Fixing the Middle East

Ezra Klein has a really important post on the current situation in Gaza and more generally on the conflict.

One important disconnect in Israel/Palestine debate is that Israel's supporters tend to focus on what the Palestinians want while Palestine's supporters tend to focus on what the Israelis do. Israel's defenders, for instance, make a lot of Hamas's willingness to kill large numbers of civilians. Palestine's defenders make a lot of the fact that Israel actually kills large numbers of Palestinian civilians.

I think the observation is right on and underlines a key feature of Israeli (and neocon) negotiating tactics - and why they are doomed to fail. When you train to be a negotiator, one important rule you learn is to focus on resources, signals, and interests, not people and positions.

Over the years Israel has clearly signaled that it places a great deal of value on legitimacy, ie recognizing their "right to exist". In the Madrid and Oslo process this was one of the key concessions from the PLO. They dropped their rejection of a Jewish state and were in return given a seat at the table and the subsequent peace process. In other words they stopped saying things like "we will wipe Israel into the sea" and in return were given legitimacy by Israel (which allowed Arafat at the time to defeat his internal rivals). But backing up, it was because they said things like "we will crush the Zionist oppressor" that they could trade that chip.

Now fast forward to today. Where as in the old days the response to the rejection of Israel was "bring it on" (position) but when the opportunity was there leaders were willing to trade legitimacy for legitimacy (a recognition that Israel's interest is in a durable peace), today it is reversed with supporters of Israel run around whining about how Hamas refuses to "accept" them and demanding that they be granted legitimacy before they will sit down at the table.

But the thing is, Palestinians already played that game in the 1990's. It got them nowhere (while it is debatable if one side made a mistake in 2000, the Palestinian perception that it was a waste of time is undeniable). There is no such thing as a free lunch, and that goes double in international politics.

And this is where we get to the actions side of things. As the old saying goes, action speak louder than words. Since the Second Intifadah, which marked the real end of the Oslo and subsequent process, Israel has doubled the number of settlements, built the massive seperation barrier and a new gated highway in the West Bank, cut off Gaza, undercut in succession the PLA, post Arafat Fatah, and Hamas, conducted numerous assassinations, and launched several seiges of Palestinaian areas. And all of these actions have continued independent of whether another negotiating "round" was going on. On the other side, there has been more Palestinian on Palestinaian blood shed than killed Israelis. Maybe this is proof that there is not a partner on the other side of the table for Israel to sit with, but it certainly does not suggest that if only Hamas would accept Israel and stop lobbing rockets a final settlement would be inevitable (especially one that allows Hamas to continue to exist).

So is everyone just irrational? I doubt it. Israel has some of the world's best game theorists and I have met many excellent Palestinian negotiators. The evidence simple illuminates what all of this posturing is - domestic politics on both sides (takes on Israel, Hamas, and the other regional players).

The inescapable whiff of domestic politics in all this tells me that the US (whom many have called on to "fix" the problem through various options - from cut off aid to Israel to bomb Iran) is actually incapable of solving the problem. Unfortunately until "kill the Jews" and "kill the Arabs" are not winning campaign slogans expect everything to stay FUBAR.

The Lessons of Hong Kong

Tom Friedman got me excited with his start, singing the praises of Hong Kong. Having been there recently, I can completely confirm everything he says. The city and airport are beautiful, efficient, and modern - the antithesis of most American cities.

And I think he is spot on for knocking the auto bailout and the "trend of diverting and rewarding the best of our collective I.Q. to people doing financial engineering rather than real engineering". We do need a makeover.

But I think he misses the lessons of Hong Kong when he writes he would "like to see fewer government dollars shoveled out and more creative tax incentives to stimulate the private sector to catalyze new industries and new markets. If we allow this money to be spent on pork, it will be the end of us."

First, one of the keys to Hong Kong's success is that it has one of the simplest tax codes in the world (under 60 pages). The top rate is only 17%, but there are basically no write offs and loop holes. The result is that the government isn't perpetually favoring the current big industry over future major sectors, and lots of smart people are enlisted into the ranks of tax consultants and lobbyists. This of course is the exact opposite of his recommendation to create gimmicky tax breaks that substitute the judgement of those writing the bill in Congress over the collective market intelligence.

Second, the reason Hong Kong has all that great stuff he loves so much is BECAUSE OF big public investments, not inspite of them. Huge chunks of the most important land in Hong Kong was reclaimed from the harbor through giant public works programs over the past 150 years. The MTR was built up over the 1970's, 80's, and 90's through massive public investment before finally being taken private in 2000. While the construction is largely privately financed, the government plays a strong role in maintaining a broad strategy to avoid idiocy. There are a series of HUGE public reservoirs created in the 1960's (I think) after years of draught. And if you want to drive to the airport you go by the huge Lai Chi Kok Park on the new government funded freeway.

Of course, Hong Kong does have the advantage of not subjecting their public investments to stupid funding formula's that give people in Oklahoma and North Dakota100x more per person than New York City or Chicago. But that is an argument for strong Presidential direction and control, not avoiding direct investment. So if by pork he means "any Federal dollar spent in Alaska" then sure I agree, but if he means "money to build a next gen power grid or high speed rail", then no way!

Cutting the Real Pork

If the anti deficit crusaders are looking for some completely ridiculous fat to slice, I offer you Max Impact and the other six official Air Force music groups. Apparently we now spend a few million a year to ensure the troops have a supply of crappy live music. Isn't that what USO is for? I guess when an IED has just taken your leg nothing raises your spirit like "we're gonna rock your face off".

I was intrigued to hear about the Jack Lew selection, but will withhold my praise until I actually see a change. To really understand how broken things are I would point anyone interested to the debacle that has been the State Department's Office of the Coordinator for Reconstruction and Stabilization (S/CRS).

In 2004 everyone agreed that State should probably have some role in helping stabilize post conflict societies and preventing relapses, and so S/CRS was created. But then it proceeded to get NO MONEY from Congressional Appropriators, driving them into a bizarro existance where they were basically hired by DoD for $100m a year. I think they finally got some of their own money this year, but most of that is for the stupid Civilian Reconstruction Corp (or whatever they call it).

Fixing the State/Defense mix isn't about getting people to agree we should have more on the State side of the fence. It is about changing the culture in DC that says you can never say no to the uniformed services when they come asking for money (the truth is that while they all say they want State to "do more" they really want State to "do more of what we tell them to do"). And it is going to take a change in the culture that allows a single unhinged Senator - yes I am looking at the Oklahoma delgation - to undercut national priorities. I wish soon to be Deputy Secretary Lew all the best in that giant task.

The Rainbow Cabinet

I am amused by the growing chorus of stories about various interest groups complaining not enough of their members are in the president elects cabinet. By my count Southerners, women, union folk, and African Americans have all appeared in the media whining about not enough seats at the table.

The big question to me is whether there is actual discord among these groups or this is an orchestrated move to boost Obama's moderate bonafides by showing him pissing off a lot of the traditional democrat interest groups (the above plus the Warren flap with the gay community). Either way, I am pretty happy with all the picks this far and am excited for his assembled team.

Follow the Dollars

Hilzoy has a nice take on the AP story about how executives at the banks that took bailout money earned $1.6 billion this year in bonuses.

The super-rich seem to me, during the past few decades, to have wafted off into their own alternate universe, in which of course they are entitled to have their employers pay them not just large salaries, not just multi-million dollar bonuses every year, but the bills for everything that ordinary people pay for; in which flying on public airlines seems to them the way taking the public buses seems to much of the middle class; in which any possible contact with what the rest of us take to be reality has been airbrushed away by vast quantities of money.

But I think she misses one key reason for the rise of companies paying for everything from limos to home security systems - taxes. If your company gives you $10k for your financial planner, the government will tax you on that as earned income. But if the company is just putting that person on retainer and then asking them to go talk to you the company can count it as a business expense and lower their tax liability. The fundamental problem of multi million dollar executives hasn't been that we are creating more of them - if a company wants to pay its CEO $100 million that is their business - it is that we have been systematically shifting the tax code over the years so that their tax bills have been going down even as their income goes up.

Equity-based compensation goes up, we reduce capital gains taxes. Cash bonuses rise, we drop the marginal tax rates on the high end of the scale. Employee perks multiply (the gold plating republicans like to rail about), we give corporations even more room to write them off. And all the while, the resources to help out the employees you are screwing over dry up.

SHOE!

I want to see the President on American Gladiator! The post incident Q&A is priceless.

