I am sure you will be SHOCKED to learn that Obama is acting in much the same way. I know, I know – what a surprise. Ahem. Well, it seems some one has been doing a little investigative journalism, something in VERY short supply of late. But get this – I tell you, you better be sitting down – in this case, it was – WAIT FOR IT –
MSNBC. YES, the very network to which we routinely refer as “MSNBO”! Once I recovered from the shock of it all, I couldn’t wait to see just how transparent President Obama was compared to Bush. (I wonder if there is a way for us to do a pool on these kinds of things, like for NCAA basketball or something?)

This is what MSNBC uncovered in this report:

Obama Names 110 White House Visitors

The White House on Friday released a small list of visitors to the White House since President Barack Obama took office in January, including lobbyists, business executives, activists and celebrities.

No previous administration has released such a list, though the information out so far is incomplete. Only about 110 names —and 481 visits —out of the hundreds of thousands who have visited the Obama White House were made public. Like the Bush administration before it, Obama is arguing that any release is voluntary, not required by law, despite two federal court rulings to the contrary.

The emphasis there is mine. This is a bit of a schizophrenic opening. On the one hand, they want to champion that Obama released 110 names – Woohoo!! On the other hand, they have to acknowledge that, once again, President Obama is using the SAME arguments as Bush. Moreover, this “Constitutional Scholar” is doing so in clear violation of not one, but TWO federal court rulings! Maybe the KoolAide was made improperly that day, I don’t know, but the report continues:

Under the Obama White House’s policy, most names of visitors from Inauguration Day in January through the end of September will never be released. The White House says it plans to release most of the names of visitors from October on, and that release is due near the end of the year. There are limitations there as well, including potential Supreme Court nominees, personal guests of the First Family, and certain security officials.

The names released Friday include business leaders and lobbyists with a lot to gain or lose from Obama policies. They include Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates (whose foundation is pushing for changes in teacher pay), former AIG chairman Maurice Greenberg, Exxon Mobil CEO Rex Tillerson, Chevron CEO David O’Reilly, Citigroup’s Vikram Pandit, Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein, JP Morgan’s James Dimon, Bank of America CEO Kenneth Lewis, John Stumpf of Wells Fargo, Morgan Stanley’s John Mack, State Street bank’s Ron Logue, BNY Mellon’s Robert Kelly, labor leader Andrew Stern of the Service Employees International Union (22 visits)*, American Bankers Association CEO Ed Yingling, community bankers president Camden Fine, and lobbyists Heather and Anthony Podesta, whose brother John Podesta led Obama’s transition team.

Besides Gates, Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer and General Electric CEO Jeffrey Immelt are also on the list. (Msnbc.com is a joint venture of Microsoft and NBC. One of NBC’s parents is GE.)

Advocates and nonprofit leaders include National Organization for Women President Kim Gandy, and Risa Lavizzo-Mourey, president of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, which is interested in health policy.

So, this is how Obama is paying these people and organizations back, by having them in the White House? I bet Kim Gandy was just all aflutter after she threw ALL women under the bus to endorse Obama over a life-long women’s advocate. There is more on her below.

I know many readers will be interested in this White House guest:

Democratic donor and businessman George Soros visited with White House aides twice.

Yes, indeedy, a major funder of Moveon.org has been to check up on his biggest investment – ahem – twice.

We’re just getting started:

Political figures include former Sen. Thomas Daschle, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich. Chicago Mayor Richard Daley, former Gov. Howard Dean, Sen. Al Franken, former Vice President Al Gore, former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, the late Sen. Edward Kennedy, and Democratic strategist Steve Elmendorf.

Celebrities at the White House include Oprah Winfrey, actors Brad Pitt, George Clooney and Denzel Washington, and tennis star Serena Williams. Journalists include Paul Krugman, the New York Times columnist and Nobel Prize winner in economics.

Conservative religious leader Gary Bauer visited, as did liberal civil rights leaders Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson.

Okay, the last two, along with Oprah, are NOT a surprise. Gary Bauer? Just a tad surprising.

For anyone who wants to see more:

Msnbc.com has put the full list in a handy PDF file, and also in an Excel file for those who like to sort.

One guest is mighty interesting:

Not that Bill Ayers

The White House warns that many names that may appear familiar — and controversial — do not in fact refer to the most famous people to carry those names. Jeremiah Wright is on the list, but it’s not the president’s former pastor. This Michael Jordan is not the basketball player. This Michael Moore is not a filmmaker. The William Ayers who took a group tour of the White House isn’t the former radical from Chicago who figured so prominently in the 2008 campaign. And the Angela Davis on the list has a different middle initial than the activist and former fugitive.

The White House could have avoided some of that sort of confusion by providing more information on the visitors, such as an employer name and the city they hail from. For example, is the Shawn Carter who attended a poetry reading the same one who goes by Jay-Z and had campaigned for Obama?

“This unprecedented level of transparency can sometimes be confusing rather than providing clear information,” a White House special counsel, Norm Eisen, wrote on the White House blog.

If you spot a name on the list that bears investigating, please drop us a note.

Of COURSE we will just trust Obama and his spokes-minions when they assure us that this Bill Ayers could not POSSIBLY be domestic terrorist – Capitol Building and Pentagon bomber – long time friend and mentor Bill Ayers! He is just some guy who wanted to visit the White House Gift Shop and pick up a couple of Marine One helicopter models for his boys. I am sure of it. Sheesh. Really? They expect us to believe this crap? Evidently – they got plenty of other people to believe that kind of crap and more, so why stop now?

Okay – if you are consuming any liquids right this minute, I suggest you put it down when you read this:

Limited release

Despite the accompanying White House claim of “transparency like you’ve never seen before,” the Obama White House continues to take the same legal position as the Bush White House, arguing that the records are not public records subject to the Freedom of Information Act. Only limited “voluntary releases” are being made to settle a lawsuit filed by an advocacy group, though a federal judge has twice ruled that all the visitor logs are public. (Again, emphasis is mine.)

Yet there are severe limitations to the transparency:

Most of the visitors from Inauguration Day to September will never be released by the White House under this voluntary disclosure — unless the public can guess their names. The White House policy doesn’t allow members of the public or press to ask for “everyone who visited health czar Nancy-Ann DeParle,” or everyone who visited on May 4, or everyone from the American Medical Association. Only individual names can be checked.

I know, right? Didn’t this sound just a little pissy?? From someone at MSNBC?? The bigger picture is that the Obama Administration is BREAKING THE LAW. Hell to the YES, that information falls under FOIA – this is OUR White House, not the Obamas. We most definitely DO get to know every single John Smith and Jane Doe who cross the threshold of the White House. You better believe we do.

