Food for thought: Since last year's world economy collapse, only two major things have happened:

1. The U.S. has bailed out banks to the tune of trillions of dollars.
2. The stock market has gone up around 35% (from its low last year).

Nothing else "good" has happened. Housing is still crashing, unemployment is still increasing, state-funded services are worsening.

So the Government gave its money to the banks and the banks invested in the stock market and are making a killing.

Virtually everything outside the banking industry is not good and is worsening.

What does that tell you?

Friday Catblogging:

This Chinese reenactment of Tiger Wood's recent "accident" is quite entertaining.

Obama's Afghanistan Speech

The White House Office of the Press Secretary A New Way Forward: The President's Address to the American People on Afghan Strategy Oval Office For Immediate Release December 2nd 8:01 P.M. EDT My fellow Americans, On March 28th, I outlined what I called a "comprehensive, new strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan." It was ambitious. It was also an attempt to fulfill a campaign promise that was heartfelt. I believed -- and still believe -- that, in invading Iraq, a war this administration is now ending, we took our eye off Afghanistan. Our well-being and safety, as well as that of the Afghan people, suffered for it. I suggested then that the situation in Afghanistan was already "perilous." I announced that we would be sending 17,000 more American soldiers into that war zone, as well as 4,000 trainers and advisors whose job would be to increase the size of the Afghan security forces so that they could someday take the lead in securing their own country. There could be no more serious decision for an American president. Eight months have passed since that day. This evening, after a comprehensive policy review of our options in that region that has involved commanders in the field, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, National Security Advisor James Jones, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Vice President Joe Biden, top intelligence and State Department officials and key ambassadors, special representative on Afghanistan and Pakistan Richard Holbrooke, and experts from inside and outside this administration, I have a very different kind of announcement to make. I plan to speak to you tonight with the frankness Americans deserve from their president. I've recently noted a number of pundits who suggest that my task here should be to reassure you about Afghanistan. I don't agree. What you need is the unvarnished truth just as it's been given to me. We all need to face a tough situation, as Americans have done so many times in the past, with our eyes wide open. It doesn't pay for a president or a people to fake it or, for that matter, to kick the can of a difficult decision down the road, especially when the lives of American troops are at stake. During the presidential campaign I called Afghanistan "the right war." Let me say this: with the full information resources of the American presidency at my fingertips, I no longer believe that to be the case. I know a president isn't supposed to say such things, but he, too, should have the flexibility to change his mind. In fact, more than most people, it's important that he do so based on the best information available. No false pride or political calculation should keep him from that. And the best information available to me on the situation in Afghanistan is sobering. It doesn't matter whether you are listening to our war commander, General Stanley McChrystal, who, as press reports have indicated, believes that with approximately 80,000 more troops -- which we essentially don't have available -- there would be a reasonable chance of conducting a successful counterinsurgency war against the Taliban, or our ambassador to that country, Karl Eikenberry, a former general with significant experience there, who believes we shouldn't send another soldier at present. All agree on the following seven points: 1. We have no partner in Afghanistan. The control of the government of Afghan President Hamid Karzai hardly extends beyond the embattled capital of Kabul. He himself has just been returned to office in a presidential election in which voting fraud on an almost unimaginably large scale was the order of the day. His administration is believed to have lost all credibility with the Afghan people. 2. Afghanistan floats in a culture of corruption. This includes President Karzai's administration up to its highest levels and also the warlords who control various areas and, like the Taliban insurgency, are to some degree dependent for their financing on opium, which the country produces in staggering quantities. Afghanistan, in fact, is not only a narco-state, but the leading narco-state on the planet. 3. Despite billions of dollars of American money poured into training the Afghan security forces, the army is notoriously understrength and largely ineffective; the police forces are riddled with corruption and held in contempt by most of the populace. 4. The Taliban insurgency is spreading and gaining support largely because the Karzai regime has been so thoroughly discredited, the Afghan police and courts are so ineffective and corrupt, and reconstruction funds so badly misspent. Under these circumstances, American and NATO forces increasingly look like an army of occupation, and more of them are only likely to solidify this impression. 5. Al-Qaeda is no longer a significant factor in Afghanistan. The best intelligence available to me indicates -- and again, whatever their disagreements, all my advisors agree on this -- that there may be perhaps 100 al-Qaeda operatives in Afghanistan and another 300 in neighboring Pakistan. As I said in March, our goal has been to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al-Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and on this we have, especially recently, been successful. Osama bin Laden, of course, remains at large, and his terrorist organization is still a danger to us, but not a $100 billion-plus danger. 