Maybe I missed it, but from my understanding free markets don't "break." In fact, it is only when we try to steer them that problems arise.

I think it was in my third microeconomics lecture when the concept of market failure (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_failure) was introduced. External costs, information asymmetry, etc.

Markets are wonderful mechanisms for decentralizing decision making. I like markets. But they are not magic, and they fail (as in break) all the time. The problem is, intervention often just changes the failure mode; effective management of imperfect markets is freakin' hard. But desirable.

By the way, well said Andrew:

The brightest minds in finance had exactly what they wanted, a playground where the monitors were looking the other way, and they blew it.

In 1986, the Red Sox lost the World Series, and the Patriots got crushed by the Bears in the Super Bowl (1985-6 season).

In 1986, the Mets won the World Series, and the Giants won the Super Bowl (1986-7 season).

So: Time for more payback, New York.

As much as it was gratifying to root for underdog Boston teams (old Celtics excepted) for decades, winning is kind of fun to watch too.

PS- In 1969, the Mets won the WS and the Jets won the Super Bowl, too [68-9]; the only other NY Super Bowl win was in 1991 [Giants], when both the Yankees and Mets were pretty bad.

... is an insult to blowhards.

... but it applies here, too. Calling John Gibson a blowhard is an insult to blowhards everywhere.

I am baffled that anyone would choose to tune into guys like this. And I'm an aging white male.

Carbon-negative fuels that enhance fertility: http://www.biochar.org/joomla/

I have no idea of the current economics of such processes (which take biomass as an input and generate hydrogen (fuel) and charcoal (fertilizer) as outputs), but man, what's not to like?

Eprida (http://www.eprida.com/) is another relevant organization.

Here's my readers' digest of the top comments in this thread so far:

[The Democrat party generally] always seems to assume that the Republicans will define the central issues which then have to be further defended by the Dems. -apophasis

This memo only confirms my disenchantment with the current Democrat Party Machine, and why HRC is a tired, old-school Democrat. -terry

Can you imagine how nasty things would be if there were ideological differences involved? -Anon

As you can guess from my choice of the 2nd quote, I back Obama, with money as well as my vote. But I think supporters of both Democratic camps need to seriously cool off. It's OK to be passionate about a candidate without demonizing the other. Sure, there's a lot I don't like about HRC, but the last thing I want to do is get in a shouting match with Clinton supporters that further weakens the party.

You can win a race by running faster than the others, or by whacking your fellow competitors in the kneecaps. In the sport of politics, it's always plenty of both, but let's focus more on the running, shall we? At least until the convention?

... but great article. Probably the best piece I've ever seen from Mr. Manjoo.

Great post:

We are watching what may be, for many of us, a once-in-a-lifetime politician come to the forefront.

It's sad for Hillary -- she's certainly competent, and if you fielded her against a primary slate of, for example, Biden, Richardson, and Kerry, she'd be the nominee easily. And if she was the nominee running against McCain, she might not win, but she'd at least have had her shot -- and I know how very much she wants it, and how much it means to her, and rightfully so. She has worked hard.

But life isn't fair, and politics certainly isn't fair.

She's in the wrong place at the wrong time, as much as Barack Obama is in the right place at the right time.

The rest of your post was equally on the mark. I salute you.

I haven't watched Gore's movie either; if my wife and I are going to invest time in a movie, we want light romantic comedy or pure escapism.

Anyway Camille, I'll save you some time:

Read this paper; it was written in 1896 by a noted scientist (Arrhenius), so it's clearly immune from the politics of today: http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Arrhenius_pdf

It establishes how CO2 levels impact climate (it's not totally right, but he did a pretty good job for 1896).

Then, peruse some of this data: http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Carbon_Dioxide_Gallery

Ok, so we have: Increased CO2 -> higher temps, first quantified in 1896. We have data showing increased CO2, clearly due to human activity. So... what's the question?

Yes, there's natural variability, complications up the wazoo, and so forth, but the basic idea is really, really simple.

What is this, slashdot?

Referring to items like the Calhoun quote are fairly powerful.

And there are some similarities.

But comparing climate change skepticism and denialism to slavery is a terrible way to frame the issue. It's like calling someone a Nazi- your target generally benefits from the comparison, and can turn the issue back on you- "You call people Nazis! I'm waaaay better than a Nazi!"

Same with slavery and man-made climate change. The impacts of climate change are way too abstract to compare with slavery, and the worst impacts have yet to happen. So in terms of framing the issue, it's tough sledding.

But indirect references to the parallels in the economic argument can be quite effective if used carefully.