Beyond beyond unconscionable

http://www.google.com/gwt/n?u=http%3A%2F%2Ffeeds.feedburner.com%2F%7Er%2Fcrunchycon%2F%7E3%2F482327243%2Fbeyond-unconscionable-erin.html

I started following Crunchy Con about a month ago and have overall really enjoyed it. I disagree with lots but like hearing the family and religious values voter perspective without the usual hypocracy or whining.

This morning Erin has a post up on university health insurance. As is standard in most schools at this point USF requires all their students to have health insurance or else purchase the policy offered by the university. What she and others are up in arms about is that the school policy covers reproductive services, including abortion. This she argues is forcing those individuals who oppose abortion to subsidize the act.

First, I think this misses how insurance works. It isn't a case of some people know they are low health care users and some are high and the low are paying a high price part of which goes to another person to do as they please. Insurance is more of a betting game to help smooth out the shocks of life. You pay the insurance company a fixed amount for the rights to certain event-tied payouts (sort of like buying a bingo board except you win a broken leg or cancer). Obviously in the macro sense your helping keep the company financially strong 'supports' those who want to call in their abortion bet, but in no way are you directly supporting it.

But it is this macro perspective that illuminates the theocon objective. They fundamentally aren't about giving people choices, but are trying to use that argument as a dangerous gambit to sneak through their agenda.
Today it is that pharmacists should have the right to refuse to fill prescriptions (ps does this mean if I think all catholics are tools of an apostate church that will bring about the rise of Satan I can refuse to fill their heart medicine prescription?). Next it will be that if you do not give them access to health care plans that do not offer family planning services you are 'forcing' them to pay for abortions. One day it will be that they can only go to hospitals which do not perform abortions, and if you do not have one near by you are robbing them of their right to choose 'moral' health facilities.

The ultimate goal of all this choice talk is to make family planning health services economically unviable (or at least extremely expensive) for the large majority of people who want access to them and rob them of their choice.

I should also point out that her post includes one of their best rhetorical tricks - picking a fight that doesn't exist. I doubt anyone at USF - and there is no evidence of it happening - is going to force someone with a plan that does not cover abortions to buy one that does under the comparability requirement, it is just a provision to prevent someone from setting up a 10 dollar plan that covers nothing as a loop hole. But THEY COULD!

Which of these things is not like the other

The most striking piece of the amazing story coming out of Illinois is the broad and unequivocal demands for Blago to step down coming out of the Democrat party.

The local moves to impeach him and take away his power to appoint a successor to the Obama seat are standard fair opportunism from his rivals. But the Reid and Durbin letter? The President elects statement today? It is almost like they think corruption is a disqualifying factor for public service.

Kidding aside, the fact that David Vitter is leading the charge against the auto bailout is a nice reminder of how disguistingly the Republican party has behaved the past few years. While neither party has a monopoly on corruption and bad behavior, it is clear that one party thinks that kind of thing is ok. Blago is soon to forcibly join the ranks of Jefferson and Spitzer. As opposed to Stevens, Craig, the Delay gang, and Norm Coleman walking out unscathed by their party.

The Future of Hillary

A lot of people have been trying to wrap their heads around the question of why Obama would offer her State and why she would accept. He has plenty of other qualified folks, she undercut a lot of his ideas on foreign policy, and of course Bill. She has a plum Senate seat for life, could potentially be in line for a Supreme Court seat, and still wants to be President some day.

So here is my theory. First (and most important to the plausibility of this), Joe Biden will be 74 in 2016. This means that unlike Gore or Bush 1 he is not in line for the Party throne. Unlike Bush 2, obama is not just a narcissist trying to please daddy, and so I expect him to be aware of this. As a result I expect Biden to be a one term VP.

Based on the power of incumbency, being picked VP will make that person the far away front runner in 2016 on the democrat side. Obviously the risk for Clinton is getting tied to a failed president. But by early 2012 the structural outline of the race should be pretty clear and she can avoid a bruising fight if she wants to.

Realistically though, there is a good shot the economy will be turning around in late 2011 and (more importantly) be on track for strong growth through 2016 assuming the usual business cycle still persists.

The big upshot of this deal for obama is that he ties the fortunes of the Clintons to his success and transforms them from a potential headwind into a full force gale at his back. Ju jitsu at its best.

Did Britain Just Sell Tibet?

http://mobile.nytimes.com/article?a=263019&subSection=Contributor&f=28

I came in with low expectations, but this op-ed has a decent history of Britain's relationship with Tibet. Also does a good job surfacing the international relations impact of the financial crisis.

Cutting the Fat

http://mobile.nytimes.com/article;jsessionid=FB8ED3D0EF75A15CABBA25C2A38E3FA1.w6?a=260986&f=19

Floyd Norris does a good job picking up on the important fact that a lot of the recent economic pain has been regional in nature.

Too much cheap land and old people migration in the south west and south east. Too many wall street day cats going hungry in Greenwich. The continuing slow decline of the rust belt - and people not being given access to the skills and capital to fill the void.

Hopefully this fact will not be lost on the new administration as people continue to call for blunt national solutions (stimulus checks, tax breaks).

Just when I think I am out they suck me back in!

http://www.google.com/gwt/n?u=http%3A%2F%2Fmeganmcardle.theatlantic.com%2Farchives%2F2008%2F11%2Fhes_our_president_too.php

Megan had been sounding so sensible recently (especially on the idiocy of a big 3 bailout), I had almost forgotten how much her ideas can grate on my sensibility.

If you are a conservative, obama being your president obviously does not mean you blindly support every thing out of his mouth. But it important to sort out ends and means.

We live in an age of pretty narrow ideological differences. On many social issues there is a wide gap - think abortion, gay rights, social construction. But in most other areas it is pretty narrow. No one is preening for a new marxist economy, international trade is good (though there is lots of dispute on the details), and everyone agrees old people and children should be pretty well looked after.

Where liberals and conservatives disagree is in which policies will bring about those ends. Will vouchers increase competition and improve results, or do we need to provide more direct grants to schools in poor districts ? Do we reign in health spending by making consumers see more of their bills (rather than having a front loaded deductable and then thinking of your care as 'free') or imposing efficiencies on providers?

The point of this rant is simple. 'Accepting' obama as your President doesn't mean you need to suddenly accept his solution as THE solution (which is what was expected the past 8 years). But it does mean you shouldn't be rooting (and when possible promoting) for an upswing in violence in Iraq, or for schools to fail more of our children, or for the market to tank further.

Stop this Bombing

http://www.google.com/gwt/n?u=http%3A%2F%2Ffeeds.feedburner.com%2F%7Er%2Fjuancole%2FxAWt%2F%7E3%2F444177032%2Fkarzai-president-obama-stop-this.html

Note to US military. If your drones see 50 people dancing with rifles and shooting into the air, they aren't Taliban. They are likely a wedding or some other local celebration.

Taliban know about Preditors and are aware that massing in broad day light is a really good way to get themselves killed. Just because you are a bunch of culturally oblivious idiots does not mean your enemy is.

Support AIP

I want to apologize for so deeply over estimating the people of Alaska. Last night you reelected both your indicted Congressman and your convicted Senator.

Of course it is unknown how long until Stevens has to go off to jail, so hopefully he will have a few months to bring in some more Federal welfare for Alaskans. Maybe Todd Palin really was a patriot - I can't think of a better state to kick out of the union right now. Stay classy Alaska.

Third (and fourth) Parties

Three notes on them

1. Bob Barr must have run the worst campaign in history. With all the libertarian whining and Paultards he couldn't crack 1% in his home state. Pathetic.

2. Unnoticed because of the final tally is the fact that Ralph Nader looks poised to cost Obama the win in Missouri. Just imagine if things had broken differently else where and all waiting on the final Missouri tally this morning. Someone seriously needs to put that egotistical fossil down.

3. Whatever happened to that stupid bipartisan group? They had Sam Waterstone and Mike Bloomberg at one point. Now I can't even remember their name.

Why New Hampshire?

Question to the world. Why is New Hampshire obsessed with going first? They have the first primary and today I learn they also have the first poll to open - at midnight! - and close. Is defender of the republic really worth not letting your poll worker sleep?

I mean it isn't like they are furthest east on a map or the first state. Must be all the maverickiness.

It's about time...

... we switch the role around a bit.

To all those who voted today, good for you and I'm proud that you took your civic duty seriously, regardless of whom you voted for.

Political Endorsements -- Shut your pie hole already!

Carrie Underwood said she'd have no respect for you if you publicly endorse any candidate.

