had been mayor of Wasilla, AK, (population 5,469 as of the 2000 census). What does the mayor of Wasilla do? The Daily Show reports.

Thinking long-term

Yes, the markets have been crazy. The news is bad all around. Gloom, doom, and the sky is falling. I'm not a trader, but like many of you I am an investor through my various IRA accounts. Like many of you, I sure wish I had sold off stocks and mutual funds when the market was bumping along at all-time highs. I didn't, and here I am.

If you have a long-term view, as I do, I just thought I'd tell you I think it's a good time to begin returning money to the market. Not sure we've hit bottom? Neither am I, but I know we're a lot closer to it than we were 6 months ago. Long-term, this period will look like a good buying opportunity for people thinking long-term. Everything's on sale.

I'm 30-something. For the first time in a long time, today I'm adding a little money to companies I believe are in a great position to benefit from long-term trends: Alterantive energy, health care, Apple, etc. I added some shares of Intuitive Surgical. These stocks have really been hammered. But robotic surgeries will be the rule for virtually all operations within a generation. But do you think Apple is going anywhere? Anybody think we're not going to move to solar power in a big way?

If you are retiring soon, or in retirement now, I sure hope you're mostly in safe investments. But this could be a good time for you to put modest part of your portfolio in blue-chip, dividend-paying stocks that have been beaten down. The next few years could be rocky -- Go for companies that make things people need through thick and thin. But stay away from financials -- they're too risky for retirees.

Oh, and pay down debt, especially credit card debt. That has a guaranteed rate of return equal to your card's interest rate. Right now, that's a GREAT guaranteed rate of return.

Get well soon...

I hear that Dick Cheney was in the hospital today with more heart trouble. Never fear, however, because the word is that George Bush assumed his powers while he was incapacitated.

Odd jobs

Bet you didn't know there were openings for the position of "pirate spokesman". But it's been confirmed by no less an authority than the New York Times. Scroll to the bottom of this story.

What Obama Should Have Said

I thought last night's debate was fine. The candidates rehashed their positions on a number of issues, and both sounded reasonably well-informed and critiqued each other's record. There were no real headlines, and so a couple of items which should have been subheads carried the day: McCain proposed a big new government program, and the Obamaniacs feigned umbrage when McCain called their man "that one." Yadda, yadda. I call it a draw, basically, which plays to Obamas favor. It's like a scoreless seventh inning: An advantage for the team leading the game.

There was a huge missed opportunity for Barack Obama in last night's debate, though: An e-mail question from a 78-year-old who wanted to know what kind of sacrifices average Americans could make to help today. See the video here. McCain asked people to sacrifice government programs. Blech. Obama started well, but bunted, essentially, when he made the obvious reference to George Bush's infamous call to all Americans to "go shopping." He talked about alternative energy, which was the right direction, but he didn't actually propose any real sacrifices. He moved the runners, but didn't score. He didn't make a clear call that would galvanize people, or better yet, make a big headline to help brand himself. Here's what he should have said:

"Thank you for your question; I think it's a profound one. Americans want to be part of the solution, but aren't sure what one person, what one family can do. But families can make a very big difference that helps the economy, improves national security and makes America greener all at the same time.

Tonight I'm calling on every American who can afford it, to support alternative energy by installing wind or solar power at their home. I think it's the patriotic duty of every wealthy American, and I'm serious about that. Consider it a smart investment in today's markets. You'll get a guaranteed return in the form of decades of green electricity. You'll also be supporting this technology and making more affordable for more Americans. And you'll be helping to employ thousands of Americans in a growing industry, to design, manufacture and install these systems. It's so much better than sending our dollars overseas to buy polluting fossil fuels. And of course, it's exactly the sort of thing we need to do to start solving our climate crisis.

The government is helping, by offering tax incentives to do this; the Senate just approved extending tax credits for new solar installations for seven more years. But many Americans don't have five or ten thousand dollars to "go solar." We're fortunate that there are more than a million millionaires in this country. From this day forward, companies that install these systems should never have a day off. Their phones should be ringing off the hook. Americans need to call this week, this month, and get started on installing solar and wind at home.

If you're fortunate enough that you don't have to worry about the next paycheck; if you don't have to worry where the next house payment is coming from, and your needs are met, this is something you can do now. It will benefit all Americans. It will help our economy, make us more secure, and protect our planet. And I think it's clear right now, you have an obligation to act. Let's go!"

If Obama had said that yesterday, it would be the debate headline on every paper in America today.

Debating the Debate

My friend Jason told me yesterday that he was looking forward to the Veep debate like few other political spectacles he could remember. Another train wreck like Sarah Palin's interview with Katie Couric, he judged, and this thing "would be all over."

Did that happen? No, but it was close.

My take on the debate is that it came through loud and clear that Joe Biden had the intellect and temperament to handle the responsibilities of high office. Even to those who disagree with him or don't like him, it had to be clear that Biden knew what he was talking about. After a few overly complicated answers early on, he hit his stride marking out clear differences. He vigorously supported his ticket and tied John McCain to the Bush administration's policies. He was devestatingly effective at critiquing John McCain's record without being at all vicious on a personal level. I actually think he holds McCain in some esteem, and that came through to me. When Palin floundered, he was neither dismissive or derisive, but treated her with respect. He responded to her points. He was composed and coherent. He also seemed very genuine to me -- these are issues he really cares about, and has cared about for a long time.

Sarah Palin didn't embarrass herself, but she didn't exactly move the chains for her ticket, either. On issue after issue, he showed mastery and understanding, while she mouthed platitudes and repeated talking points. I guess she stayed on message, and hit reliable GOP talking points. But she talked way, way too fast, and sounded to me like many of the high school debaters I faced: Excited, nervous, and eager to talk her way back to key points written down on her notecards.

