Rebellion For or Rebellion Against? The Republican Party Puts America on the Knife Edge

The knife edge between the rhetoric of rebellion and inciting rebellion is sharp, ragged,  and stained with the blood of the innocent; the severing blow comes all too often from a hand unexpected and beyond the control of those speaking as the Advocates for that Rebellion’s Agenda.

Read this interview exchange between Rep. John Boehner (R-OH), who is the Republican Minority Leader of the House of Representatives, and Jeffrey Brown, of PBS’s The News Hour on September 17, 2009:

REP. JOHN BOEHNER: Well, I think — you’ve heard me over the last several months make it clear that we want Americans to involve themselves in this discussion, but it ought to be civil. And, by and large, almost all of it is. Oh, there’s going to be someone now and then who’s going to get out of control or yell, but we are in the middle of a modern-day political rebellion in America.

JEFFREY BROWN: Rebellion?

REP. JOHN BOEHNER: Rebellion. I’ve never seen anything like this. I’ve been around the country in a number of members’ districts, and I’ve been watching this grassfire grow all year.

And the American people, they’re concerned about what their government is doing. They know that these trillion-dollar deficits for as far as the eye can see, this is not sustainable. And they’re concerned that government here in Washington is getting too big, getting too much control, and they’re making their opposition to it known. And all of my colleagues have encountered their citizens more engaged than they’ve ever seen them.

Now, I went to a tea party in West Chester, Ohio, on September 5th, Labor Day weekend, along with some of my colleagues; 18,000 people were there. And there were some Democrats there and some Republicans there. But three-fourths of the people there were people — average Americans who’d never been engaged in the political process, really didn’t know much about it, except that they were concerned about where our country was going.

And so this conversation that’s underway is healthy for our democracy. It was Thomas Jefferson 220 years ago who said, “A little rebellion now and then is good for our democracy.”

Are Rep. Boehner, and the Republicans who advocate this language, rebelling for something or against something?  Are they fanning the flames of anxiety by the use of such words to what end?  I honestly can’t tell.  They cry “Give us back our country!” but what do they cite as evidence the country has been lost?  They cry “Don’t take away our guns!” and make threatening inferences, “We came unarmed…This time.”  They cry “Our constitutional rights are being squashed!” but I cannot remember a time when our constitutional rights were more protected.

What is the rebellion?  What is truly the word “rebellion” being used to communicate?

John Boehner, will you tell us the truth why you are using the word “rebellion?”

And here is why I make this demand:  The Declaration of Independence sets the standard for initiating rebellion against tyranny.  Rebellion is a just cause when a people are under the yoke of a government that deprives them of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

The advocacy of rebellion for any other reason cannot meet that standard.

The advocacy of rebellion as a political means to bring down a legally and constitutionally elected president and government, because you refuse to abide by either the law or the Constitution as the Loyal Opposition, is not justifiable by the standard set forth in the Declaration of Independence, and guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States of America.

That is not rebellion, Mr. Boehner, that is revolution.  I pray that is not your true agenda.  For that you cannot control, and it will exact a cost you and all who follow you cannot pay.

There Will Never Be Another Tax Cut

Huh??  What do you mean there will never be another tax cut? Congress can vote to cut taxes anytime it wants.  Have you lost your mind, Waggoner?

Consider this statement:

Using tax levels consistent with the past half century in America, then subtracting entitlement payments as currently promised for Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, The Heritage Foundation (another conservative think tank) estimates that sometime just before 2020, there won’t be enough money in the federal treasury for anything but the entitlement programs.

It was written by Bruce Brattain, owner of Wisdom River Partners, who, among his many talents, is an elder care consultant.  Now, don’t roll your eyes over the word “consultant.”  Start reading a few of the pieces in his blog, aninconvenientbruce, and you’ll instantly realize, this is one very astute observer who has his finger on the pulse of a number of national issues.

And, just to entice you more to go read the entire article from which this quote was taken; it’s not what you think it is.

Now.  Please. Go read what Bruce has to say.  Oh, and be prepared to not only to have your assumptions challenged in a classic Extreme Thinkover manner, get ready to be entertained by a guy with one wicked wit!  Click here.

Then come back to my post for this:

Post Script:  I just watched PBS’s The News Hour:

In an ongoing series of conversations on health reform, Jeffrey Brown speaks with Robert Laszewski, a former insurance executive and skeptic of a public insurance option.

