MATEWAN

Feckless Piker(FP): Oddvark and I watched the movie Matewan last night. How'd you like the movie Oddvark?

Oddvark (OC): I liked all that coal.

FP: What about Chris Cooper and Mary McDonnell, didn't you think they gave good performances?

OC: Oh yeah, the whole cast gave good performances, especially David Strathairn and Kevin Tighe. There's just something about all that coal though; it really turns me on.

FP: I guess they don't call you Oddvark for nothing.

OC: Hell, I would have fit right in there in Matewan at the turn of the century.

FP: Those union guys had guts. They were constantly being harassed, attacked and even killed by the Pinkertons.

OC: The pinkerwhats?

FP: Pinkertons. That was what they called the private detectives and private police that were hired by the corporate moguls to bust the unions back then. They used all kinds of underhanded tactics like spies, misinformation, blackmail, and even violence to stop the trade union movement from organizing the coal miners and railroad workers.

OC: Do we belong to a union Feckless?

FP: You have to have a job to belong to union.

DEL CASTILLO

Feckless Piker (FP): Oddvark, I think I know when we'll make our next appearance at Skipper's.

Oddvark (OC): What's Skipper's man?

FP: Put that oatmeal stout down and try to concentrate Oddvark. Skipper's is that great music venue we visited on Friday night. The one where we saw James Mc'Murtry.

OC: Oh yeah, I'm with you now. So who are we going to see next?

FP: We're going to see Del Castillo, that great Flamenco/Rock fusion band we saw at Tropical Heatwave this Spring. They're coming to Skipper's in mid-January.

OC: Those guys were great man! I'd give my right hand to play the guitar like those guys.

FP: Oddvark, do you ever give any thought to what comes out of your mouth?

OC: What?

FP: Never mind, let's just try to remember to go to Skipper's web sight so we can get ticket information. The webpage is at http://www.skipperssmokehouse.com/. Man, I can't wait to here those guitars singing again.

OC: Will there be oatmeal stout?

FP: No, no oatmeal stout. They have the next best thing though, Newcastle Brown Ale.

OC: I love brown liquids.

FP: Oddvark! There's people listening out there; don't be disgusting.

OC: You don't have to get so uppity just because you prefer Blue Moon heifer weisen. By the way, our fuel heater is running a little low tonight and it's supposed to be cold. You know what that means.

FP: Yeah, it's beanie weanies for dinner again. See you all next time.

SKIPPER'S SMOKE HOUSE

Feckless (FP): Well Oddvark that was quite a concert last night at Skipper's.

Oddvark (OC): Yeah that James McMurtry was pretty darn good. Great lyrics and excellent lead guitar. Kind of a mix between Dylan and Tom Petty.

FP: Yeah, and the people watching is the best at one of those WMNF/Skipper's events. We ought to go to those more often. The last one we went to was Tropical Heat Wave in May.

OC: I think I remember that. Was it down in Ybor?

FP: It was at the Cuban Club; you must of had a lot of those oatmeal stouts.

OC: As many as I can afford.

FP: It's been a long time since we posted to the blog. I wonder if anyone ever reads this thing.

OC: I doubt it man. It's fun all the same, when we get around to it.

FC: We should post more frequently. So much has happened since the last post. We have a new President-elect. The first African American ever elected President. The stock market has crashed. The Feds are dishing out money to Wall Street faster than you can say boo. We visited the District of Columbia. The football season is almost over. The Gators won the SEC Championship game over the number one ranked Alabama team (tonight).

OC: All that happened since our last post? Man we been slack!

FP: Slack is what we do Oddvark. Slack is what we do best.

GETTING AHEAD

Oddvark (OC): Gee Feckless, why so gloomy today?

Feckless (FP): I read Robert Samualson's column in the paper yesterday. He listed all the ways in which the American public willfully allows itself to be deceaved by politicians. Essentially, Samuelson argues that the public doesn't want to know the bad news. They just want to live in a delusional state.

OC: That sounds very cynical.

FP: It's not cynical, it's realistic. I was watching a show about Diners in America on the Food Channel last night. One of the owners and short-order cooks was crowing about anybody being able to make it in America (maybe he was Albanian; everything being relative you know). He was absolutely right, anyone can make it in America, as long as they're willing to work 16 hours a day, 7 days a week. In this respect, we have not progressed very far in 250 years. I guess it can be argued that most people can get by (survive) on a 40-50 hour week; whereas that was far from certain 250 years ago or even 75 years ago. However, it is very difficult to "get ahead" by working standard hours. Getting ahead is limited to the following scenarios: (1) Building a better mouse trap; assuming the idea isn't stolen from the inventor. This is increasingly hard to achieve in our ever more technologically sophisticated world. (2)Working 16 hours a day for years on end, being relatively frugal, and investing the profits wisely. (3) Having access to large amounts of capital and investing the profits wisely. This avenue is forclosed to the vast majority of Americans due to the lack of access to capital (inheritence) and the inability of most Americans to invest wisely on a consistent basis. (4) Working regular hours and being excessively frugal (miserly),investing wisely, and a little luck. These are the only formulas available for "getting ahead" in America. In some parts of the world, "getting ahead" is virtually impossible. In America, we are proud of the fact that it is possible for perhaps 10-20% of our population. Everyone else is just getting by. I should also add that with the price of gas, food, housing, transportation, and insurance going up, it will be increasing difficult for most Americans to "get ahead". For the foreseeable future, America will become the land of lowered expectations.

