My outrage meter is broken

I'm frankly tired of the contingent on the left who feel their life has meaning only if they feel betrayed. So they go looking for betrayal and embrace it with a hardy gusto.

I expect to be pissed off at Obama. I already have been at least once (FISA). But I still don't see this as a personal betrayal and thus see no need to express outrage.

We make jokes about how ineffective are the "sternly worded letters" that come from the Democratic congress whenever Bush does something bad. But how much more laughable is the "screams of outrage from the left" that we see in the netroots?

You upset? Good! Then do something about it! But don't expect me or any representative in congress or a member of Obama's staff to be impressed by your ability to wield exclamation points.

Anyone can make an argument. But few can make an EFFECTIVE argument.

Yes

Andrew Sullivan has what I think is the best take I have seen on the whole Warren imbroglio.

What Paul Krugman said

Really, there isn't much need to add to this.

But let me try anyway...

One thing Mr. Krugman brushes on but doesn't go into much depth is the essential question of morality.

Most of all, the vast riches being earned — or maybe that should be “earned” — in our bloated financial industry undermined our sense of reality and degraded our judgment.

Think of the way almost everyone important missed the warning signs of an impending crisis. How was that possible? How, for example, could Alan Greenspan have declared, just a few years ago, that “the financial system as a whole has become more resilient” — thanks to derivatives, no less? The answer, I believe, is that there’s an innate tendency on the part of even the elite to idolize men who are making a lot of money, and assume that they know what they’re doing.

After all, that’s why so many people trusted Mr. Madoff.

When we equate "makes lots of money" with "trustworthy" we have dealt a near fatal blow to our sense of morality. We lost our moral compass because, let's face it, no one wanted to be the party pooper. A few, like Mr. Krugman, made a valiant attempt, but I'm sure none of them enjoyed the derision. So to say they "wanted" to be the downer is wrong. They did so because their personal morality just wouldn't let them do otherwise.

One of the essential principals of good business should be to never take yes for an answer. If you are making business plans and NO ONE in your circle suggests a way in which the plan could go wrong, you should shelve it. Because there is no such thing as a foolproof plan. The refusal to see this will ultimately blind you to the danger and make it that much more likely you will fuck up. Never do anything without making a good faith effort to understand the potential pitfalls and never do anything without accepting those risks ahead of time.

What we are seeing today is the fuck up to end all fuck ups. Over the course of 30 years we have turned the vast engine of the America, quite possibly the greatest economic engine the world has ever seen, into a vast Ponzi scheme. The result was inevitable.

Anyone who thinks this mess can be cleaned up and turned around even in four years is, once again, unwilling to face reality. America can right itself. But I don't expect to see it fully recover before my grandchildren graduate from high school, and my oldest son is currently 15.

Interesting times.

The end of guilt-by-association

The idea that who we deal with defines who we are is an absurd notion that has locked us in a vice. If we are to face the very real problems we have we cannot allow our differences to get in the way of what we have in common.

We don't have that luxury anymore.

The Obama Doctrine

A lot of people ridiculed Obama for saying he would talk with the leaders of Iran. A lot of those who supported Obama then are angry now about Rick Warren giving the invocation at the inauguration. They said then that Obama's approach to foreign policy showed that he was mature enough to deal with "enemies" as people instead of devils.

And now they are angry that Obama is taking the same approach with respect to evangelicals?

Why should we be surprised? Why should we be shocked?

Black and White

I won't listen to anti-semitics on the issue of Israel.

I won't listen to segregationists on the issue of affirmative action.

I won't listen to bigoted homophobes on the issue of gay marriage.

But I refuse to adopt the Manichean stance of assuming that someone who is woefully wrong on one issue is fundamentally wrong on all issues. That was the heart of Bush's approach to life: you are either with him or you are against him. It is an approach that will eventually turn everyone into your enemy.

I bet that there is at least one issue that you and your closest friend have a fundamental disagreement on. Does that mean she can no longer be your friend? Does that mean you can longer work with her on issues that matter to you both?