finknottle

Seriously - anybody who does not at least begin to wonder about the underpinnings of the Obama phenomona after this is beyond redemption.

You ain't seen nothin' yet! I have it on good authority that canonization proceedings were initiated 15 days into his administration. Expect an announcement from the Pope any day now.

Fascinating tidbit - Obama entered office 12 days before the nomination deadline for this years peace prize. Which raises the question: what did he do in his first 12 day's of office to shake the world so? The only thing I can think of is (possibily) his promise to close Gitmo within a year. Wow - that was easy!

History is going to look back upon this and see it through the prism of race. In 20 years, anyone looking at his accomplishemnts will view this as the set-aside Nobel. This is unfortunate on several levels. It is unfortunate because there is a grain of truth to it, for affirmitive action is indeed the reason for his meteroric rise and instant acceptance at every level - it's not every law student who gets a book deal while they are still in school! But it is also unfortunate because it is only a grain of truth, and somewhat incidental at that. Race does not fully explain the whole hope/change/we are the future pied piper spell that the nobel comittee has fallen for. But for future generations looking at his name and accomplishments to this point, the context may be lost and they will reach for the simpler explanation.

Sorry - should have been more clear. I meant the state decides to leave the union, completely. A peacefull separation would involve a negotiated settlement regarding the distribution of assets and debts. In a nutshell, how much of the federal debt do I carry with me? 1/300 millionth? Or is it more, because I contribute more? And likewise, is 1/300 millionth of the parks and aircraft carriers mine? More, because I pay more? Or less, because I pay more? I'd like a supporter of progressive taxation to weigh in.

I'm sure people are aware of the liberitarian movement to move to a state and take it over legislatively... not going very well, but give them high marks for trying. Let's take this one step further. Suppose a fiscally responsible state, alarmed at the direction of the federal debt, entitlements, and other federal policies etc, said "That's enough, I want out." How should you divide the nations assets and debts? Should it be per capita, or should it be progressive? In other words, if all the rich people fled high tax states for this mecca, should they assume more national debt per person than those whose policies they are fleeing? And national assets - should they be credited with more or less per person than a non-tax payer for the purposes of dividing up assets?

Indeed, he has also been muddling 'wealth' with 'high income;' the two groups are not the same.

Can you explain your assumption that income inequality is bad? Or is it self-evident?

Of course they do. Heck, Hollywood and your local churches do too. But not all influences are created equal, and not all are wielded in a disciplined and targeted manner. IMO this last election cycle is the first one in which the overwhelming majority of the media essentially worked together to elect a candidate. But the circumstances were special - they saw their chance to be part of something historical, the first african-american president and all that. I suspect that by the next election their solidarity will have given way to individual interests and some return to journalistic professionalism.

You mean 'government is a great keyboard on which the press can play?' One election does not signify a trend, let alone a political truism. We'll see what happens in 2012. If it's a repeat of 2008, then maybe you've got something.

You must be astounded that we have commercials at all! Think about how advertising works - it's about creating perceptions. And if you are reaching the customer when they are making a decision, you are far too late.

I subscribe to both the Times and the Post, and find the Times the better newspaper. In a nutshell, both have slanted editorial stands, neither of which I am in agreement with across the board. The key difference between the two IMO is that I find the actual Times reporting to be more neutral, whereas I think the Posts reporting has become politicized over the last decade. In short, Times reporters go after stories wherever they are - even those that embarrass Republicans. The Post reporters write opinion pieces wrapped in whatever news fits. Here is a comparison of today's front page stories: Washington Post: Lead: "The Battle of Wanat" (A ground-level investigative journalism series on Afghanistan, neutral. No real news content.) "US Losing Gound on Preventable Deaths" (Strongly pro-Health Care reform) "Gates Wants Leaders War Advice Kept Private" (Pro-Administration) "In Michigan, a Yellow Light for Green Jobs" (Despite title, neutral on green jobs prospects and more accurately a puff piece for the governor) "Identity Crisis Accompanies Va Family's Financial Slide" (Story about an engineer that lost his job and now his family lives in a shelter - no actual content.) Washington Times: Lead: "Scowcroft lauds Obama's Diplomacy" (Neutral to positive for the Administration) "Pakistan improves position to fight terrorists" (Neutral, informative.) "Backers of Climate Bill quit Chamber" (ie Apple and a few others quit the Chamber of Commerce business group over its opposition. Neutral but embarrassing to the Right.) "Sotomayor makes her voice heard on First Day" (Neutral account of the new SC cases. Sotomayor is just a teaser - she's only mentioned in the first two sentences.) "Rangel rakes in cash during island rum scrum" (Anti-Rangel investigative journalism about a new story; his biggest donors outside of NY are in the Carribean, where he is currently presiding over a contentious rewriting of their liqour tax laws). "At 96, Virginia Woman becomes hit book author" (Non-political story about a new writer - no actual content.) I'll let you compare these stories side-by-side. For myself, I find that it is the Times that is delivering the news, both good and bad. The Post is serving up opinion.

