I don't know if that's been studied or not, but that certainly is an interesting question. I'm a single guy with little interest in marriage. However, I have been considering it solely for economic reasons. It's expensive to be single!

Posted at January 29, 2008 6:38 PM in response to What Will the Recession Feel Like?

A few years ago I read a post on a Peak Oil site that struck a chord. (It may not be directly related to the recession, but it seems like appropriate advice to share here.) The author stressed that Americans should transition toward a E.L.P. lifestyle. Here are the three points:

Economize - Imagine that your income is reduced by 50% tomorrow. What would you immediately trim to meet your budget? Your netflix subscription? Eating out? Cable? Consider these things and start reducing your expenses anyway and put some of that money into an Al Gore-type lockbox. In case of emergency, you'll be glad you did.

Localize - Shop local businesses. Is it possible to live closer to your job? Basically do everything you can to reduce the amount of gas you need to live your life. This helps you, local businesses, and reduces gas consumption. Win, win, win.

Produce - How do you earn a living? Do you produce a good or service needed by your community? In the case of a major recession or global petroleum crisis, people will begin trimming the excess from their budgets. Earn a living selling SUVs or lingerie? Are you a Communications Major? If so, your skills (ha!) may not be required in an economic crunch.

I think most people can benefit from considering these points and transitioning toward an ELP lifestyle. If a recession is percolating, you may want to consider this now before you are forced to make tough decisions.

So what will this recession feel like? I'm not a student of economics, but my gut says that even a "mild" recession is going to hit people very hard. Americans have grown accustomed to a lifestyle of expensive coffee, cell phones, high speed internet, cheap food, cheap gas, and cheap travel. Giving up half of these items would be a psychological blow to Americans, and create the impression that our country is regressing. It may not compare to the serious issues people faced during the Depression, but it is going to hit people hard and force serious lifestyle changes. Americans just aren't into that...

My suggestion? Open a well-fortified liquor store. That's guaranteed income in any economy!

Posted at January 29, 2008 6:31 PM in response to What Will the Recession Feel Like?

msawicky said:

You need to pay more attention. The left is about other things too. Organizing on the ground has focused on the living wage, unionization, and anti-WalMart, for instance.

I need to pay more attention because I didn't provide a list that referenced everything the Left is "about"? What about environmental protections? That's not on your list. Are you paying enough attention? I apologize that I didn't provide a detailed list of every single cause that the Left is "about".

I apologize that I spend ten hours a day writing computer code and not studying the history of the Left. If you can provide me an entire history of the Left's battles, then I can work with you to write a computer application that can do something with that information. We can combine our talents instead of looking for deficiencies in each other's educational knowledgebase and/or internet comments.

bluebell said:

I can't find fault with any of those issues, but I think you may be making one of the mistakes liberal boomers did in not tying your issues to the lives of what they used to call "the silent majority".

That's a fair point, but I would argue that advocating for a legitimate, transparent election process is directly tied to the lives of "the silent majority". Even though I didn't pay enough attention and include environmental protection in my list, that is something the Left is fighting for and it does impact "the silent majority".

However, I listed issues that are very important to myself or those close to me. On some level, I don't care if I only speak for myself or if I am speaking for the silent majority of the country. I realize that might not be the reply that will help us triangulate a Dem White House in '08, but speaking up for those issues in my Red State home makes me feel that I am "fighting the good fight". The rest of the country can catch up whenever they are ready...

amike said:

I think it fair to say that these are what the left fought for in the 1960s as well.

That's a fair point. However, I think you can look at bluebell's initial comment in this thread and argue that today's Left is still fighting for the battered Middle Class. Today's Left is building upon those successes, failures, and lessons. We are advocating for equitable salaries, secure compensation, and a viable retirement in our future. With respect to Social Security, we are fighting for an institution critical to the survival of the Middle Class.

