Joe the Biden Went to a Bar

Just how unexpected could any turn take in the conversation at the White House last week when Bush hosted Obama? Could they really have cut through the chattering background niceties? Is it possible they had a man-to-man meeting of minds? A heart-to-heart discussion on the state of state?

Perhaps it's a little like comparing the work that's cut-out for Obama with the unfinished business of Bush. If the cut-out was any more unfinished you could argue that Obama was stepping into fill an eight year vacancy. A leadership vacuum sounds less insulting than another W dress-down. That "giant sucking sound" that stuck in Ross Perot's ear flaps during Recession '91-'92 sounds warmer and more definitive than the deepening silence of our yet-to-be-determined great bottoming out of '09-'10.

It's certainly less presumptuous than the expectation of a natural order of things. Such a rationale rights the ship of state as a race from super sub-average back to average. That's when you add the possible worst presidency in history with the fervent hopes riding on one of the best. Factor the two together and we're just about even.

Our two party political brands abhor a big hoover as much as my two skittish indoor cats. We've had Big Hoover leadership for the last eight years. We could count on it for tight-lipped, unquestioning loyalty to unwavering unilateralism. I mean what's there not to count on? But the secretive sauce is ripe for dipping. All we have to go on are the signing statements and Presidential orders. We're clueless about the unsigned declarations. But we know that the back legal channels are the shadowy work of non-fiction's grimmest of plot lines. Yes, the world is a dangerous place. But it's picnic time for sunbathing pigs compared to the darker recesses of the rogue government that's been running the show. I'm referring to the office of the Vice President.

Soon after the state heads locked handshakes the real pocket change was riding on Biden when Cheney invited him down into his bunker with a view. They drew the drapes and Joe began to dream:

* What would honestly happen if business as usual one day one meant that the Commander-in-Veep receded back into the Rose Garden bushes?

* What powers would be spilled on the lap of lady liberty if an Obama Administration re-embraced a Constitution made expendable by a time of two wars, no-bid contracts, and the mercenaries that flew under flags of their own profiteering?

* In addition to taking on the economy, health care, energy, and global warming, what if Obama took back the Constitution?

That sounds big -- bigger than the Department of Justice. Kinda like social justice -- no? That sounds like the wiretaps being rolled back to the post-Watergate barricades that Cheney fought so hard to crash. Surely they won't erode any further? Joe, wake up!

But is this an offer Obama really can't refuse? Particularly if it diminishes the reach of his own presidency? Especially if it marginalizes his nonpartisan unity platform? It will be a fascination to see how this plays out. Personally, I'll be watching through the lens of Joe the Biden. He loves the Senate as dearly as Cheney despises it.

Joe the Biden Went to a Bar

Just how unexpected could any turn take in the conversation at the White House last week when Bush hosted Obama? Could they really have cut through the chattering background niceties? Is it possible they had a man-to-man meeting of minds? A heart-to-heart discussion on the state of state?

Perhaps it's a little like comparing the work that's cut-out for Obama with the unfinished business of Bush. If the cut-out was any more unfinished you could argue that Obama was stepping into fill an eight year vacancy. A leadership vacuum sounds less insulting than another W dress-down. That "giant sucking sound" that stuck in Ross Perot's ear flaps during Recession '91-'92 sounds warmer and more definitive than the deepening silence of our yet-to-be-determined great bottoming out of '09-'10.

It's certainly less presumptuous than the expectation of a natural order of things. Such a rationale rights the ship of state as a race from super sub-average back to average. That's when you add the possible worst presidency in history with the fervent hopes riding on one of the best. Factor the two together and we're just about even.

Our two party political brands abhor a big hoover as much as my two skittish indoor cats. We've had Big Hoover leadership for the last eight years. We could count on it for tight-lipped, unquestioning loyalty to unwavering unilateralism. I mean what's there not to count on? But the secretive sauce is ripe for dipping. All we have to go on are the signing statements and Presidential orders. We're clueless about the unsigned declarations. But we know that the back legal channels are the shadowy work of non-fiction's grimmest of plot lines. Yes, the world is a dangerous place. But it's picnic time for sunbathing pigs compared to the darker recesses of the rogue government that's been running the show. I'm referring to the office of the Vice President.