This is just the tip of the iceberg, but it is a start:

The list released at 4:30 p.m. Friday includes just about 110 names with 481 visits. Those names were among those requested by members of the public so far, for visits during the period from Inauguration Day through July. (That’s why we know of visits by the wrong Bill Ayers, the wrong Angela Davis, etc., but we don’t know of visits by countless unnamed lobbyists.) Members of the public who used the White House online form to check names did not receive a personal reply indicating whether or not the request was received, or whether the name appeared on the list, so the system provides no feedback. Does the absence of Bill Clinton’s name on the list mean that he has not been to the White House, or that the request wasn’t received by the White House online system?

A request for the complete records of all visitors from the first months of the administration, filed by msnbc.com, was rejected by the White House, and an appeal is pending. The news organization requested the names of all visitors to the Obama White House beginning with Inauguration Day. Msnbc.com has filed an administrative appeal with the Department of Homeland Security, which oversees the Secret Service.

Say whaa?? The White House rejected a request from their lapdog “news” source?? Huh. There’s a shocker. Welcome to the “Under The Bus” club, MSNBC!

The Wall Street Journal focused on the most frequent visitor to the White House. He was mentioned in the list above, but without the acknowledgment of the frequency:

SEIU’s Stern Tops White House Visitor List

Promising “transparency like you’ve never seen before,” The White House released its visitor log this evening under a new voluntary disclosure policy.

The log chronicles 481 visits to the White House from individuals ranging from Jay-Z to Bill Gates from January through July.

The list includes William Ayers, Jeremiah Wright, Michael Moore, Robert Kelly (R. Kelly), Malik Shabazz, and Michael Jordan.

But the White House said those aren’t the guys you’re thinking of. Nor is the log complete.

Ahahahahahahaha!!! I just cannot get enough of this one – sure, they aren’t the same people. Yeah, okay, we believe you. NOT. And because it is just so much fun to see them squirm, I am keeping in the part that is repetitive of the article above, especially the quotes from Eisen. Oh, what a funny guy:

“A lot of people visit the White House, up to 100,000 each month, with many of those folks coming to tour the buildings. Given this large amount of data, the records we are publishing today include a few ‘false positives’ – names that make you think of a well-known person, but are actually someone else,” Norm Eisen, a special counsel to the president, writes on the White House blog. “The well-known individuals with those names never actually came to the White House. Nevertheless, we were asked for those names and so we have included records for those individuals who were here and share the same names.”

Adds Eisen: “This unprecedented level of transparency can sometimes be confusing rather than providing clear information.”

Uh, ya know, I think we are all smart enough to not get all confused by this incredible level of “transparency.” Beginning with, we actually know the definition of “transparency,” something Eisen and Obama apparently do not.

And then there is this:

One thing is clear: *Service Employees International Union President Andrew Stern holds sway at the White House, where he’s listed for 22 visits—the top number on the logs. Visitors in the top 10 also include former Clinton White House Chief of Staff John Podesta, former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, National Organization for Women President Kim Gandy, and NARAL Pro-Choice America President Nancy Keenan.

So THAT’S what Gandy and Keenan got for stabbing Hillary Clinton and, well, WOMEN, int he back – visits to the White House. I guess there is something gained by selling your soul, though, personally, I don’t think it is worth it. But that’s just me.

Anywho – yes, the President of the SEIU, again, the union co-founded by the founder of ACORN, Wade Rathke, is the TOP visitor at the White House. The SEIU has been in the news quite a bit, especially for holding California hostage – threatening that their good buddy, Obama, would not give the state any federal stimulus funds if it had the audacity to expect the union to cut wages like everyone else so the state wouldn’t go bankrupt. NOW we know how the union was able to do that. All those visits to the White House apparently paid off – for the union, not California, the state with one of the largest budgets around (as in 5th in the world). What makes this more egregious is that California pays a lot into the federal tax system and receives little comparatively speaking. And this union is allowed – by the White House – to hold it over a barrel. Yep, all those meetings seemed to do the trick!

Aren’t you just so heartened by all of this “transparency”? And by seeing who Obama is welcoming into our White House? Yeah, me, too. As long as the Obama Administration continues to thumb its nose at Federal Law, I reckon we should be “thankful” for this (no, not really – it’s BS that they are still sitting on so much information).

Oh, but if you can just GUESS who might else have been there and submit that form asking them, maybe you can confirm some other folks who have been there, too. Lemme know what you find out, okay? I am sure we would all just love to know…

Here we are with yet another Bush-era policy Barack “Vote For Me Because I Am Not Bush” Obama:

The Obama administration will largely preserve Bush-era procedures allowing the government to search — without suspicion of wrongdoing — the contents of a traveler’s laptop computer, cellphone or other electronic device, although officials said new policies would expand oversight of such inspections.

The policy, disclosed Thursday in a pair of Department of Homeland Security directives, describes more fully than did the Bush administration the procedures by which travelers’ laptops, iPods, cameras and other digital devices can be searched and seized when they cross a U.S. border. And it sets time limits for completing searches.

But representatives of civil liberties and travelers groups say they see little substantive difference between the Bush-era policy, which prompted controversy, and this one.

“It’s a disappointing ratification of the suspicionless search policy put in place by the Bush administration,” said Catherine Crump, staff attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union. “It provides a lot of procedural safeguards, but it doesn’t deal with the fundamental problem, which is that under the policy, government officials are free to search people’s laptops and cellphones for any reason whatsoever.”

Why, yes – it is “disappointing.” WTH with these groups who always use that word when Obama retains yet another egregious Bush program. “Disappointing.” Uh, yeah. That’s one (incredibly lame) word for it:

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano yesterday framed the new policy as an enhancement of oversight. “Keeping Americans safe in an increasingly digital world depends on our ability to lawfully screen materials entering the United States,” she said in a statement. “The new directives announced today strike the balance between respecting the civil liberties and privacy of all travelers while ensuring DHS can take the lawful actions necessary to secure our borders.”

For instance, searches conducted by U.S. Customs and Border Protection officers should now generally take no more than 5 days, and no more than 30 days for searches by Immigration and Customs Enforcement special agents. The directives also require for the first time that automated tools be developed to ensure the reliable tracking of statistics relating to searches, and that audits be conducted periodically to ensure the guidelines are being followed, officials said.