The Clinton impeachment was written in the second chapter of my political life, and it may be why I will be a Dem for life. I certainly agree with points made in your comments. Thanks.
____________________________________________

It's true that people my age and younger were born into a world where some of the initial battles had already been won. I didn't live through the American civil rights movement of the 60's. I didn't live in an America when women couldn't vote. I didn't live in an America that protested the Vietnam War. I can't apologize for that, and I'd rather not be castigated by the Elder Council of the Left for it. Let's move forward and work together and fight for the causes that we can all find common ground.

Posted at February 9, 2007 5:58 PM in response to DEMOCRACY IS IN THE STREETS. STILL.

Was your generation's "fight" defined so concisely back then? Did you sit around and formulate a battle plan to fight for 'those left out of the middle class'? Or was your fight more of a reaction to address perceived problems?

I can't speak for the New Left or the Old Left or the Mid Left. However, this is what I think The Left is fighting for today:

- democracy
- alternative media
- civil rights for LGBT community

Today's Left is reacting against the lack of transparency in America's electoral process. Democracy is the core of our society, and yet we seem to be losing control of it. We're fighting against a corporate machine to regain confidence in our voting mechanisms.

Today's Left is reacting against the corporate takeover of traditional media. We're using technology to create a new battleground, and redefining the game. But this battleground requires a sharp mind, not an able body. This is a battleground where the best minds of The Left can set aside their age differences and use a combination of youthful vigor and experienced wisdom to work toward the goals we all share.

Today's Left is reacting against the disgusting homophobia entrenched in American society. The Old Left have fought for significant advances in civil rights over the last hundred years, and the New Left have shown a willingness to carry this torch for our LGBT family.

Today's battles are on the streets, however some of them are virtual. We don't necessarily all have to meet in front of Congress to make our voices heard. We don't have to meet in one physical location to raise large amounts of money overnight. The Left organizes on virtual streets just as often as they organized on physical streets forty years ago. However, the virtual streets can also accomodate the people who cannot travel, the people who only have a few dollars to pitch in.

Everybody from the golden girls to the golden child have a voice here in the New Left. If you have passion, if you have ideals, if you feel that a cause is underrepresented; then you can be a new source of inspiration for The Left. You can help provide that mentorship that is necessary for the Progressive movement to continue growing. But creating a partition between the young and the old drives away both.

Posted at February 8, 2007 9:49 PM in response to DEMOCRACY IS IN THE STREETS. STILL.

Agreed. I really didn't get the point of this one either. Are we supposed to take the poll or just read the responses? Am I anti-Semetic if I don't get the joke? Or if I do? Or if I don't like anything else on Slate? I hate it when I get confused about something that is supposed to be funny.

Posted at February 6, 2007 6:22 PM in response to Slate Asks: Are You A liberal Anti-Semite?

I'd like my own island in the South Pacific, too.

Are you proposing that we could rapidly withdraw from Iraq and the sectarian violence would cease escalating? I don't buy it. I really don't. I suspect that the violence would increase and other regional interests would attempt to gain control of the failed state's territory. I think that's much more realistic than seeing the country quickly unite after a rapid withdrawal. I haven't seen a single person propose that scenario.

Posted at February 2, 2007 10:08 PM in response to The New Iraq NIE: Pig Ugly, Little Lipstick

Are you that numb?

No, I'm not very numb at all. Thanks for asking.

Some of the PEOPLE WHO LIVE THERE are benefiting well from the oil production. MEND exists because there is no equitable economic system in the country. They are disenfranchised and are lashing out at their perceived tormentors.

The Niger Delta is partially polluted because some of the PEOPLE WHO LIVE THERE are tapping into a secure pipeline, selling crude on the side, and contributing to the pollution of the area.

With regard to pollution, I do not see an analogous situation in Iraq. However, I do think that a situation similar to that in Nigeria would not be perceived as fair by the already disenfranchised Iraqis and they will attempt to steal crude/condensate to sell on the black market. Those that can't do that will lash out at the petroleum support staff, and I doubt they will kidnap them just to give a lesson on pollution. The consequences will be far deadlier.