Laszewski, in this interview, lays out the manifesto for Big Medicine’s opposition to health care reform.  He is articulate, clearly believes in his cause, and goes over their case against the public plan point by point.

And proves the argument for implementing a public option in the health care reform legislation so beautifully, I almost jumped up from the couch to give him a standing ovation.

Huh?   Two times in one post?  Read the interview of Robert Laszewski, former insurance executive and Big Medicine consultant by Jeffrey Brown.  Click Here.

Radiation Sniffer: On Alert for the Nuclear Option

In my post of July 3, I made the bold suggestion that the various Big Medicine groups could very well be planning to “drop the bomb” on the whole effort toward Universal Health Care, either before the legislation was finalized and voted on, or perhaps even after.  I called this the “Nuclear Option.”

Do not assume for a micro-second they have given up. They are preparing the Nuclear Option. One all-out attack on universal health care, with no regard for collateral damage, just the health of America. In the Board Rooms of the Insurance Megacorps, Big Pharma, Corporate Hospitals, and dozens of other stakeholders firmly anchored in the Status Quo, they are planning to bring this down. Once and for all, to obliterate the very notion of universal health care so completely, that it will never threaten their companies and profits again.

The question is, in all fairness, even though my hypothesis using organizational theory predicts the likelihood of an attempt to prevent UHC from becoming law, or destroying it after it is passed, is there any evidence to support it?  I also stated,

The door for the Nuclear Option is now open. Why? Because the real-life environment to which we are applying my theory is not just one company; we are applying it to a multifaceted industry that has for decades successfully resisted and obstructed the move toward universal health care. And they know that by conspiring together and pooling their resources, they can potentially create a huge wall of resistance. This strategy has a flaw, however. A significant percentage of companies in the industry are supportive of UHC, and are already changing the practice of their organizations to successfully ride the transformative wave. This fact only serves to increase the opponents’ anxiety. Who has the most to lose?

The political and economic environment is volatile and turbulent.  What I needed was a “radiation sniffer,” so to speak, a virtual monitor that would look for “leakage” that might be evidence of the Nuclear Option being planned.  At the same time, I needed an operational definition for “sniffing radiation” that would naturally provide boundaries against my finding “evidence” under every rock just to prove my hypothesis.

That set up two basic choices.  One would be to look for evidence that claimed outright that this group or that was planning to use their version of the Nuclear Option.  The other was to look for evidence that the players known to be facing the biggest losses were playing their game very close to the vest; in other words to look for evidence where what was not being said was more important that what was.

I chose the second.  This is why:

Therefore, if the individuals on the [Big Medicine] Boards and their Executive Management fail to manage their anxiety about the turbulence and the implications of transformative change in motion, and as they realize their historical resources for influence (i.e., lobbying) are waning, they will tend to take the most conservative stance to defend the survival of the organization, and that stance will tend to be to preserve the status quo at all cost.

And, the status quo has been for decades to work politically behind the scenes through lobbying and other forms of influence.  The job of the Public Relations department is to create a public face for the organization that oozes altruism and the common good over the corporation’s true mission to make as much profit as possible using every Machiavellian principle in the book.

Preparing the Nuclear Option requires planning, stealth, subterfuge, and sleight of hand.  In Board rooms around the country listen for the clink of glasses filled with expensive hooch, accompanied by the toast, “They’ll never see it coming!”

Am I skeptical and mistrusting of organizational motivations?  Of course I am.

Here is my first example for possible radiation, in a piece written by David Herzenhorn and Sheryl Gay Stohlberg for the New York Times, July 7th, titled “Health Deals Could Harbor Hidden Costs:”

Rather than running advertisements against the White House, the most influential players in the industry are inside the room negotiating with administration officials and leading lawmakers, like Senator Max Baucus, chairman of the Finance Committee.

“The very groups we have been talking to have been the most vocal opponents of health care reform; they are now becoming the vocal proponents for health care reform,” said Rahm Emanuel, the White House chief of staff.

How very “chummy” of them.  Sniff, sniff.

The Radiation Sniffer is now fully operational and on-line.  Watch for more to come.  Or if you find something interesting, send to me and I’ll check it out.