SENATOR MCCAIN

Oddvark (OC): Here he comes now, the recording secretary of the Personal Methane Producers Association, Feckless Piker.

Feckless (FP): Thank you Oddvark. How's everything down at the beer garden?

OC: It's been very mellow lately. I think people are cutting back on their brew consumption in order to economize. I just can't resist my daily ration of delicious creamy Young's Oatmeal Stout. It's like drinking breakfast.

FP: In your case, it is drinking breakfast.

OC: You got that right bro, finest way to start the day.

FP: I started my day today by watching Senator John McCain give a very good foreign policy speach at a conference he was attending. Senator McCain impressed me with his knowledge of foreign policy and his ability to articulate his ideas clearly and with a minimum of academic jargon. Of the three major presidential candidates, I think he has, by far, the best foreign policy credentials. Unlike the sitting president, Senator McCain does a much better job of explaining why he thinks we need to stay in Iraq until that nation establishes a stable government and economy. Senator McCain would be a shoe-in for the presidency except for three major problems with his platform:

First, Senator McCain says that we must stay in Iraq and Afghanastan until we get the job done. In today's speach he defined success as that point in time when both Iraq and Afghanastan enjoy stable, democratically elected governments that can develop and sustain prosperous economies. In the past, Senator McCain has said we should stay in Iraq, even if it takes a hundred years. Senator McCain says these things because he believes them and believes that this is the best course of action for the U.S. I have no doubt of this. However, he has taken this position despite the fact that current polls show that fully two-thirds of the voting public want the U.S. out of Iraq and Afghanastan in fairly short order. This unequivical position is reminicient of Vice-President Cheney's reply of "So", when asked what he thought about the desire of most Americans to get out of Iraq. Senator McCain does a much better job of articulating his reasoning, but the end result is the same. If he is elected, the U.S. will not be leaving Iraq anytime soon. There are a couple of big problems with this, aside from the problems presented in Iraq. One is that Senator McCain can't commit the U.S. to more than four more years of fighting in Iraq. By his own admission, four years is probably not going to get the job done. If we are in Iraq four more years, the chance of him getting reelected are very slim, given current public sentiment. If he were a one term president and is ousted due to the war, then his successor will surely try to put a swift end to the war. In that case, all that will be achieved is more American casualties. So, why not just leave sooner rather than later. I suspect that Senator McCain might try to boost his chances of reelection and at the same time help his Israeli allies by trying to broaden the war across the Iranian border. His rhetoric in todays speach forshadowed such a move.

A second problem for Senator McCain is that he will not be taking a large number of Republicans on his coattails into office. This means he will be dealing from the start with a Congress controlled by the Democratic Party. No matter how well Senator McCain gets along with his Democratic colleagues, it will be very hard for him to get bi-partisan cooperation on issues as devisive as the war and homeland security.

The third problem for Senator McCain is the souring economy. Economics is not Senator McCain's strong suit. He can partially remedy this by making strong domestic cabinet appointments. However, a weak domestic economy is bound to erode support for the continuing expense of the war. Every additional dollar spent on the war is borrowed money. This massive deficit spending is weakening the value of the dollar around the world. The federal reserve has already made massive cuts to the fed funds rate, and may have to make more cuts. This in turn promisses to erode the value of the dollar even further. Senator McCain may inherit one of the most challenging economic situations any president has seen since Jimmy Carter. We all know what happen to him. Which brings us back to the question, what happens to the war if Senator McCain is only in office for four years? Given his definition of success, can we wrap this thing up in four years or less? The American voting public is going to have to evaluate all this and more before they place their bets on Senator McCain. He is a good man. He is a relatively honest man. He is a genuine military hero. But can he deliver the goods in four years?

SENATOR OBAMA

Oddvark (OC): Hoy-Ahoy! Here comes the Pikerman.

Feckless (FP): What's happening Oddvark? What have we got on the radar tonight?

OC: Say Feckless, what do you think of Barack Obama? He seems like a pretty cool cat to me.