I do think she has a point about all the celebrity-politics craze at the moment, with some celebs sounding semi-informed (very, very, very few -- did I say very?), while others just come off as being downright stupid.

I, too, have reservations about political candidates becoming more a commodity for sale (in terms of trying to get elected and getting campaign money), rather than having an honest debate and comparison about the policies and philosophy that they represent. People that know me knows that "well the other side is doing it too" is never a good enough excuse for doing it.

Now, when it comes to endorsement as a general concept, I take issue with Underwood's issue with any person, organization, etc. endorsing a candidate.

First, there's the First Amendment. But of course the First Amendment only says that Ms. Underwood has to tolerate, but not like or respect, anyone for anything they say. That said, having no respect for anyone exercising their freedom of speech is like not having respect for the First Amendment. (I'm stretching it I know, but I'm making just as much sense as Ms. Underwood herself).

But more importantly, an endorsement (to me anyway) has always to do with information sharing and signaling than brand recognition and selling. It says "look, people that know me knows my character. I am telling you now that I think this candidate's character, philosophies, political objectives, etc. align most closely with mine. I think he/she is a good candidate for reasons X,Y, and Z, and I'm willing to vouch for him/her with my reputation." It is a reduced-form, cost-saving mechanism to increase the level of reach among the population.

Endorsements of this kind focus on the candidate, what the candidate is about, and really more about sharing information about the candidate (I'd like to say "facts" but I know we don't live in a perfect world), highlighting things that you like about him/her. An excellent example of such endorsements is one by Colin Powell.

What endorsements should not be is "look at ME!!! You gotta vote for X because I said so." Here's the golden example of one such egocentric, uninformed, and unhelpful endorsement.

If we all listened to Ms. Underwood and kept our mouth shut, most of this country will become like this. Oh wait, I think this is already what a sizable chunk of America is like. But hey, let's not make it worse than it already is.

Whatever your political inclinations, the cuteness factor is off the charts.

PS - this is the greatest prank call ever. Two Canadians convinced Palin's staff they were French President Sarkosy and punked her.



The good news is, if McCain wins and you have a problem you can just call the VP's office and pretend you are Thabo Mbeki or Michelle Bachelet.

We All Know What Must Be Done

Via Juan Cole, McCain spokesman Mike Goldfarb was on CNN today warning everyone again about Obama's anti semitic friends. The host asked him a few times to name someone beside Rashid Khalidi to which Goldfarb keeps repeating "We all know who it is" and smirking like a little bitch. You have to see it to believe it.



The whole thing is very reminiscent of South Park. In one episode the anti semitic Cartman is trying to arrange a second holocaust under the guise of support for The Passion of the Christ. At his little rally he keeps talking about "what we all know must be done".



I know all week there has been some running debate over whether the McCain campaign/Republicans are a bunch of racists. I think the differences here come down to a matter of perspective that the South Park clip illustrates pretty well.

Are the vast majority of folks in the crowd racists? No - they hear "what must be done" and fill in their own meaning. Is Senator McCain(/Mel Gibson) a racist? Definitely not (though I am a little less sure about Mel). Are Mike Goldfarb, Eric Cartman, and a huge chunk of the current Republican operative class racists? Even on this count I am not 100% sure the answer is yes.

But whatever all the actors personal virtues, when you step back and look at the forest it is absolutely undeniable that Cartman and Goldfarb and his ilk are trying to whip up pogroms against the Jews, African Americans, and Muslims. We live in a country with the greatest tradition of protecting speech. But contra Sarah Palin, that doesn't mean we should shy away from calling a spade a spade or keep offering a megaphone to these people.

For Your Consideration

http://mobile.nytimes.com/article?a=248523&subSection=Columnist&f=28

Maureen Dowd is on fire this morning. Must read comedy of the day. Candid sarcasm that could only be delivered by a jaded woman.

Perfect Fall Sunset on the Mall

The Evils of Redistribution

I think a lot of people have already noted the vacuous rhetoric of the McCain campaign from a historical perspective. The US has had taxes since day one, a federal income tax for a century, and social security taxes for 40 years. All varying degrees of redistribution and all untouchable except at the margins in modern America.

And yet I think more curious is the McCain decision to raise the issue at this particular moment in time. With unemployment and under employment surging their is no great outcry for government to help less. With millions watching their retirement shrivel, they are not clamoring for the feds to step back further. With hundreds of houses repossessed daily, the anger is for congress to do more, not less.

A lot of people have beehb talking about how republicans where doomed from the start because of macro conditions. But I also think this avoids the reality that McCain's life and background were an impediment. He has literally had government provided health care his whole life (and did I mention he is really old). He has lived in a house provided by the US government or his millionaire wife 90% of his life. And he has lived his life protected by get out of jail free cards (first his family legacy then POW, POW, POW).

McCain could have take this information and thought "I was pretty lucky, I should spend my life working to try to extend those safety nets to every american." but insteed he spent his whole life telling everyone else how awesome he was, and how these were actually the result of his own virtue.

Yo Ma Ma

Stephen Colbert just had renowned cellist Yo Yo Ma on. Yo Yo - "in some parts of the world they call me Jo Jo Ma, in others I am called Yo Ma Ma" - is probably the funniest guest I have ever seen on Colbert. He completely embraced the character of the show and hit it out of the park.

Deep Thought

While out of the US the past two weeks my only exposure to the Presidential race has been watching the last debate in Hong Kong, occasionally catching a story on the local news about it, and CNN headlines every few days. Any yet catching up today I am struck by... how nothing has really changed. Which is to say the only thing worse than being down 6-8 points with three weeks to go is to be down 6-8 points with a week to go.

Remembering the Dead

Today we went to visit the graves of Helena's grand parents with a whole bunch of cousins and aunts and uncles. Very interesting experience. Her aunt asked me if it was different from in the US, and after reflecting for a second I think what struck me most is how the remembrance is such a social event - everyone meets up at the grave and does a short ceremony, then off to the taoist temple, then a big lunch with everyone together. Very neat experience and glad I could be a part of it.

In other news

Savoring my time to read my political news this morning, this is my favorite story so far. Looks like the McCain's had AT&T and Verizon specially install cell towers near their Sedona ranch to improve their service. The McCain campaign called reporting this a "disgrace", and noted Cindy (who apparently made the call) just used the normal channels available to anyone who wants better service, including having the Secret Service follow up for her. You know, just like regular people.

In other news, Joe the Plumber was filling up last night when he discovered that Chairman Obama has levied a special $1,000,000/gallon gas tax on him specifically. He was informed by the attendant that Obama hates "whitey" and small businesses, and that the proceeds would be used to fund a Miss Welfare Queen pagent and buy crack (kidding).

Debate Blogging

We watched the debate this morning live in Hong Kong. It was pretty blah despite the extra heat compared to the first ones, and in that way think is a big Obama win. That said, like the last one, if the volume was off I would have said Obama won huge. Last time McCain sort of wandered around the stage like a lost old man. This time he just kept making bizarre faces the whole time, his eyes darting all over the place, and kept making jerky movements in his seat - I kept waiting for him to double over in a seizure. In contrast, Obama was confident and at his best when dismissively chuckling at McCain's flailing attacks. On the plus side, Schaeffer seems to have finally made the two men look at each other and debate, rather tha ndeliver set pieces.

Hong Kong Pics

Hong Kong

Hong Kong Blogging

The most striking thing so far I think has been that other than a lot of Chinese characters, Hong Kong really could pass for a part of London. The British influence in the urban design is very evident.

The other thing is that the density is off the charts, but somehow it doesn't feel cramped. Every building is at least a dozen stories but there is usually space between them and the street level is wide open. Living spaces are smaller sqare footage wise but much better layed out. And walking really is preferred over driving in the way everything is built.

Things not to do

Note to world. Don't take pictures of the jetway when boarding a plane or men with badges will appear. The things you learn.

Idiocy

Can someone please explain to me why after waiting 30 minutes for one metro bus I am now looking at four coming down the hill bumper to bumper. Is it really that hard to space them out?

When Hitler Rose to Power a Lot of People Just Quit... They're Called French

Barack Hussein Obama

Andrew and Coates have been going back and forth about this at the new and improved Atlantic about this video.
Whatever it means, it is hilarious!

Humiliation

I am amazed more people haven't picked up on McCain's line about "withdrawing in humiliation" from Somalia. And not just because he was one of the architects behind forcing that pull out and tying the hands of troops in the first place. But also because suggesting our troops were humiliated despite their well know heroism in the Black Hawk Down incident and throughout doesn't sound very mavericky.