Did I read that right? 5 days and 30 days?? That’s supposed to be an IMPROVEMENT? Holy freakin’ smokes!!

Some people are happy with it, though:

Such measures drew praise from House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), who called the new policy “a major step forward,” and from Rep. Loretta Sanchez (D-Calif.), who introduced legislation this year to strengthen protections for travelers whose devices are searched.

And these are our representatives. That’s just jake.

Others, those who actually care about the Constitution, for example, aren’t quite so upbeat about it:

But the civil liberties community was disappointed.

“Under the policy begun by Bush and now continued by Obama, the government can open your laptop and read your medical records, financial records, e-mails, work product and personal correspondence — all without any suspicion of illegal activity,” said Elizabeth Goitein, who leads the liberty and national security project at the nonprofit Brennan Center for Justice.

Goitein, formerly a counsel to Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.), said the Bush policy itself “broke sharply” with previous Customs directives, which required reasonable suspicion before agents could read the contents of documents. Feingold last year introduced legislation to restore the requirement.

Jack Riepe, spokesman for the Association of Corporate Travel Executives, said the guidelines “still have many of the inherent weaknesses” of the Bush-era policy.

Between October 2008 and Aug. 11, more than 221 million travelers passed through CBP checkpoints. About 1,000 laptop searches were performed, only 46 in-depth, the DHS said.

Once again, I am SO “disappointed” to have my civil liberties curtailed. Sheesh. Seriously, people, there are stronger terms for having our Constitution dismantled by The One over whom you ooh-ed! and ah-ed! as such a great Constitutional Scholar, and the Anti-Bush. All I can say is, perhaps you wouldn’t have experienced this “disappointment” had you bothered to actually listen to what he man said (remember the return to Bush I’s foreign policy? How about voting for the Bush/Cheney Energy Bill?) or what he did (remember that FISA vote? Yeah, you were “disappointed” then, too.). So many examples, so little time. The point is, had your eyes been open instead of closed as you swayed in rapture to the tones of The One and TOTUS, perhaps you wouldn’t be oh-so-surprised by this.

The rest of us aren’t.

Anyway, the article, Obama on Drugs: 98% Cheney?, is a very good piece on Obama’s Drug Deal. I mean, about the deals cut for big Pharmaceutical companies in the current health care bill. And here’s there thing – Palast actually has some background in this area. From his site: Palast studied healthcare economics at the Center for Hospital Administration Studies at the University of Chicago. Here’s what Palast has to say:

Eighty billion dollars of WHAT?

I searched all over the newspapers and TV transcripts and no one asked the President what is probably the most important question of what passes for debate on the issue of health care reform: $80 billion of WHAT?

On June 22, President Obama said he’d reached agreement with big drug companies to cut the price of medicine by $80 billion. He extended his gratitude to Big Pharma for the deal that would, “reduce the punishing inflation in health care costs.”

Hey, in my neighborhood, people think $80 billion is a lot of money. But is it?

I checked out the government’s health stats (at HHS.gov), put fresh batteries in my calculator and totted up US spending on prescription drugs projected by the government for the next ten years. It added up to $3.6 trillion.

In other words, Obama’s big deal with Big Pharma saves $80 billion out of a total $3.6 trillion. That’s 2%.

Hey thanks, Barack! You really stuck it to the big boys. You saved America from these drug lords robbing us blind. Two percent. Cool!

Wowie zowie – what a GREAT job Obama did as “Haggler-in-Chief”!! A whole whopping 2%? Over TEN YEARS????? Great, Obama – thanks!! Sheesh:

For perspective: Imagine you are in a Wal-Mart and there’s a sign over a flat screen TV, “BIG SAVINGS!” So, you break every promise you made never to buy from that union-busting big box – and snatch up the $500 television. And when you’re caught by your spouse, you say, “But, honey, look at the deal I got! It was TWO-PERCENT OFF! I saved us $10!”

But 2% is better than nothing, I suppose. Or is it?

The Big Pharma kingpins did not actually agree to cut their prices. Their promise with Obama is something a little oilier: they apparently promised that, over ten years, they will reduce the amount at which they would otherwise raise drug prices. Got that? In other words, the Obama deal locks in a doubling of drug costs, projected to rise over the period of “savings” from a quarter trillion dollars a year to half a trillion dollars a year. Minus that 2%.

We’ll still get the shaft from Big Pharma, but Obama will have circumcised the increase.

Well, that’s a nice turn of phrase. And accurate. Here’s what the Great Haggler got for that:

And what did Obama give up in return for $80 billion? Chief drug lobbyist Billy Tauzin crowed that Obama agreed to dump his campaign pledge to bargain down prices for Medicare purchases. Furthermore, Obama’s promise that we could buy cheap drugs from Canada simply went pffft!

What did that cost us? The New England Journal of Medicine notes that 13 European nations successfully regulate the price of drugs, reducing the average cost of name-brand prescription medicines by 35% to 55%. Obama gave that up for his 2%.

The Veterans Administration is able to push down the price it pays for patent medicine by 40% through bargaining power. George Bush stopped Medicare from bargaining for similar discounts, an insane ban that Obama said he’d overturn. But, once within Tauzin’s hypnotic gaze, Obama agreed to lock in Bush’s crazy and costly no-bargaining ban for the next decade.

What else went down in Obama’s drug deal? To find out, I called C-SPAN to get a copy of the videotape of the meeting with the drug companies. I was surprised to find they didn’t have such a tape despite the President’s campaign promise, right there on CNN in January 2008, “These negotiations will be on C-SPAN.”

This puzzled me. When Dick Cheney was caught having secret meetings with oil companies to discuss Bush’s Energy Bill, we denounced the hugger-muggers as a case of foxes in the henhouse.

Cheney’s secret meetings with lobbyists and industry bigshots were creepy and nasty and evil.

But the Obama crew’s secret meetings with lobbyists and industry bigshots were, the President assures us, in the public interest.

We know Cheney’s secret confabs were shady and corrupt because Cheney scowled out the side of his mouth.

Obama grins in your face.

See the difference?

The difference is 2%.

Ah, yes – that would be the difference alright. A paltry 2% with a Cheshire Grin to go with it. Perfect. That’s the “Change” for which I was “Hoping.” Seems to me that someone has been hitting that “Hopium” pipe if he expects us to accept THIS gift to the big Pharma Companies. I wonder if there is coverage for THAT under his new plan?

Oh, and Palast had this attached to his post:

ALERT

Now it’s Let’s Make a Deal with hospital lobbyists.

