By Patrick Appel Ezra on where the campaign stands:
...campaigns aren't particularly responsive to campaigning. They're about partisan loyalties and demographics (how soon we forget the primaries, where Obama's vote totals were best predicted by the state's racial composition), by the economy and sense of the foreign scene. I still think Obama has a pretty significant edge, but it's largely because I think those forces will eventually weigh in heavily on his side, not because he's so much better a campaigner.
by Chris Bodenner Many African-Americans in the GOP are torn over Obama. Armstrong Williams:
"I don't necessarily like his policies; I don't like much that he advocates,
but for the first time in my life, history thrusts me to really seriously think
about [voting Democrat]."
By Patrick Appel PZ Myers gets his hands on a communion wafer and desecrates it:
OK, time for the anticlimax. I know some of you have proposed intricate plans for how to do horrible things to these crackers, but I repeat…it's just a cracker. I wasn't going to make any major investment of time, money, or effort in treating these dabs of unpleasantness as they deserve, because all they deserve is casual disposal. However, inspired by an old woodcut of Jews stabbing the host, I thought of a simple, quick thing to do: I pierced it with a rusty nail (I hope Jesus's tetanus shots are up to date). And then I simply threw it in the trash, followed by the classic, decorative items of trash cans everywhere, old coffeegrounds and a banana peel. My apologies to those who hoped for more, but the worst I can do is show my unconcerned contempt.
Andrew called Myers a bigot for threatening to desecrate the eucharist, which sparked a discussion a few weeks ago. I guess Myers didn't get enough hate mail the first time around.
by Chris Bodenner An Obamacon has a beef with Obama:
I am a Republican and conservative who finds much about Barack Obama to admire. I am also a Republican and conservative who spent my
formative years growing up in abject poverty and being homeless a
number of times. During that time, I often lived in majority black
neighborhoods and was many times the only white child in class. ... To this day, I feel more comfortable with that community than
anywhere else.
It is for that reason and more that I was so disappointed with Obama's
recent comments regarding Republicans and race.
By Patrick Appel Gabriel Sherman reports on journalists covering the Obama campaign:
Last year, when Hillary Clinton campaigned as a front-runner, Obama provided access to the press corps and won over the media...But, as Obama ascended from underdog to front-runner to presumptive nominee, the flame seems to have dwindled. Reporters who cover Obama these days grouse that Obama's flacks shroud the campaign in secrecy and provide little to no access. "They're more disciplined than the Bush people," a reporter on the Obama trail gripes. "There was this idea of being transparent, but they're not. They're total tightwads with information."
"A cry for help goes out from a city beleaguered by violence and fear: A beam of light flashed into the night sky, the dark symbol of a bat projected onto the surface of the racing clouds . . .
Oh, wait a minute. That's not a bat, actually. In fact, when you trace the outline with your finger, it looks kind of like . . . a "W."
There seems to me no question that the Batman film "The Dark Knight," currently breaking every box office record in history, is at some level a paean of praise to the fortitude and moral courage that has been shown by George W. Bush in this time of terror and war."
Definitely. Because of all the parts of Dark Knight where the filmmakers had real scope for artistic choices, what the Bat Sign looks like is obviously at the top of the list.
But it gets worse: Andrew Klavan, who wrote this, moves from surreal stupidity to moral philosophy.
Yesterday the House Armed Services Committee held hearings on Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Apparently, there were fireworks, and perhaps in a different mood I might enjoy poking fun at them. But I was struck by two things about the hearing. The first was Rep. Patrick Murphy's questioning of a witness opposed to letting gay men and lesbians serve in the military, whether openly or not:
Murphy makes what I've always thought is an important point about arguments against letting gay men and lesbians serve: that those arguments are an insult to the men and women in our armed forces. He says:
"Ms. Donnelly, you testified that gays and lesbians cannot serve openly in the military because, and I quote, it would be detrimental to unit cohesion, end quote. In essence, you're arguing that straight men and women in our military aren't professional enough to serve openly with gay troops while successfully completing their military mission. As a former Army officer, I can tell you I think that's an insult to me and to many of the soldiers."
I imagine that it often happens that soldiers who are part of the same unit do not like one another. Sometimes, a soldier might even despise another member of his or her unit, or think that other soldier immoral or contemptible. And yet, when these feelings do not have to do with sexual orientation, we routinely expect soldiers to put their personal feelings aside and do their jobs. And when they don't, we assume that they, not the people they endanger, should be disciplined.
If, for instance, a soldier is racist, and cannot find a way to work with African-American soldiers, we do not discipline or expel the African-Americans. If a soldier dislikes another and cannot put her feelings aside and do her job, we do not punish the soldier she dislikes; we punish her. In all other cases, we assume that given a choice between two soldiers, one of whom is trying to complete his mission to the best of his ability, and one of whom is unable or unwilling to put his animosity aside and do his job, we choose the first. We expect this of our men and women in uniform, and we also expect that they will be given the training and the leadership they need to act like professionals.
I have never understood why it's different when gay men and lesbians enter the picture.