Universal Health Care Confronts the Nuclear Option

The Nuclear Option (just for those of you who are stilled mired in Bush-speak, it is pronounced “new-klee-ur” not “new-cue-lar”).  In this case I’m not talking about the U.S. Senate rule called “reconciliation.”

No, in this case I’m wondering what is going on in the minds of those who have so adamantly and vociferously have opposed Universal Health Care in the United States.  Yesterday, Paul Krugman New York Times columnist, wrote in his blog,

Yes, we can

Get more or less universal coverage, that is. The CBO scoring on an incomplete bill sent everyone into a tizzy — and also led to an avalanche of bad reporting, with claims that it said terrible things about the public option. (There was no public option in the bill.)

Now the real thing has been scored — and it’s OK. Something like 97 percent coverage for people already here, at a total cost somewhere in the $1 trillion range. Bear in mind that the Bush tax cuts cost around $1.8 trillion over a decade. We can do this — and have no excuse for not doing it.

In the minds of the opponents of UHC, however, nothing has changed.  That’s what worries me.  In fact, as the evidence mounts that assuring every American has access to health care can be a reality and not doom the economy (as they have so desperately hoped), the opponents are realizing the End-Game is upon them.  They are losing.  Not only has every traditional method of obstruction not worked, or not worked well, the vast majority of Americans are solidly against them.  Heard any good anti-health care spin from Rush, Karl, John Boehner, or Mitch McConnell in the past couple of weeks?  If they were gaining ground with their argument, neither the election in Iran or Michael Jackson’s death could drown them out.  Not even South Carolina Governor Sanford’s adventures in Wonderland would diminish their clarion call for Big Medicine.

Their voices have faded to background static.

Do not assume for a micro-second they have given up.  They are preparing the Nuclear Option.  One all-out attack on universal health care, with no regard for collateral damage, just the health of America.  In the Board Rooms of the Insurance Megacorps, Big Pharma, Corporate Hospitals, and dozens of other stakeholders firmly anchored in the Status Quo, they are planning to bring this down.  Once and for all, to obliterate the very notion of universal health care so completely, that  it will never threaten their companies and profits again.

Am I paranoid?  Well, even if you are not paranoid doesn’t mean they’re not out to get you anyway.

I’m not paranoid, actually.  I’m well read in organizational theory (it was the corner stone of my doctoral dissertation in educational policy and management), and I understand how organizations respond in unstable ecologies and economic turbulence.  When resources are threatened, the people running the organization will tend to react in predictable ways.  When the operational environment changes more quickly than expected, or in ways unanticipated, the predictable management responses are more and more stressed.  If those responses lack the ability to guide the organization through transformational change (like, oh, General Motors), the likelihood of the company failing is very high.

Keeping all that in mind, when the entire global environment, e.g., the country’s health care system, begins to collapse because of a rapid set of ecological changes so powerful the only way to survive is to change transformatively (an analog of the evolutionary concept of “punctuated equilibrium”), only those institutions that have the capacity to change at the same rate and direction required for survival will likely survive.

How, then, does the Nuclear Option fit in this model?  Organizations use their resources to influence and improve their ability to survive in the existing ecological conditions, and eliminate competition for both the resources they need to exist and to improve their chances for greater access to those resources.  But here’s the rub: Organizations are “communities of fate.”  They are actually aggregates of individuals whose investment (personally and professionally) in the success of the organization varies from person to person.  In a corporation, those who have have highest investment are typically the Board of Directors and the Shareholders.  But they have to rely on managers and workers, to both produce and protect their investment.

The managers and workers have a much different perspective on the degree to which they consider the company their community of fate.  When the organization encounters increasing turbulence in its environment, the willingness of the people actually doing the work to cast their fate to ensure its success is much less certain.  If the situation worsens to the degree the survival of the company is in question, the confidence the managers and workers have in the Board’s decision making ability to, specifically save their jobs, can change very quickly.  Some workers will leave the company and look for more stable employment.  Others will stick with it until the bitter end, if it comes to that.  But if you work for an Enron, the house of cards can collapse on top of you regardless of your loyalty.