Vigilante Justice?

Two Washington Post articles caught my attention this morning:

Md. Police Put Activists' Names On Terror Lists

Chinese Muslims Ordered Released From Guantanamo

I've always thought that civil liberty fanatics and government conspiracy theorists are wackos that have too rich an imagination and too much time on their hands. But the two stories reported made me wonder whether the worries of these "wackos" are unfounded.

I think the hostility comes down to paranoia on both sides (the government's and the respective groups') often spurred by actions taken by the other. I can understand that, and perhaps possibly even empathize with them.

What I have a problem with about the two cases is the revenge-driven, "just-you-wait-I'll-come-get-you" attitude that the law enforcement guys have in their "acceptance of defeat." (In addition to quotes like

"I don't believe the First Amendment is any guarantee to those who wish to disrupt the government" (said former MD state police superintendent Thomas Hutchins)

or

"Justice Department lawyer John O'Quinn (suggested) that immigration authorities might be compelled to arrest the Uighurs on U.S. soil because of their alleged ties to the terrorist organization. " (after the Uighurs being ruled non-combatants, with no proof that they intend to cause harm to the US, and should be released)

I know it's hard not to take cases personally, because a ruling by the judge saying that you're acting unconstitutionally seems like a ruling on your professionalism and judgment. Often one ends up trying too hard to prove that one is right, not that what is done does the defendant and this country's reputation right.

Speaking of racism

I am inclined to agree with Megan (twice in a week.. what is going on here) that the AP article alleging Palin's comments about Obama and Ayers are racially tinged. But on the other hand it is nice to finally see Rob Fournier's new approach bite the McCain folks in the butt.

Blatant Racism

So I was just about to pay my speeding ticket, was reading through my citation, and noticed among all other info that you can find on my driver's license, an added item that stood out and got my attention... completely irrelevant of the crime committed, location, details of the vehicle, etc.

And what item is that, you may ask.

Why of course it's my race honey.

Not that I should care because I don't happen to belong to a race that is picked on in police traffic stops. But I do care because so many others are victims of racial profiling.

Give me a damn good reason: why is that particular piece of info relevant?

I don't have a Tivo, but agree with Megan that the "meet the undecided's" segment with Soledad O'Brian was a train wreck. I just happened to be flipping when it came on and thought it would be interesting to hear what actual people (rather than media-bots) thought. The ensuing segment did the opposite. In addition to the stupid "raise your hands" method that she declared "overwhelmingly" for Biden when in reality it was clearly close, I think she was on speed and refused to let people get full sentences out of their mouth before she asked the next question.

John McCain Knows How to Win a War

The debate seems pretty blah so far. But one line that is getting on my nerves is Governor Palin saying that Senator McCain knows how to "win a war". Maybe I am just some spoiled Gen Y-er/Millenial but how is this true?

It isn't like he is Eisenhower. I mean he was a legacy into the Naval Academy who by all accounts was a marginal officer. He then served in Vietnam - which we lost - and got shot down (which from a tactical perspective seems like failure to me). Then his dad hooked him up with a desk job on the Hill until he left the Navy and shortly there after became a member of Congress. So where exactly is the nose for victory?

PS - when Sarah Palin says she knows what it is like to sit around the table and try to figure out how to pay for her kids college, what is she talking about. Her son is - bless him - serving in the Army and all the rest are too young for college.

Speaking the Unsaid

This video has been making the rounds but I hadn't gotten around to watching it until now. I am glad I did.

Super Progressive Redistribution?

http://www.google.com/gwt/n?u=http%3A%2F%2Ffeeds.feedburner.com%2F%7Er%2Fmatthewyglesias%2F%7E3%2F404055192%2Fnationalize_everything.php

I do not in principle object to what Matthew Yglesias is saying about what the gov't should do. I, too, have a lot of anger towards people in the financial sector earning fat salaries for well over a decade (probably more), made irresponsible decisions on their investors' and in fact country's behalf, and now shamelessly cry, not so much about tanking their companies and the whole industry (don't let them fool you with their big words), but more about their job securities, their bonuses, and their luxurious lifestyles.

Since the gov't "does not really have a choice" but to bail out these companies, it makes sense that they should do it in a manner that is accountable towards its citizens. By that I mean it should make a decent profit off of this undertaking, to justify the spending, to provide the right incentives, etc.

What I'm still struggling the most at the end of all this is a philosophical debate of what the role of the gov't *ought to be*. What Yglesias (and many others) is suggesting, is a role that falls along the lines of what a friend of mine once said, "you know why I want to make lots and lots of money? So that I can take money from others, and give it to people and things that I think need it"

Let's say the gov't ends up making a decent buck off of this whole ordeal. We should put the profits into programs that sorely need funding, or into the public pot that one day will hopefully be put to good use. Should the gov't follow along the lines of this objective, make wise investment choices and good profits to fatten up its reserves, then use the money for programs and areas that Congress and the President agree on?

I am uneasy about this broad objective, not only because the gov't clearly have the political and financial clout to move the market, but the idea that redistribution comes not from the political (voting, or dare I say, democratic) process, but from the business and economic savvy of the gov't, by definition taking money from some subset of the population.

Now I am no political theorist, but something about this proposed role of the gov't sounds really fishy and seems to go against the fundamental principles of a democracy.

Sent via BlackBerry

The way forward for "Progressive America"

... or for any sect of America, or any sect of anywhere, really.

I was at the "In Search of Progressive America" book promotion event last night, and came to the realization of what one should definitely not do if one wants to promote their ideology or philosophy to others that might not currently share it.

And that is to sit around with people that think just like you, make all-too-easy snide comments about "the other side", and talking about how or why we're smarter than everyone else.

Don't get me wrong, I get equally annoyed when the conservatives do that (which they often do) too.

It simply does not challenge you to make the best argument you can, or keep you on your toes about every word you say, when everyone who's listening to you will nod in agreement. More importantly, it doesn't make you beat yourself up thinking, "am I thinking the right thing? does this really make sense? is this really the best idea?"

Israel and Palestine are not going to resolve their conflict by each talking amongst themselves, and neither are China and Taiwan, or all other countries, parties, groups in the world that are at odds with another. The way to change the world is to make disagreeing parties live together as neighbors -- clearly I don't mean it in just the geographic sense, since most of them already do, but in a relationship sense. I have come from an environment more or less like that, and there really is nothing like putting a human (and friendly) face on a disagreement.

Crazy thought... the next time you run into someone you know that thinks very differently, sit down with him, hear him out without trying to contradict every sentence he says (even in your thoughts!), and maybe he'll do the same as well. I know it sounds easy, but I doubt many can say that they've truly done so in their lives.

I, for one, will be the first to admit that I haven't.

Great Moments in Pundetry

While eating breakfast this morning they had the Red Sox highlights pretty early in sportscenter, so I flipped to msnbc. Topic is obviously the financial crisis. But somehow Scarborough, Chuck Todd, and someone from Time spend the whole time talking about how they have no idea about the economic 'philosophy' of McCain or Obama.

Now I know I don't actually get paid like the three of them to follow politics and instead have to do it on my own time. But maybe you could start with reading each sides economic plan. Or how about looking at their statements and proposals over the past year. Chuck Todd even had the great idea of maybe seeing what their economic advisers think and have said and done in their careers.

It is one thing to try to interpret those things or say there are some contradictions or inconsistencies. But to just sit back and moan about how, if only they were like Reagan or FDR, we would know exactly what they 'stand for' is just lazy.

Don't kick the dog unless you want to get bit

http://mobile.nytimes.com/article?a=232748&f=19

Wow. Maybe the McCain campaign shouldn't have ripped the Times Monday and dared them to dig up some more of his dirty little secrets.

I am not sure how much impact this will have on the race unless the obama people run with it and start getting it on the local evening news. But on a day when a new poll comes out with Obama at plus 9 in polls and almost every swing state moving significantly in his direction the past week it sure as heck isn't good news for the McCain team.

And as to whether Davis will get tossed off the bus, no chance. Throughout the campaign the McCain team has shown it would rather flat out lie than admit error. Davis is one of his closest allies and that means more to McCain than 'country'.

Pick One -- The Dough or the Smarts

http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2008/09/weve-got-the-hi.html

It hardly came as a surprise to me that the prez campaign has often times been reduced to name calling games, but for someone that considers herself "an elitist", I'm frankly sick and tired of people just defining the term as they see fit, and more importantly, only using it in a derogatory way.