Soon after the state heads locked handshakes the real pocket change was riding on Biden when Cheney invited him down into his bunker with a view. They drew the drapes and Joe began to dream:

* What would honestly happen if business as usual one day one meant that the Commander-in-Veep receded back into the Rose Garden bushes?

* What powers would be spilled on the lap of lady liberty if an Obama Administration re-embraced a Constitution made expendable by a time of two wars, no-bid contracts, and the mercenaries that flew under flags of their own profiteering?

* In addition to taking on the economy, health care, energy, and global warming, what if Obama took back the Constitution?

That sounds big -- bigger than the Department of Justice. Kinda like social justice -- no? That sounds like the wiretaps being rolled back to the post-Watergate barricades that Cheney fought so hard to crash. Surely they won't erode any further? Joe, wake up!

But is this an offer Obama really can't refuse? Particularly if it diminishes the reach of his own presidency? Especially if it marginalizes his nonpartisan unity platform? It will be a fascination to see how this plays out. Personally, I'll be watching through the lens of Joe the Biden. He loves the Senate as dearly as Cheney despises it.

A Darker Future for Us

"Most men with nothing would rather protect the possibility of becoming rich than face the reality of being poor." - John Dickinson, 1776

Earlier this month Robert Samuelson wrote in Newsweek about a condition he calls affluence deprivation. To Samuelson this is the differences between competition and cooperation -- between half-empty and half-full. It's this -- is the economic pie expanding or is it fixed? If it's static the responsorial backlash to we're all in this together might conjure up an I-got-dragged-down-by-you rejoinder -- READ: spreading the wealth around.

If however pie expansion is dependent on a shared vision you have something resembling an as-yet-unnamed spirit of national sacrifice. For now we'll call it "tough love gratification." I know, I know, needs more work. Anyhow the credo might go something like this:

If you really want to do more than ridicule the last eight years then don't spite the terrorists by going out to shop. Carry yourself as if future generations you'll never meet were counting on your lifestyle choices. We would not be the first generation to perform this sacrifice. But it certainly would be a marked departure from the current hangover of surplus binging boomers.

This is not about expandable pies so much as growing our notion that the American dream is more than a placeholder for slot machines and lottery tickets. And if it should hold less than a fabulously wealthy future, would it be such a nightmare to hold onto our homes, meet our payments, and leave those petty material pastimes to the spendaholics?

And do we really need their indulgence to keep our shared fortunes afloat?

A Darker Future for Us

"Most men with nothing would rather protect the possibility of becoming rich than face the reality of being poor." - John Dickinson, 1776

Earlier this month Robert Samuelson wrote in Newsweek about a condition he calls affluence deprivation. To Samuelson this is the differences between competition and cooperation -- between half-empty and half-full. It's this -- is the economic pie expanding or is it fixed? If it's static the responsorial backlash to we're all in this together might conjure up an I-got-dragged-down-by-you rejoinder -- READ: spreading the wealth around.

If however pie expansion is dependent on a shared vision you have something resembling an as-yet-unnamed spirit of national sacrifice. For now we'll call it "tough love gratification." I know, I know, needs more work. Anyhow the credo might go something like this:

If you really want to do more than ridicule the last eight years then don't spite the terrorists by going out to shop. Carry yourself as if future generations you'll never meet were counting on your lifestyle choices. We would not be the first generation to perform this sacrifice. But it certainly would be a marked departure from the current hangover of surplus binging boomers.

This is not about expandable pies so much as growing our notion that the American dream is more than a placeholder for slot machines and lottery tickets. And if it should hold less than a fabulously wealthy future, would it be such a nightmare to hold onto our homes, meet our payments, and leave those petty material pastimes to the spendaholics?