She was better than she was on Couric, but not much better. Asked about her Achilles heel as a politician, for example, she could only produce a lot of vapid happy talk. Her answers on rights for gay couples didn't make sense to me. And it seemed to me that Biden was more familiar with the details of McCain's policies than Palin was.

I don't think she's stupid -- in fact, I never have. She's no towering intellect, but she's moderately intelligent. She can rub a couple thoughts together. But the cutesy demeanor and can-do attitude do smack of the class-president elections. I can certainly see how they would be reasonably effective in a campaign for small-state governor or even Congress. But people pay attention -- really pay close attention -- to the Presidential elections, and will not forgive a candidate for vast shortcomings. As Palin said herself, "I've been at this now for, what, five weeks?" Yeah, exactly, Governor.

In baseball, they often talk about a prospect's "tools." That doesn't mean talent, but rather their raw abilities. Tiger fans were deliriously excited about Cameron Maybin's "tools" as a player, but understood why the team traded him for the polished talent of Miguel Cabrera.

I can understand why Republicans have been excited about Palin, who displayed some of the political "tools" that helped her win in Alaska. In addition to having a folksy charm, she shows some abilities like poise, positivity and adherance to message which are important for a politician. But she's about 20 years away from being ready for the debate she had last night. Her grasp of the national issues is no better than that of most callers to political talk-show programs.

For those of you who think bashing her inexperience and featherweight grasp of the issues is somehow sexist, here's a dose of equality for you: If she were a male candidate, the label that would stick to her right now is "Empty Suit."

By contrast, Biden was polished, prepared and yes, presidential.

Her performance stopped the bleeding; It wasn't enough.

Who won?

Here's an instant read on who won the debate... Take a close look at the green bars on each topic:

MediaCurves

Unfortunate headline.

From today's "Cay Compass", the tax-advantaged national newspaper of the Cayman Islands:

"DHL helps storm hit Haitians"

To be charitable, I believe they meant "storm-hit Haitians" ??

Riley on the Road to Recovery

As some of you have heard, Riley has had an awful, awful week. We found him struggling to stand at the top of the stairs when we returned from the Tigers game a week ago today. It was heartbreaking and terrifying to see him unable to control his left legs, and looking to us for help. We made an emergency trip to the local vet, who ruled out poisoning or stroke, and said it looked like a neck problem. By Wednesday morning, he was much worse -- virtually paralyzed in all four legs. His big tail seemed the be the only thing working normally.

After a trip to MSU's animal hospital, we were refereed to private-practice specialists. Dr. Galle at the Animal Neurology and MRI Center in Commerce Twp. diagnosed a ruptured disc in Riley's neck. We left Riley in his capable hands for a Thursday morning surgery to remove the ruptured disc material, which was pressing down on his spinal cord. He didn't seem to recover much in the first 48 hours; A second surgery was required Saturday night in the same spot to remove a blood clot which formed in the area.

After several days where things looked a little bleak, he has begun to rebound. He's walking again, I understand, but not necessarily very well. It will be a pretty long recovery for him, as the surgery itself involved cutting through a lot of muscle to get to the spine, and of course the recovery of neurological function is somewhat unpredictable. But it's a very good sign that he has motor function... it means he's on track for a recovery. We're now cautiously optimistic that he'll recover 80-90% of his mobility and strength.

We're silly, sentimental pet owners, I guess. A week ago, I really feared losing him, and I still don't know if it will be worth the effort and expense. I just hope Riley is able to recover enough to enjoy several more healthy years.

I understand it's sort of an unusual injury for a retriever mix, but the MRI that revealed the rupture also shows he has degenerating discs. Our crash-o-matic red rover isn't a puppy anymore, and is going to have to endure some lifestyle changes to prevent a re-occurance. He'll probably get more walks to prevent rambunctiousness, and he'll be a downstairs dog from now on, as his love of leaping off the stairs is a no-no.

It's been stressful and sad... I apologize that we haven't been able to keep everyone up to date, but those aren't easy phone calls to make. We'll let you know when we know more. Riley may be coming home later this week... Think good thoughts for him, everyone.

The Meltdown

Dad wrote this morning, expressing amazement that I hadn't commented on "this week's triumph of Reaganism." With a few edits, here is my reply:

============

Reaganism?

Financial crises have been around a lot longer than Reaganism or, for that matter, the Republic. Maybe Reagan et. al. bear some responsibility, but the biggest culprit was a lack of investor scrutiny toward the banks they invested in. It's easy and seductive to claim this is a political problem. I think that's secondary to the fact that this is a business problem, brought on by a cultural obsession with short-term profits. We're finding that such profits often come at the long-term expense of these financial companies, and the chickens have come home to roost. And these sophisticated big banks weren't ignorant buyers of these shaky mortgages in the first place -- if they were going to invest tens of billions of dollars in mortgage-backed securities, they could have done a bit more homework on what they were buying. Wall Street lost its appreciation for credit risk, and that wasn't the fault of any politician. Goldman, in particular, did a good job of recognizing these risks and unloading them.

The main political issue, to me, has been the loss of manufacturing jobs and the turmoil that comes with the massive job turnover we've had in a "globalized" economy. Families which used to be able to depend on a stable, well-paying job now find that they've been living much closer to insolvency. Rather than a secure job that pays $25/hr, blue-collar guys are in tenuous jobs which pay $17. They lose their overtime for a few months, gas prices spike, and suddenly they can't make all the mortgage payments... Down comes the house of cards. The mortgage-holders didn't appreciate the actual default risk, and now the effects are cascading through the system.

So, maybe Reagan and his cronies bear some blame, but the lion's share goes to the management of these companies, who sold out their shareholders for immediate gain -- an old, old tale. But I'd be interested to hear why you think this is all Reagan's fault.