6. Our war in Afghanistan has become the military equivalent of a massive bail-out of a firm determined to fail. Simply to send another 40,000 troops to Afghanistan would, my advisors estimate, cost $40-$54 billion extra dollars; eighty thousand troops, more than $80 billion. Sending more trainers and advisors in an effort to double the size of the Afghan security forces, as many have suggested, would cost another estimated $10 billion a year. These figures are over and above the present projected annual costs of the war -- $65 billion -- and would ensure that the American people will be spending $100 billion a year or more on this war, probably for years to come. Simply put, this is not money we can afford to squander on a failing war thousands of miles from home. 7. Our all-volunteer military has for years now shouldered the burden of our two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Even if we were capable of sending 40,000-80,000 more troops to Afghanistan, they would without question be servicepeople on their second, third, fourth, or even fifth tours of duty. A military, even the best in the world, wears down under this sort of stress and pressure. These seven points have been weighing on my mind over the last weeks as we've deliberated on the right course to take. Tonight, in response to the realities of Afghanistan as I've just described them to you, I've put aside all the subjects that ordinarily obsess Washington, especially whether an American president can reverse the direction of a war and still have an electoral future. That's for the American people, and them alone, to decide. Given that, let me say as bluntly as I can that I have decided to send no more troops to Afghanistan. Beyond that, I believe it is in the national interest of the American people that this war, like the Iraq War, be drawn down. Over time, our troops and resources will be brought home in an orderly fashion, while we ensure that we provide adequate security for the men and women of our Armed Forces. Ours will be an administration that will stand or fall, as of today, on this essential position: that we ended, rather than extended, two wars. This will, of course, take time. But I have already instructed Ambassador Eikenberry and Special Representative Holbrooke to begin discussions, however indirectly, with the Taliban insurgents for a truce in place. Before year's end, I plan to call an international conference of interested countries, including key regional partners, to help work out a way to settle this conflict. I will, in addition, soon announce a schedule for the withdrawal of the first American troops from Afghanistan. For the counterinsurgency war that we now will not fight, there is already a path laid out. We walked down that well-mined path once in recent American memory and we know where it leads. For ending the war in another way, there is no precedent in our recent history and so no path -- only the unknown. But there is hope. Let me try to explain. Recently, comparisons between the Vietnam War and our current conflict in Afghanistan have been legion. Let me, however, suggest a major difference between the two. When Presidents John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson faced their crises involving sending more troops into Vietnam, they and their advisors had little to rely on in the American record. They, in a sense, faced the darkness of the unknown as they made their choices. The same is not true of us. In the White House, for instance, a number of us have been reading a book on how the U.S. got itself ever more disastrously involved in the Vietnam War. We have history to guide us here. We know what happens in counterinsurgency campaigns. We have the experience of Vietnam as a landmark on the trail behind us. And if that weren't enough, of course, we have the path to defeat already well cleared by the Russians in their Afghan fiasco of the 1980s, when they had just as many troops in the field as we would have if I had chosen to send those extra 40,000 Americans. That is the known. On the other hand, peering down the path of de-escalation, all we can see is darkness. Nothing like this has been tried before in Washington. But I firmly believe that this, too, is deeply in the American grain. American immigrants, as well as slaves, traveled to this country as if into the darkness of the unknown. Americans have long braved the unknown in all sorts of ways. To present this more formulaically, if we sent the troops and trainers to Afghanistan, if we increased air strikes and tried to strengthen the Afghan Army, we basically know how things are likely to work out: not well. The war is likely to spread. The insurgents, despite many losses, are likely to grow in strength. Hatred of Americans is likely to increase. Pakistan is likely to become more destabilized. If, however, we don't take such steps and proceed down that other path, we do not know how things will work out in Afghanistan, or how well. We do not know how things will work out in Pakistan, or how well. That is hardly surprising, since we do not know what it means to end such a war now. But we must not be scared. America will not -- of this, as your president, I am convinced -- be a safer nation if it spends many hundreds of billions of dollars over many years, essentially bankrupting itself and exhausting its military on what looks increasingly like an unwinnable war. This is not the way to safety, but to national penury -- and I am unwilling to preside over an America heading in that direction. Let me say again that the unknown path, the path into the wilderness, couldn't be more American. We have always been willing to strike out for ourselves where others would not go. That, too, is in the best American tradition. It is, of course, a perilous thing to predict the future, but in the Afghanistan/Pakistan region, war has visibly only spread war. The beginning of a negotiated peace may have a similarly powerful effect, but in the opposite direction. It may actually take the wind out of the sails of the insurgents on both sides of the Afghan/Pakistan border. It may actually encourage forces in both countries with which we might be more comfortable to step to the fore. Certainly, we will do our best to lead the way with any aid or advice we can offer toward a future peaceful Afghanistan and a future peaceful Pakistan. In the meantime, I plan to ask Congress to take some of the savings from our two wars winding down and put them into a genuine jobs program for the American people. The way to safety in our world is, I believe, to secure our borders against those who would harm us, and to put Americans back to work. With this in mind, next month I've called for a White House Jobs Summit, which I plan to chair. And there I will suggest that, as a start, and only as a start, we look at two programs that were not only popular across the political spectrum in the desperate years of the Great Depression, but were remembered fondly long after by those who took part in them -- the Civilian Conservation Corps and the Works Progress Administration. These basic programs put millions of Americans back to work on public projects that mattered to this nation and saved families, lives, and souls. We cannot afford a failing war in Afghanistan and a 10.2% official unemployment rate at home. We cannot live with two Americas, one for Wall Street and one for everyone else. This is not the path to American safety. As president, I retain the right to strike at al-Qaeda or other terrorists who mean us imminent harm, no matter where they may be, including Afghanistan. I would never deny that there are dangers in the approach I suggest today, but when have Americans ever been averse to danger, or to a challenge either? I cannot believe we will be now. It's time for change. I know that not all Americans will agree with me and that some will be upset by the approach I am now determined to follow. I expect anger and debate. I take full responsibility for whatever may result from this policy departure. Believe me, the buck stops here, but I am convinced that this is the way forward for our country in war and peace, at home and abroad. I thank you for your time and attention. Goodnight and God bless America.