The pressure on the Board and the managers to keep the organization both alive and solvent can increase rapidly, especially in the situation where the environment and resources are changing at a rate unprecedented in history.  Even organizations that survived earlier transformational evolutionary changes may not survive the current one.  Because of the anxiety generated by the environmental turbulence, the shareholders put more pressure on the Board and managers to preserve their investment and continue to pay dividends.  The workers who are loyal to the company also put pressure on their supervisors to help preserve their jobs.  But loyalty to the community of fate by the worker is always much riskier, because the Board and the managers can, at  any time, cut positions that can eliminate the most loyal employees under the stated intent of protecting the viability of the organization by reducing personnel costs.  This trauma to the community of fate, however, is no guarantee the organization will survive the changing ecology.  It may, instead, guarantee its demise.

Now, here’s the part, as I build the case for the Nuclear Option, that I as an organizational theorist suggest sets the stage:  The critical decisions of the Board over time to adjust to the turbulence is a not a function of taking the most conservative stance in context, but is a function of the individual members of the Board and the Executive Managements’ ability to manage their anxiety in the midst of the turbulence, and at the same time abandon the mimetic* solutions traditionally used to control that anxiety across the organizational or industrial environment.  [*mimesis: from “mime.”  A concept in organizational ecology that says Company A will observe Company B, and adopt a successful process to “avoid reinventing the wheel.”  Over time this mimed process may become an industry standard.  The down side is that when the environment changes, continuing to adopt the mimed process may limit innovation and increase the chances of organizational failure.]

Therefore, if the individuals on the Board and the Executive Management fail to manage their anxiety about the turbulence and the implications of transformative change in motion, and as they realize their historical resources for influence (i.e., lobbying) are waning, they will tend to take the most conservative stance to defend the survival of the organization, and that stance will tend to be to preserve the status quo at all cost.  As organizational rigidity increases, adaptibility and innovation are stifled.

The door for the Nuclear Option is now open.  Why?  Because the real-life environment to which we are applying my theory is not  just one company; we are applying it to a multifaceted industry that has for decades successfully resisted and obstructed the move toward universal health care.  And they know that by conspiring together and pooling their resources, they can potentially create a huge wall of resistance.  This strategy has a flaw, however.  A significant percentage of companies in the industry are supportive of UHC, and are already changing the practice of their organizations to successfully ride the transformative wave.  This fact only serves to increase the opponents’ anxiety.  Who has the most to lose?

The portion of the industry that opposes UHC has powerful political and social connections.  The Republican Party, although reduced in its influence at the last election still has significant resources at its disposal, as well as a core of voters, who for numerous reasons at least state they don’t want to pay for UHC.

This set of circumstances, powered by huge finances, politics, ideology, and desperation creates the possibility that those who have the most to lose as they perceive it are going to try and “drop the bomb” on the universal health care.  Whether they make their move before the Congress acts, or, have a strategy to destroy it even after it has been signed into law, I can’t tell.  But I believe they are well into their planning and will indeed act.

A final note.  Another principle, not from organizational theory, but from psychohistory, is also undoubtedly in play in this situation.  Speaking not literally, but figuratively:  “Violence is the final refuge of the incompetent.”

Where the Republican Budget Really Came From

I’m feeling cranky.  I’ll spare you the extended list.  If you’ve read a few of my more recent posts, you’ll remember that life in hospital land has been stressful.  It ain’t over yet, unfortunately.

Granted, the whole country is cranky.  And irritable or irritating, depending on your perspective.

Gail Collins, NY Times columnist, in her column today, makes a compelling case that the Republicans have become even more irritating than the French, a feat that would seem to defy the very laws of Nature herself:

While the G-20 was finishing its business, members of Congress were showing how they did theirs by passing a budget resolution. The spending plan was somewhat smaller than the president had requested. The Senate also added the Republican priority of reducing taxes on people who inherit estates of $7 million or more – a move that would increase the deficit while stimulating the economy approximately as much as eliminating a sales tax on square potato chips.

But even so, not a single Republican voted yes on the budget. In the House, the G.O.P. came up with an alternative that would cut more taxes for the wealthy while clamping down on nondefense spending. House Republicans think we invest way too much on these government programs and try to cut back on them every single year that their party is not actually in power.

In the Senate, Republican Judd Gregg of New Hampshire predicted that the budget plan “will absolutely put this country on an unsustainable path.” This would be the same Judd Gregg who agreed to join the Obama cabinet as commerce secretary before a last-minute discovery that the president is a Democrat.

Actually, it’s no contest when you think about it. The French aren’t even in the ballpark.