Now I know these two characteristics are inevitably very closely related, but "the elites" generally refer to people that are 1) of the upper class family (wealth-wise) upbringing and continue to remain within that class; and 2) of high-skilled professions, and most likely having come from one of the "elite" schools (I refrain from defining "elite" in this context lest it become a circular definition). In particular, the latter definition often implicitly means that the individual is intelligent and revered in the work that they do.

Unfortunately with the continued decline in social mobility in this once land-of-opportunity, having the money buys you yet more money, a brand-name education, and the connection to get a good job. Even if you're dumb as a rock, you can just be propped up to "oversee" companies that rake in millions, and then your job title can include "philanthropist" too.

I'm petitioning for two separate words that will describe "class-based" elites vs "intelligence-based" elites. Clearly McCain is the former and Obama is the latter.

At the end of the day, it isn't about which of the candidates is in my social / economic group so that they can "relate" to me and my problems. Sharing feelings and relating sound to me the job of a psychologist. What I need is someone who will go out of their way to be informed about me and my problems, and even other citizens' problems. Then having the smarts to do something to make things better for the country.

The King Is Dead

http://mobile.nytimes.com/article?a=231283&f=28

This Roger Cohen piece is an interesting template (especially if matched with Nick Kristofs biting satire on executive pay) for a progressive response to the current financial crisis. Bash the culture of Wall Street, tie it back to the lessons society is teaching our kids, throw in a dash of Obama civic language, sprinkle some FDR and greatest generation praise (for the nostalgic), garnish with some China scare, and BAM you have a national infrastructure bank.

Just Past the Cake Milton, c'mon, don't be selfish...

The quote on the title is taken from the movie "Office Space", in an office birthday party scene in which shy introvert Milton was told to pass the cake slices down, and he would get his slice eventually.

And of course he didn't get a slice in the end -- he never does in any office birthday parties.

The quote came to mind as I was reading a few articles on the Lehman Brothers bankruptcy and the whirlwind weekend at the NY Fed, so action-packed and dramatic it can totally pass as movie material.

I know that the government doesn't have unlimited funds to bail out all in trouble because of the string of events that follow the credit market crashes, nor do I fully agree with the relatively unconditional, and almost automatic response to bail out or generously assist nearly all those that have waved white flags before now.

Just not Lehman Brothers. Oh, and not Merill either. Just decided to draw the line right here. And while we're at it, let it be made clear, no more bail outs from now on.

It makes me wonder whether this is a case of the cake done being distributed, and there's simply nothing left to share, or there are good reasons behind helping the specific ones they did and equally good reasons for why not the others instead.

I would seriously frown on a government that does not seem to be aware of how big their cake is, and more importantly, how many people would need to eat that cake so as to cut it up accordingly to maximize aggregate utility.

Think before you accept that package

I see today that Georgia is trying to sell that the Russians started the conflict last month. Color me skeptical that the Russians could have rolled an entire armored regiment through the one tunnel connecting to south Ossetia and putted along for a whole day without anyone noticing before now. That their only evidence is some radio intercepts they only just realized they have means either it is a lie or their signal intelligence capacity ranks slightly above Namibia and Botswana - something I have a hard time believing given all the American and Israeli hardware and training that has been happening the last few years. And if somehow you do suck that badly and have real plans of engaging anyone militarily you certainly wouldn't broadcast that.

Of course, regardless, the fact remains the Georgians started shelling cities without anyone having taken a shot at them yet. And that was really dumb unless their objective was to start something thinking the Americans would back them or at least the blow back would get them some extra military dollars and membership in NATO. And so if that was your goal the logical next step would be to start leaking Intel that the Russians started it and whip up your friends in America to make some campaign promises and ensure you have money in the 2010 budget (which is just starting to be negotiated at omb).

In Search of McCain and Obama’s Views (by means other than googling them)

http://mobile.nytimes.com/article?a=229284&f=28

I agree with the authors that it is important for Americans to clearly know where both candidates stand on issues. And their questions are overall pretty good, hitting on a wife range of current and eternal foreign policy questions that will face the next president.

Aside from expressing my sincere hope (and skepticism) that the TimEs will actually let or force the candidates to answer them in their pages I would just note that, despite never having worked for either campaign or having the credentials to call and ask, I can probably answer half the questions myself.

McCain thinks if there is any semblence of chaos in Iraq our troops should stay - even if it lasts for 1000 years. Obama has said that if we know where the Taliban or Al qaeda are in Pakistan we should hit them whether or not the government there gives us a green light.

I could continue on, but I have a real job. I only would ask the authors if perhaps it might have been a more effective use of everyones time and the million eyes their story will garner to have informed people about positions rather than just bemoaning that everyone doesn't know them.

McCain says jump, NBC says how high

http://mobile.nytimes.com/article?a=228560&f=77

I hope this story explodes like it should. For a network to pull two hosts because of one campaigns whine is a travesty. For them to do it because they were hurting the candidates 'messsage' is negligent and pitiful. I personally like David Gregory a lot but I hope nobody watches his debate coverage and validates this pathetic move by the executives.

But maybe they were biased? After all Keith Olberman was openly contemptuous after they showed a slow motion video of the 9/11 attacks as precursor to an attack on how Democrats won't keep you safe. And what about this:

The McCain campaign has filed letters of complaint to the news division about its coverage and openly tied MSNBC to it. Tension between the network and the campaign hit an apex the day Mr. McCain announced Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate. MSNBC had reported Friday morning that Ms. Palin's plane was enroute to the announcement and she was likely the pick. But McCain campaign officials warned the network off, with one official going so far as to say that all of the candidates on the short list were on their way - which MSNBC then reported."The fact that it was reported in real time was very embarrassing," said a senior MSNBC official. "We were told, 'No, it's not Sarah Palin and you don't know who it is.' "

They scooped a TRUE story, then the campaign lied to them, then they reported that. Silly me thought the roll of the press was to report facts.

Keeping Your Voice

On the flip side I would say that the obama campaign really needs to get off the experience angle.

Last week they were winning on an argument that judgement matters more than experience. Then McCain gave them a gift with his selection of someone who seems to be a pathological liar, bitter partisan, and has a whole bunch of ideas most of this country thinks are terrible. But because of the surprise factor the only angle at that moment was her inexperience. And she may be, but experience was never Obama's message.

I also think that the McCain campaign isn't out to steal the 'change' mantle but rather to trivialize it. The one intelligent observation from the CNN crew last night was that this convention marks a resurgence of the culture war along urban-rural lines. And it was reinforced in the new media strategy by the McCain campaign of only talking to People (who's the celebrity now) and small outlets, where that audience gets most of its news. Message penetration is expensive per person in those markets, but cheap per electoral vote. That seems to indicate that they will completely cede about 250 ec worth of blue states then make a run for 51% in the rest.

The Real McCain

Andrew Sullivan posted a reader email this morning that caught my attention on McCain's speech. I have been hearing quite a bit lately about candidate McCain and the 'real' John McCain. But here's the thing, there is only one man. If your coworker stabs you in the back to get a promotion at your expense you don't say "well that was just career Joe, the real Joe would never do that" and keep telling everyone else what a great guy he is. You may not punch him out or start swearing in the middle of the office, but I would hope you might stop covering for his shenanegans.



The other thing is that the 'real' John McCain isn't some psion of private virtue and character. When he got back from Vietnam the first thing he did was write a long piece on his experience for US News. All those quotes we kept hearing about the impact of being a POW on him from commentators last night were from the THREE auto biographies he has written over the years. We should not minimize the heroic ordeal he - and dozens of other Americans - endured as POWs, and he has every right to publicize his experience and its impact on him. But stop telling me how much he hates broadcasting it.



I would also add that a life of virtue is not a single point or event. Chris Matthews last night kept proclaiming that he had 'divorced' his party last night. When he got back from Vietnam and learned his beauty queen wife had been in a car accident and had been raising their children alone after suffering major (and some permanent) injuries, hoping and waiting for his return to them, he cheated on her and ultimately married Cindy before the paper work was even finished. If he is elected and his ratings are too low will he divorce us?

McCain Blogging

Wow, he really hates talking about that whole POW thing. Talk about a celebrity and personality cult.

PS - do you really want a president who likes to occasionally "pick a fight for fun"?

"Teach an illiterate adult to read" - does George Bush count?

He sure says fight a lot for a guy who wants to bring "peace".

And did Chris Matthews really just sum up things by calling it a "divorce"? I know he wants us to trust him, but what happens if we get in a car crash like his first wife?