This is the speech Obama should be giving tonight. Unfortunately, he'll instead be announcing an escalation of the war. Good news for insurgents and weapons manufacturers. Bad news for Afghan civilians and U.S. security.

Bank Barons now have their own theme song:

BITS

Option ARMs are not extra appendages, but many California homeowners will soon wish they had extra arms to swim away from their underwater mortages.

Hey teens: Sometimes parents can actually save you.

I present to you.... Palin's America:


Strong, American, Determined, and..... Clueless.

We've added a new widget on the left sidebar, headlines from Globalpost.com. Globalpost was created this year with an eye toward covering world news that the U.S. news organizations are slowly but surely abandoning (due to budget constraints among other factors). Check them out as they increasingly provide important global news that you would otherwise never hear.

"I just spent 9 hours of my day, $40 of my hard earned money on two of your books, and took the whole day off work to watch you jump on a bus and throw a half-heated wave to the crowd you were avoiding. "I have never felt so disrespected. How can you claim that you are different? You aren’t. You are just as selfish as everyone else in Washington. It breaks my heart. I thought you might be the answer to the turmoil this country is under but you aren’t. You just slapped hundreds of Hoosiers in the face. The hard working type of people that you claim to represent. "You say in your book that you chose to sleep well over eating well. At the end of the day I know that you don’t care that you wasted the whole day of some 20 year old college student who lives on their own. I understand that all that matters is that I spent my money on two of your books. I’m sure your eating well. You certainly have no reason to be sleeping well."

One of many angry letters from 300 Palin supporters who waited for 5 hours in the rain to get her to sign copies of her new book but instead got dissed by Governor Quitter.

Excuse me while I step outside to shed a few tears for these oblivious teabaggers (tears of laughter, that is...)

UPDATE: Best name given to Ms. Palin in the comments: "Media Whore of Babble-on". Oops, here come more tears!

UPDATE II: Check out this video of some of the supporters waiting for the book-signing.