(I’ve made my irritation with the former Veep very clear in a previous post.)

The Republicans are really cranky, after that whole election thing.  And, when it comes to the financial crisis, the budget, trillions of dollars of deficits, and the fact they have to cover-up and evade the the fact their  policies are responsible for a humongous part of it, they are in a tizzy of biblical proportions.

So, to counter the budget they disdain, despise, and dysphagiate (figure it out), they have concocted their own version.  Ta-da!  For us mere mortals, they have released an 18 page summary of the absolute best, paramount, pinnacle of Republican fiscal theory and solutions.  I read it.  You can read it here: “Road to Recovery.”

At least look at it.  That way you’ll understand my following comments.

I give it very high marks for:

  1. Expansive use of white space in a policy document
  2. The incomprehensible use of bubble pictures connected by lines
  3. Text in a font and use of Italics (!!) popular at the time of Abraham Lincoln
  4. No numbers, well, sort of.  The ones that just happen to be included are for the most part those nasty Democratic ones
  5. Exhibiting a level of hubris and claiming a doctrine of infallibility that exceeds the wildest dreams of the Papacy.

I could stop there, but, in my crankiness I wrote a short piece a couple of weeks ago that I titled, “A Long Time Ago in a Beltway Far, Far Away.”  It tells the tale of where the ideas for the Republican budget really came from.

A word of forewarning. This piece is a very edgy satire and in a style in which I usually do not write.  You can access it here: “A Long Time Ago…” (I apologize in advance to George Lucas.)

The Strength of the American Soul

My daughter, Bethany, was at President Obama’s inauguration.  With a ticket.  We sent her a text message during the festivities:  “I see the dignitaries, I hear the band, but I can’t see you.  Wave for me!”, and later, “They’re taking a satellite picture of the Mall.  Be sure to smile!” (Check her blog for all her adventures!  View her Flickr inauguration slide show here.)

Satellite Image of the Capital Mall Crowd at Barack Obama's Presidential Inauguration

Satellite Image of the Capital Mall Crowd at Barack Obama's Presidential Inauguration

Photo Credit: GeoEye and MSNBC.com

Yes, it has been a joyous day.  A joyous day!

Welcome, President Barack Obama.  This man most improbable!

The largest crowd in inaugural history.  One estimate says 1.9 million in the Mall.  The National Park Service is going to make an exception about not counting and crowds and count the crowd.

I looked at the crowd.  I thought about the crowd.  Humor me, here.  Think about the crowd for a moment.  Think hard.  What was distinctive about this crowd? Not its historical presence.  That’s obvious.  We’ll all remember the pictures of the crowd, along with where we were on this day.

Look closely:

Obama Inauguration Crowd and U.S. Capital Building

Obama Inauguration Crowd and U.S. Capital Building

Photo Credit: AP & BBC.com

Here’s what I see.  1.9 million individuals who each made a decision to attend.  Not one person was there because he or she was forced to attend to support the regime or the politburo or to create an illusion of unanimity for the global television audience.

They came because they could.  They came because they wanted to.  They came driven by a personal odyssey with a million different reasons.  They came because to ignore the call to stand there at that time would diminish them for the rest of their lives.  And for those of us who did not walk onto the Capital Mall?  Were we diminished?  Not in the least, for they were our proxy.  E pluribus Unum.  One out of many.  We are the Union.

The strength of the American soul is not our Constitution, our laws, or our branches of government.  They are all essential tools.  The strength of the American soul, the very genius of the American experiment, is that we do not fear to gather. Yes, I know, we are not perfect at that, although on this day we proved the walls of racism are crumbling.   And on this day, when Barack Obama took the oath of office, those walls mortared by fear seemed to be dissolving before our very eyes.

How many millions around the world, fearing for their lives or to avoid arrest, secretly watched or listened to our moment in history, aching for just one moment of that freedom of decision, of will, of assembly?

We gathered without fear. No one feared for their lives.  No one was even arrested.

Our soul as a nation is stronger today.  We should not be altogether surprised, for we gather every four years for the great Presidential Inauguration rituals.  But our world is so different than it was even eight years ago.  We face tyrants who use brutality and fear all over the world to weaken us, who strike from the shade, who love the rule of death to divide, isolate, and frighten us from gathering at all.