Cutting budgets

A number of people have started hitting Palin for calling herself a friend of families with disabilities when she cut the states special ed funding by more than half. I would just add the little piece of context she did so at a time when her state had a surplus of $5 billion thanks to the $4 gas the rest of us have been paying into their state coffers. Just imagine what she would do if they had a deficit like Washington.

In a related note, that she and her state continue to suck in more earmarks than any other state - and no matter how many times she lies and says she opposed the Ketchiwan bridge, the truth is as mayor she invented the tradition of hiring lobbyists to bring in earmarks - at a time when the country and most states are facing major budget deficits singularly disqualifies her and anyone else from alaska for any position near fiscal or energy policy. We may as well let the Saudis run it.

Watching the Palin speech I definitely agree with David Gergen that it was a base speech. In terms of the whole "passing the test" angle, I mean what were people expecting - for her to curl up and cry?!

I think the more important development post speech is that the whole "sexist" angle has scared the crap out of CNN. Aside from outsourcing their initial analysis to Palin's sister, the last hour has been all about how she is the perfect mix of tough and feminity, and if you think it was anything but a home run or want to challenge her you are a sexist (and that means you Harry Reid).

As a side note, I would say that slamming Harry Reid may make for a laugh at the Convention, but I wouldn't be surprised if it comes back to haunt McCain in Nevada (5 EC votes).

RNC Train Wreck

I just turned on the Republican Convention and all I can say is wow. Not only did the President not come, but they stuck his video speech on before the networks even switched over to the coverage. More Americans are probably watching David Hasselhoff on whatever the travesty he hosts is and Big Brother - a stark contrast to the huge ratings from Denver and the interest in the speeches of Michelle Obama and Bill Clinton.

And I recognize that some random winger will probably suddenly discover my blog and flame me (hey, all press is good press), but what is up with their other speakers? They just had some heroic female public affairs officer on talking about how while serving in Bosnia she had to be medivac'd back and was on death watch after - get this - developing a blood clot in her leg. Thankfully she had the benefit of the socialized VA system and, though she unfortunately lost her leg, survived. But seriously, since McCain is running on Iraq and keeping America safe couldn't they have found a veteran that had been shot at or at least served in an actual conflict zone?

Saint John

http://mobile.nytimes.com/article?a=226860&f=28

I am not really sure whether Brooks' last graph is meant as a criticism of Palin or a reassurance that sure she would be VP, but not really (whatever that means).

As far as his 'string of virtuous crusades', I think it is interesting Brooks picks out the two crusades - the immigration and global warming bills - that he pissed himself and abandoned in the face of those GOP hordes he supposedly stands up to (or perhaps his moment of virtue was when he was cheating on his sick wife? Peddling influence during the Keating 5? Hiring the Rovian scum that defamed his own family in 2000?).

And like him, his protege that took on the psions of pork is a fraud too. Today we learn that as a small town mayor she hired the lobbying firm Stevens son worked for to bring in$25 million in earmarks, then stepped up to governor and sent her team in washington a wishlist with over $200 million in earmarks! (and for the record I think earmarks aren't that big a deal, but if you are going to make your 'opposition' to them a part of your public credentials then being one of the biggest pigs at the trough does matter).

One of Us

http://mobile.nytimes.com/article;jsessionid=9915E628E6B4C3D99B78300DD766562B.w5?a=221757&f=19

I think the Times is right to finally realize that this election is going to be decided on economic issues. But I would be curious to know where the whole 'you have to be middle class to understand america' meme came from.

The reality is Obama and McCain will never have to worry about money. The same was indisputably true of the Bushes, Kerry, Gore, Reagan, and Dole when they ran. I don't think that perception was true during Clinton's first campaign, but he was a governor, so I imagine had a pretty decent salary and dental plan.

And that is in no way surprising. As much as we like to pretend that anyone can be president running around the country non stop for 16 months requires a lot of friends with money, plus either your own money or a job that will pay you regardless of whether you show up (explains why so many members of congress run). The point isn't whether or not your house has a wine cellar, or you have ever travelled to Europe, it's whether you think that a lot of americans are having a real tough time making ends meat or it's just 'psychological' and the economy is doing fine.

And by the way the only real difference between Mitt and McCain is that at least Mitt started and ran his own business - one of those entrepeneurs America so dearly loves - while McCain slept his way into his wife's family fortune. And if the voters in Indiana were really just against best selling authors they would have voted for Kucinich, the only remaining candidate who hadn't written two books.

<p><strong>><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/interactives/campaign08/electoral-college/">Electoral College Prediction Map</a></strong> - Predict the winner of the general election. Use the map to experiment with winning combinations of states. Save your prediction and send it to friends.</p>

The Great Illusion

http://mobile.nytimes.com/article?a=217687&f=28



Tom Friedman Scratch that the normally sane Paul Krugman drinks the alarmist cool-aid this morning and warns that the fall of Georgia may lead to the collapse of the global economy and a world war or two.



The ostensible cause of this global calamity is that the case of Georgia marks the end of pax americana and the rise of an expansionist Russia. Of course that analysis requires us to forget that for the vast majority of the post ww2 period during which globalization was accelerating there was no pax americana and the US was locked in a struggle with (damn liberal facts) Russia.



At least neo conservative alarmists have a credible analogy in the Cold War (which though I don't think will happen at least has the historical precedent).



Most worrying is that like 2003 we once again have Friedman writing ridiculous essays that legitimise people trying to start another war for someone elses kids to fight. Maybe instead we should think about learning the lesson that during those two global periods the common thread was not American hegemony or a lack of spheres of influence, but calculated steps by the various great powers to accept other spheres of influence and avoid doing things that might lead to direct shooting conflicts between each other. Or, to put it in simpler terms, the exact opposite of everything John McCain says.

Redux

http://mobile.nytimes.com/article?a=216973&f=77

And why are those who disagree with McCain 'so called' realists. Last I checked Henry Kissinger was definitely a full blooded realist. And why don't the neo conservatives get a qualifier?

The death of impartiality and truth

http://mobile.nytimes.com/article?a=217178&f=19

I have lost any hope in the print media today.

'Mr. Corsi described most of the critiques of his book as "nitpicking," like a contradiction of his claim that Mr. Obama had failed to dedicate his book "Dreams of My Father" to his family; Mr. Obama dedicated the book to several family members, in the introduction.'

When someone claims another person did not write something and then you read the literature in question and it objectively contains the exact opposite of what they said then they are wrong. When you confront the first person and their response is to close their eyes, scream 'la la la' then continue to make the claim then they are lying.

Say it with me. A contradiction is when I say 'I think' and you say 'I think' to interpret an event (ie subjective) and those opinions are at odds with one another. If I write 'gravity does not exist' I am not contradicted by Newton. I am wrong. And if I am informed of that and proceed to go around the country telling little children their is no gravity and Newton snorted coke and liked young boys I am a liar.

Blaming the Cauldron for Being Black

http://mobile.nytimes.com/article?a=216949&f=28

Silly neo-cons, wars are for soldiers (not pointy headed nerds with little man complexes).

I know the author is probably too young to remember the Cuban Missile Crisis, but countries don't like it when you are arming harsh critics in their back yard. Or imagine if Medvedev had made a speech last year calling for the US to be suspended from the G8 for violating the territorial integrity of Iraq.

I know it is appealing to see the world through the lens of US = good and benevolent, people we don't like = bad and evil. The problem is it places us in fundamental conflict with every other country that wants the same rights as us. Why should Kosovo have a right to autonomy but not Ossettia? In the long run 'because we don't like Serbia but we do like Georgia' is not a durable answer.

Richard Cohen actually had a fairly astute piece in the Post on what is happening, his only blunder no realizing that what Russia is doing to Georgia is almost exactly what the Israeli's often do to the Palestinians - when you see political developments moving against you stir up the hornets nest a little to create a pretext for cutting down the tree. I am not saying one or both are wrong. They are just rational actors who look out and see strategic competitors that are politically divided over whether they are willing to engage in a positive sum existence

Grumpy Old Men

http://mobile.nytimes.com/article?a=215443&f=28

David Brooks is mad. I am just not sure if it is because people have stopped listening to him or Bookforum made fun or a book he liked.

Justice Files

http://mobile.nytimes.com/article?a=215204&f=19

The Hamdan trial is over and it looks like he will have five months after accounting for the five years since he was charged. As I expected the military tribunal performed admirably and honorably.

But don't let people try to trick you into believing the system is any of those things. From forcing out the commission head and replacing him with a political flack to the ridiculous evidentiary standards, the process has been a black eye on the right to be assumed innocent and face ones accuser.