I take it this bothers you? How do you feel about regulations governing endorsements and representations on TV and in the print media?

Correction: We paid 3 billion dollars to move sales from one month to another. (That's the progressive We. Some of us will pay much more than others.)

It is the story behind the story. Sure, there is a chain of command. Going outside it is a no-no, only to be contemplated when drawing attention to a serious problem, in effect saying to the public 'Hey, we are not being listened to.' Is that the case? Obama say's Afghanistan is our top priority and removes the commander there before his tour is up. And yet he has only spoken with his hand-picked replacement once in the 3 1/2 months since he assumed command. Unless you count the 25 minute down-dressing on Obama's plan in Copenhagen that McChrystal was summoned to... but that was only as a result of McChrystal's public actions.

Interesting piece on income inequality, with some surprising factoid nuggets: http://www.forbes.com/2009/10/02/income-in...john-tamny.html It seems to say that the numbers which are used in these sorts of calculations are only for the hourly wages of private nonsupervisory workers - this is far less representative than I had expected. The percentage of nonsupervisory jobs in the economy has slowly but steadily contracted over the decades. And since workers frequently move from nonsupervisory to supervisory status as they advance it raises questions in my mind about claims of wage stagnation. Also, a 20 year study found that of workers in the bottom fifth in 1975, 30% were in the top fifth in 1995, and 30% in the second.

Will the UN be allowed to inspect any undisclosed sites? Or is that an unfair question because it is inconceivable that Iran would have secret sites? As for the enrichment, even the US say's there is no agreement on how much of their fuel is to be exported and returned as medicinal quality. Indeed, at least one high-placed Iranian denies that there was such an agreement in the bilateral conversation at all... Here's a question for you. Suppose you were the Iranian leadership, and you were determined to get the bomb, period. If you wanted to defuse the latest pressure from the West while continuing the research, would you do anything substantially different?

Jealousy sums it up nicely. If you have misgivings about the ass your head is up, belittle the appearance of the asses other people have chosen.

I think part of the problem is that when advocates talk about Health Care, they lapse into campaign mode and give a speech filled with poignent anecdotes, blistering attacks on heartlessness, and a listing all of society's ills. Let's clarify the issue. We are considering government intervention into 20% of the economy. In a single sentence, what exactly is the problem we are trying to solve?

A quick talk on the plane, instead of the Hotel suite or the Embassy. Pretty demeaning. Still, it could have been worse - Starbucks, or a walk-and-talk on his way to the john.

Religion is a hobby, like watching football or, arguably more to the point, Dungeons & Dragons. And like any other hobby, it carries an opportunity cost. That year is a waking year. I prefer to think about it economically. Leaving out tithes, donations, and offerings, as well as gas, your Sunday suit, and other things, 9,300 man hours is spent on the hobby. At a billable rate of $50 an hour say, you are talking about $40,000 worth of your time. I suggest spending half of that time working, and the other half in Vegas worshiping the Goddess Lady Luck, who offers an occasional blessing.

No, not pissed off at us. I meant they got pissed off at each other, back then, fighting over whether it was appropriate for a head of state - and by extension the state itself - to intervene. It is South America we risk pissing off by nationalizing the selection.

I'd venture to say that none of you watched past the first five minutes of the opening segment - there was no point, it was just the host and moderator in an orgy of self-congratulations. But if you had seen segments 2 on you would have seen that there is nothing particularly hippy about Sam Harris.

This was precisely my point in starting this thread. When Blair did it, quite a few countries got pissed off - notably the French as the front-runners were London and Paris. There were charges on the legality of his lobbying (apparently the IOC forbids government promotion before certain phases), charges of vote-buying, etc. It soured relations between England and France, even by their standards. And for what? So - do we really want South America to see the President engaging in what they will perceive as heavy-handed gringoism in stealing the Olympics away from Rio, at a time when we need their cooperation on other issues? Is it really worth it, just so that a few posters here can have their feel-good moment watching a bunch of people from around the world win shiny medals for running and skipping on American soil?

The assumption goes beyong the public versus private sector. Even if we accept that the private sector is more efficient, why should it be the role of the government to create a way (public or private) for people to buy a particular service at a level of their choosing and at a price of their choosing? I don't see it happening anytime soon with, say, luxury yachts, organic vegetables, or swedish massages. What is so special Heath Care that it is appropriate for the government to interfere with market prices? Encourage is one thing; attempting to create price controls is another.