Bits

Saddest friggin' story of the year

The last thing we need is more food for global warming naysayers: stagnant change in global temperatures during this decade. You can "blame" cyclical changes in ocean currents and solar activity for the pause in temperature increases, but it's only temporary.

I'd rather call these works of art instead of billboards.

Glenn, I agree with most of what you say. However, one of the 9/11 planes was flown into a military target, the Pentagon. So using Eric Holder's justification of trying terrorist suspects, who attack civilian targets, in civil court and trying terrorist suspects, who attack the military, in military commissions, then where do you draw the line, since we're apparently going to try the 9/11 terrorist suspects in civil court? The obvious solution, of course, is to try all foreign suspects in civil court.

Need a short break? Check out these incredible photos of the surface of Mars

The banks, basically, are going to end up dragging the economic recovery out much longer. They are holding on to foreclosed houses so that they don't have to immediately declare the loss (if they did then their books would look a lot worse). Anything they can do to forestall the process (see all the steps below) results in house values being higher now, and thus allows them to slowly sell off their housing stock at higher prices. But, the longer they drag on the recovery, the longer it's going to take for people to be able to afford houses. It's a vicious cycle where the banks lose less in the short run and middle class consumers lose more:

Another wave of foreclosures looms By Stephanie Armour, USA TODAY A second wave of foreclosures is poised to hit the market, potentially undermining housing recovery efforts as more homes add to the glut of inventory and drive down prices. These homes largely represent loans that are delinquent but have not yet resulted in foreclosure sales. About 7 million properties are destined to go into foreclosure, according to a September study by Amherst Securities Group, compared with 1.27 million properties in early 2005. "There's a huge supply out there," says Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington, D.C. "The foreclosure process can take a long time. When it comes to (the housing recovery), we're not home free." There is often a long lag time between a borrower going delinquent and the bank taking the home. Here's why: •Moratoriums. New state laws imposing short-term moratoriums have slowed the timeline from delinquency to foreclosure. •Overwhelmed lenders. Banks dealing with a surge in refinancing, mortgage modifications and defaults are overwhelmed with demand, so it can take longer to initiate a foreclosure sale. •Modifications. Many loans now are first examined to see if they might qualify for a modification. This drags out the timeline and means it is taking longer for homes to go into foreclosure. •Asset write-downs. Banks may in part be waiting to liquidate homes through foreclosure because they don't want to write down the value of the asset. Lenders can keep homes on the books at a higher value until they are sold at foreclosure. "There is a lot of foreclosed property in the pipeline that will hit the market and depress prices," says Mark Zandi at Moody's Economy.com. Foreclosed homes often sell at prices below those on the market and can therefore drag down overall home values. The shadow market of foreclosed homes eclipses the number of homes lost this year. Zandi anticipates there will be about 2.4 million homes lost next year through foreclosure, short sales and deeds in lieu of foreclosure. That compares with 2 million homes lost in 2009. Jumana Bauwens, a spokeswoman at Bank of America, says the bank is projecting an increase in foreclosures in part because customers will not be qualifying for existing loan-modification programs.

Banks rule government (see 2008-09 bank bailouts) and they rule us (see above). Banks own us all.

Jean Ross on the Legislative Analyst’s Office Forecast November 18, 2009 In response to the forecast on the state’s long-term budget situation today by the Legislative Analyst’s Office, Jean Ross, executive director of the California Budget Project, a nonpartisan public policy research group, released this statement: “Today’s forecast issued by the Legislative Analyst’s Office shows that California is not out of the woods and won’t be for some time. Although the recovery appears to be under way, the weak economy will continue to take a toll on the state’s General Fund in the near future. Funds from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) have provided an economic boost and helped prevent even deeper cuts. But California’s budget shortfalls are certain to continue beyond the expiration of ARRA funds in 2010 and 2011. California, like many states, needs a second round of federal aid as we face record unemployment and continuing economic weakness. Today’s forecast also increases the urgency for true prison reform. Earlier this year, the Legislature failed to enact sufficient policy changes to enable California to significantly reduce growth in corrections and meet a $1.2 billion savings target specified in the July budget agreement. California must significantly rein in its out-of-control prison spending. It’s also clear that California cannot afford to subsidize the state’s largest and most profitable corporations through the tax cuts enacted in September 2008 and February of this year. The Legislature should repeal corporate tax cuts that were included in these budget agreements that could cost the state as much as $2.5 billion per year when fully implemented. Policymakers should strive to do all they can to avoid yet another round of cuts to state services that would further weaken the economy and undermine the effectiveness of programs and services that Californians depend on.” – California Budget Project

In other words, here in California we're going to be even more fucked than the forecasted fuckedness from earlier this year.

