Why would Middle Eastern countries refuse to sell us oil? Assuming we weren't bombing them, etc. Seriously? Iran, which is the big boogey man in the region, is happy to sell oil to anyone who wants to buy it. The only reason they don't sell oil to US is that we refuse to buy from them.

For the most part I agree with you, they want to sell their oil. However, from the standpoint of US foreign policy makers, the need for oil is so great to the US economy and the US military, why take the chance on anything going wrong? Oil is such a critical resource that they just don't want to ever be in that situation.

Do we want to install "friendly" governments wherever we have an economic stake?

Well, US planners would like that, sure. But it is more important in some places than in others. I doubt anyone really cares what Belize does, but you can bet they care a lot about Saudi Arabia and other Middle East countries due to their energy reserves.

Democrats have large majorities in both houses of Congress; they ought to use it to legislatively bar the power that the Obama DOJ is now attempting to vest in the new President by enacting the legislation they spent all of last year insisting they favored

Yes, they SHOULD, but I'd bet a small fortune they WON'T. Rather, I expect we'll witness the sad spectacle of congressional democrats defending the Obama administration's abuses.

The erosion of the power of congress, and the accumulation of power in the office of the President continues apace.

when the Democrats revolt against Obama on this issue. If they didn't throw a fit when an opposition President did it, and the least popular President in living memory to boot, their guy won't receive so much as a grumble.

I hope I'm wrong.

But I'm not.

Well, this is good news, and there's been precious little of that for some time.

I hope Congress follows through. I'm not sure I'll really believe they are going to step up to the plate until the legislation passes, but I'm so starved for good news that I'll take the beginnings of a good thing as enough of a reason to be happy.

There are very good reasons why the Right is able to punish it's "heretics" and the Left has more trouble.

1) The Right has a more wealthy conservative patrons that fund magazines, think tanks, etc. Money, money, money. It buys ads, influences political campaigns, pays salaries of full time pundits, etc.

2) The Right often gets the support of the media, because media is a big business and often the interests of the media are aligned with the Right.

3) The Democrats must raise money to compete in national elections, and that means getting it from those who have it, which means they are naturally pushed to the right. The attitude of the median DONOR is usually a more accurate barometer of how a politician will behave than the attitude of the median VOTER.

Etc.

This longing for the authoritarian rigor of the Republican ranks reminds me of the raging debate in India a few years back over whether India was right to embrace cat-herding, disorganized democracy when China, with it's authoritarian disdain for democracy was modernizing and taking care of its poverty problems much faster.

It's a seductive argument, but India has some solid underpinnings that China doesn't have as a result of its going the hard route. And China has done badly enough dealing with minorities and ethnic groups, it is arguable that its model never would have worked in a place as diverse as India.

It's potentially more than seductive - it can be accurate.

When it comes to problems that don't jeopardize the planet, then I take the Indian line - better to go more slowly but maintain democratic institutions.

When the consequences of failure, or of moving too slowly, are catastrophic, then democracy be damned. The world could use a little authority in the realm of dealing with peak oil and climate change. There is no way the democracies of the West will take the required corrective actions to avert catastrophe.

What needs to happen (and what I have yet to see addressed) is that we have to return manufacturing to our country.

I'm in agreement with you as far as this goes, but simply getting manufacturing jobs back in the good ol' US of A will not solve anything by itself. Our problems are much bigger than that.

Capitalism itself, and the striving for ever greater growth generally, needs to be replaced with a sustainable economic model of some sort. I doubt anyone really knows what that might look like, but without it we're all toast, manufacturing jobs or no.

You suggest that the stimulus package is not good enough because the $800 billion we are going to spend is not enough...I have read nothing that indicates what that amount might be.

Krugman claims the CBO estimate is a $3 trillion shortfall between the potential output of the economy and what they expect will actually be produced over the next 3 years. So $1 trillion a year is what is required to gin up economic activity.

Are there any good examples of Government throwing money at a problem where the outcome was positive?

There are lots of examples. Social security greatly reduced poverty rates among the elderly, and does so with very little overhead. WIC is another good example - a relatively cheap program that has significantly improved infant health and nutrition. And finally, an example even most conservatives can agree on - look at the quality and professionalism of our military.

Certainly government gets some things wrong. But I've never understood this blanket "government always screws things up" argument. It can't stand up to even a quick glance at the facts.