My man McCain keeps going on about this proposal Hillary had for a Woodstock museum, and I can’t help that the old dude’s missing the real problem here. I keep thinking: a museum? For Woodstock?
There’s something extremely uncool about that. Museums are where established, older-generation culture is stored and entombed in cold marble, right? It’s where the Man puts his stuff.
Wasn’t Woodstock — to the extent that it was about anything other than being a rip-roarin’, get-high-and-get-nekkid sort of party — sort of about the opposite of that?
Where was Hillary’s head at?
Oh — and in case you’re not digging where my headline is at, here’s a link.
Related Posts
In all the months I’ve been blogging here, this is the best point you’ve ever made, Brad.
The counter-culture can’t be the culture, else the Republicans become the counter-culture, and we’re back to Lincoln being a Republican.
You guys have pretty Establishment views of what a museum can be. … Think of the interactive and experiential possibilitites this place could have. Forget Discovery Place. This could be a trip.
Maybe that’s where Hillary’s head was at.
Maybe it’s just me, man, but I think Hillary’s head has always been in a very square place. She’s into, like, the POWER trip, man…
Y’all must forgive me, man. I saw "Across the Universe" over the weekend, and I’m still trying to get over seeing Bono playing Dr. Robert, which was really supposed to be Kesey, who was a wrestler, not a singer, but he was singing "I Am the Walrus."
That could mess up anybody.
We have about a zillion monuments and museums glorifying war. Why not one that honors an event that was promoting peace and brotherly love? But perhaps this should be entirely a privately funded venture.
But why are the presidential candidates wasting time on this? Has anyone noticed the shocking, and I do mean shocking, run up in oil prices? In overnight trading oil traded for over $96/barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange. Heating oil is now above $2.50/gallon, on NYMEX. Let’s hope for a mild winter. There are many proximate causes for this, including a speculation bubble, but the underlying problem is related to the geological reality that oil production is peaking. There simply is no way to increase production any longer.
you sure, bud? … I think we’ll see production increase, on a market-contorlled basis, because it will be profitable at $100+ a barrel. China will gladly pay those prices.
Gordon, no I’m not sure. The evidence is mixed but it’s looking more and more pessimistic with each passing day. OPEC has pledged a 500,000 barrel/day increase but so far has not delivered. Read some of the articles in the oildrum.com.
Higher gasoline prices will certainly reduce the amount of driving we do, the demand component of supply and demand, but there is growing evidence that it may no longer be physically possible to extract oil at a faster rate from the ground. If that is the case the price will not affect the quantity of oil brought to market.
Maybe so, bud. I keep reading about abandoned or untapped reserves that are too costly to reach for production, because they are so inaccessible (politically or geographically). As with anything about the oil industry, it’s hard to know what’s truth and what’s propaganda.
The truly sad part about all this market manipulation of oil prices by OPEC (and Texans) is that the result is regressive — people who can least afford increases in heating, transportation, pharmaceuticals, whatever, are hardest hit. That’s my base objection to the $2 tax Brad talks about.