The first amendment...

Greenwald today on Palin's take on the First Amendment.

This isn't only about profound ignorance regarding our basic liberties, though it is obviously that. Palin here is also giving voice to the standard right-wing grievance instinct: that it's inherently unfair when they're criticized. And now, apparently, it's even unconstitutional.

According to Palin, what the Founders intended with the First Amendment was that political candidates for the most powerful offices in the country and Governors of states would be free to say whatever they want without being criticized in the newspapers. In the Palin worldview, the First Amendment was meant to ensure that powerful political officials such as herself would not be "attacked" in the papers. Is it even possible to imagine more breathaking ignorance from someone holding high office and running for even higher office?

Friday afternoon public service announcement...

Safe sex is a good thing. I am not one to care how we get it on... as long as we can get it on. Well, there are some interesting ideas on how to make this happen out there.

5. Spray-on protection

Since his teens, Jan Vinzenz Krause struggled to find a condom that fit correctly. He thought the pursuit of the perfect prophylactic was hopeless -- until he went to the carwash.

Inspired by the spray-on soap and wax, the German Krause developed a spray-on latex condom, which he claims always fits perfectly and feels natural.

However, many men find the design off-putting; the spray-on condom comes in a hard phallic case.

Men slide themselves into the cylinder and layer on the latex, providing full coverage.

The Jolly Joe, as Krause dubbed it, frightened many men during the testing phase -- they only put the case on their fingers. (Spray on gloves anyone?)

Others felt the loud hissing wasn't sexy and the latex takes too long to dry -- three minutes.

Krause explains to Time, "It needs to be ready in five to ten seconds." So for now, Krause is waiting for a quicker-drying latex.

Uh, yeah three minutes is a bit too long Mr. Krause. But keep trying hard...

Early Voting in Madison

As of yesterday, approximately 26,000 early votes had been cast in the City of Madison. This is out of about 180K registered voters. With three more days of early voting left, and probably 3K more absentee ballots to arrive via the mail, it is entirely possible that 20% of the registered voters in Madison will have voted prior to the 4th.

I'm wondering what turnout percentage will be in Madison this year, as it may chase a record.

I'm a member of the elite monied class, or a libertarian...

Or, so I must deduce from the my favorite lefty, Mel-Anon's post today, based upon my subscription and weekly cover to cover reading of the Economist. I have spent most of my morning trying to figure out where this money may be found. I'm also enjoying the thought of my new found elite status.

Nichols at the Nation is using this endorsement to show the McCain/Palin socialist smear doesn't hold water. In making this point, he describes the Economist as "the journal of monied elites who prefer not to be lied to." I completely agree with the not being lied to portion, though once again I'm still trying to find my money and my elite status.

A newsmagazine that supports universal health care, gay marriage, significant investment in education, good governance and democracy... yeah, totally sounds like an elitist corporate shill to me...

Godless Americans...

The battle for North Carolina's electoral votes is definately hot, but not as sizzling as the crap throwing going on in the race for the Senate seat. The race features incumbent Elizabeth Dole facing off against State Senator Kay Hagan. The campaign has been recently rated as a toss up, and with such a race comes the mud. The newest issue, and the one that got my attention, is that Hagan is filing a lawsuit against Dole for a campaign ad that calls her "godless." From the ad:

The ad then shows members of the group, which promotes rights for atheists and the separation of church and state, declaring that neither God nor Jesus exists. "Godless Americans and Kay Hagan," the ad continues. "She hid from cameras. Took 'Godless' money. What did Kay Hagan promise in return?"

Well, one could hope that she has promised to not let religious dogma influence public policy, but alas, this is America and that would be far too enlightened.

Who cares about Colin???

So Obama has Powell and Francis Fukayama endorsing him, so what? A bigger endorsement in my mind has just come in from across the pond... The Economist has officially endorsed Obama. This comes from one of the most respected newspapers (or, magazine if you will) from around the globe. It also comes from a publication that is strongly anti-protectionist and pro-globalization. This should reassure some who may have been partially convinced of the "Obama as socialist" line from the McCain camp.

