I am watching Good Morning America and am amazed at how loose their definitions of humility and conciliatory as they described the 'new' stance taken by John Boehner. I saw no indication that is is now humble and willing to compromise. He said exactly what he has said before: the Republicans are willing to compromise on new revenues so long as the 'conditions' are right. What those conditions are he didn't specify. I don't see that as a change in attitude or a willingness to compromise. This NBC.com article assess the 'new Boehner position very well.
This story (also from NBC.com) really warms my heart. I said before that the amount of money spent on the election just at the national was obscene. It appears it was also ineffective--at least on the Republican side. The NY Times posted this interesting summary of the economics of the election. The info is for the presidential campaigns. I have no idea of the total amount of money was spent on local and state elections.
Hello, Annie's Granny. Glad you stopped by and glad you like Margaret and Helen. They are a hoot.
I had a thought as I read yet another article on what the election means given that though Obama won re-election the legislative branch remains divided with the Senate in Democratic hands and the House in Republican control. In past elections I always split my ballots--I firmly believed that a divided legislature produced better legislation because compromise was necessary to reach a decision. Until the Bush II years when the Republicans started to redefine 'compromise' as 'my way or no way.' They intensified that behavior during Obama's first administration and for the first time I found no Republicans I would even consider voting for--except for our Indiana Attorney General who I was glad to see was re-elected by an almost 60% majority. Until the Republican Party decides to separate itself from the extreme Chrisitanist crusaders and Tea Party assholes, I don't think I will be splitting my votes again.
Another interesting thought--one that hasn't occurred to me in quite a long time--concerning several of the assessments of the Republican loss this election. Back in the 1980s a lot of the men I knew were very bitter about the gains of the feminist movement. Their bitterness was reflected in a lot of the news and opinion polls. Tact not being a big part of my personality at that time, I told them that they relied too much on only two assets, their white skins and their penises, and neither was worth as much anymore. (Warning: I am only marginally more tactful now.) Most of the pundits' assessments mirror my long ago comments: the Republican Party is too old, too white, too male. I can only agree. It is surprising in a way because I have been reading projections for the last 30 years which predicted that whites would be a minority in this country by 2050. The predictions appear to be right on target and the Republicans are in trouble. This Huffington Post piece indicates that the attitudes haven't changed much in 30 years.
Yves Smith posted a bit about Sandy and the all-too-quickly following nor'easter. I have also been thinking about the whole mess out east. I have noted before that we have been increasingly concerned about the possibility of an event that would interrupt power, water, or food supply lines. We haven't even come close to such a disaster here but a flood a couple of years ago messed up my Sister's basement and cost her and her partner quite a bit of frustration, discomfort, and money. Storms over the last few years have caused power outages west of us and many of the customers were without for up to two weeks. And areas east and south of us suffered the devastation of tornadoes. Every winter heavy snows have shut down areas around us and two years ago we had a winter when it seemed like it would never stop snowing. We try to be prepared for such events but the sequence on the east coast has me pondering again. After nine days the area hasn't really begun to recover from Sandy: a lot of homeless, more without power (though less now than just after), fuel and food still in short supply. Now with the nor'easter they have snow or rain, high winds, and renewed power outages. Yves last paragraph should tickle our concern:
If you see worries about fragile delivery systems and the risks of extended supply chains fade quickly from financial news, it’s likely that even after Sandy, companies and officials lack will to take issues like infrastructure risk seriously. And when predictable bad things happen, the costs will again be borne by ordinary citizens.From Robert Reich's pen (or word processor) to God's ear.
Read more at http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2012/11/continuing-sandy-aftermath-new-noreaster-underscore-complex-system-fragility.html#5doodksXdxbRarRM.99
John Michael Greer, who writes Archdruid Reports, has some good comments on our recent election. You all remember that, though I voted for Obama, I am not exactly enthusiastic about any real change coming in any time soon. I wasn't all that enthusiastic about the 'hope and change' promised by the prior campaign. The notion any one man can, by himself, stand against some of the forces moving in our society is more than a little nonsensical. The inertia built up in our industrial, military, political, and social institutions is massive and difficult to shift.