Hi, Everyone!

First of all, I want to apologize for my unannounced absence from The Train of late.

And unfortunately, second of all, I want to take a moment to turn that unannounced absence into an announced hiatus. Having ten days left in my college career would be a hectic time even if I didn't work the way that I do – but since my writing style tends to consist in several months of "thinking" and "research" followed by a couple weeks of nearly uninterrupted writing, well, it's really hectic.

But here's a glimpse of what I've been doing on the astrophotography front.


ATTEMPT 1, 11/21/08 (already showcased here):




ATTEMPT 2, 12/3/08:




While the first image is a single shot, taken on my first successful night of imaging, the second is a composite image of 23 separate exposures stitched and blended together in Photoshop. This not only allows for a much wider field of view, it means that I can balance different exposures and levels of focus. And the good news is that I haven't fully taken advantage of the technique, so should be able to get something even better (though not so much better) before finishing the project.

While I was hesitant to recommend that anyone click on the previous image (it looks about as good as it ever will at the smaller size), this time I encourage everyone to check out the larger version.

Obama Transition Round-up

There's been a lot of important transition news from the transition all week, so I figured this might be the best way to quickly get through all the things that went down.

-Good: Jared Bernstein Named Joe Biden's economist. I'm with atrios here in wondering why the Vice President needs an economist, but Jared Bernstein is awesome, a progressive, and it's good that he's officially anywhere in the administration.

-Good: Xavier Becerra offered position of US Trade Rep. This could be nice since he's been a strong critic of NAFTA over the past few years. This isn't all good however, because he voted for the Peru deal and China PNTR, so that puts him in the same "doesn't get it" crowd as many dems, but slightly to the left of Obama on trade. Which is good.

-Bad: Obama goes back on his promise to install "windfall profits tax" on oil companies, saying that since the price of oil has fallen, there's no longer a need. The problem with that explanation is that if the companies don't make windfall profits... they don't get taxed. That's the whole point of the law. So it doesn't make sense for Obama to arbitrarily say that since the price has gone down, there's no need for that law. The law polices itself. If they don't have windfall profits, they won't get taxed!

-Good: Mary Beth Maxwell is rumored to be the choice for Labor secretary. She has a great record, and would be an amazing choice if the rumors are to be believe. I'd write more, but since it's still rumors I'll wait until more info comes out.

-Bad: Labor secretary still hasn't been announced, while the other economic positions have. Speaking of that, add this as another bad, and a personal one too. Bill Richardson would have made an amazing secretary of state, and would have been one of the most progressive foreign policy voices we've had in some time. So they send him to the chamber of commerce, where he'll fully be able to exercise his center-right economic views. Ugh.

Good: Susan Rice as U.N. Ambassador. I'm excited about her position just because her FP views are decently further to the left than anyone else on board. I had this whole joke set up about how this makes two people in his administration who were right about Iraq if you include Barack Obama. That was until I found out I was wrong and she wasn't really against the war. Oh. So it's back down to one person in his administration who was right on the war. I know the whole it's only him that matters argument and everything, but jesus, you'd think you could at least get one other person in there. It's not like you based your whole campaign around your opposition to the war or anything.

-Good: Gates Stripped of his top deputies. Very, very good. The Gates appointment still sucks, but this moves it from "Horrific" to "Fairly Annoying".

-Bad: Tim Geithner already sucking (who could have imagined):

Yeah, so Geithner, Obama's appointee for Treasury Secretary wants Bair, the director of the FDIC (the folks who take over failed banks) to lose her post because she hasn't been a "team player" and supposedly isn't working for the good of the economy, but for her own agency.

So why doesn't Geithner like Bair? Because she had the guts to stand up and suggest that homeowners needed real help. This may not have been the "team player" thing to do, but it was the right thing to do for the economy, contrary to what Geithner thinks. And it showed that Bair was concerned first with doing what was right for the economy, the country and ordinary people.

