A partial explanation, with more to come

It seems I’ve touched a nerve. Maybe a couple of them.

Sometimes my attempts to stir the pot are not successful. And sometimes they result in shaking instead of stirring.
My most-recent post drew a couple unexpected responses, which was surprising if only because I’m not easy to surprise.
But first, here’s more evidence Obama knows about peak oil.
Over at Bucket-head Nation, Emma thought my post was “particularly snarly.”. And right here at home, eternally optimistic Court asks for clarification about neoconservatism (as distinguished from FDR’s brand of liberalism and Nixon’s conservatism) and Chris questions the evidence suggesting Reagan is Obama’s hero. Let’s take those issues one at a time.
Firstly, I appreciate the observation from Emma, and her use of language to explain the observation.
Secondly, I’ll respond to Court’s excellent question in a separate post. It requires some serious thought, and I’d like to give it some before firing off my usual ill-thought, reactionary response. But regarding Court’s optimism about the economy, Time magazine finally admitted the events of 29 September came within a whisker of bringing down the global industrial economy. Had the folks at Time been reading my blog, they’d have caught on a lot sooner: check out this post, from 29 October. Actually, had they been paying the slightest attention to the news, they would have figured it out a month sooner, when it was happening. Regardless, Time is finally figuring out what’s happening to the economy, even if they refuse to admit the underlying cause.
And finally, I’m not sure how to address Chris’s comment. Obama made nearly weekly references to Reagan on the campaign trail, all of them laced with adoration. So Obama is either a liar or a neocon. Which would you prefer? Personally, I strongly suspect he’s both. But within a few days, I’ll explain my conclusion that he’s a contemporary American politician, hence a neocon. Stay tuned.