And do we really need their indulgence to keep our shared fortunes afloat?

To the Victor Go the Hit Counts

A dear friend and astute social observer just registered a topical hit count smackdown. The two sparring factions within a Google search are:

"liberal historian": 10,500
"conservative historian": 17,200

He concludes:

"[t]he modifier is used to signify exceptionalism. So, my counterintuitive deduction is that historians lean to the left, thus the need to attach "conservative" more often than "liberal" since perhaps to many "liberal historian" is tautological.

He then substitutes a personifying actor for an actual advocate:

"Just something to consider when one sizes up the importance of the phrase "history will judge..."

Here's my take.

Google ignores most punctuation. This means that a phrase entered as "liberal, historian" counts word ordering alone -- not context. For example:

... important news that is flying under the radar. Posted by Contrarian at 6:42 PM. Labels: Conservative, historian, Liberal, Politics, Reagan, Welcome ...

Another distortion is the numerous duplicate entries attracted by both phrases in a Google web search -- it improves for specialty collections like Google News, Images, Scholar, etc.

Finally Google has its engineering fingerprints all over this thing -- not just in terms of its Ad Sense program (READ: Advertising for Mad Millennials) but even for the interpretation of what our search intentions happen to be. Don't believe me?

I then invite him to sample the useful information folly and direct him to reference the results starting with the 4th hit.

What is Google telling us? That we're really so sold on one specific search engine to assume that Google is a definitive final word on our inquisitive behaviors -- as in everything ever written about [blank] can be found thru ...?"

On the other hand if the mission is to use Google as an unofficial sampling of the world's fleeting, cumulative curiosities then yes: I would agree that reading hit counts on Google is akin to sampling an unscientific but plausible set of survey results.

One way to accentuate the actual usefulness of Google is to use syntax to aim your query in a way that squares your intentions with its indexer. For instance, if you limit your request to primary information providers, say bloggers, you get a much smaller, controlled, and arguably credible response:

"conservative historian" (inurl:blog OR inurl:blogs) = 316
"liberal historian" (inurl:blog OR inurl:blogs) = 229

One should also see a dramatic reduction in dupes and landing pages for books on Amazon. Hopefully we'll also see slight drops in the number of searchers duped by Google as well.

To the Victor Go the Hit Counts

A dear friend and astute social observer just registered a topical hit count smackdown. The two sparring factions within a Google search are:

"liberal historian": 10,500
"conservative historian": 17,200

He concludes:

"[t]he modifier is used to signify exceptionalism. So, my counterintuitive deduction is that historians lean to the left, thus the need to attach "conservative" more often than "liberal" since perhaps to many "liberal historian" is tautological.

He then substitutes a personifying actor for an actual advocate:

"Just something to consider when one sizes up the importance of the phrase "history will judge..."

Here's my take.

Google ignores most punctuation. This means that a phrase entered as "liberal, historian" counts word ordering alone -- not context. For example:

... important news that is flying under the radar. Posted by Contrarian at 6:42 PM. Labels: Conservative, historian, Liberal, Politics, Reagan, Welcome ...

Another distortion is the numerous duplicate entries attracted by both phrases in a Google web search -- it improves for specialty collections like Google News, Images, Scholar, etc.

Finally Google has its engineering fingerprints all over this thing -- not just in terms of its Ad Sense program (READ: Advertising for Mad Millennials) but even for the interpretation of what our search intentions happen to be. Don't believe me?

I then invite him to sample the useful information folly and direct him to reference the results starting with the 4th hit.

What is Google telling us? That we're really so sold on one specific search engine to assume that Google is a definitive final word on our inquisitive behaviors -- as in everything ever written about [blank] can be found thru ...?"

On the other hand if the mission is to use Google as an unofficial sampling of the world's fleeting, cumulative curiosities then yes: I would agree that reading hit counts on Google is akin to sampling an unscientific but plausible set of survey results.