So Mr Obama in that respect is a gamble. But the same goes for Mr McCain on at least as many counts, not least the possibility of President Palin. And this cannot be another election where the choice is based merely on fear. In terms of painting a brighter future for America and the world, Mr Obama has produced the more compelling and detailed portrait. He has campaigned with more style, intelligence and discipline than his opponent. Whether he can fulfil his immense potential remains to be seen. But Mr Obama deserves the presidency.

Letter to the President on Food Policy...

I am becoming increasingly interested in the web of food-agriculture-health-climate change policy, and found Michael Pollan's interview on NPR's Fresh Air to be quite enlightening. The original source of this interview is an open letter to the next president authored by Pollan, which appeared in the NYT magazine earlier this month.

Our agenda puts the interests of America’s farmers, families and communities ahead of the fast-food industry’s. For that industry and its apologists to imply that it is somehow more “populist” or egalitarian to hand our food dollars to Burger King or General Mills than to support a struggling local farmer is absurd. Yes, sun food costs more, but the reasons why it does only undercut the charge of elitism: cheap food is only cheap because of government handouts and regulatory indulgence (both of which we will end), not to mention the exploitation of workers, animals and the environment on which its putative “economies” depend. Cheap food is food dishonestly priced — it is in fact unconscionably expensive.

It is time to stop accepting the premise that food grown sustainably using the sun's power is more expensive. It is imperative that the negative externalities and implicit subsidies be considered when evaluating the true cost of this "food."

Lots more interesting stuff from Pollan can be found on his site. I would strongly recommend both The Omnivore's Dilemma and In Defense of Food. I love the title for In Defense of Food, as it echoes one of the best books ever written, Crick's In Defence of Politics...

World Series?

When is it? Oh, it is already happening?

Kudos to MLB and Fox for doing a great job of promoting it. Of course, with the Rays and the Phils, what can you do?

To be completely honest, I haven't watched more than five minutes of the series, but I have heard it said that "baseball purists" would love the series -- lots of productive outs and such... Well, I tend to believe I am a baseball purist, but the label is annoying, when certain commentators take it to the level that a "baseball purist" is only happy when the game is 1-0, or maybe 2-1 - with all runs being scored after a combination of at least three of these things: a walk, hit batsmen, stolen base, sacrifice bunt, sac fly, hard slide to break up a double play, taking third on a single to right, suicide squeeze or a groundball to the right side with a runner on second. Don't get me wrong, I love all of these finer points of the game, but what is wrong with a home run from time to time (or, even better, a triple)? Seriously, when did it become illegal for a baseball purist to hate the long ball? It is a very exciting and impressive feat to smash a 92 mph slider over the wagon gate in left... I think what gets me on this, is that when a star player isn't hitting well and he manages to do one of the listed things above it becomes a "he is doing his job" mentality in the broadcast booth. Well, no, Evan and Carlos shouldn't be looking for a sac fly (those will come), they should be trying to hit the ball hard for extra bases... Oh well, this got long, but I really thought John Miller went overboard via ESPN radio with this discussion last evening.

Inequality and lack of social mobility...

A couple of my more recent posts have focused on inequality comparisions between America and other developed nations in Western Europe. As part of my posts, I discoursed that it was somewhat absurd to make a statement along the lines of "Social mobility is at a more developed level in Germany than the United States." I thought I should, in all fairness, offer a rejoinder to myself after reading this article in this week's Economist. The article focuses on Britain, but many of the same statements can be made about America.

Income is distributed more unequally than in most OECD countries, as measured by the widely used Gini coefficient (see chart)—and more unequally than in any rich one except America and Italy. Nor is equality of opportunity much in evidence: a son’s income depends more strongly on his father’s in Britain than in any other country for which the OECD has data.

I am still not totally convinced that this single factor (correlation of father to son's wages) is adequate in measuring social mobility, but it is an interesting little article, and I deserve to have to eat some of it.