Notice tht Mr. Roubini doesn't even mention the stock market. That's because the market is totally dissociated from economic reality. As severe as he sounds, I still think that things will be even worse:

The Worst is yet to Come: Unemployed Americans Should Hunker Down for More Job Losses Nouriel Roubini Nov 15, 2009 From the Daily News: Think the worst is over? Wrong. Conditions in the U.S. labor markets are awful and worsening. While the official unemployment rate is already 10.2% and another 200,000 jobs were lost in October, when you include discouraged workers and partially employed workers the figure is a whopping 17.5%. While losing 200,000 jobs per month is better than the 700,000 jobs lost in January, current job losses still average more than the per month rate of 150,000 during the last recession. Also, remember: The last recession ended in November 2001, but job losses continued for more than a year and half until June of 2003; ditto for the 1990-91 recession. So we can expect that job losses will continue until the end of 2010 at the earliest. In other words, if you are unemployed and looking for work and just waiting for the economy to turn the corner, you had better hunker down. All the economic numbers suggest this will take a while. The jobs just are not coming back. There's really just one hope for our leaders to turn things around: a bold prescription that increases the fiscal stimulus with another round of labor-intensive, shovel-ready infrastructure projects, helps fiscally strapped state and local governments and provides a temporary tax credit to the private sector to hire more workers. Helping the unemployed just by extending unemployment benefits is necessary not sufficient; it leads to persistent unemployment rather than job creation. The long-term picture for workers and families is even worse than current job loss numbers alone would suggest. Now as a way of sharing the pain, many firms are telling their workers to cut hours, take furloughs and accept lower wages. Specifically, that fall in hours worked is equivalent to another 3 million full time jobs lost on top of the 7.5 million jobs formally lost. This is very bad news but we must face facts. Many of the lost jobs are gone forever, including construction jobs, finance jobs and manufacturing jobs. Recent studies suggest that a quarter of U.S. jobs are fully out-sourceable over time to other countries. Other measures tell the same ugly story: The average length of unemployment is at an all time high; the ratio of job applicants to vacancies is 6 to 1; initial claims are down but continued claims are very high and now millions of unemployed are resorting to the exceptional extended unemployment benefits programs and are staying in them longer. Based on my best judgment, it is most likely that the unemployment rate will peak close to 11% and will remain at a very high level for two years or more. The weakness in labor markets and the sharp fall in labor income ensure a weak recovery of private consumption and an anemic recovery of the economy, and increases the risk of a double dip recession. As a result of these terribly weak labor markets, we can expect weak recovery of consumption and economic growth; larger budget deficits; greater delinquencies in residential and commercial real estate and greater fall in home and commercial real estate prices; greater losses for banks and financial institutions on residential and commercial real estate mortgages, and in credit cards, auto loans and student loans and thus a greater rate of failures of banks; and greater protectionist pressures. The damage will be extensive and severe unless bold policy action is undertaken now. Roubini is professor of Economics at the Stern School of Business at New York University and Chairman of Roubini Global Economics.

Rabid, sociopathic ultra-conservative Marty Beckman is starting to see the light (excerpt):

"....Just as morphing into an extremist took a couple years, un-becoming an extremist happened over time. One by one I saw the flaws in conservative orthodoxy: attempting to fight terrorism with torture, which only aided our enemies' propaganda efforts and thus created more terrorists; seeking to liberalize the Muslim world while curtailing rights for gay people at home; criticizing public schools for lackluster results and therefore cutting funds further; disdaining the weak while never analyzing why they are weak; always seeing the effect but never the cause, which on a mass scale perpetuates the effect...."