You also have to wonder if the December release date - which will force the current administration to decide whether to continue to detain him in their waining days - isn't a litmus test thrown down by the officers to test the motives of the architects of this flawed process.

CNN was running a ticker item yesterday about a poll that people think they have been seeing "too much about Obama" in the media.

First, I can't find the link but the Post and Boston Globe last week had a graphic showing the most frequent words on each candidates website. The McCain campaign uses the word Obama more frequently than his own website, and about three times more frequently then their own candidates name. The last three major ads haven't even mentioned McCain until the "I approved this" clip at the end. If people want more McCain perhaps they should stop blaming the media and ask McCain to start talking about himself. I personally don't buy arguments about most media being slanted one way or another. The main thing driving them is that the news requires something NEW, so if both candidates are only talking about what Obama is going to do it makes sense that you would hear a lot about what Obama is going to do.

Second, to Republicans who think they have been hearing too much Obamania I would just say be careful what you wish for. I think the glaring spot light the past few weeks has dimmed Obama's star a bit. But I think the quickest way to reignite it is to focus on the fumbling McCain campaign. McCain is at his best delivering one liners, smirking at his own jokes, and acting like your grampa. Anytime I see him at a podium for more than 10 seconds I start to shudder at his awkwardness and freakishly terrible style.

I think they made some good hay of it, but really do not know what the campaign was thinking challenging Obama to a dozen side-by-side appearances (or for that why the heck Obama would turn it down since their media spending has been about equal to this point). Remember Kennedy-Nixon... just imagine the young, fit, 6 foot Obama on a stage next to the pale, wrinkled, hunched, 5 1/2 foot McCain. Never mind that one liners really don't work as well when the other guy is right next to you and gets to respond.

Questioning Infinity

http://mobile.nytimes.com/article?a=213767&f=28

O Hanlon, Biddle, and Pollack have an important oped today laying out the case for the continued presence in Iraq that we will be hearing over the next few months.

A few questions for the authors:

You offer up the situation in Anbar as a model for how to 'responsibly' draw down troop levels. Given that occurred in less than 12 months how can you outright rule out that conditions might be acceptable to even start a withdrawl 24 months from now? And what are the implications to your hypothesis of the fact that violence decreased in that region during every month when the US troop presence decreased?

What do you think are the implications of the fact that the key to public popularity for Iraqi politicians is a loud opposition to the US presence? If our presence is vital to stability, and most Iraqis justy want stability, is it a case that Iraqi's do not generally express their true opinion when asked about whether US troops make the situation better or that they do not understand/recognize the benefits of our troops?

You annecdotally mention that while their has been a great deal of forced ethnic migration the past two years Sunnis are now fearful of other Sunnis tribes encrouching on their property. If we could get the tribes to reach a settlement but then people began to say they were afraid of their neighbors taking their property, is that grounds to stay longer?

Using quantitative metrics, what are the minimum characteristics of 'success' that would allow for a 'responsible' withdrawl?

FEMA is Lord of Darkess

http://mobile.nytimes.com/article?a=213495&f=19

Last I checked the e in fema stood for emergency, so I have a hard time getting mad at them for not being good at running social service programs three years after Katrina.

On some levels this story is a good one of what happens in a society where personal responsibility is thrown by the wayside. If someone wants thinks they can make $20 thousand a month selling energy drinks over the internet that is their call but I am not sure why I should be paying their rent when they aren't as successful as the infomercial promised. But there are also a lot of little bureaucratic snags far more central to the story than anything FEMA has done - from the woman who can't prove she owns her house following her husband passing away to the man who can't get to any decent job in the city because the public transit system is laughable.

Drilling in Afghanistan

http://mobile.nytimes.com/article?a=212248&f=28

I am not sure why Tom Friedman decided to use the 'pox on both your houses' construction and ramble for a few paragraphs about drilling, but the rest of the article discussing Afghanistan is worth slogging through it.

The point that just dumping more troops into Afghanistan is not a panacea is important. But I think the reason we have been so unsuccessful in solving the challenge from Lebanon to Pakistan is betrayed when he notes how few of them are willing to 'fight and die for the kind of government WE want'. So long as we are trying to manage their outcomes it is going to leave the people who lose pissed at us. Yes Osama was based in Afghanistan (where we were disengaged), but the root of his grievances were our actions in Saudi Arabia.

I would also add to this Matt Yglesias's important observation that there is currently a huge global information asymmetry, and it is a heck of a lot easier for elites in Afghanistan to manipulate Americans than the other way. It doesn't mean don't ever intervene, but it requires a much more humble and modest posture when we try.

Drilling in Afghanistan

http://mobile.nytimes.com/article?a=212248&f=28

I am not sure why Tom Friedman decided to use the 'pox on both your houses' construction and ramble for a few paragraphs about drilling, but the rest of the article discussing Afghanistan is worth slogging through it.

The point that just dumping more troops into Afghanistan is not a panacea is important. But I think the reason we have been so unsuccessful in solving the challenge from Lebanon to Pakistan is betrayed when he notes how few of them are willing to 'fight and die for the kind of government WE want'. So long as we are trying to manage their outcomes it is going to leave the people who lose pissed at us. Yes Osama was based in Afghanistan (where we were disengaged), but the root of his grievances were our actions in Saudi Arabia.

I would also add to this Matt Yglesias's important observation that there is currently a huge global information asymmetry, and it is a heck of a lot easier for elites in Afghanistan to manipulate Americans than the other way. It doesn't mean don't ever intervene, but it requires a much more humble and modest posture when we try.

The Manly Candidate

http://mobile.nytimes.com/article?a=211528&f=20

While it is still too early to know if Al Masri - a key AQ logistics expert- was killed in yesterdays strike, it is important to remember that a President McCain would rather appease the Pakistani generals than kill a terrorist on the FBI Most Wanted list.

The Biggest Issue

http://mobile.nytimes.com/article?a=211618&f=28

David Brooks is on this morning talking about 'human capital policies' - education. Once again flirting with obama (and make no mistake a Brooks endorsement would be huge with a lot of upper middle class White's who pretend they are independent but vote republican pretty consistently) his most important line is less his inclination towards Obama than the admission that Republicans are intellectually bankrupt on education policy.

At his best Brooks is insightful, relevant, non partisan without loosing his ideological point of view, and well written. Unfortunately it just heightens how far the republican party has fallen from its intellectual roots.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/article;jsessionid=2C1B899A44F1BDDAABC20E823FC674BA.w6?a=209237&f=23

Dave chappelle, where are you?!

Owning America's Issues

http://mobile.nytimes.com/article;jsessionid=2C1B899A44F1BDDAABC20E823FC674BA.w6?a=209268&f=19

A fascinating piece leading of the Times today insinuating that (wait for it) european leaders don't agree with every Obama position. On some level I can respect that it is an obama article so the focus is on him. But at the same time I feel like it would be worthwhile to mention that on every issue cited, except for trade, the obama position is also shared by McCain and a huge majority in the US.

The key difference between the two - and the thing that I think really matters - is that obama believes in listening to other folks positions and realizes they have their own interests, while McCain believes in a politic based on virtue and will power.
Think about going to buy a new car. Your interest is to purchase a car that will help you get around for a reasonable price. The salesmans interest is to sell a car for enough money to put food on the table and keep his job. You walk in, see a shiny new car and offer $100. The salesman counters with $10,000. The McCain world view says you should tell him about how you think $100 is the right price and how if he doesn't sell it to you at that price you are going to lose your job and it will be all his fault and by the way you know where his kids go to school and if you lost your job you might do something crazy and we wouldn't want that. He may discard his interest because he thinks you are a psycho and give it to you for $100 and then you will have 'won'. But more likely he will kick you off the lot and you will get to cover the tab for a $150 billion a year operation all by yourself.

The obama view says you should ask him why it is $10,000 and he might say because they paid GM $5,000 for it and then there are all sorts of dealership costs and he needs to sell it for enough to feed his kids. Then you might say you only have $5,000 right now and besides you saw it for $8,000 across the street. Then he might tell you how they have a nice financing program and what if he could do $8,000. And so on until you have the car you need and his kids have full stomachs.

I will let you guess which approach is more likely to create a generation of radicals devoted to undermining US interests as one of their core interests
.

Obama Overseas!

http://mobile.nytimes.com/article?a=208138&f=77

This analysis piece on the media coveage is right on, with the important observation that the reason the obama trip is receiving so much coverage is because it is actual NEWS. As opposed to McCain playing golf and holding some more staged townhall discussions. Everyone is upstaging him these days:

'Even Fox News broke away from Mr. McCain midevent to cover the rescue of a bear cub wounded in a California fire and nicknamed Lil' Smokey.'

