Americans understand frugality borne of real or near poverty but are less able to identify with middle class desperation. I do not know how well America would bear up if we had a long period of Japanese style austerity with the big differences we have between the bottom, middle, and top echelons.

naked capitalism: Object Lesson: Consumer Frugality in Japan

Roosevelt took over a country where the economic machinery had completely broken down.

The New York Stock Exchange and the Chicago Board of Trade had closed.

Illinois and much of the South had stopped paying teachers. Schools closed for months.

An army of 25,000 famished war veterans squatting in view of Congress had been charged by troopers of the 3rd US cavalry with naked sabres – led by a Major George Patton.

Armed farmers threatening revolution had laid siege to a string of Prairie cities. A mob had stormed the Nebraska Capitol. Minnesota's governor was recruiting Communists only for the state militia.

Lawyers attempting to enforce foreclosures were shot.

More than 100,000 New Yorkers applied to go to the Soviet Union when Moscow advertised for 6,000 skilled workers.

We forget how close America came to open revolt.

Bad news: we're back to 1931.

We know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus — and nonbelievers.

I believe that is the first respectful public reference to atheism by an American President. Reply if you know of another example.

Update:
Although the Obama team has completely upgraded Whitehouse.gov, Google still has the old version cached, which includes the only reference Google knows to this exchange with Bush 43 at an "Ask President Bush" event:

Q ... Mr. President, as a member of the local clergy of this city, I'm appalled at the different lengths of political correctness that has affected religious rights in Canada, Australia, France, and other European nations. Laws are being passed to limit offensive speech. If reelected, what will your administration do to the rights -- to help the rights of conservative Christians so that courts in America can't limit our free speech when it comes to offensive speech toward different groups?

THE PRESIDENT: Look, here's the thing. Freedom to speak is a valuable part of our country. And a President has got to protect that. People ought to be allowed to speak the way you want to speak. But there are limits. And it is very important for our society to work with those that push the limits without abridging anybody else's freedom to speak.

Let me talk about freedom of religion, as well, which is an incredibly important part of our society. My job as the President is to make sure -- this may get to your question, by the way, besides speech -- an incredibly important part about what you're asking is, can people worship freely, as well. Yes. That's the part of the job of the President, is to make sure that people can worship any way they want, any way they want. And they can choose any religion they want. Or they can choose no religion. You see, you're just as big a patriot -- as good a patriot as the next fellow if you choose not to worship. It's your choice to make. And the freedom of this country is that you can choose to do any way you want. And it's important that we keep that -- that freedom real and intact.

The move from atheism to patriotism seems to evoke this comment that Bush 41 made:

I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.

There is some question as to whether or not Bush 41 actually said that, the Whitehouse never denied it, it has been widely quoted for years, and it certainly molded my impression of how the establishment in this country views atheism.

Obama's Inaugural Address: The Full Text -- TIME

Protesters angry over a deadly New Year’s Day shooting of a young black man by a transit police officer erupted into violence in downtown Oakland on Wednesday night while investigators struggled to determine what prompted the officer to fire his gun into the unarmed man’s back.

Riots begin in Oakland. More here. 105 arrests. I agree with this:

But UC Berkeley Boalt Hall Law School professor Franklin Zimring, a criminal justice expert, said "absolutely conclusive" videos of the shooting have convinced him there's no possible justification for Mehserle's actions.

"It's accident versus intention, but justification is off the table."

Whether Mehserle meant to draw his Taser but accidentally drew his firearm, or whether he meant to draw his sidearm but didn't mean to fire it, it looks like involuntary manslaughter, Zimring said.

In the absence of a statement from Mehserle, the proper thing to do is to charge the case based on the evidence at hand and then hear his side of the story later, Zimring said.

Anyone who was not a police officer would be in custody already.

Oakland Turns Violent Over Shooting - NYTimes.com

If you'd rather let someone else do the hacking for you, by the way, check out http://www.help-israel-win.org/, where they have an application you can download and install that uses group computer technology (sort of like SETI, Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence, http://www.seti.org). Their application attacks anti-Israel Web sites; I don't know if it's legal, but it is easy.

No, its not legal, and as of this writing, its down.

Digital World: How to beat anti-Israel hackers at their own game | Internet and Technology | Jerusalem Post

Diana Owen, who leads the American Studies program at Georgetown University, said presidents were not advised to use e-mail because of security risks and fear that messages could be intercepted.