FP: He does indeed. He does indeed. Senator Obama seems like a descent fellow. I even heard Pat Buchanan complement him on one of those Sunday morning political talk shows recently. Pat said that it would be hard not to like Senator Obama on a personal level. While I've never had the pleasure of meeting him, that sure seems to be the case. But he's still a politician. And he's shooting for the moon in the political world: the Prez of the good 'ole U.S. of A.

OC: So you don't trust him, huh?

FP: I don't fully trust any politician. He's no different in that respect. I do appreciate his attempt to keep the campaign civil. It's his "change" message that I'm not so sure about.

OC: You don't like change? or You don't believe he can change the system?

FP: As Senator Clinton said recently, change is part of life. However, there can be revolutionary change and there can be incremental change. For instance, Mikhail Gorbachev proposed reform of the old Soviet Union in a slow methodical way towards a representative democracy and market economy. He estimated that it would take at least 20 years to accomplish the end result; it took 75 years for the Soviet Union to evolve into the bloated, inefficient bureaucracy that existed when the Berlin wall came down. Instead of Gorbachev's plan of incremental change, the Russian people decided that they wanted to follow Boris Yeltsin, who promised a faster pace of change. The Russian's were too impatient. It is understandable why they might be, they had to stand in block long lines just to get toilet tissue. Unfortunately, their impatience started a chain of events that has led to government by Mr. Putin and the Russian Mafia. The Russians now have government by thuggery.

OC: What does all that have to do with Senator Obama?

FP: Well, Senator Obama's rhetoric sounds like he is promising the fast pace change approach rather than the slow deliberate approach. After the last eight years of Bush/Cheney, it is understandable why Americans would want change quickly. However, we have to be careful and deliberate about the change we foster. For instance, Senator Obama has indicated that he believes that corporations have too much influence over government. In particular, his rhetoric has been unsympathetic to the oil companies. Senator Obama believes that the U.S. should hasten the pace of alternative energy development. I completely agree with him in principle. However, my retirement funds (both pension and personal savings), along with millions of other Americans are directly or indirectly tied to the fate of the U.S. oil industry. Who do you think owns all those oil stocks; pension funds, insurance companies (annuities), mutual funds (401K, 403B, etc.)and personal investors. If the pace of change in energy production is too rapid, we run the risk of destabilizing the share values of stocks in the energy sector and related industries. So, while we should definitely begin the conversion from fossil fuels to other forms of energy, we need to do so carefully, deliberately and gradually. This will allow our industries time to make the needed changes to their capital investment mix. Don't get me wrong, we can no longer sit on our heels and continue our dependence on fossil fuels. We must start the process of change soon. I just think if we have a Democrat in the White House and a Democratically controlled Congress the temptation will be great to make revolutionary changes in energy policy. Those kind of changes could destabilize our capital markets and possibly even our economy. What we need is to see gradual, deliberate change over the next ten years, followed by a paradigm shift toward alternative energy dominance within a second decade.

OC: So your beef with Senator Obama is with energy policy?

FP: Not exactly, I agree with him in principle. I am just concerned about the pace of change and the temptation to make radical changes because of the political opportunity posed by control of two branches of government. The Republicans showed the same lack of restraint when they captured the White House in 2000; except they used their newfound power to weaken attempts at energy policy reform. What we need is a consistent policy of conservation and alternative fuel research and implementation that survives political changes in Washington. Alas, this may not be possible in a polarized two-party system.

FP: By the way, energy policy is not the only place where we need sustained policy initiatives. I just used that as one example. As a general rule, I think Americans and American politicians need to start thinking more long-term, more strategically. Americans have got to break their habit of short-term gratification. If not, future generations of Americans are going to pay a heavy price for their forefather's profligacy.

GREETINGS FROM FECKLESS & ODDVARK

Welcome to the transcript of the late, late night talk show Rhodomontados, hosted by that bon vivant and ne'er-do-well raconteur, Feckless Piker and his dipsomaniac sidekick, Oddvark Contremundo. Every week [even more frequently if we can rouse ourselves] Feckless & Oddvark and their special guests will engage in stimulating discussions on a variety of topics, including, but not limited to: politics [this is the one that will terrify our sponsors (employer)], culture, the arts, sports, economics, finance, and current affairs. Like a certain radio show host who purportedly sits before a golden microphone, our intention is primarily to entertain. Unlike that host, the only gold possessed by our heroes Feckless & Oddvark is in the form of the crowns that help them chew their food [their microphone is made of cardboard, wire twisties, and chewing gum]. In the weeks to come, our readers and our creator will become more familiar with the format of the show as it unfolds. Until you tune in again, sit back, relax, enjoy your favorite libations, and count your blessings every day. If that fails, feel free to be as snarky as you want to be. Just try to do it with humor and aplomb, like Feckless & Oddvark.
---this episode of Rhodomontados was brought to you by our sponsors, The Personal Methane Producers Association of the Good Ole U.S. of A. We like to say, "A day without methane is like a day without beenie-weenies."