In honor of Veterans Day, here's a short video that will warm the cockles of your heart:

Bits and Pieces for the Week of November 1 - 7

Jon Stewart's spoof of Glenn Beck is priceless. (Mike)

If you're wondering how much safer (if any) cars have become during the past 50 years, check out this video. (Mike)

I just found my next car. (Mike)

237 reasons why women have sex. That would be 236 more than the number of reasons men have sex. (Mike)

I'm not sure of the rationale behind this product, but any way you look at it, it's disgusting to any rational person. (Mike)

As Veteran's Day approaches... one republi-KKKon Senator from OK is holding up Veteran benefits legislation. (7 of 6)

As usual, Focus fucks of the Family in Co. Springs, CO contributed 98K towards the defeat of the Maine Gay Marriage bill. These MF's have to start paying taxes. (7 of 6)

All honor killings must stop!! In all countries! (7 of 6)

Password hacking is a criminal's key to your private information. Think your password is secure? Try it out here and find out how safe you really are. (Mike)

Wow, the Commercial Real Estate Industry's implosion is really starting to accelerate. Rising Unemployment + collapsing CRE = End of Recession? Sure, on Planet Fantasy. (Mike)

Interesting... a FAUX poll actually tells the truth. Most Blame Bush for Economy. No surprise, republi-KKKons blame President Obama. (7 of 6)

Came across this interesting bit of data:

For years American political leaders and media were fond of labeling Cuba an "international pariah". We don't hear much of that any more. Perhaps one reason is the annual vote in the General Assembly on the resolution, which reads: "Necessity of ending the economic, commercial and financial embargo imposed by the United States of America against Cuba". This is how the vote has gone: Year Votes (Yes-No) No Votes 1992 59-2 US, Israel 1993 88-4 US, Israel, Albania, Paraguay 1994 101-2 US, Israel, Uzbekistan 1995 117-3 US, Israel, Uzbekistan 1996 138-3 US, Israel, Uzbekistan 1997 143-3 US, Israel 1998 157-2 US, Israel 1999 155-2 US, Israel, Marshall Islands 2000 167-3 US, Israel, Marshall Islands 2001 167-3 US, Israel, Marshall Islands 2002 167-3 US, Israel, Marshall Islands 2003 173-3 US, Israel, Marshall Islands, Palau 2004 179-3 US, Israel, Marshall Islands, Palau 2005 182-4 US, Israel, Marshall Islands, Palau 2006 183-4 US, Israel, Marshall Islands, Palau 2007 184-4 US, Israel, Marshall Islands, Palau 2008 185-3 US, Israel, Palau 2009 187-3 US, Israel, Palau

I wonder what Israel has against Cuba. I guess they think that those Cubans are scary, you know, with all those beaches and cigars and such. I know our stupid U.S. government does.

Bill Maher: Is This as Good as It Gets From Obama?

Yeah, I'm disappointed, too. I thought we were sweeping into power; I thought change meant Change. I believed all that talk about another First 100 Days, a la Roosevelt. Well, that didn't happen. The question is, is this as good as it gets from Obama, or is he pacing himself? He may have a four and eight-year plan and they included a first year of just gettin' to know you and not gonna rock the boat too much. Well, Mission Accomplished on that. It's still too early to lose hope in a guy as smart and talented as Barack Obama. But I would counsel him to remember: If you're going undercover to infiltrate how Washington works, so you become one of them for a while, to gain their confidence, well, it can be just like all those movies where a cop goes deep, deep, DEEP undercover with drug people and -- fuck, he's a drug addict, too! Logic tells me that really smart guys like Obama and Rahm Emanuel know better what they're doing than I do. They certainly know things I don't know. I think we have the same general goals and beliefs. And this is what they do for a living -- I wouldn't even try it. But I will never stop having this doubt: that maybe if they had really charged in there riding the forceful energy of the historic election, and acted like it was an emergency moment -- which it was -- they could have gotten some big victories right up front, and there really could have been an historic "first hundred days" for this administration and the country. Instead of what happened, which is the Obamas got a dog. It could have worked -- the country had given its endorsement to "...and now for something completely different." There might have been a way to knock the Republicans back on their heels right away, with the argument that "The American people demanded we make these changes, and you are unpatriotic to stand in their way." We'll never know. Because that moment passed, and now it could follow the pattern of World War I and devolve into boring, static trench warfare where nothing really gamechanging happens while both sides slowly bleed to death. That said, I do not forget that if the election had gone the other way, we'd right now have a barter economy and be at war with Honduras.