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.