-Bad: Obama brushing off a question about his and Hillary Clinton's foreign policy differences as "fun for the press". I really don't get this one, and it seems like even in some netroots circles now asking this question is akin to continuing the media obsession with "Clinton vs Obama drama". This stuff matters, than ran for president with two very different views of the world. It isn't "fun" to wonder whether Hillary Clinton's policy is to sabre-rattle or negotiate with Iran. This shit matters. If she relinquished all those opinions and has adopted all of your positions, then say so. The people who voted for your foreign policy deserve that much. Oh yeah, and WHO COULD HAVE IMAGINED...

-Unbelievably Bad:

NEW YORK — President-elect Barack Obama's vast list of donors is being asked to donate to Hillary Rodham Clinton as she scrambles to reduce her massive campaign debt before she becomes secretary of state and federal ethics rule limit her fundraising, an Obama adviser said Thursday night.

I seriously hope enough people respond with an email telling them to fuck off. Ever wanted to fund union busting? Help retire a multimillionaire's debt! Makes sense to me!

-Good: The photoshoping ideas that come from this part of the same article:

Clinton also plans to sell a children's book, titled "Dreams Taking Flight" by author Kathleen Krull, about her pioneering candidacy. Clinton's mother, Dorothy Rodham, planned to send an e-mail to supporters later this week asking them to purchase the book to help raise funds to pay down Clinton's debt.

An kids book on the Clinton primary campaign? I can't wait for the sections on race-baiting, and invoking RFK's assassination! Those will be particularly inspirational!

-Seriously Good: Obama's speech today on the staggering job loss across the country:

But now is the time to respond with urgent resolve to put people back to work and get our economy moving again. At the same time, this painful crisis also provides us with an opportunity to transform our economy to improve the lives of ordinary people by rebuilding roads and modernizing schools for our children, investing in clean energy solutions to break our dependence on imported oil, and making an early down payment on the long-term reforms that will grow and strengthen our economy for all Americans for years to come."

46 More days...

Cluster-bomb ban treaty unanimously accepted!

Just kidding.

Let’s see, who supported the ban? Laos, pfft, what do those guys know about cluster-bombs, anyway? Not like they still have to deal with unexploded ordinance we dropped on them during the Vietnam War or anything. Who else… ah, Lebanon. The article is kind enough to point out that the Lebanese have 4 million bomblets spread across southern Lebanon, care of Israel’s wildly successful attempt to outdo Bush with regard to enacting shitty foreign policy.

Alright, so maybe they have something here. It does make me curious about who would oppose this treaty- let’s take a quick look at a few notable non-signers:

Russia
China
Israel
USA

Wow, I sure am proud to see my country up there with that crew. Putin would probably request that you pry any weapon system from his cold dead hands, China must have a list of places they’d love to make uninhabitable with cluster-bombs, and Israel proudly went through them like they were going out of style back in 2006. I thought we had learned our lesson in Afghanistan, however.

Maybe a new President will give us a chance at reversing this shameful decision.

Pelosi Power!

As I was walking back to work, I passed a bookstore no more than a block from the U.S. Capitol and saw this:
Yes, that is a real book. I stood outside in the cold for close to a minute, reading and re-reading the cover: "Know your Power: A message to America's Daughters" by Nancy Pelosi.

It looks like we have another cantidate for The Alanis Morissette School of Irony.

As if to drive home the point, when I got back to work, I was greeted by this front page article with vintage Pelosi-speak on the bailout:

WASHINGTON — Lawmakers want the Treasury to insist that banking institutions sharing in the $700 billion bailout comply with limits Congress imposed on executive salaries and use the money for its intended purposes.

In the first comprehensive review of the rescue package, the Government Accountability Office said Tuesday that the Treasury Department has no mechanisms to ensure that banking institutions limit their top executives' pay and comply with other restrictions.