Also interesting from this week's print edition, is an article on the "axis of diesel; Iran, Venezuala and Russia.

In sum, Iran, Russia and Venezuela are all likely to be left short of cash—and facing a diminution in their international clout. “Never confuse brilliance with a bull market,” goes a Wall Street saying. The leaders of the oily trio may have thought high oil prices were an adequate substitute for good governance. In many quarters, the difference is now painfully clear.

I'm interested to see how these three respond to this rather sudden reduction in monetary power, especially Iran - given the looming elections next summer.

Gini coefficients...

To follow up on my last post, where I may have gotten a little ruffled by Michaels' piece in the NLR, I wanted to point readers to a data source for international economic data. The OECD is an international organization, based in Paris, that offers lots of access to data and literature on many economic topics. The OECD just posted a report on income inequality in developed countries, which I look forward to reading. While quickly perusing the report, I did a spot check on the OECD's Gini estimates, and what did I find? Estimated Gini's for selected countries (mid-2000's):
Before Taxes and Transfers:
Germany - .507
France - .482
United States - .457
Denmark - .417
United Kingdom - .460
Italy - .557

After Taxes and Transfers:
Germany - .298
France - .281
United States - .381
Denmark - .232
United Kingdom - .335
Italy - .352

The different values here show that, in nearly all developed countries, tax policy redistributes income and thus, increases parity. Of course, the amount to which this redistribution occurs does vary significantly. Same direction, different degree.

Recall, from Michaels (linked above) --

A standard measure of economic inequality is through the Gini coefficient, where 0 represents perfect equality (everybody makes the same), and 1 perfect inequality (one person makes everything). The Gini coefficient for the us in 2006 was 0.470 (back in 1968 it was 0.386). That of Germany today is 0.283, that of France, 0.327.

Obviously he was pulling his data from a different source, but doesn't it seem like just maybe he was being selectively misleading by reporting what is likely the US's Gini prior to taxes and transfers and France's and Germany's almost positively after? I don't doubt that there is a truly important point in criticizing America's policies that have allowed for an acceleration of income disparity, but I don't think the "cause" is helped by misleading statistics and inciting rhetoric (i.e. Move to Germany for the American dream).

Equality and neoliberalism...

Ken at Mel-Anon had an interesting post this morning on the relationship between identity politics and inequality. I am sympathetic to many of the arguments made by leftists that we must reduce our focus on identity traits and focus more on socioeconomic status. I am, however, not willing to go with Walter Benn Michaels to this level:

"It is neoliberalism, not racism or sexism (or homophobia or ageism) that creates the inequalities that matter most in American society; racism and sexism are just sorting devices."

I will be the first to admit that neoliberalism has an array of faults, not the least of which is instinctively moving to the muddled middle on many policy issues without much forethought. I don't believe, however, that it is wise to claim that racism and sexism are "sorting devices" and are not part of a real social issue. It is my belief that we can combat sexism, racism, bigotry and inequality all at the same time. The key is education. Both access and equality. Through whatever means work... be it vouchers, more public funds, higher taxes, etc. One area that I definitely feel is critical is access to university education. This means reinvigorating the Pell grant system, upping the ante on programs like Teach for America and such. A key part to a successful change in our educational system is for entrenched ideologues to rethink if their position is really advancing access and quality of education, or merely toeing the party line (and there are lots of party lines in this field).

More from Michaels:

A standard measure of economic inequality is through the Gini coefficient, where 0 represents perfect equality (everybody makes the same), and 1 perfect inequality (one person makes everything). The Gini coefficient for the us in 2006 was 0.470 (back in 1968 it was 0.386). That of Germany today is 0.283, that of France, 0.327. Americans still love to talk about the American Dream—as, in fact, do Europeans. But the Dream has never been less of a reality than it is today. Not just because inequality is so high, but also because social mobility is so low; indeed, lower than in both France and Germany. Anyone born poor in Chicago has a better chance of achieving the American Dream by learning German and moving to Berlin than by staying at home.