The piece also tongue in cheek notes that while the press has been stalking obama waiting for a gaffe, McCain has produced a steady string throughout, yesterday blasting the US for not being like France.

Standards

http://mobile.nytimes.com/article?a=208108&f=19

'Mr. Mukasey "is making sure there are no scandals or even appearance of scandals, and that's a core task in this day and age," said David Rivkin, a Washington lawyer who served in the Reagan and first Bush administrations.'

Is the bar really THAT low?

Too Late for Today, but Not for Tomorrow

http://mobile.nytimes.com/article?a=205406&f=20

The last year has seen a slow but in many ways remarkable shift in the Administration's foreign rhetoric and more importantly policy and actions.

They deserve credit for the North Korea deal (though it was painful to watch them flail about for so long, especially since the parameters of the final deal were obvious three years ago). I think it is too late for any other major accomplishments but it makes you wonder what could have been possible the last 7 years had the cheney/rumsfeld axis not been empowered for so long.

That said, this history is important for the practical reason that obama is broadly aligned with the Colin Powell/Nick Burns theory of fp that has been successful while McCain is clearly wired like those who brought us to the current screwed up place.

I don't think they should ban you, I just don't like you

http://mobile.nytimes.com/article?a=204027&f=77

Apparently some people are appeased by mccain's clarification of his remarks on adoption of children by homosexuals. He doesn't think the federal government should decide whether it is banned (bonus points to the reporter who asks him if he would pledge to veto any federal ban if president). He just personally thinks abandoned children are better off in dss or on the street than in a stable loving house with two daddy's.

Ps - log cabin republicans, I get the whole 'we are not defined by just one issue' thing. But when your candidate says he thinks the one common trait that defines your group makes you unfit to be a parent and all you can muster is 'he may revile us but he said he wouldn't push for a ban' it is kind of pathetic.

Buzz words will save you

http://mobile.nytimes.com/article?a=203358&f=23

In responce to their flagging fortunes citibank has chosen to respond with... jargon.

'He pushed 60 top managers to build on his seven rules, which he unveiled in the last few weeks. Those rules include items like "client connectivity," "transparency" and "product excellence."

Maybe it is a matter of just righting the ship and weathering the storm. Or maybe it is that the finance sector is a bunch of isolated from reality overpaid assholes who only know how to work the country club and cook the books. The last decade and a half has seen the industry really 'blossom'. But over that same time all I have seen is a relatively stagnant global economy (with the drivers being the emerging economies with relatively high levels of underitilized human capital) and a new bubble every few years driven by the misdeeds of the asset class and their bankers.

Goes together like lamb and tuna fish

http://mobile.nytimes.com/article?a=201950&f=77

Obama saying he thinks American children should learn a second language and conservatives flipping out that he wants us all to speak Spanish even though he has a long history of supporting requiring immigrants to learn English and hates that he 'need a translator to talk to the guy fixing my car' is exactly like McCain calling social security a 'disgrace' then his campaign whining that isn't what he meant then him repeating the same thing the next day to remain consistent with the position he has held for years is exactly the same.

The Un Bush

http://mobile.nytimes.com/article?a=200681&f=77

"I have set before the American people an energy plan, the Lex-eegton Project," Mr. McCain said, drawing a quick breath and correcting himself. "The Lex-ing-ton Proj-ect," he said slowly. "The Lexington Project," he repeated. "Remember that name."

At first I was a litle skeptical of the just like Bush line, but increasingly am amazed at how true it really is. It isn't just that he has trouble with big words or is so unfamiliar with his own policy proposals that he doesn't even know how what they are called, but how he somehow twists it as 'folkiness'.

And if you need more there is the fact that everyone on his staff seems to carry the title 'former Bush campaign ...'. Or that he is oblivious to what life is like for most Americans - the price of gas, how to pump it, what a computer does.

On the flip side, where Bush's early years were financed by his dad's friends, senator McCain was financed by the friends of his second wife's dad. And his wife isn't nearly as classy as Laura Bush, who has quietly been one of the most graceful, effective and important first lady's since Eleanor Roosevelt.

Cruel Irony

http://mobile.nytimes.com/article?a=197240&f=20

Iraq cannot get together an Olympic squad in anything but weightlifting. But after decades of war they have one of the worlds best para Olympic teams.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/article?a=197226&f=19

There really isn't much I can say about this amazing - amazing good and amazing appauling - story other than read it. That these dark pockets still exist across the globe is incredible, that it is a 10 year old standing up and leading change is even more so.

Breaking News

http://mobile.nytimes.com/article?a=177683&f=19

The NYT continues its policy of running McCain oppo pieces against obama. Today we are told front page that Obama is surrounded by advisors with ties to the ethanol industry. Of course the only people that can come up with are Tom Daschle - whom Obama hangs out with and admires but doesn't actually have a campaign role - and a staffer who used to work at a bipartisan think tank where one of the honorary chairs is Bob Dole (surprisingly! the former Kansas Senator has ties - imagine that - to agri business).

Of course the second half does comfort me as the rest of the article is about how McCain (and based on the glowing writing the Times) think the US should buy millions of gallons of ethanol from Brazil rather than Iowa or Nebraska. All so that the price thousands of farmers get for their crop can be driven back into the ground.

Interestingly, while the oil and nuclear industry deserve big subsidies, the idea of the government investing in figuring out switch grass and creating a whole new industry that is greener, could benefit tens of thousands of farmers, and doesn't have the side effect of corn ethanol is anethema to McCain. Apparently he only believes in handouts to those industries whose lobbyists stock his war chest and staff.

Obama and Public Financing

I think the one thing missing from the media echo chamber on Obama's decision to opt out of public financing is the reality that American's who aren't plugged into the Washington political machine do think that campaign financing is broken. All those politicians who have been taking tax payer money clearly haven't been immunized from the impact of "big money". so I just don't think Obama taking money from 1.5m Americans makes him anymore succeptable to the corruption claims that everyone throws around.

As far as the "flip flop" charge some people are pushing, if people actually get to hear him speak for himself (and a big if based on the amazing out of shameless clipping being done by the media - I mean I think if youare going to use video theyshould at leastget to finish thjhe sentence before cut back to the commentator) he is convincing on why he opted out.

That said, the insiders who have the most to lose from a paradigm shift in have been doing their best to lie through their teeth on this and make it seem like not taking public financing is in some way illegal or illegitimate. Just because the politics as usual over the past three decades has said you have to take $85m from taxpayers to pay for your campaign doesn't mean you have to. And PS, it would be nice just once to hear about how McCain has been illegally funding his primary campaign after unilaterally pulling out of public financing once he realized he could earn more privately funding.

A Victory for the Disabled

http://mobile.nytimes.com/article?a=175391&f=19

Kudos to the Justice Dept for finally giving some teeth to the Americans with Disabilities Act. While some things may seem silly - half of mini golf homes must be wheel chair accessible - these things are non trivial for the 4-5% of Americans with mobility impairments that have to stay behind or just watch when their friends and family go out to have fun.

Perhaps it is just a gambit, but that a rule aimed at helping 1 in 6 Americans has to be couched in 'support the troops' rhetoric shows how far we still have to go until people with disabilities are granted their full dignity by society.

We went to see Kung fu panda this weekend (awesome by the way) and there was a young man there in a wheel chair with cognitive issues. My first thought was to be surprised to see someone with such significant handicaps at the theater. But in retrospect I think my surprise is not seeing more people with disabilities out and about. Hopefully these rules will survive hitting by the Chamber of Commerce and help a few more people get out and have a good time.

Historic

http://m.espn.go.com/wireless/story?storyId=3440716

I was almost going to feel bad for the Lakers - I remember that pit in my stomach when they came storming back in game 2. Then I read their post game quotes and see they have the nerve to whine about the referees!

The officiating has been dubious throughout the series, with the home team (in my estimation) getting a boost in every game except 1. And I can live with that, especially since a big part of the free throw disparity has more been the aggressiveness than blatently terrible calls. But when Sasha cries that the reason he got smoked by Ray Ray is because he picked up a few foul calls - the trip in the third where they both went down and when Allen beat him back to his feet he proceeded to scissor clip him down scared the heck out of me given alll then injuries - I find I can't help but enjoy their painful demise.

Of course I also remember the historic beat down the Yankees delivered in 2004 to go up 3-0. Like Phil said, it aint over yet.