"The GAO's discouraging report makes clear that the Treasury Department's implementation of the (rescue plan) is insufficiently transparent and is not accountable to American taxpayers," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.

I agree Nancy, the handling of the bailout hasn't been transparent, or accountable to tax payers. What's strange is to hear you talking as if this wasn't the same piece of legislation that you helped craft! Upset that it doesn't have any teeth? That didn't seem to bother you when you were rushing it through the house and whipping your own members to vote for it!

If these type of rants sound familiar, it's because Nancy Pelosi seems to have a recurring problem with that whole "knowing your power" thing.

In fact, since this will no doubt occur again in the future, let's use one of my old posts to create a Nancy Pelosi rant madlib:

Few things enrage me more than when Nancy Pelosi talks about an issue in the same way that you or I would discuss current events.

When I say I'm disappointed we aren't doing much to (problem that requires congressional attention) , that's a reasonable thing me to say, since I'm a citizen and my powers to change that are limited.

When Nancy Pelosi says she's disappointed she wasn't able to (problem that requires congressional attention) , that makes me want to throw her a copy of the U.S. Constitution, since she is the fucking Speaker of the House, and has more power to (problem that requires congressional attention) more than anybody other than the president.

I'd like to think I had the same power as the Speaker of the House. But since I don't it's pretty frustrating to hear her talk as if she's not, you know, Speaker of the Fucking House.

So after seeing today's headline...

Few things enrage me more than when Nancy Pelosi talks about an issue in the same way that you or I would discuss current events.

When I say I'm disappointed we aren't doing much to enforce transparency for the bailout , that's a reasonable thing me to say, since I'm a citizen and my powers to change that are limited.

When Nancy Pelosi says she's disappointed she wasn't able to enforce transparency for the bailout , that makes me want to throw her a copy of the U.S. Constitution, since she is the fucking Speaker of the House, and has more power to enforce transparency for the bailout more than anybody other than the president.

I'd like to think I had the same power as the Speaker of the House. But since I don't it's pretty frustrating to hear her talk as if she's not, you know, Speaker of the Fucking House.

Think of all the time we've saved for the next time she's talking about the war!

The Auto industry crisis as a three act play

From the some hero in the comments on John Cole's blog:

THE TRAGEDY OF THE AMERICAN AUTOMOBILE INDUSTRY:A Play in Three Acts

Dramatis Personae

BIG THREE, a manufacturer of automobiles
UAW, Big Three’s employee
MITT ROMNEY, an idiot

ACT ONE

BIG THREE: I have plans to build automobiles, but I need labor to do so!

UAW: I will labor for you if you will pay me $40 per hour.

BIG THREE: I will not pay you $40 per hour.

UAW: But I need to save for my inevitible retirement, and any health concerns that may arise.

BIG THREE: I will pay you $30 per hour, plus a generous pension of guaranteed payments and health care upon your retirement.

UAW: Then I agree to work for you!

ACT TWO

UAW: I am building cars for you, as I have promised to do!

BIG THREE: I am designing terrible cars that few people want to buy! Also, rather than save for UAW’s inevitible retirement when I will have to pay him the generous pension of guaranteed payments and health care that I promised, I am spending that money under the dubious assumption that my future revenues will be sufficient to meet those obligations.

ACT THREE

UAW: I have fulfilled my end of the deal by building the automobiles that you have asked me to build.

BIG THREE: Oh no! I am undone! My automobiles are no longer competitive due to my years of poor planning and poor judgment!

MITT ROMNEY: This is all UAW’s fault!

Amazing. And if you're wondering why Mitt Romney, it's because of this brilliant Op-ed he put out a few weeks back.

Obama's Cabinet, Progressive faith in his economic team, and why I don't share it

I've always liked Openleft's right to respond policy, so I figured it would be a good idea to put Obama's response to criticism of his nominations up here, as well as some other thoughts, defenses and theories about Obama's appointments.