This paragraph bothers me, quite a lot. I think it bothers me so because I tend to agree with most of the basic premise of the argument - that socioeconomic inequality in the United States is a major issue - but this paragraph does little to enlighten this point. Let us deconstruct a bit: First, the Gini coefficient is not really a standard measure of inequality. It is a measure of income dispersion, but - as with most single stats - a failure to understand the underlying data makes its value fall significantly. I actually believe a review of the underlying data relating population percentages to income percentages in a ratio analysis based on the Lorenz curve quintiles would be interesting, and likely aide the point being made. Additionally, the Gini coefficient should only be compared across data that uses the same premises. The primary example here is that in the US benefits (health care) are not normally included in gross income computations, while in many European nations they are. What is the effect? Well, the cost for health insurance coverage offered by a single employer is likely the same for each employee (no matter how much that employee makes unless they had a progressive co-payment, novel?). How big of a difference this makes is debatable, but to use the Gini with no qualifications as a clear numerical comparison between nations is a bit overzealous.

Now to the part that is crazy -- Of course Americans and others love to talk of the American Dream, because it is real and a motivating factor for lots of people. To say that the dream is less of a reality today than... EVER, is completely bunk. Tell that to the generations of, yes, women and minorities that had NO chance to live the dream. To make such an inflammatory and patently untrue statement in what was already a fairly strongly opined piece is to, in my opinion, beg for criticism. As to the social mobility, I would point to the paragraph below, which highlights that Germany still makes decisions that greatly effect a child's ability to be mobile at age ten. Additionally, both France and Germany have very significant issues with immigration and reconciling their societies to the influx of Islamic immigrants. (I have little doubt that there is a lot of xenophobia here in the US.) To say that anyone born poor in Chicago has a better chance of achieving the American Dream in Germany is, to say the least, a big stretch. I have little doubt that they would receive a much better social safety net (which is good, and something the US must work on.), but there are lots of costs that come with that trade-off. I remind you, there is a reason the term is "American Dream." America is by no means perfect, and the growing inequality underlying the piece by Mr. Michaels is a real subject for discussion, but to devolve into a "America is the bastion of evil" mentality is, perhaps, a bit premature.

Before going to far with the Germany is a bastion of equality, one may wish to review this week's Economist, which has an interesting article on Germany's attempt at education reform.

Germany is one of the few European countries that still divides children up at the age of ten. The cleverest go to Gymnasien, the main route to university; the ordinary are sent to Realschulen; and the dullards attend Hauptschulen, often breeding-grounds for disaffection.

The global economy...

The Economist offered an interesting and fairly detailed special report on the world economy in the October 9th edition. Not everyone will agree with all of their conclusions, but it is at a great disservice to yourself if you chose to not read the report.

Perhaps most enlightening for me was the section on commodities and speculators...

Contrary to what the critics of speculation suppose, the main task of futures markets has been to signal these fundamentals to firms and households, speeding up their adjustment to the changing balance of supply and demand for physical commodities. In the absence of such signals, it would have taken even bigger and more extended swings in the prices of physical commodities to bring supply and demand into balance.

In the end, the report recognizes that there is a need for additional regulation in certain areas of the economy (mostly the finance portion). It points out, however, that we should not get caught up in a nationalistic protectionist mindset, whereby many of the big net positives that have come to fruition under globalization are lost, as we retreat to an era of big tariffs and neo-mercantilism blended with government interventionism. Long, but good....

A successful multilateral strategy to staunch the crisis would also make it more likely that the world will rise to the second challenge: learning the right lessons. Too many people ascribe today’s mess solely to the excesses of American finance. Putting the blame on speculators and greed has a powerful appeal but, as this special report has argued, it is too simplistic. The bubble—and the bust—had many causes, including cheap money, outdated regulation, government distortions and poor supervision. Many of these failures were as evident outside America as within it.

