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.