First, Obama's response to criricim of his cabinet nominees:

"Understand where the vision for change comes from, first and foremost," he said. "It comes from me. That's my job, to provide a vision in terms of where we are going and to make sure then that my team is implementing [that vision]."

"The last Democratic administration we had was the Clinton administration," said Obama. "So it would be surprising if I selected a Treasury Secretary who had had no connection with the last Democratic administration, because that would mean that the person had no experience in Washington whatsoever. And I suspect that you would be troubled and the American people would be troubled if I selected a Treasury Secretary or a chairman of the National Economic Council, at one of the most critical economic times in our history, who had no experience in government whatsoever. What we are going to do is combine experience with fresh thinking."

"I think when you ultimately look at what this advisory board looks like, you'll say this is a cross-section of opinion that in some ways reinforces conventional wisdom and in some ways breaks with orthodoxy in all sorts of ways," he went on. "And that's the kind of discussion we want. We want ideas from everybody. What I don't want to do is to somehow suggest that somehow suggest that since you served in the last Democratic administration, that you're somehow barred from serving again. Because we need people who are going to be able to hit the ground running."

Paul Krugman's take on the economic team:

A thought I’ve had: there have been some complaints from movement progressives about the centrism/orthodoxy of Obama’s economics appointments. To some extent this was unavoidable, I think: someone like the Treasury secretary has to be an experienced hand who can deal with Wall Street, and I haven’t heard anyone proposing particular individuals with clearer progressive credentials to hold that position. (And for those of you wondering about yours truly — I’m temperamentally unsuited, have never had any desire for the job, and probably have more influence as an outside gadfly than I ever could in DC.)

The now fairly widespread in progressive circles theory that Obama is using centrists to pursue progressive policy, put into words by Robert Kuttner:

As progressives, we can view President-Elect Obama's emerging economic team in one of two ways. Either he has disappointed us by picking a group of Clinton retreads--the very people who brought us the deregulation that produced the financial collapse; the fiscal conservatives who in the 1990s put budget balance ahead of rebuilding public institutions. Or we can conclude that he has very shrewdly named a team of technically competent centrists so that he can govern as a progressive in pragmatist's clothing--as he moves the political center to the left.

Which will it be? Certainly, Obama's press notices are phenomenal, and Republicans have almost been more enthusiastic than Democrats. When Arianna Huffington and I debated George Will and David Brooks on George Stephanopulos's This Week Sunday morning, the conservatives were, if anything, more approving of Obama's picks than we were.

On another channel, Republican guru Ed Rollins could be heard exulting about the Obama cabinet. I even had the out-of-body experience of debating Pat Buchanan on Hardball, to find that he thought Hillary Clinton was a terrific choice for Secretary of State. Obama now has the highest approval ratings on record for any president-elect, and he has the entire Republican pundit class in a swoon.

. . .

Obama is the president, and he will do what he deems necessary. In my writings during the campaign, I sometimes found myself second-guessing Obama's strategy--and he invariably turned out to be smarter than I was.

And finally, David Sirota's take on Kuttner's theory:

As Rachel says, he seems to be saying he's going to put policy over personnel. Or, as I noted, it's what David Axelrod told the New York Times: "He's not looking for people to give him a vision - he's going to put together an administration of people who can effectuate his vision."

There's no real precedent for this in politics. Sure, presidents have hired bureaucrats or functionaries to implement their vision, but there's not many examples of them hiring high-profile ideologues like, say, Larry Summers and getting them to carry a vision that's very different from their own ideological vision.

In other words, it's usually the case that "personnel is policy," as Grover Norquist once said. That's especially true in an executive branch that's so large it tends to demand policy delegation. But if that truly is Obama's strategy, and he can pull it off - that is, if he can get ideological free-market fundamentalists (and nobody credible on either side of the aisle really argues that Summers, Geithner, et. all are anything but that) to carry progressive FDR-ish legislation - then he will indeed be one of the master politicians of history. And if anyone seems to have the political skills to do it, it is Obama.