New-fangled finance has its flaws, from the procyclicality of its leverage to its fiendish complexity. But the crisis is as much the result of policy mistakes in a fast-changing and unbalanced world economy as of Wall Street’s greedy innovations. The rapid build-up of reserves in the emerging world fuelled the asset and credit bubbles, and rich-world central bankers failed to counter it. Misguided monetary rigidity caused financial instability. Much though people now blame deregulation, flawed regulation was more of a problem. Banks set up their off-balance sheet vehicles in response to capital rules.

It is the same story with the spike in food and fuel prices over the past year. To be sure, commodities markets can overshoot—but rather than pointing the finger at speculators, governments should look in the mirror. Rich countries’ biofuel policies pushed up the cost of food. Poor countries’ food-export bans and fuel subsidies compounded the problems. In many ways today’s mess is a consequence of policymakers’ misguided reactions to globalisation and the increasing economic heft of the emerging world.

If markets are not always dangerous and governments not always wise, what policy lessons follow? In the aftermath of the crisis the battle will be to ensure that finance is reformed—and in the right way. The pitfalls are numerous. Banning the short-selling of stocks, for instance, makes for a good headline; but it deprives markets of liquidity and information, the very things that they have lacked in this crisis. Even if the easy mistakes are avoided, improving supervision and regulation is hard. Financial regulators must look beyond the leverage within individual institutions to the stability of complex financial systems as a whole. Wherever the state has extended its guarantee, as it did with money-market funds, it will now have to extend its oversight too. As a rule, though, governments would do better to harness the power of markets to boost stability, by demanding transparency, promoting standardisation and exchange-based trading.

Over-reaction is a bigger risk than inaction. Even if economic catastrophe is avoided, the financial crisis will impose great costs on consumers, workers and businesses. Anger and resentment directed at modern finance is sure to grow. The danger is that policymakers will add to the damage, not only by over-regulating finance but by attacking markets right across the economy.

That would be a bitter reverse after a generation in which markets have been freed, economies have opened up—and prospered. Hundreds of millions have escaped poverty and hundreds of millions more have joined the middle class. As the world reconsiders the balance between markets and government, it would be tragic if the ingredients of that prosperity were lost along the way.

McCain the attack dog..

It looks like McCain is going to be the attack dog for the final few weeks. What a way to secure a legacy for a guy who seven years ago was fairly widely respected...

Racist, prejudiced, whatever they are...

they sure sound stupid. I'll take all the berating someone wants to throw my way for being an intellectual elitist on a vast array of issues, but on this my friends, stupidity should not be tolerated as a valid belief.

“He’s neither-nor,” said Ricky Thompson, a pipe fitter who works at a factory north of Mobile, while standing in the parking lot of a Wal-Mart store just north of here. “He’s other. It’s in the Bible. Come as one. Don’t create other breeds*.”

How many people do you think they had to interview to find someone to say something so stupid, and then have their picture taken for the national paper of record? I would hope a lot, but Mr. Thompson undoubtably feels he is making a valid point, supported by the good word and his religion. Unfortunately for him, I would highly doubt that he could cite more than the old "unequal yoke" verse from Corinthians. The first problem with this basis is that the verse focueses on believers and non-believers, and only uses lightness and darkness as metaphor (oh no, I sound like an eltitist). Of course, another big detriment to Mr. T's lovely logic is the fact that all humans are, acccording to the Bible, descended from one couple... ergo, if one of us can't "come as one," then none of us can.

* Breeds? And I thought race was a stupid term...

Coast to Coast...

Obama is bringing the most. Well, almost coast to coast anyway. According to Pollster (and others), the race in North Dakota is entering toss up status and Montana has moved from Safe to Leans Republican. Needless to say if Obama wins either of these states, McCain will lose. I am honestly shocked that a Donkey could carry an (almost) linked chain of states from coast to coast. Of course, this will stay almost because Idaho ain't likely to change and that 44 mile strip of land will likely stay deep red. Also of note with regard to electoral math is that Obama is starting to hit 400 electoral votes with more and more regularity. 400 is a number not seen by a Dem since '64, with the closest being Clinton's 1996 election with 379.

Krugman wins the Nobel Prize...

