Chris: I'm with you. People have to start doing things. I have noticed that various forms of social media are making slow but signficant social movements, away from conservatism. Using twitter at Geneva successfully for example. I think the money behind what is left of the TV and print news need to continue to become less and less viable as sources of real news, and a strong new movement can then take place. Good news is they are becoming less important (Repub media) but they still have tons and tons of money. Gotta make their money worthless. Oh, that's already happening in the oil business. Thom Hartman is on fire today and nailing it ........ Lieberman is a sociopath for sure, and probably a psychopath, given his loyalty to the corporate God, money. I am not even sure that blood runs through his veins, he is so pale and rubbery plastic looking - like a kid's toy superhero, but a anti hero. He has no soul, no guts. I am going to VooDoo donuts and ask them to create a Lieberman donut, with extra pretzel sticks.

"Skim" may be too weak a word. More like "shovel", "rake", "bulldoze."

Again, I see crying and complaining with no solutions that will be implemented. Left boycotts the right, because they are different. Right boycotts the left, because they are different. The position is more important than the topic. It will be ugly, but the goodfaithclause.com will be released this Friday. Forget if any of their proposed programs will make sense (I thought the preview looked workable, but who am I?). Basically, without getting back to one standard of right and wrong as a foundation, we are screwed. Continue arguing way high above, but if you are not building the foundation back to where it needs to be we are a nation that had everything and gave it all away starting about 50 years ago. Yes, (gasp) even long before Reagan. Next week is when (if it is actually released on the new schedule), can we start talking about foundation and not just painting a house that is slipping down a hill? Less cool and fun, but anyone want to argue it isn't needed? Of course, you all will just make it about politics and screw us over in the name of doing the right thing. Wow, we are screwed. (one tin soldiers plays in the background)

Obama has a great backstory . . . AND see what that has gotten us . . .

If Obama were a fellow Hebrew he would know the meaning of the word transliterated as SHANDA.

By definition “Free Market” MEANS that given when customer (demand source) has the utter freedom to choose amongst commodities (undifferentiated goods or services), customer is free to choose purely on their whim or solely for the reason of price.

Sane economists, including Adam Smith, ALWAYS warn about applying this concept to ANYTHING that is not a commodity.

Since Thom hasn’t made the next day’s live blog available to posting in the evening of late (it’s a “live blog”), my only other opportunity to post is via the airport’s so-called free wi-fi during a rare one-minute break—that is, it’s “free” when it’s actually working—which it wasn’t last Friday morning. Thus I want to take this belated opportunity to express my appreciation for Loretta’s kind words, positive reinforcement, and helpful information. I’m sure everyone is well aware of her generosity of spirit, even if some of us are not particularly worthy (such as myself).

In regard to Thom’s discussion with that Ayn Rand fellow last week, it seems abundantly clear that conservatives tend to put political philosophy before the public interest, let alone safety. One wonders just how “bad” bad has to get for them. Even when the right talks about fiscal “responsibility,” it’s always in the service of haves against the have-nots. I think it is also useful to point out that government only operates in the public interest if the administration or party in power is committed to the public interest. For example, I doubt that when they were administering Reagan’s EPA, Rita Lavelle and Anne Gorsuch (and their train-wreck of a boss James Watt) had the “public interest” or safety in mind—particularly when both were indicted and forced to resign for taking kick-backs and bribes for doing the bidding of business interests.

Meanwhile, much has been made of the University of East Anglia trying to cook the books on global warming, discovered through hacked e-mails. Some of the “suppressed” data suggests that global warming is not occurring, and some suggests that it is happening, but much of it can be explained by urban environmental effects (street lamps, I suppose, but still “man-made”), or by sunspots. Frankly, we could have used some “global warming” to combat the unusually cold weather we’ve been experiencing in these parts, but the snow that was predicted never materialized; one wonders if weatherpersons employ Alchemy rather than Meteorology as their methodology.

But the question remains: is global warming happening or not? If it is, then does it matter how much of it is man-made or not? Even if global warming isn’t man-made, we still have to do something to counteract its effect on humans, unless, of course, we are outrageously rich and can “buy” our way out with the latest in bubble-boy biosphere voodoo, or try, like Prince Prospero, to escape behind a walled fortress far away from the suffering caused our misdeeds. But like the prince, the production of our misdeeds will come calling on us in its own good time, and it won’t come to ask if we are ready for it. And every fool ought to see that man-made pollution—including greenhouse gasses—have effects on the environment and human health that takes a great deal of effort and know-how to counterbalance, given the lack of will to eliminate them even partially.

Yet doing nothing is the “option” proposed by a very small minority of scientists, right-wing dullards and Cato Institute-types. At best, the right insists that technology will solve everything; the problem is prodding industry to get around to developing that technology. As has been suggested by others, we don’t need those hand-wringers and thumb-twiddlers in Congress to move on global warming—all we need is the EPA to do its job. It already has all the power it needs at its disposal. The problem there, of course, is that the EPA only does what it is told—or not told—to do by the administration in power.

@Jenny:

The Rahm Emanuel is just another symptom of problem. President Obama’ Administration has systemic corruption by HIS choice.

@Ms Walsh:

President Obama did not choose this ‘school’. We chose him and A+ is not his present grade. He might pull his performance outta the toilet but there is no actual evidence that he will even consider attempting to do what is needed.

Could it be that President Obama's staff has been successfully infiltrated by the Goldman Sachs crowd, or is he a willing participant? Get rid of Rahm, and the others will fall?

But we need that peace NOW as well as making it lasting!!!