Ok, that's a lot to throw out there at once, but I figured it would be the best way of making the point that if you ever decided to take my opinions with more than a grain of salt, there are a lot of very smart people out there who disagree with me on this one.

I also think that some people misinterpret the criticism of his appointments, and now is as good a time as any to clear that up.

While some of the nominations make zero sense in my book, in no way do I think that Obama's foreign policy team will somehow make him want to bomb Iran or prolong the war in Iraq as members of his cabinet have advocated. I believe him when he says that he sets the mission, and it's his team who carry out the mission. And as for the economics team, if you did your homework on Obama's economic policy beliefs during his time in the senate and throughout presidential run, a center right team shouldn't be much of a surprise.

So why am I still disappointed by many his choices in both teams? Believe it or not, it has very little to do with ideology.

One of the ideals of this country is our belief in a meritocracy. If you are right, then you will be rewarded for being right and rise to the top. (Granted this is rarely true in practice, especially in politics, but I do believe that the ideal matters) When Obama's cabinet is described in the media, you hear the words "pragmatic" and "technocrat" quite a bit, and he seems to be getting praised for picking people who "put policy over partisanship", and just about every other Broader-y cliche in the books. But all of the lofty team of rivals rhetoric seems to exclude what should be the biggest question of them all: Who was right and who was wrong?

It was Barack Obama during the primary who made the powerful case against Hillary Clinton that experience doesn't count if it's experience getting things wrong. And to a large degree his appointments fail that same test.

• Robert Gates was wrong about the Iraq War when it began and was wrong about it in 2007 when he stated that leaving Iraq would have "dire" consequences for the U.S.

• Hillary Clinton was wrong about the Iraq war, and was wrong on her vote for the pointlessly-threaten-Iran amendment.

• Larry Summers was wrong when he supported the deregulation of the banking industry that is partially responsible for the crisis we have today.

• Tim Geithner screwed up the handling of the citigroup bailout less than a month ago.

This has nothing to do with ideology, this has everything to do with not rewarding the same people who got us into the mess we're in today. There are quite a few well respected economists who predicted the housing bubble, decried this financial deregulation and were right to be worried about the bailout. There are plenty of experienced people who were right about the war in Iraq and right about the Kyl-Lieberman amendment. When you run your campaign based on good judgment, one would assume you'd fill your cabinet with people who have shown that same good judgment in the past, instead of promoting those who have repeatedly lacked it.

And as for Kuttner's(and others) argument about Obama's economic team secretly executing a progressive policy, I would be lying if I didn't see it as anything other than moderately insane.

I say this knowing that plenty of people who I greatly respect believe this to be true, but having followed Barack Obama's career and economic advisers for some time, they are making a leap that I'm just not comfortable making. Barack Obama's economic policies will be tremendously better than anything we've seen in some time (this speech is a great start), but people need to be realistic with their expectations. If he's had people like Summers, Rubin, Furman, Goolsbee as his closest economic advisers with very little progressive economic representation during his time in the senate and throughout his presidential campaign, then it is more than likely that he believes in their economic philosophy.

No one, and I mean NO ONE, would be happier to be wrong about this than me. And like I said before, the economic crisis has gotten to the point that it may force Geithner and Summers to do something more radical than they had planned, the way it forced Paulson to take equity in the banks. But to think that somehow Obama nominated a bunch of center right economists to carry out an amazingly progressive economic agenda that even Obama himself hasn't mentioned or committed to seems a bit off the deep end to me. Not impossible, but in my mind it's about as probable as him making this Jim Jones National Security adviser, or naming Hillary Clinton a high ranking member of his cabinet.

Oh, yeah, that last one actually happened. Whoops.

Well, if we learned anything this year, it's that ANYTHING IS POSSSIIIIBBBBLLLEEEE!!!

Prove me wrong Barack, the ball's in your court.