Congratulations to Paul Krugman for winning the Nobel Prize in Economics. I try to read all of Krugman's columns, and have to say he has enlightened and enlivened a number of issues for me. Perhaps more than any other, he has consistently reminded us that health care must be fixed.

So congrats Paul, and keep up the good work.

North Dakota...

North Dakota is now being considered by some to be a toss up. This is incrediably bad news for McCain, as Bush topped Kerry in ND by nearly a two to one margin. This election may end up being closer than I think, but I'm thinking Obama may pull over 350 ev's. Given that as a possible target, without a huge sea change, I don't see McCain doing more than making this interesting.

I need to start reviewing the Senate, as it has been estimated that after the election the Dems will hold around 57-59 seats (including the independent and the Joe party with the Dems). I'm wondering if a couple of the lean GOP races might be tiltable. If the Dems end up with a filibuster proof majority, clear control of the House and the Presidency... they better bring the governance. I know, I know, not sexy, but very necessary.

Religulous...

I went to a Sunday matinee at the lovely Sundance 608 to watch Bill Maher's Religulous. Maher pulls few punches when attacking religion via "asking questions," though he doesn't make as many counter assertions as many of the "New Atheists" cohort. Maher's basic conclusion is that the human race must outgrow religion and dogma before it kills us. It is an entertaining movie, though each time I engage this topic I get saddened, because I don't know which is worse... A. People really do question the ridiculous beliefs the hold, but are scared to say them, or B. they really actually believe them.

Perhaps even more frustrating from the film, was the continuous stream of "it's politics" statements by religious figures when discussing issues between religions. I'll be a Crickian here, and defend politics from this lunacy. The major area where these statements came up were with regard to issues in Netherlands between Muslims and other Dutch citizens. Politics is not ever murdering a film maker in the street, or issuing a death sentence against a novelist. Ever. Period.

Trailer (not as good as the movie):

Greenspan's reckoning...

A very interesting article on Greenspan's legacy is in today's NYT. Maybe we should have known better than to trust a hardcore follower of Rand's objectivism, especially one who gets praise from Phil "ya'll a bunch of whiners" Gramm.

“You will go down as the greatest chairman in the history of the Federal Reserve Bank,” declared Senator Phil Gramm, the Texas Republican who was chairman of the Senate Banking Committee when Mr. Greenspan appeared there in February 1999.

I'm admittedly (and proudly) no expert on Rand, but I thought there was something about the selfishness-without-a-self mindset, whereby individuals don't act in a rational way to make themselves better humans, but effectively just rape and pillage... Of course, noone would have ever thought that a bunch of nice guys in suits and ties could act like a hedonistic mob.


Quote of the Day, which is also the leader to the article:

“Not only have individual financial institutions become less vulnerable to shocks from underlying risk factors, but also the financial system as a whole has become more resilient.” — Alan Greenspan in 2004

Them pinko farmers...

Hardwick, Vermont is uniting around food to save the town. It is an interesting read on how collaboration between farmers is growing the local ecoonomy. I'm especially interested in the concept of pooled capital. I think this may catch on... well maybe.

“Across the country a lot of people are doing it individually but it’s rare when you see the kind of collective they are pursuing,” said Mr. Fried, whose firm considers social and environmental issues when investing. “The bottom line is they are providing jobs and making it possible for others to have their own business.”

Uh oh! He just said collective, in reference to farms... this will likely not help the local food movement.

Economic reality...

Leonhardt has a solid column in the Business section of today's NYT regarding the perils of ignoring economic reality. He points out that the impact of the all the bailout (or rescue, if you are JM) plans on the federal budget will likely be in the hundreds of billions over the next few years. This obviously doesn't help the federal budget deficit or debt load. So, what do we do to fix it?

The short answer is that the budget problems the country seemed to have a year ago are now even worse. Next year’s deficit (relative to the economy’s size) will probably be the biggest since 1992, and maybe since 1983. Taxes will have to rise or government spending will have to fall, if not both.