First, the President was caught with his principals down, cutting a scuzzy back-room deal with pharmaceutical lobbyist Billy Tauzin to limit drug price savings to just 2% over 10 years (see attached, “Obama on Drugs: 98% Cheney?”), the New York Times today reports that another deal was sealed by lobbyist Chip Kahn of the American Hospital Association.

Here are the numbers they don’t want you to see: Hospitals will be allowed to hike their prices and revenues by six trillion dollars ($5,853 billion) over the next ten years, only $155 billion less than they had projected before the Obama “reform.”

In all, the Obama back-room deal will “reduce” our $26 trillion total hospital bill over the next decade by one-half of one percent.

Once again, the lobbyists got the gold mine, the public got the shaft.

Say it ain’t so, Mr. President.

Great. More smoke and mirrors from the Great Concessioner (is that a word?) – in – Chief on our behalf. That’s just jake, Mr. Obama.

One last thing, I don’t know this for sure, but my guess is that Huffington Post isn’t gonna be publishing any more of Greg Palast’s work. Just a hunch…

See the Update about how many of our Elected Officials will/not be holding Town Hall Forums at the bottom of the page.

Friend to NQ, Kathleen Wynne from HandCountPaperallotsNow made a suggestion after seeing the negative spin the MSM is putting on reports of concerned citizens calling out their representatives on the issue of health care reform, even if all they want is for them to READ the damn thing. Here are some of her suggestions:

After watching the reporting by the usual suspects in the media, who are turning these protests into orchestrated, manufactured outrage, it’s clear that having a number of town hall meetings where those reps either chose not to participate in one or who chose to have a conference call instead, will help prove that they are merely trying to discredit these protests and undermine the citizens true feelings about the health care legislation. Or how Senator Boxer ridiculed citizens voicing their concerns as trying to “hurt our president” and too well dressed for this NOT to be orchestrated

:

Another point that should be put out there for all to see is that during the primary and general election, it was Obama, himself, who told his supporters to have debates with those who did not support him and “get in their face.” Here is a reminder of Obama saying that, along with some other actions by his supporters

:

More importantly, we want citizens to realize how important it is for them to participate in democracy and recognize how important they are in making these reps accountable and to expose their total indifference to the citizens’ concern, not to mention their total lack of knowledge of exactly what’s in the bill. This is a pivotal moment to increase citizen involvement in “taking to the streets” and keeping the pressure on. The longer citizens stay engaged in these protests, the less the MSM can dismiss them as “astro turf” (i.e., not real grassroots concerns), as Nancy Pelosi refers to them in this clip

:

Ms. Wynne is:

asking citizens in those towns where the representatives have chosen NOT to have a town hall meeting or worse, canceled them, to “BE THE MEDIA” by organizing and conducting town hall meetings themselves and having a public discussion about what they don’t like about the health-care bill and any of the other bills that have been rammed down our throats and videotape the event. In particular, they should make it clear that they are having the town hall meeting despite their representative’s choice to not have one or to cancel one. That should be made clear at the beginning, and then say that they would not be silenced.

Then request that clips of these events be sent to NQ, here, and other websites of their choosing in order to make the people’s outrage at not being listened to be seen and heard by other citizens, so that we know that this isn’t just a group of fringe groups being sent out to disrupt town hall meetings.*

It’s an end-run around the MSM’s attempt to ignore and not report what the people are really feeling about the Obama Administration’s policies.

Now word is coming that unions are being sent in to counter those who oppose this plan. And videos are already rolling in, including footage of union members (SEIU) getting into it with Tea Party protesters.

This is our country, and we have every right to speak out, to dissent, to question. And we have the right to speak out without fear of harassment, violence, or intimidation by those in power or their surrogates. We have the right to demand accountability of those whom we have elected to represent us, and that they REPRESENT US. That is their job, after all.

So, are you game? If so, feel free to send this post to whatever sites you frequent, and let’s get this thing rolling.

UPDATE: Check out how many of our elected officials are NOT meeting with their constituents:

Transparency, said President Barack Obama in a memo not long after he took the oath of office, was going to be a “touchstone” of his administration. His advisors then gathered around, breaking into a paroxysm of giggles interlaced with assurances to each other that dumbbell Americans would actually buy this stuff.

What fun to have power, they laughed. What fun!

OK, true enough, I cannot vouch for any post-promise merriment, but I can vouch that it did not take all that long for the administration to emulate former Vice President Dick Cheney’s thoroughly castigated private meetings with top energy executives working with him on policy issues. The public did not learn what was said or who attended. Especially among liberals, suspicion of dastardliness was high.

Well, speaking for myself, I concur – I was pretty upset about Cheney’s secret meeting with energy executives to craft our energy policy. Amazingly, there is a correlation:

The Obama version was to meet secretly with coal executives while devising the content of a cap-and-trade global-warming tax, explaining that presidential communications are privileged and did not fall under the Freedom of Information Act. Judges had differed with that idea, and so did Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics, which filed suit and, then, not too much later had reason to try again to get the names of people visiting the White House for sessions on the nation’s future.

This time it was health-care executives on hand to lend their ideas and expertise about health-care legislation. The administration at first resisted divulging the names, but finally did — which is hardly the same as saying we can now figure on the steadfast openness which once upon a time was guaranteed by Obama himself.

Oh, wait – did I write “correlation”? I meant, “correlationS.” Obama hasn’t stopped with just energy, obviously. Yep – health care people, too – and we are seeing how well that is going over right now.

Naturally, there is more:

Take a glance, for instance, at the Environmental Protection Agency. According to a Wall Street Journal op-ed piece, Alan Carlin, a senior analyst with EPA’s National Center for Economics, had the temerity along with a colleague to produce a paper casting doubt on global-warming theory and especially on the reliability of computer models predicting catastrophe down the pike. His boss made it clear that the thesis was contrary to policy and the paper would not be allowed out the door.

I missed the liberal outcry on this, as opposed, say, to what we heard when NASA’s global-warming alarmist James Hansen whined that his press releases might be reviewed before being released during the Bush administration. No such reviews ever took place, which hardly stopped one outraged commentator from complaining that we were now in an era reminiscent of Josef Stalin’s viciously controlling discourse in the Soviet Union. Hansen, the Journal piece reminds us, had given hundreds of speeches on the terror of warming, many of them during the Bush years.

Look next at what’s been happening in Congress: Votes on nation-altering legislation roughly as transparent as a stone wall is transparent, last-minute concoctions of 1,000 pages and more that not a single member of Congress could conceivably have had time to read. For that matter, few if any members could have had a grasp of any number of important elements in these bills even through the secondhand summaries, which is to say, the democratic process was rendered meaningless. Then-Sen. Obama had pointedly complained when Republicans did this sort of thing in the Bush years. Now, as president, he was cheering on rush-job legislating as crucial to the common good.

