In the summer of 2004, protestors wanting to demonstrate against the policies of the Bush Administration during the Republican National Convention’s visit to New York City were denied a permit to gather on Central Park’s Great Lawn. The city, we were told, could not afford the cost of repairing the damage done to the lawn by such a large crowd.

I didn’t buy it—no one really did—but the city could at least point to the $130,000 worth of damage that happened as a result of a 2003 Dave Matthews concert as some sort of object lesson. Concert crowds were bad for the lawn, protest crowds were bad for the lawn, crowds were just bad for the lawn, or so the story went. . .

. . . until Monday. . . .

You couldn’t be blamed for turning away from this title. After all, you probably read, listen to, or watch the news every day. In the last couple of days we’ve been reminded of more flooding in the Midwest, wildfires in California, the stock market’s continued decline, record prices for crude, the mortgage crisis with Congress tied in knots, and all of that is without mentioning Iraq or Afghanistan. If all of that is not enough to depress you, then maybe you need to see a psychiatrist, or else chuckle at Lord Acton’s words below.

If the title and recitation of recent headlines doesn’t turn you off, my lack of qualifications to write about them might. My training is in history and theology, not economics and engineering. But because of friend who is an engineer and financial observers like Joseph Lazzaro (a.k.a. "Hunter" on Kos), I decided that it was time more of us non-specialists need to try to grasp this larger economic picture. It seems to me that we are experiencing the first waves of several mini-catastrophes, the confluence of which would constitute a major one. These mini-catastrophes are all inextricably linked: war, a sick national and global economy, global warming, and a collapsing infrastructure.

Read on at your own risk.

Frankly, I didn't think I had to ask this question in a progressive blog, but since the Supreme Court Decision affirming the second amentment as an individual right instead of a collective right, there have been many contrarian diaries and comments that seemed to favor the conservative justices on this ruling.  I was taken aback a bit by this, but then again I didn't think I'd ever see Bill Clinton attacked here either, but I digress.

I have borrowed my title today from the last line of Bob Herbert's magnificent column on torture, entitled All Too Human.  I will explore his column, and also that of Derrick Jackson, entitled Holding Muslims at arm's length.  My remarks will also include reflections on FISA, and perhaps references to popular culture and other things as well.   This will be a personal reaction, and as such, not thoroughly planned or organized.  Consider it a bit of a cri de coeur, an appeal to what Lincoln called "the better angels of our nature."  I invite you to read, and to respond as you deem appropriate.

And now?

Well, it would make good on his remarks that we'll just have to trust him on who he chooses.

And it goes across the aisle, sort of.

And it assures a Florida win.

Let me start by saying I think Obama alone will win but he certainly is capable of losing.  Obama and the right team of surrogates, properly placed,  cannot lose.

Picking up where Avenging Angel left off in his comprehensive diary earlier today, McCain Reverses Position on Balancing the Budget. Again. is this opinion column from Bloomberg News columnist Gene Sperling (formerly President Bill Clinton's top economic adviser and a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress Action Fund who advised Hillary Clinton in her suspended bid for the 2008 presidential nomination).

To whit:

McCain, who would like us to see him as holding a consistent and principled stance on tax cuts and fiscal discipline, is engaging in the mother of all economic policy flip-flops.

Follow me over the flip for a few more choice slivers...

I kid you not.

This is up at HuffPost

ABC wants to host one of the proposed town halls - to which I add, hell freakin' no!!!

Within the past month I put forth 19 polls with 15 candidates each to figure out who you guys want in an Obama cabinet. With voting in all rounds now over I compiled five different cabinets and will put them all up for a vote this week.

Who got included in the final cabinets: the top three in each poll automatically made it into these final cabinet polls, in some cases also the 4th and 5th. However, to make sure that the cabinets are as diverse as possible I gave some candidates who didn't have enough votes a wildcard.

Each day this week you can rate a cabinet. Today, you can rate a possible Obama/Sebelius cabinet on a scale from 1 (hate it) to 10 (love it). At the end I will post the results and the cabinet with the highest average wins.

How the "vice-president" should be chosen and what qualifies a person to hold the office, has never been clearly defined throughout America's history.  The founders themselves misunderstood the nature of this task.  Originally, whomever received the second most votes in the electoral college was to become vice president.  However, after the disastrous president-vice president combo of John Adams/Thomas Jefferson resulted in such political strife and politically driven legislation (such as the "alien and sedition acts" of 1798 -- AKA "PATRIOT ACT 1.0") that the framers of the national WASP-nest saw it fit to draft an amendment (Amendment XII).