This significant increase in the deficit is importnat, but maybe isn't the area we should be focused on to avert the next big problem. There are a myriad of areas that could be seen as the next big issue for the feds, but it seems to me (and Leonhardt) that it starts with health care.

Despite everything, the biggest fiscal problem remains, far and away, health care. Based on the rate that medical spending has been rising, the Congressional Budget Office forecasts that Medicare and Medicaid will take up 10 percent of G.D.P. within two decades, up from about 4 percent now. In today’s terms, that would be the equivalent of adding at least $900 billion to the deficit every single year, in perpetuity. It makes the cost of the bailouts look like a rounding error.

When it comes to health care, we have a situation that is blatantly unsustainable. With the right choices, we can prevent that. But so far, we instead seem to be hoping that the situation will magically resolve itself, which is a recipe for big problems and perhaps even a crisis.

Let’s see. That doesn’t sound familiar, does it?

Also in today's Business section, is an article on the effect of the credit crunch on states and municipalities, which is an area of personal interest that you just don't normally see much coverage of in the NYT. The ability of less than perfectly rated municipalities, states and school districts to raise short term revenue is a huge deal, as a few failures to make payroll and a lot of stuff stops getting done. Who will bailout the government? Uh... the government?

The media calls it a tie...

At least the first few folks I've heard talk claim this. Not to suprising, considering the media can't declare a winner only two minutes after the debate ends. They need me to stick around for at least another thirty minutes.

"That one" is the issue on CBS right now. I thought it made him look silly, but I think CBS is alluding to the potential of their being some racial overtones. Michael a member of the CBS focus group thought the "that one" was childish. Other members seem to agree, and this may be a much bigger thing than what i thought.

Live blogging the debate...

"Bailout, when I believe it's rescue." McCain just before going off on the "I rode my horse back to Washington and showed them motherf'ers how to maverick up on this here rescue package.

I am also anxious to see if Brokaw keeps scolding the candidates for taking too long on the follow up discussion minute.

This is my first live blogging experiment, so I think I'll just use the comment thread.

But Reagan said...

Krugman's post shows the complete lack of forethought of the Republican campaign in just throwing out Reagan quotes left and right (or mostly right, I guess). I really wonder if the GOP thinks a Reagan quote, any Reagan quote, is golden. Reagan undoubtedly had a big influence on America, and our government, but I'm wondering if the right isn't clutching to the last big thing because they can't seem to grasp the current situation and don't have a new big thing. I may be proven wrong, but I believe we are going through an inflection point election cycle, whereby core groups of citizens either change allegiance or establish one for the first time. Of course, voters in today's America are much more fickle than in the past, so even if it appears a sea change is coming, the left could still completely screw the pooch and give it away in 4-8 years.

October baseball...

and for the second year in a row, the Redbirds are at home watching from the couch. Given the performances of the two reps from the NL Central, I do believe that the Astros and the Cardinals would have represented better. Hell, even the Reds might have avoided a sweep at the hands of the Dodgers (ok, probably not). Speaking of the Dodgers, man do they look good. I am still not convinced they have the ace pitcher that helps an October run immensely, but of course another team that won fewer than 85 games recently marched through October without an ace (ah... 2006). I would have to give the Dodgers the odds on favorite in the match up versus the Phils, so maybe we will see another NL champ take the Series after struggling mightily just to break 500 for most of the year. This is, in some ways, an indictment of the expanded baseball playoffs, because in all honesty should a team that wins 84 games make it to the postseason? But, alas, they do. And when they do, they are just like any other MLB team, which means they can beat anybody else in the league on any given night.

On the Junior circuit side of things, the ALCS will probably pit the Rays against the Red Sox. I sincerely hope the Rays can pull it off, though so help me if they don't sell out a Series game in Tampa, MLB should automatically relocate the franchise... maybe to Montreal. If Beckett is healthy, however, the Red Sox quickly become a team that is hard to bet against. The Rays are very talented, but the lack of experience on the team is really quite astounding, and one has to wonder if that will be overcome.

Buffett braves the crisis...