Obama is more nearly Mr. Obfuscation than he is Mr. Transparency, as he showed during the campaign when he failed to tell us anything much about his passport or medical records, his clients as a lawyer or his college records. Even if you hold hands with him on some of his secrecy then and now, a point to consider is that this is a politician like so many who talk one way and behave another, not someone refreshingly candid and different, just someone who is very good at an old game.

True enough. I like it: Mr. Obfuscation. I think that is a perfect moniker for Obama. The Obfuscator In Chief. Sure, works for me!

Actually, it doesn’t. What he is doing is working for a select, very select, group of people, not for US. And that is the problem with the lack of transparency, with the reneging on promises made, for all of us. Obama, and Congress, are serving the interests of a very few, the same complaint we had about Bush and Cheney.

Here we go again…

Admit it – her cracking up laughing made you smile, didn’t it? Sure did me…And then the way she engaged with External Affairs Minister Krishna afterward, so warm and engaging. He seemed to be pretty happy, too.

Interesting about the whole nuclear power issue, isn’t it? About us building nuclear power plants in India? I’d love to hear your thoughts on that, especially if you read THIS article in Newsweek, or THIS one from US News. So, what do you think?

Gotta go run pick up my favorite cousin, who is also one of my favorite people (you know, blood family who is also chosen family), at the airport. But you know I’ll check in later…

Clearly Mr. Van Dyk was a huge fan of this President, thought his campaign “superb” and appreciated his promises of “reaching across party and ideological lines to get the public’s business done.” Van Dyk opines:

“You displayed an intellect and sense of cool that made us think you would weigh decisions carefully and view advisers’ proposals with skepticism.”

You know what I get from that phrase? Since the President acted “cool,” some mighty educated people actually believed this to be more than just a pose on his part. Not unlike Madonna’s use of “Voguing” back in the day. Now perhaps they begin to see that a pose has neither to do with governing nor an ability to adapt to the changing realities on the ground.

At that point, Mr. Van Dyk goes off the rails and we see that his blanket approval has come to an end:

The first warning signals for me came with your acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention. In it, you stressed domestic initiatives that clearly were nonstarters in the already shrinking economy.

He then complains of Obama stocking his White House with “Clinton administration retreads who had learned their trade in the never-ending-campaign culture of the Clinton years.” Again, blame Clinton. But who did Mr. Van Dyk think this man was going to hire? He faults Obama for his “reliance on these Clinton holdovers.”

Your chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, defined your early strategy by stating that the financial and economic crises presented an “opportunity” to jam through unrelated legislation. To many of us, the remark was cynical and wrong-headed.

The crises did not represent an opportunity. They presented an obligation to do one thing: Return our financial system and our economy to good health.

Does Van Dyk assume any Democratic president would have been this reckless? Hillary Clinton had different health care proposals, different proposals for helping homeowners in this crisis and a much better understanding of the economy. None of her ideas are being utilized, I’m afraid. She just may have exhibited the good sense Mr. Van Dyk longs for and put the financial floor back under us before attempting a more drastic change. But we’ll never know…

Van Dyk discusses Mr. Obama being unfairly compared to FDR & LBJ. Discussing President Johnson’s “Great Society legislation”…

…at every stage, congressional leaders of both political parties and financial, business, labor and other private-sector leaders were consulted. Johnson wanted to assure that his legislation was substantively sound and could get consensus support in the Congress and the country.

Your strategy, by contrast, has been to advocate forcefully for health-care and energy reform but to leave the details to Democratic congressional committee chairs. You did the same thing with your initial $787 billion stimulus package. Now, you’re stuck with a plan that provides little stimulus until 2010. A president should never cede control of his main agenda to others.

President Obama is in over his head, so of course he “outsourced.” Why is this gentleman surprised? Mr. Van Dyk willfully ignores the fact that the biggest culprit here is not a “Clinton retread,” but the Queen Bee herself, Speaker Nancy Pelosi. She crafted the stimulus package behind closed doors and the President willingly allowed her this control. Perhaps that was his devil’s bargain for her help in kicking the ladder out from under Hillary. Republicans were not the only ones to be shut out of the crafting of the Stimulus package. Many Democrats were as well. Van Dyk continues:

This tactic has already had negative consequences. Frightened by the prospective costs of your health-care and energy plans — not to mention the bailouts of the financial and auto industries — independent voters who supported you in 2008 are falling away. FDR and LBJ, only two years after their 1932 and 1964 victories, saw their parties lose congressional seats even though their personal popularity remained stable. The party out of power traditionally gains seats in off-year elections, and 2010 is unlikely to be an exception.

He then offers up a prescription for a fix:

- Cut back both your proposals and expectations. You made promises about jobs that would be “created and saved” by the stimulus package. Those promises have not held up. You continue to engage in hyperbole by claiming that your health-care and energy plans will save tax dollars. Congressional Budget Office analysis indicates otherwise.

It’s time to re-examine these initiatives. Could your health plan be scaled back to catastrophic coverage for all — badly needed by most families, but quite affordable if deductibles are set at the right levels? Should the Rube Goldbergian cap-and-trade proposals be replaced with a simple carbon tax, with proceeds to be allocated to alternative-fuels development?

The evolving health and cap-and-trade bills are loaded with costly provisions designed to gain support from congressional leaders and special-interest constituencies. In short, they have become an expensive mess. This legislation will not clear Congress by the August recess, as you have requested, and could be stalled for the remainder of 2009. Settle for incremental change: Do not press Democratic legislators to vote for something they fear will destroy them in 2010.

- Talk less and pick your spots.

Applause and adulation are gratifying. But the more you talk, the less weight your words will hold. Let voters see you at your desk, conferring with serious people about serious matters. When you do choose to talk, people will understand that it’s important and they should listen.

“Let voters see you at your desk!” Doing some “work.” Great ideas!

- Conform your 2009 politics to your 2008 statements. During your campaign, you called for bipartisanship and bridge-building. You promised to reduce the influence of single-issue and single-interest groups in the policy process. Yet, in your public statements, you keep using President Bush as a scapegoat.

You have ceded content of your principal proposals to Democratic congressional leaders who in large part have yielded to special-interest constituencies and excluded Republican leaders from policy formulation. This certainly was the case with the stimulus plan. It has been the case with health and energy legislation, with the notable exception of Sen. Max Baucus’s attempt in the Senate Finance Committee to develop genuinely bipartisan legislation.

He concludes by telling Obama

“You have an enormous reservoir of goodwill among Americans of all persuasions. They want you to succeed. Level with them and trim your proposals to what is practical in the current environment.”

But ironically, it is Mr. Van Dyk’s closing statement with which I most take issue:

You had things right in 2008. Take a timeout. Get back to yourself. Make a fresh start.

He did not have things “right” in 2008 because there is no “self” to ‘get back to’. His campaign was always “words, just words.”

While I graduated college with high honors, I am no genius, yet I figured this out from my living room couch back in January of 2008. I watched this man at a debate and his “performance” told me everything I needed to know. I then looked at his voting record and the corporate interests with whom he surrounds himself, his addiction to pretty sound bytes and an over reliance on canned speeches rather than a resume that indicated he had worked even on a smaller level to achieve his stated goals. His current proposals are loaded with top heavy payback for special interests that arguably got him elected in the first place. Wall Street has gotten bailed out. Not Main Street. He lives in support of an oligarchy, like his immediate predecessor. If these are true Democratic principles, its the first I’ve heard of it.

The obscene amount of money spent on his inauguration, expensive “dates” and pizza parties and his hiring not less than 30 “czars” all of whom require staff and total salaries in the millions are more accurate indicators of the man than any of his campaign rhetoric.

Like Obama’s other supporters, perhaps Mr. Van Dyk has yet to understand that speeches will never equal governing ability. He too, blamed the Clintons for being “polarizing” as Bush was, but how true is his claim? Clinton passed true bi-partisan legislation. He had to, as he was working with a Republican Congress for 6 of his 8 years and did very well in that regard. But in his case, he also had deep knowledge of the economy and a willingness to reach across the aisle and conform to the existing reality. He certainly left the country in better shape than he found it.

President Obama, by contrast is the “salesman in chief.” That is what the DNC wanted. How is he supposed to pull us back to “reality” with his proposals when he clearly did not have these reasoned intentions in the first place, or a true understanding of how to get us there?

Apparently, Mr. Van Dyk has yet to travel the last mile in his awakening.

There is no shortage of threats to our economy. America’s unemployment rate recently hit its highest mark in more than 25 years and is expected to continue climbing. Worries are widespread that even when the economy finally rebounds, the recovery won’t bring jobs. Our nation’s debt is unsustainable, and the federal government’s reach into the private sector is unprecedented.

Unfortunately, many in the national media would rather focus on the personality-driven political gossip of the day than on the gravity of these challenges. So, at risk of disappointing the chattering class, let me make clear what is foremost on my mind and where my focus will be:
I am deeply concerned about President Obama’s cap-and-trade energy plan, and I believe it is an enormous threat to our economy. It would undermine our recovery over the short term and would inflict permanent damage.

Palin points that “American prosperity has always been driven by the steady supply of abundant, affordable energy”…

There is no denying that as the world becomes more industrialized, we need to reform our energy policy and become less dependent on foreign energy sources. But the answer doesn’t lie in making energy scarcer and more expensive! Those who understand the issue know we can meet our energy needs and environmental challenges without destroying America’s economy.

As with everything the Obama Administration is doing, cap and trade also employs the ram-rod technique of shoving legislation down the gullet before anyone has had a chance to give it a second thought. Palin then makes a point I’m sure Obama would rather she gloss over:

Job losses are so certain under this new cap-and-tax plan that it includes a provision accommodating newly unemployed workers from the resulting dried-up energy sector, to the tune of $4.2 billion over eight years. So much for creating jobs.

In addition to immediately increasing unemployment in the energy sector, even more American jobs will be threatened by the rising cost of doing business under the cap-and-tax plan. For example, the cost of farming will certainly increase, driving down farm incomes while driving up grocery prices. The costs of manufacturing, warehousing and transportation will also increase.

The ironic beauty in this plan? Soon, even the most ardent liberal will understand supply-side economics.

The Americans hit hardest will be those already struggling to make ends meet. As the president eloquently puts it, their electricity bills will “necessarily skyrocket.” So much for not raising taxes on anyone making less than $250,000 a year.

Even Warren Buffett, an ardent Obama supporter, admitted that under the cap-and-tax scheme, “poor people are going to pay a lot more for electricity.”

Governor Palin urges us to move in a new direction and states we can achieve energy independence if we:

…responsibly tap the resources that God created right underfoot on American soil. Just as important, we have more desire and ability to protect the environment than any foreign nation from which we purchase energy today.

In Alaska, we are progressing on the largest private-sector energy project in history. Our 3,000-mile natural gas pipeline will transport hundreds of trillions of cubic feet of our clean natural gas to hungry markets across America. We can safely drill for U.S. oil offshore and in a tiny, 2,000-acre corner of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge if ever given the go-ahead by Washington bureaucrats.

Of course, Alaska is not the sole source of American energy. Many states have abundant coal, whose technology is continuously making it into a cleaner energy source. Westerners literally sit on mountains of oil and gas, and every state can consider the possibility of nuclear energy.

Whether one agrees with her or not, one thing Governor Palin can speak to with authority is energy, given her service at the Oil & Gas Commission:

We have an important choice to make. Do we want to control our energy supply and its environmental impact? Or, do we want to outsource it to China, Russia and Saudi Arabia? Make no mistake: President Obama’s plan will result in the latter.

For so many reasons, we can’t afford to kill responsible domestic energy production or clobber every American consumer with higher prices.

Can America produce more of its own energy through strategic investments that protect the environment, revive our economy and secure our nation?

Yes, we can. Just not with Barack Obama’s energy cap-and-tax plan.

Loved the “Yes, we can” reference. What is your reaction to her position? I do not pretend to know that right answer here, but certainly she raises issues worth discussing.

Everyone else out there is having quite a big reaction. In a few hours, her op-ed in WaPo has attracted over 3,000 comments. All over the blogosphere and on news sites, people are reacting and as usual, Governor Palin is a lightning rod for both love and hate. HuffPo, typically, cannot kill the message, because she does have a point, so they shoot the messenger, claiming she is “too stupid” to have possibly written this piece. I thought the piece was pretty coherent myself, and yeah, I’m sure she wrote it. By the way, did I mention that I despise elitists. You can her article it in its entirety here.