Today they failed.  They failed by underestimating the strength of the American soul.  Our will to gather is so strong, that we prepared to defeat the most nefarious action they could imagine.  We gathered.  Prepared.  In a peaceable assembly of millions.  Without fear.

Our soul as a nation is stronger today.  The world knows it.  Most importantly, we know it.

If You Like Political Drama, Baby, This is Your Week!

Holy meltdown bailout debate poll swing, Batman!  It’s only Wednesday and already the seismic activity from the financial earthquakes, political pyroclastic flows, and global credit meltdown has things rocking in the high sevens on the Richter scale. Sevens as in $700 bn, that is. And that doesn’t factor in the Presidential Campaign, the Veep debate, and whether the House of Representatives can find the spine to actually provide the leadership they were elected to give. Could we hit a Richter 10 by Sunday?  Could next Monday on Wall Street make this past one like a shallow pothole? Well, yeah, of course!  We’re talking the best political drama in my adult life. And I’m old enough to remember the whole Watergate thing.

I’m not an economist, and at the moment, I think I’m glad I’m not.  It’s not that ignorance is bliss, but this week it would be driving me nuts.  I’m not sure that any specific economic theory can fully account for the chaos being generated out of the international turbulence. Right now, the economist that seems to have the better handle on the forces at play is Paul Krugman.  Yes, I’m well aware that he is an unrepentant liberal, but he’s very smart and willing to look at all sides of the issue before he draws his conclusions.  Today in his New York Times blog “The Conscience of a Liberal” (see, I told you), he summarizes his grudging acceptance of the bailout/rescue/CPR with the paddles bill passed by the Senate as being forced to form the “hold your nose caucus.”  Works for me.  Sweet or not, I don’t think anyone really knows what kinds of aftershocks the legislation will ultimately produce, assuming the House gets around to passing something on Friday.

Actually one theoretical model does appeal to me.  Being an avid amateur astronomer, I’ve read a lot over the years about stars, and one of the most interesting things that some stars do is go supernova.  The processes that cause a star to blow itself into space leaving only a neutron star, a white-hot glowing diamond perhaps only a few dozen miles in diameter, or if the star has enough mass, to create a black hole, is bewilderingly complex.

Stay with me, now, I’m not going to go through the whole process.  If you want to read about it in lay terminology (sort of ) go read Stephen Hawking or Neil deGrasse Tyson.

But the basic process is this.  Stars have a life cycle.  A supernova is an event at the end of that cycle.  It’s this final stage that I think has parallels in what we are seeing economically.  Here’s what happens.  Stars have huge amounts of hydrogen that is being converted into helium through nuclear fusion.  That is its “capital.”  All its life this fusion has been  churning along, not only producing hydrogen, but (if you remember your high school chemistry periodic table of elements), other elements up through iron.  Those elements are, in a sense, its “products.”  And these are good. Our Sun, which does not have enough mass to go supernova, is producing these products too, and the energy forces by that process give us both light and heat.  Both are essential for 99.9% of all known life on earth, like you and me.

The production of these elements, however, comes at a price.  The star has a finite amount of hydrogen it can fuse into helium.  When it’s all used up, something has to happen.  And no, it’s not like when your flashlight battery runs out.

But for a supernova to take place, there is one (apparently) essential thing the star has to have.  A companion star.  Binary star systems are the rule rather than the exception.  Most binaries are far enough from one another that despite their being bound by gravity, they don’t exchange material (products) between them.  In a supermassive binary system, the two stars are locked together and the one with the more mass sucks stellar material from the other.  There is international (interstellar?) market exchange, but it’s all one way.

I think you get the picture.  Over time the big star gets bigger, but eventually still uses all the material from it’s internal processes plus the stuff it sucks off its companion.  This is not a good thing for either of them. The result is the supernova.  For the two stars, this is the end of their life cycle.  However, an incredible thing happens as the star blows off its hydrogen-depleted mantle: the death of the star creates all the other elements in the periodic table by the enormous heat, quantum forces, and gravity.  Remember Carl Sagan calling us “star stuff?”  This is what he was talking about.

This analogy is what I hope is going to be the result of the financial bailout.  The supernova forces in the global economy are supposed to recreate the very elements it takes to sustain life in the universe.  What I don’t know is if the bailout will follow the same predictable and positive results that a supernova does.  Let’s hope for the diamond neutron star scenario and not the black hole.

We are going to find out.