Waxman's blunt statement that the goal of cap and trade is to raise energy prices was deeply off-message for green groups, which have long insisted that energy efficiency and conservation would prevent energy prices from rising.

Waxman, the greenies, and the authors are confused by their limited notions of possible cap and trade systems. Niether the elitist Obama system's obsession with high-level economic actors, nor its initial auction (the part that resembles a tax) are necessary or desirable parts of a global-warming cap-and-trade system.

Much as the Paulson/Geithner plan to stimulate the economy failed because it was designed to protect the devious wealthy at the cost of true trickle-up stimulus, current cap and trade systems become sleight-of-hand transfers through high-level offsets and other easily corrupted mechanisms.

Here's what Waxman and the greenies should pitch to average Americans: If we initially raised your living costs $500 a year, but then increased your income by $500 or $700, would you be a net loser? If you then lowered your living costs by using less gas, but you still got to keep the cash, wouldn't that be sweet?

Start simple and low, quantify, and verify, verify, verify.

Oil consumption flows through a highly monitored and measured delivery system. Cap total national consumption. Divide buying rights equally among citizens. Give all consumers a) the right to buy their share of x gallons b) quantified credits to measure that right and c)a simple method to buy or sell the credits at the pump or online or on their cell.

Companies will have to buy oil credits from citizens in the market, and of course they will pass on that added cost through their products. But consumers will also recoup costs by selling their excess consumption rights. Both corporate users and consumers will have cash incentive to use less oil--corporate conservation means decreased production costs, and personal conservation means increased excess credits to sell. That drives better conservation choices.

The government, meanwhile, profits by taxing the trades. The government can spend the revenue on new technologies if it wants to do the right thing, or start another war if it doesn't.

that means me and my ilk can get back to worrying about fluff.

Seriously. Keep an eye on global warming while you're at it.

Cheers.

Jack

I also liked Rainn Wilson, both B.O.B. and the alien's animation seems to come together with the voice characterizations. The others sounded more like actors in a sound booth.

The gollum eyes in these cartoony things are creepy.

Do people realize/remember just how few news outlets there were before the web, the narrowness of their concerns, and the inability of average people to talk back to the media barons? How difficult it was to get foreign news sources?

Most papers have always been crap, and, in smaller markets particularly, their crap dominated public discourse. Good riddance to their monopolies.

Particularly with the web, multiple cable channels, etc etc. I don't quite get the zero-sum logic that celebrity "news" is somehow antithetical to hard news. You can have both. We've actually always had both, but there is more room for both now.

I call bullshit on the notion that the NY Times and other hard-content news sources don't publish well-researched and relevant articles. Yes, there are Judith Millers and Jayson Blairs. But they are certainly not the whole story. I usually don't defend the snobby East-Coast-centric Times, but we will miss it when it's gone, and Salon will publish a eulogy about how its demise symbolizes the end of serious content. We need more Times-type vehicles to challenge its supremacy on discourse, not less.

It's hard to write good content. And content is expense relative to current revenue streams--both ads and subscriptions have tanked. Newspapers are tied to the expensive paper delivery model. But producing serious journalism is cheap compared to the total money available in the market place. Maybe the answer are third party endowments, private and, perhaps, public.

Look at Kindle and the like. They basically solve the delivery issues. They aren't ad-splattered. Bazillionaire Bezos, the gigaGooglionaires and the like should be able to throw together an insulated one-time endowment (run by someone else, someone newsy) to keep the substance coming. Hell, let's AIG-tax those Richy-Rich's and throw the money in a big pot.

No mention of China owning the debt we're running up.

No mention of Clintonian anti-labor trade policies.

No mention of the globalized wealthy elite, of which Bill Clinton is the corrupt symbol.

Whether Republicans run up deficits for wars and Halliburton, or Obama runs up deficits to pay off Wall Street financiers with TALF and TARP, the little guy gets screwed either way. All we get is the chance to borrow more and pay more taxes.

Also, note no mention of environmental concerns, particularly that Obama broke his promise on CO2 cap and trade. Global warming will particularly affect the less wealthy. It will eventually cost us all.

Conason is to political analysis what Paris Hilton's lapdog is to dog fights.

Let's see: incomes are down, but spending is up. Jobs continue to disappear.

So, if people aren't working, and working for less, where is that spending money coming from?

Given Americans lack of personal savings and high debt balances, is the increase in spending sustainable?

The wealthy stand to make a killing on TALF at our expense. We'v already handed out oodles of cash to the elites. What does Obama give us? More borrowing opportunities.

The media and comedians tell us that populist demands for equity and responsibility were silly and populism is now dead. We're supposed to be happy that we have a President who is an "ordinary" guy who bowls and goes to Bulls games. Isn't that enough?

No wonder people want to get high.