For further information, read the article that I linked. And then think about the situation in Nigeria and look for the possible parallels in Iraq. Pollution is not likely to be a problem for the Iraqis in the short term. Kidnappings and destruction of equipment will be. (Especially if we are perceived as giving up on providing security to the country as a whole and protecting only the oil infrastructure.)

Posted at February 2, 2007 10:01 PM in response to The New Iraq NIE: Pig Ugly, Little Lipstick

Democrats, Republicans, Independents, and Foreign Allies have all offered alternate plans to send a significant number of troops to Iraq to do the job correctly, slowly redeploying troops to border areas to contain the violence from spreading, or even rapidly withdrawing. The President (and his supporters) have ignored these plans along with their associated 'justifications'.

Right now, I guess you could say that I'm undecided about the future of the war. If Bush and our allies submitted a serious plan that could provide security to the Iraqis without relying on the flaky Iraq Police, then I might support it. There's nothing I would rather see than a stable, functioning Iraq that provided equitable treatment for all citizens. I suspect that most moderate Republicans and Democrats would rally behind a serious, realistic plan.

Unfortunately, Bush has a plan to rely on the Iraq Police while adding a small pittance of personnel to our strained forces. The current mission in Iraq is a disgrace to the history of the American Military. They deserve a clearly defined mission with the highest level of training and armor possible.

Continuing this mission in its current form is not sustainable for much longer. Those competing for power in Iraq don't need a timeline from Bush or the Democrats. They aren't going anywhere. They are content to wait another year, five years, ten years and then they will overthrow the weak state government. (And then ten years later President Jenna Bush will start Iraq War 3.0 to take out that regime.)

Basically, this all boils down to a Clash song. Should we stay or should we go? If we stay there will be trouble, if we go it will be double. If we stay (AND the Iraqis want us to stay), then it's time for a reboot and send in enough resources to do the job correctly. And if that option isn't on the table, then I don't want to leave our troops there to continue policing a situation that appears to be spiraling into further violence on a daily basis. In that case, withdraw them to the border areas and prevent the violence from spreading into the region.

Posted at February 2, 2007 9:10 PM in response to The New Iraq NIE: Pig Ugly, Little Lipstick

Close, it's a proxy war for the oil that is being fought by US soldiers and desparate, disenfranchised Iraqis. Saudi Arabia is playing us like a fiddle (as usual), and Iran is using historical circumstances to their advantage. One of them will walk away with political control over the majority of the Middle East untapped crude.

Posted at February 2, 2007 6:36 PM in response to The New Iraq NIE: Pig Ugly, Little Lipstick

Nigeria's oil production is heading down a dangerous path right now. Billions of dollars of crude/condensate is stolen from their pipelines now, and local 'insurgents' are kidnapping oil workers.

For some further reading regarding Nigeria I would recommend this recent Vanity Fair article that contains this dreadful warning from local 'terrorists':

"Leave our land while you can or die in it," a MEND spokesman warned in an e-mail statement after the attack. "Our aim is to totally destroy the capacity of the Nigerian government to export oil."

Insurgent groups in Iraq have no reason to support a massive investment in the oil infrastructure in the country. They don't want to see Shell, Aramco, or BP come in and pump out $60/barrel oil. The large fields in Iraq and Iran are both in decline and will eventually collapse. Everybody, EVERYBODY knows that Iraq has the most untapped reserves in the area. The longer it stays in the ground, the more it can be sold for in five, ten, fifteen years. If you were a legitimate power player in Iraq there is no reason to pump money from the ground while your neighbors are willing to provide the resources for your fight (on the condition that you will let them work your fields when the war is over). It's a gamble, but this lottery is going to hit BIG for somebody. That's what I think this struggle is really about; the whole Shia/Sunni rift just provides a most excellent cover for this fight.

Posted at February 2, 2007 6:26 PM in response to The New Iraq NIE: Pig Ugly, Little Lipstick