“They could come up with some bulletproof way of protecting his e-mail and digital correspondence, but anything can be hacked,” said Ms. Owen, who has studied how presidents communicate in the Internet era. “The nature of the president’s job is that others can use e-mail for him.”

This is a rationalization for a quaint anachronism.

Lose the BlackBerry? Yes He Can, Maybe

flynn23 wrote:

Bill Clinton also campaigned as a moderate, but in his first two years he was unable to govern as Congress pursued liberal priorities, including a big boost in taxes and spending. Recall Roberta Achtenberg as the scourge of the Boy Scouts and Joycelyn Elders calling for the legalization of drugs? Mr. Clinton chose -- or was forced -- to take up gun control and HillaryCare before welfare reform. Next came Newt Gingrich.

Maybe Mr. Obama has absorbed these lessons, but even if he has he'll have to be tough. The Great Society liberals who dominate Congress are old men in a hurry, and they'll run over the 47-year-old neophyte if he lets them.

I've been saying that a win for Obama didn't mean squat, but I do think that a lot of this will be tempered. There's really big problems that need to be solved immediately, and moderation will be key in getting solutions that work. I think he can make a case for priorities. But I think the likelihood of a massive swing to the left is not impossible or even unprobable and will definitely be unfortunate.

Obama's win means a very great deal in many respects, I think, but it is no more a mandate for the liberal policies advocated by many who are celebrating this victory than the election of Bush in 2004 meant that the radical right was America's new majority. Unfortunately we're now immediately seeing the "elections have consequences" (and we're going to shove them right down your throat) rhetoric from the left that we were seeing from the right in 2004. The problem is that we have two radical political ideologies battling each other for power and America is caught in the middle, trying to keep a hand on both leashes... trying to keep either group from getting too far out of control. The only way to check one is to empower the other, and neither group seems to be capable of mustering any respect at all for anyone who doesn't accept their ideology wholeheartedly... in other words neither group really respects the political views of the majority of Americans.

8 years of holding back right wing excesses are now over. Welcome to 8 years of holding back left wing excesses. I suspect that in a few years everyone who now thinks I'm a liberal will think me a Conservative. Fortunately, they may have to boil the frogs a bit before they start cutting away at civil liberties, because they've made opposition to the Bush administration's cuts such a basic aspect of their politics. I'll bet they regret it already.

RE: Obama's Real Opposition

At the 2008 Pop!Tech conference, best-selling author and debt crisis expert Juan Enriquez catalyzed a vigorous debate on the impetuses of the current American economic meltdown – and the immediate actions the country and next U.S. President will have to take to address the situation. Combining information and ideas from many sources, Juan enumerated an urgent, non-partisan10 point plan, to be implemented during the next administration’s first 60 days. Enriquez posited that failure to act – or, in his view, further misguided efforts – run the risk of triggering an irreversible economic collapse that could plague the American economy for decades.

WATCH IT!

Juan Enriquez at Pop!Tech 2008

The Country is Fundamentally Sound; 'Don't Panic, Stocks are Safe!'

Fun collection of short videos.

The Big Picture | 1929 MovieTone News on Stock Market Crash

ubernoir wrote:
I don't support him but he has once again proved himself an American hero. Late in the day and imperfect but he took a stand.

Lets just be clear here. He did not do this just to be honorable. There have been a number of concerns raised in numerous quarters over the past few days that the attempts to link Obama with Ayers, and therefore domestic terrorism, might increase the chance that some crazy right winger might try to kill him. Given the breadth of the calls for McCain to tone it down it is almost certain that this was a capitulation to concerns that their campaign has gone too far.

Consider this:

These men didn't kill Martin Luther King, but they contributed to an atmosphere of nationalism, white supremacy and cheap unreflective patriotism that ultimately got a lot of people killed.

Let me be clear--This is the ghost that McCain Campaign is summoning. This is the Ring Of Power that they want to wield. The Muslim charge, the "Hussein" thing is nothing more than today's red-baiting, and it is what it was then--a cover for racists. You may say I'm overreacting, and I really hope you're right. 999,000 out 1 million times we'll go on like normal and proceed to Election Day. But if some shit pops off, the thug and thug-mongers will not be able to throw up their hands and say "How could I have known?" Ignorance will not save them. Their stupidity is a scourge on us all.

RE: BBC NEWS | World | Americas | US Elections 2008 | McCain defends rival Obama