One way to accentuate the actual usefulness of Google is to use syntax to aim your query in a way that squares your intentions with its indexer. For instance, if you limit your request to primary information providers, say bloggers, you get a much smaller, controlled, and arguably credible response:

"conservative historian" (inurl:blog OR inurl:blogs) = 316
"liberal historian" (inurl:blog OR inurl:blogs) = 229

One should also see a dramatic reduction in dupes and landing pages for books on Amazon. Hopefully we'll also see slight drops in the number of searchers duped by Google as well.

Forever hold your peace

Stepping up to the pre-dawn electoral line here. Think of it as a laundry-in-progress list. How does one get on it? Let's say not being mentioned once in the last two years of campaign-speak is all it takes to spill over this divide:

I will now refer to Barack Obama as the PE ("President-elect") -- you'll have to declassify the other future cast members. Afterall if you can't be presumptuous about history why bother blogging?

PE Obama:

How do you turn a new leaf without stoking the cleansing bonfire of more-than-enough eight years of non-transferable blame?

Is your prevailing coolness going over the heads of the less-temperate souls who will thwart your every move? At what point will the Move On petitions be perceived as a pile-up and less as a flooded switchboard call to action?

We're dealing with a congressional majority who owes its newfound status more to non-action than standing up. If you don't how can we stand with you?

COS Emanuel:

How do you advocate for stronger triangulation? Partisanship doomed the last show in town and the new guy in town is not exempt no matter how many seats the dems pick up tomorrow. One suggestion -- pick a fight with Harvard trustees on the tax exemption status of Big Higher Ed. That will innoculate Obama against elitism and create a smokescreen when No Child does get left behind for good.

TS Summers:

The tidal bailout waves have opened the credit spigots and that giant draining sound is beginning to sound a lot like back channel pay. Are you going to audit the funds or will the Wall Street backlash double-back these floodgates before the honeymoon is canceled?

DS Hagel:

We've outsourced our supply chain to the GOP donor base. Who's going to provide the ground-cover for our soft power displays in Kabul and Khanduhar when an underfunded FEMA calls its little Blackwater book?

VPE Biden:

How do you inherit the new fourth branch of government and assume business-as-usual has any meaning? Dismantling Cheney will make exhuming McCarthy smell like fresh disinfectant.

Forever hold your peace

Stepping up to the pre-dawn electoral line here. Think of it as a laundry-in-progress list. How does one get on it? Let's say not being mentioned once in the last two years of campaign-speak is all it takes to spill over this divide:

I will now refer to Barack Obama as the PE ("President-elect") -- you'll have to declassify the other future cast members. Afterall if you can't be presumptuous about history why bother blogging?

PE Obama:

How do you turn a new leaf without stoking the cleansing bonfire of more-than-enough eight years of non-transferable blame?

Is your prevailing coolness going over the heads of the less-temperate souls who will thwart your every move? At what point will the Move On petitions be perceived as a pile-up and less as a flooded switchboard call to action?

We're dealing with a congressional majority who owes its newfound status more to non-action than standing up. If you don't how can we stand with you?

COS Emanuel:

How do you advocate for stronger triangulation? Partisanship doomed the last show in town and the new guy in town is not exempt no matter how many seats the dems pick up tomorrow. One suggestion -- pick a fight with Harvard trustees on the tax exemption status of Big Higher Ed. That will innoculate Obama against elitism and create a smokescreen when No Child does get left behind for good.

TS Summers:

The tidal bailout waves have opened the credit spigots and that giant draining sound is beginning to sound a lot like back channel pay. Are you going to audit the funds or will the Wall Street backlash double-back these floodgates before the honeymoon is canceled?

DS Hagel:

We've outsourced our supply chain to the GOP donor base. Who's going to provide the ground-cover for our soft power displays in Kabul and Khanduhar when an underfunded FEMA calls its little Blackwater book?

VPE Biden:

How do you inherit the new fourth branch of government and assume business-as-usual has any meaning? Dismantling Cheney will make exhuming McCarthy smell like fresh disinfectant.