Since then, we've had a long string of "vee-peas" growing in the presidential garden.  Some have been inconsequential (who could forget George Dallas!) while others have had a large impact on American history.  Most of those who made an impact, did so because the commando-in-chief them kicked the presidential bucket.  This is true of both Johnsons (Andrew "Reconstruction" Johnson, and Lyndon "Southeast Asia" Johnson) and Harry "Hiroshima" Truman.  

Still other Veeps have done their best (or worst) work not while inhabiting the land's highest orifice, but while doing #2 duty (he he).  

I think there are several wonderful VP candidates out there who people are overlooking, or writing off too quickly for seemingly "obvious" reasons.  However, let's honestly consider the following people and what they would bring to the ticket.

It’s a shame that Bloomberg’s baby has been squashed. If  Congestion Pricing was still on the table the two faced mayor of New York City would have been forced to endorse rather than veto a bill that addressed New York City’s "tsunami" of electronic waste.

The problem of e-waste management is growing rapidly. Between 1985 and 2001 the sales of electronics in the U.S. more than tripled. Over 30,000 tons of electronic waste and small appliances traveled through our city's waste stream in 2004. New York City pays $6.4 million a year to export these materials to neighboring states for disposal in landfills or incineration in Newark.

Things almost seemed to work out because the city council overrode Mayor Chutzpa’s veto and New York may see an environmental commitment from business, someday. But the media stories about the override come with a hitch. An interview with the founder of the bill, Bill de Blasio and Council Speaker Christine Quinn points to inaction;

      a few days ago .i said hillary and bloomberg should run as independent.i dont mean they should run together in one ticket.i mean they should run on separate ticket. this is how hillary can win in the general election.
      a hillary/bloomberg ticket would not win because this will only split the democrat vote and maccain will end up winning.and bloomberg will not agree to be vp anyway .he want to be president.so what hillary need is for bloomberg to run so she can also run as the fourth ticket.

WARNING: There are going to be some people who are going to take this diary personally, and actually that’s my point. When I say women I mean strong supporters of Hillary. Not all women

There is a thought out there that if Obama were to select a woman VP other than Hillary that it may get back some of the women vote. Well I’m a guy and if there is anything I’ve learned about women is you better be very careful choosing someone else over them. No matter what the logic is behind it.

Most of the names put out there, just don't have Clinton branding and no matter how great another female might be, it’s going to be a huge uphill battle for Obama and the other woman herself to convince women voters that she is better than Hillary.

So for a woman VP its Hillary or no one. That’s just how it’s going to work. I personally don't care for Hillary's approach so I wouldn't prefer her as VP and I think it conflicts with Obama's approach. Obama either needs a southren general, or a economic and environmentally progressive independent type like Bloomberg. State baiting a no-name person just to pick up a single swing state isn't going to be good enough.

** Update **

     as i said yesterday.hillary should run as an independent.but she will need one thing---bloomberg.she dont need him as a running mate,she need him to run so she can be the fourth leg.
     it will be highly probable that bloomberg will run anyway.bloomberg said he will not run a few months ago.but that is because obama is seen as a unity figure .now he is seen as a dividing figure.maccain on the other hand have problem uniting his own party and getting the conservitative vote.so there is a good chance that bloomberg will run with or without hillary.but right now hillary can give bloomberg a little push by running as an independent .

At long last, it seems like the end is in sight. Clinton finally fell prey to her own expectations game. After weeks of hammering Obama from all sides, he not only won, he won big, and he did it against all expectations and against all odds.

But if we've learned one thing, it's that Hillary Clinton is nothing if not tenacious, determined, and hungry for the Presidency. Others have analyzed her possible attempts to take this all the way to the convention in August, a desperate last resort that may yet happen. But what if that's not the worst that can happen?

Let's talk about "scorched earth."

New York Politicians are speaking out today about the McCain/Hillary Gas Tax Bribe

[Bloomberg] said, "It’s the dumbest thing I’ve heard in an awful long time from an economic point of view. I don’t understand why you think there’s any merit to it whatsoever. We’re trying to discourage people from driving and we’re trying to end our energy dependence. We don’t do that -- oh, and incidentally, we’re trying to have more money to build infrastructure. All three of those things go fly in the face of giving everybody $30 a year. The $30 bucks is not going to change anybody’s lifestyle. The billions of dollars that we would otherwise have in tax revenues can make a big difference as to what kind of a world we leave our children."

Bloomberg praised officials who opposed the "summer break on gasoline taxes which would help Chavez, Qaddafi and other people like that. I don’t know why anybody would want to do it."

With the Obama Veepstakes poll now concluded and Gov. Bill Richardson as your chosen running mate (which was covered by the Santa Fe Reporter) it's time to take this a step further:

Who would you like to see in an Obama cabinet?

Thus far, Joe Biden won the Sec. of State poll (results below the fold). Today you can vote in the runoff on the next Secretary of the Treasury: