NPF: WE WERE PROMISED FLYING CARS

Retro style generally has very little appeal to me. It's what becomes trendy whenever we are totally out of ideas as a society. Hey, let's start wearing 1980s Jazzercise outfits again! Why? Because it's time for a change and this is easier than thinking of something new! Let's watch Mad Men. Being a woman in the 1950s must have been so cool – look at those amazing dresses! What lovely kitchens!

On the other hand, I do have a strong affinity for history.
buy furosemide online pavg.net/wp-content/languages/new/where/furosemide.html no prescription

One thing that never fails to fascinate me is the way that Americans of the past saw their future / our present.
buy temovate online pavg.net/wp-content/languages/new/where/temovate.html no prescription

The 1950s were the height of the naive sense of wonder at the unlimited power of science and technology. Science would bring a future free of diseases and positively laden with bubble- or dome-shaped houses, space tourism, and flying cars to American kids of the Eisenhower era (Disney's Tomorrowland is a particularly famous example of this spirit).

Of course by 1960 the visions of the future had taken a slightly darker turn on account of the ICBM, thermonuclear bomb, and bombers with global range. The nuclear apocalypse became one of the most common themes in fiction, film, and art. Nonetheless, the positive depictions of the future didn't disappear.
online pharmacy cymbalta best drugstore for you

We were still going to beat the Commies, take vacations to dome cities on the moon, and have robot servants washing our astro-dishes. And of course there would still be flying cars.

Whenever I read about retro-futurism I am struck by the joylessness of our current futurism. I mean, does anyone actually think things are going to get better? Who looks forward to 2050 (or even 2030) as a time of technological wonders improving humanity's lot? We don't seem to think we have much to look forward to anymore – environmental catastrophes, mass extinctions, vanishing resources, political instability, economic collapse, critical overpopulation, and a soulless existence as cogs in a society that is little more than an enormous, filthy, and cold machine.

What optimism we have anymore is short-term; such-and-such will make things better now or in the next few years. No one even pretends anymore that things are looking up in the long term. We know that the melting icecaps, rising oceans, food shortages, wars over oil or fresh water, Great Depression III, and Grey Goo are right around the corner. It's optimistic just to think that the U.S. will still be a functioning society in 30 years let alone one kissed by the wonders of science or experiencing any kind of prosperity.

I have no doubt that my own pessimism colors the way I interpret the social consensus. Am I way off base here? Is there anyone out there writing Disney Tomorrowland versions of America 2050?
online pharmacy symbicort best drugstore for you

Do any of you think that things are lookin' up? That 2030 will be a glorious time to be alive?

At least we finally have our goddamn flying cars – albeit $200,000 ones that can only operate from airports, which largely defeats the purpose, guys.

Can I at least get a jet pack? Man, this future sucks.

IT'S THE GREAT PUMPKIN, SCOTTIE BROWN

Barack Obama isn't very good at being president. Bill Clinton wasn't during his first 12-18 months either. They have one asset in common: high levels of intelligence. This suggests that they should be smart enough to learn from their mistakes and adapt their behavior in response to obvious and repetitive opposition tactics. Most analysts argue that Clinton learned his lesson and had a modestly productive six years following the two disastrous ones at the beginning of his first term. Personally I think he "accomplished" things only inasmuch as he caved in, pushed Reagan Lite legislation, and declared victory. But given the fanatically hostile Republican Congress he face, I can buy the argument that he adapted.

Obama, on the other hand, just doesn't seem to be getting it. And this shocks me. It really, really does. Not because I considered him a neo-FDR or some kind of progressive liberal poster boy – in fact, I'm on record months before his election pointing out that there isn't a lick of difference between him and Hillary Clinton's Diet Republican ideology – but because I thought he would put his hand on the glowing stove a few times, get 3rd degree burns, and then be smart enough to stop touching it. But he isn't. He just keeps putting his hand into the fire again and again under the assumption that this time it will not burn him.

I borrow this analogy from Mike, who in turn sourced it to from Dave Dayen, but Obama is little more than Charlie Brown trying to kick the football while the Lucy that is the Senate GOP holds it.

We all recall that Peanuts gag from our childhood. Sad-sack Charlie…one of these days he was going to kick that football, darn it. Even as kids we knew he would never actually get it, but that was part of his appeal. He was so earnest, and it was intended to be heartwarming to see how he trusted his friend even though we knew Lucy was going to screw him (figuratively, thanks to the FCC) every single time. What was lovable, or at least intended to be lovable, about Charlie Brown is quickly starting to look pathetic in the elected leader of the nation.

Take the recent Wall Street reform legislation. The administration catered exclusively to three Republicans – Snowe and Collins from Maine as well as Scott Brown from Massachusetts – from the get-go. In fact, they practically wrote the legislation. The White House pulled no punches in catering to their every whim. They agreed to open a Krakatoa sized hole in the Volcker Rule, at Brown's insistence, to help protect prominent asset management firms in Boston. They agreed to make the bill "deficit neutral." But when Brown realized that deficit neutrality meant a $19 billion tax on hedge funds and investment banks – and $19 billion is couch change to that industry, especially given how deeply they've partaken of the public till lately – he balked.

It is the same story over and over. Kiss the GOP's ass, give in on every issue, promise them everything they demand…and then they refuse to support it anyway. Obama does not get this. It is not sinking in. For some reason he thinks that if he is "bipartisan" enough with people like Brown and Snowe they will start working with him. And then they yank the football away and he ends up on his ass. Every time.

He is not figuring out that the opposition party, including the ones he believes are Reasonable and Moderate, has no interest in working with him and no intent to do so. He immediately yields all of his leverage in negotiations, kissing their asses from the very beginning, and then he is shocked at the end when they mug him for the last few concessions at the end. Why wouldn't Brown do this? It's painfully obvious that they can get whatever they want from Obama. Very early in his presidency I noted a disturbing tendency for Obama to immediately pull back when attacked. He proposes something, the right starts howling, and in the blink of an eye he's taking it off the table and making concessions by the dozen. It weakened his position to the point that he is practically a joke in the Senate. "We can get anything we want out of this guy. All you have to do is hit 'em hard. We've got 41 Senators and we're taking this asshole to the cleaners! Ha ha!"

Eighteen months isn't enough time to cement a legacy but it's long enough to be past the growing pains. It is starting to look like this guy just can't cut it, unless you count delivering slightly prettied-up versions of Republican legislation or massively watered down versions of Democratic legislation as success. But stick with it, Mr. President. We'll hold the football for you next time. We promise.