An interesting article in today's NYT compares Warren Buffet's current actions with those taken by JP Morgan in the early 20th century. I wasn't around for JP's insights and work, but I have to admit there are few people who seem to get business better than Buffett. I've read a couple of bios on the Sage of Omaha (a new one just released is the first authorized one, so I'll have to pick that up), and it seems clear to me that the guy just gets it. You can hate on him all you want for being extremely rich and appreciating the profit motive, but it is important to recognize he isn't what you might envision when you think of the personality of the world's richest man. An example of his mindset and values can be gleaned in the final few paragraphs of the article:

As far back as 2003, Mr. Buffett had warned that the complex securities at the center of today’s troubles — once so profitable, but now toxic — were “financial weapons of mass destruction.” These securities were engineered by the math quants on Wall Street, and in the interview Mr. Buffett expressed his disdain: “Beware of geeks bearing formulas.”

To help pay for the rescue, the government should raise taxes on the wealthy, Mr. Buffett suggested. “I’m paying the lowest tax rate that I’ve ever paid in my life,” he said. “Now, that’s crazy.”

A rich guy who recognizes he isn't paying his far share and that he could pay more without the world ending? Can't be. I've been convinced that if you raise taxes on the wealthy then they will stop investing in anything, sit on their asses, and we will all suffer. Or, maybe Warren is right and the right wing pundits are wrong?

A blue economy...

The Dow Jones is off a few hundred points this morning, dropping it below 10K for the first time in almost four years. I vividly remember when the Dow crossed 10K for the first time in 1999, as I was required to track the market in high school History/Econ classes. (Ah those high school history classes, a wonderful memory. Especially when I recall a particularly astute conservative young man always pushing back against my evil liberal ideals.) It is hard to believe that in March that will have been ten years ago, and we seem to be spinning in place, at best. It is also difficult to understand how the market could have been at an all-time high of 14.1K just one year ago. Now we are down 30% from that peak, and it is entirely possible more losses are ahead.

A blue Indiana...

A blue Indiana is something I honestly didn't believe was possible without Bayh on the ticket. According to a lot of recent polling and trend data, however,Indiana is in play. Most camps/sites/experts till place Indiana in the Leans Republican column, which makes sense given the systematic and institutional nature of supporting the GOP presidential candidate in the state. However, the news on the ground is telling more and more stories like this one about Lafayette from the 538ers.

It seems to me that the McCain camp took for granted that Indiana was died in the wool red and in doing so never created the campaign structure that is needed towards the end of a race to close the deal with fence voters. Obama has an impressive campaign organization on the ground, and given the 29 days remaining may just be able to make Indiana interesting. It is an impressive feat in and of itself to even be talking about putting the Hoosier state in play, given it broke 1.5M to 950K in '04. To win, Obama will need to increase the Kerry splits in Lake, Marion and Monroe counties, as well as significantly eat into the huge Bush numbers in the seven donut counties around Indy. Those seven counties broke at above 63% in 2004. If Obama can carry Lake at close to 70%, Monroe and Marion at 65% and bring the donuts down to 53-55% he just might have a shot. Under any circumstance, I'm definatley excited about this race, and if nothing else I can watch to see if Daviess County can overtake Kosciusko for the most Republican in the state*.


I actually have trouble believing there are actually 2,500 people who voted for Kerry in Daviess County.

Wisconsin suicide rates...

are probably on the rise amongst sports fans. The Brewers spent the better part of two months worrying the shit out of their fans before finally squeaking into the playoffs. This was, of course, a momentary interruption of the Brewers fan's heart issues, as the wheels came off in rather short fashion. At least they outlasted the Cubbies, which I'm pleased to say are now 0 for their last 100...

The football news in Wisco the past two weeks have been even worse. The Badgers blowing a game in Ann Arbor in exceptional fashion last week was bad, blowing the win against the Buckeyes at home this weekend may be even worse. The Packers... well, it's hard to blame A-Rodg exclusively, but many are saying "If only we had Brett," and I have to admit this is starting to resonate with me.