Further, since the surprise announcement of her resignation on July 3rd, Palin has raised over $200,000 for her PAC, in addition to over $700,000 raised in the five months since its formation. CBS just put out a poll saying 65% of those asked think Palin would not make a good president and most pundits left and right are harping about the fact that her political career is effectively over. Wishful thinking, perhaps. I have no idea what Palin’s actions will be or what her political career will look like going forward, but one thing is assured — as long as these ridiculous attacks continue, her following will grow and she will get plenty of free press that she may use to her advantage.

As for the “chattering class,” as Palin calls them, I can only say, gee fellas, that’s an awful lot of copy to devote to someone with nothing to say, no platform to say it, no following and no hope of making a dent. Evah.

Somebody seems awfully scared of this lady.

Just sayin’.

Here is the debate. Heavy equipment operators and demolition specialists make a living by blowing the tops off of the mountains in four Appalachian states. The people who live in these areas would like to see the mountains and streams remain mountains and streams. They don’t want their well water coming out of their faucets blackened with sludge. They don’t want their foundations cracking under the earth shattering blast quakes. They want to enjoy the tourists, hunters and fishers who visit their beautiful woods and pump more money into the economy than all the coal operations combined. They want their children safe. A child was recently killed when a boulder from an MTR blast crashed through his roof and crushed him in his bed as he slept. So it is a battle between jobs for a few and the quality of life for the many.

Maybe West Virginia’s political leadership wants this to be fought out in the streets — or, rather, along narrow, two-lane roads that wind through Boone, Logan and Raleigh counties. Given that the issue has been on the front burner for more than a decade, with little movement toward resolution, it’s probably understandable that both sides have reached this point. – Ken Ward

Public Radio interviewed mountain keeper and CNN Hero Larry Gibson on Monday. You can listen to the interview here. Here is some of his interview:

“We’ll hold stead and we’ll hold back and the violence will not come from the keepers of the mountains and the people who live in them, we will win this war. We fought a battle this weekend and we won because they didn’t get any violence from us.”

Larry did point out that not all miners act this way:

“I really don’t think this is a mindset at all of people who work in the mining industry as far as working people,” he said. “I think it’s just a handful of rogue miners who refuse to understand that there’s a better way to do this.”

Brace yourself. This is not related to the festival event but the local man quoted below was at the picnic and there is always room for a reminder of just how horrid this industry is. He watched an MTR bulldozer willfully plow under bear cubs that just happened to be in the way.

“Now I’ve heard a bear die, and it depends how they’re shot. But there ain’t nothing like hearin that momma bawl, knowin her babies are dying as she gets dozed in. Those cubs don’t even have their eyes open. They might have been old enough to crawl, but they weren’t old enough to escape. What I witnessed that spring, it bothered me. It hurt me. I feel something needs to be done.”

Amen

See also:

Blogger and author Jeff Biggers (HufPo)Two weeks ago, when anti-MTR activists peacefully protested a mine site the police arrested thirty of them, including actress Daryl Hannah, NASA Scientist Dr. James Hansen and former Congressman and author of the Clean Water Act, Ken Hechler.

For background information on Mountaintop Removal visit The Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition (OHVEC)

I’ve always considered myself something of an environmentalist. I don’t remember ever hugging a tree, but I hiked and backpacked in my youth. I’ve recycled since the early 80’s. I shunned the use of chemicals and railed against deforestation, over-packaging, and junk mail. I joined Sierra club, World Wildlife and Nature Conservancy in my twenties (and have been a member ever since). But I am far from an environmental purist. Mostly I’ve just tried to enjoy our natural environment and be a thoughtful and conservation minded consumer.

So when Al Gore came out proclaiming that global warming was upon us and would bring an end to life as we know it, I believed him. And regardless of whichever side of science and popularity is currently ahead in the Global warming debate, I still believe that the our current lifestyle of mass production, mass consumption and mass waste is unsustainable.

But a funny thing happened as environmentalism became “Green.” It some how became less real.

Suddenly green thinkers were everywhere, changing their light bulbs and carrying their eco friendly bags, while driving a Hummer and anxiously awaiting their chance to purchase the latest version of the newest best thing. Yes, they bought the marketing slogan to “Think Green”, but their actions lacked the conviction of a true convert. Their hearts and heads were more invested in the idea of a carbon footprint. Then the reality of it. But that was okay. Every little bit helps, as they say. And its true, we all have to make compromises.

Then the talk turned to “Cap and Trade”, and I just couldn’t seem to get myself on the band wagon. I just couldn’t see the logic of some people, companies, industries or states making sacrifices to conserve energy and cut pollution, so others could “buy” the energy saved and use it and/or “buy” the rights to add pollution. How does that get us ahead? And how is that fair?

If I am required by law to make sacrifices, I want every one else by law to make those sacrifices as well. And if my efforts are creating a surplus energy product or pollution “right”, then why wouldn’t that surplus and those rights mine to sell? Why wouldn’t I be the one to receive compensation for my actions? Why would the government or some other entity be making the decision as to whom could buy my energy or pollution credits? And why would they receive the payments for my efforts?

No it just didn’t make sense to me and it didn’t seem right. But I didn’t realize how wrong “Cap and Trade” really was, until I read Matt Taibbi’s latest article in Rolling Stone. And would it surprise you to learn that Goldman Sachs has found a way to make money – big money on “cap-and-trade”? From Taibbi’s The Great American Bubble Machine:

The first thing you need to know about Goldman Sachs is that it’s everywhere. The world’s most powerful investment bank is a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money.

And that’s just Taibbi’s opening lines. I’ve written (here, here and here) and read about the Goldman Sachs connections to our current financial woes. But Taibbi shows that economic destruction on a massive scale is Goldman Sachs’ historical MO and even now it is actively working to set up its next round of victims and this time their funnel will be in everyones pocket. More from The Great American Bubble Machine:

…any attempt to construct a narrative around all the former Goldmanites in influential positions quickly becomes an absurd and pointless exercise, like trying to make a list of everything. What you need to know is the big picture: If America is circling the drain, Goldman Sachs has found a way to be that drain – an extremely unfortunate loophole in the system of Western democratic capitalism, which never foresaw that in a society governed passively by free markets and free elections, organized greed always defeats disorganized democracy.

The bank’s unprecedented reach and power have enabled it to turn all of America into a giant pump-and-dump scam, manipulating whole economic sectors for years at a time, moving the dice game as this or that market collapses, and all the time gorging itself on the unseen costs that are breaking families everywhere – high gas prices, rising consumer-credit rates, half-eaten pension funds, mass layoffs, future taxes to pay off bailouts. All that money that you’re losing, it’s going somewhere, and in both a literal and a figurative sense, Goldman Sachs is where it’s going: The bank is a huge, highly sophisticated engine for converting the useful, deployed wealth of society into the least useful, most wasteful and insoluble substance on Earth – pure profit for rich individuals.