Project for the New New American Century: December Newsletter

Last May we here at PNNAC boldly announced the creation of our think-tank with a bold list of bold foreign policy objectives. Designed to ensure continued American dominance in the upcoming century, our list of countries marked ‘INVADE RIGHT NOW’ urged President Bush to follow through immediately. Had he done so, we would be looking at a very likely world today. Sadly the President was swayed by a shadowy network of voices of reason and wet blankets, who ensured that not a single policy suggestion was enacted.

The results, clearly, have been tragic. Our enemies have been emboldened by the complete “pussification” (their word, not mine) of George Bush, who they claim has gone from a “Grade-A warmonger” to a “fairly unobjectionable guy.” Signs of their strength can be seen across the globe, making the clear and urgent threat posed by pre-war Iraq look like a mere desert mirage: Ships hijacked off the East African coast, crowded airports in Thailand, vaguely scary things done by some bad guys, poorly-spelled rants about the evils of America written on the internet. If we are to avert the coming disasters, President Obama must act quickly to follow every single one of our prescribed measures.

These days the threats facing America change quickly, so most of our suggestions have changed. Make no mistake, however: unless these nations are promptly destroyed, the consequences for Americans today and for future generations will be dire.

1. Kyrgyzstan: The only nation carried over from the first list, Kyrgyzstan is still asking for it. Beside their stupid name and goofy-looking bands, Kyrgyzstan has also refused to relocate their capital, Bishkek. The least they could do is engage in a massive renaming campaign, designed to render civilized nomenclature to a place which very sorely needs it. Until they do, they should live in constant fear of merciless retribution for their crimes against tasteful names.

2. Iceland: For months it has been clear that the economic crisis has been especially cruel to Iceland. When the country was jokingly put up for auction, many Chinese jumped at the chance. We believe it is clear that President Obama should immediately enact a policy of actually buying and selling Iceland several times daily, to send a message to China. While this may be impractical given that our own economy isn’t in particularly good shape, and while this would certainly cause Icelandic Gross National Consternation Levels to rise uncontrollably, sometimes America has to make some sacrifices to stay on top. When the Chinese see that America actually does things that they only joke about on the internet, despite many overwhelmingly negative consequences, they will be forced to acknowledge American supremacy.

3. New Zealand: With their country destroyed (by nuclear weapons, ironically), Jermaine Clement and Brit McKenzie will be forced to stay in America- actually, all New Zealanders will, due to the internment camps. Anyway, this will enable us to force them to make them create additional episodes of Flight of the Conchords in a timely fashion. Still want to end the show after the second season? I’m sure a few days of waterboarding will change their minds. Another dire threat to America erased.

4. Alaska: “As Putin rears his head over the airspace of America, where do they go?” The Project for the New New American Century couldn’t have put it any better, Sarah Palin. Amazing illustrations of that question aside, it’s time to show Putin we mean business. Destroying Alaska will leave Putin without a good place to rear his head over the airspace of America, which will surely bother him. As we all know that rearing his head over the airspace of America is his favorite pastime, this will be a victory of modest, yet fulfilling, proportions.

5. The Moon: From causing the tides to enabling lunacy, the Moon has wreaked its havoc on the Earth for long enough. It’s time to put a stop to our Moon troubles forever, by blowing it up or crashing it into something else (Pluto might be a good idea there, giving its supporters something to worry about besides completely arbitrary classification disputes). Did you know that the Moon has helped some of our greatest national foes? For example: Osama bin Laden has almost certainly, on at least one occasion in his life, been out at night and found his way around by the light of the Moon. Without this light his attempted navigation would have ended up becoming a madcap slapstick comedy, complete with banana peels and slide-whistles. Moon, your time is waning.

We hope President Obama is wise enough to break from the precedent set by Bush, and delivers on his promise to change our foreign policy.

Signed,

PROJECT FOR THE NEW NEW AMERICAN CENTURY