They achieve this using the same playbook over and over again. The formula is relatively simple: Goldman positions itself in the middle of a speculative bubble, selling investments they know are crap. Then they hoover up vast sums from the middle and lower floors of society with the aid of a crippled and corrupt state that allows it to rewrite the rules in exchange for the relative pennies the bank throws at political patronage. Finally, when it all goes bust, leaving millions of ordinary citizens broke and starving, they begin the entire process over again, riding in to rescue us all by lending us back our own money at interest, selling themselves as men above greed, just a bunch of really smart guys keeping the wheels greased. They’ve been pulling this same stunt over and over since the 1920s – and now they’re preparing to do it again, creating what may be the biggest and most audacious bubble yet.

In brutal detail, Tiabbi lays bare Goldman Sachs’ role in five bubbles that have rocked the US economy from 1929 to 2009 –

#1 – The Great Depression (of 1929)
#2 – Tech Stocks
#3 – The Housing Craze
#4 – $4 a Gallon
#5 – Rigging the Bailout

And then he goes on to explain their involvement in the bubble that’s about to start:

#6 – Global Warming

…If cap-and-trade succeeds, won’t we all be saved from the catastrophe of global warming? Maybe – but cap-and-trade, as envisioned by Goldman, is really just a carbon tax structured so that private interests collect the revenues. Instead of simply imposing a fixed government levy on carbon pollution and forcing unclean energy producers to pay for the mess they make, cap-and trade will allow a small tribe of greedy-as-hell Wall Street swine to turn yet another commodities market into a private tax-collection scheme. This is worse than the bailout: It allows the bank to seize taxpayer money before it’s even collected.

If you haven’t realized it already, this is a must read of the highest order. And it should be read in its complete form to get the full effect. For me to snip and paste more would not do it justice. Warning it will leave you shocked and more than a little sick to your stomach. The complete article.. And by the way, the global warming part is at the very end, but please read through to get there.

And as a warm-up, I thought you might enjoy this clip of MSNBC’s Carlos Watson discussing Goldman Sachs with Matt Taibbi of Rolling Stone, Dillion Ratigan of Morning Meeting and Jean Chatzky of Today’s Money 911.

_____________________

Major h/t to “oowawa” for the link to Taibbi’s article and to “BGD” for the link to the video!

No Quarter’s American Girl in Italy has a great post including an excellent video explanation of “cap-and-trade” by the eco geek, here.

Jim McTague, of Barron’s and the J B S, at the recent Millken Foundation annual conference in Los Angeles, speaks with Bill Markus of Newedge Group re this year in commodities trading.

Markus is cautious and ambitious at once, since the cliff-diving of commodities leaves every market oversold and an imminent gold mine. The energy group of oil, gas, coal is especially inviting, because any recovery will drive the prices of energy sky-rocketing in anticipation of industry demand. Same for the metals and food. Jim Rogers, of Rogers Investment and the J B S, at Singapore told me three weeks back that all commodities were in a bull century.  The bill is particularly accurate for food because of demand and the shrinking arable acreage in developed countries, where population gobbles up land for housing and commercial enterprises, and in developing countries, where decades of low prices has driven the small farmer off the land to overcrowd the maga cities and their mega slums.  Rogers says, “You want to get rich, marry a farmer.” 

One sentence that really got me onside was when he stated that the country could not afford to let Congress “play political games” as was its usual tendency. I immediately thought of Nancy Pelosi sucking in her breath, and it gave me hope that maybe the Congressional tail will not be wagging the dog after all.

I liked what he had to say about energy policy, health care and most of the issues he covered, including the need to do something about Iran’s threat to stability in the region through its financing of terrorism and its attempt to develop nuclear weapons.

And I could not but help be impressed by the way he handled questions and his general grasp of the subject matter. He seemed extraordinarily well informed on all the issues and able to communicate his ideas very clearly and intelligently.

I also liked what he had to say about people from both sides of the political divide needing to “break out of their traditional ideological gridlocks” .

There was a lot of hesititation but I felt this was understandable and forgivable to allow him time to ponder some of the questions thrown at him and give a considered answer.

I have to say that maybe the emperor is not quite as naked as his recent behavior – or perhaps I should say reports of his recent behavior – might have suggested.

At least those are my first impressions. Maybe I’m too impressionable. Maybe I will have second thoughts later on and realize that maybe he has skated over some issues too glibly.

But right now I am impressed.

OMG Am I being brainwashed? Have the Pod People finally got to me?

Help!

That was in 1798 (more than two centuries ago), when he published the first edition of his economic treatise – An Essay on the Principle of Population – pointing out that population growth generally preceded expansion of the population’s resources, in particular the primary resource of food.

In all societies,” he wrote, “even those that are most vicious, the tendency to a virtuous attachment is so strong that there is a constant effort towards an increase of population. This constant effort as constantly tends to subject the lower classes of the society to distress and to prevent any great permanent amelioration of their condition.”

What Malthus didn’t take into account was the fact that his prophecies were self-defeating, because increasing awareness of the problem led to greater efforts to make sure his prophecies were not realized. This was accompanied by great technological progress, which increased exponentially after the industrial revolution in Britain.

Since Malthus there have been many subsequent cries of alarm from others about the earth’s resources being unable to support the population growth, but every time these cries of alarm turned out to be self-defeating prophecies.

We have now entered a period where the Malthus mindset has once again taken root about resources and the prospects for economic growth. While it will almost certainly prove yet again to be a self-defeating prophesy, this phenomenon is unfortunately often accompanied (at least in the short term) by self-fulfilling prophesies of economic doom and gloom.

If enough people think that the economy is going to get worse, it makes it certain that the economy WILL get worse, because the belief itself fans the flames of economic disintegration. People stop spending, so the economy slows down. Because the economy slows down, productivity drops. Thus pessimism becomes a self-fulfilling outlook.

The fact, however, is that technological progress continues to accelerate in leaps and bounds, and many of the problems in terms of availability of resources can be overcome through the application of new technology and new ideas to energy, food, infrastructure and economic activity itself.

There is every reason to be optimistic about the longer term future, provided people are able to see the possibilities ahead of them and not get stuck in the Malthusian mindset that now prevails.

(The accompanying video, below, has nothing to do with Malthus, but is a kind of tribute to industry.)