The second is a passage from the testimony (pdf) of Captain (ret.) Joan Darrah. Captain Darrah served in naval intelligence for almost thirty years. She writes:
"In September of 2001, the true impact of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” on me personally came into sharp focus. On Tuesday, September 11, I was at the Pentagon attending the weekly 8:30 intelligence briefing. During the briefing, we watched on CNN as the planes hit the Twin Towers. Finally at 9:30 my meeting was adjourned. When American Flight 77 slammed into the Pentagon, I was at the Pentagon bus stop. As it turned out, the space I had been in seven minutes earlier was completely destroyed. Seven of my co-workers were killed. The reality is that if I had been killed, my partner then of 11 years, would have been the last to know as I had not dared to list her in my emergency contact information."
I cannot imagine what it must be like to serve in the military, of all things, and not dare to list the woman you love on your emergency contact information. Not to know that if something happens to you, she will be told. To depend on others to decide whether or not to inform the woman you have been with for eleven years, others who might or might not accept who you are, and who she is to you.
Asking someone to choose between serving their country and acknowledging who they are is obviously cruel. But the smaller and more intimate effects of our policy, like this one, are what truly brings its inhumanity home to me.
By Patrick Appel The bill passed the house intact by a vote of a 303 to 115. It now heads to the president's desk. Andrew's reaction to the Senate passing the bill is here.
NYT: “I come to Berlin as so many of my countrymen have come before,” Mr. Obama said, “not as a candidate for president but as a citizen — a proud citizen of the United States and a fellow citizen of the world.”
So Obama prefaced the remark with "proud citizen of the United States" but that gets dropping in the GOP talking point. Note that "citizen of the world" isn't some new age Obama-thing. It dates back to Thomas Paine and originates with Diogenes.
A woman waits at a bus stop next to taco stand restaurant July 24, 2008 in the South Los Angeles area of Los Angeles, California. The Los Angeles City Council committee has unanimously approved year-long moratorium on new fast-food restaurants in a 32-square-mile area, mostly in South Los Angeles, pending approval by the full council and the signature of Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa to make it the law. South LA has the highest concentration of fast-food restaurants of the city, about 400, and only a few grocery stores. L.A. Councilwoman Jan Perry proposed the measure to try to reduce health problems associated with a diet high in fast-food, like obesity and diabetes, which plague many of the half-million people living there. Photo by David McNew/Getty.
I’ve noticed that McCain, and the right in general, are latching on to Obama’s statement that he was speaking as a “proud citizen of the United States and a fellow citizen of the world.” I see an attempt at cultural warfare in the making, and it should be squelched fast. The argument from the right appears to be that only some squishy leftist would call himself a “citizen of the world,” or that using the term suggests less than a full attachment to one’s own country (even if accompanied by a statement like Obama’s that he’s a “proud citizen of the United States”). A reader over at Politico has already noted that John F. Kennedy used the same phrase in his famous inaugural address in referring to his global audience. I also did a one minute Google search – and I’m sure I could find more if I did a 15-minute Google search – and discovered that President George H.W. Bush used the exact phrase “citizen of the world” in presenting the national medal of the arts to Vladimir Horowitz, the legendary Russian-born pianist who became a US citizen in 1940. Was he insulting Horowitz as a lefty? I don’t think so. Also, Ronald Reagan introduced himself in a speech to the General Assembly of the United Nations as “both a citizen of the United States and of the world.” Do McCain and the right really want to start this meme?
It's not a great bill. The conservatives are right that there's a lot of pork in it. And it doesn't fix Fannie and Freddie in the long term, even if it provides more regulation. But the bill should help ease stress in the housing markets and, more importantly, if it hadn't passed the guy on the ledge might have jumped. The consequences of not coming up with some kind of housing bill would have been far worse. Yes, the housing bill leaves the taxpayers on the hook for a Fannie and Freddie bailout, but that was true before the mess anyway.
By Patrick Appel John Habgood studies the history of creationism:
Outside the ranks of the most extreme biblical literalists, the concept of Intelligent Design has now become the main battleground between Creationists and orthodox scientists. It feeds on a residual suspicion of evolutionary theory by employing the notion of “irreducible complexity” in some of the more awkward evolutionary transitions, not least in the origin of life itself. Objections to it have come both from scientists and theologians. To introduce a supernatural agency at certain points in what is being studied as a scientifically explicable process, is in effect to abandon science. It also presupposes a God whose creative activity is so inefficient that it requires constant readjustment. If science and theology are to live together in this contentious area, both need to be treated as comprehensive. If God is the ground and basis of all existence, this is the best possible reason for believing that even the most unlikely events can have a rational explanation.
By Patrick Appel The McCain statement on Obama's speech:
While Barack Obama took a premature victory lap today in the heart of Berlin, proclaiming himself a 'citizen of the world,' John McCain continued to make his case to the American citizens who will decide this election. Barack Obama offered eloquent praise for this country, but the contrast is clear. John McCain has dedicated his life to serving, improving and protecting America. Barack Obama spent an afternoon talking about it.
By Patrick Appel Some reaction from around the web. Gerhard Spörl, writing for Der Spiegel, gushes:
George W. Bush is yesterday, the Texas version of the
arrogant world power. Obama is all about today: the "everybody really
just wants to be brothers and save the world" utopia. As for us, we who
sometimes admire and sometimes curse this somewhat anemic, pragmatic
democracy, we will have to quickly get used to Barack Obama, the new
leader of a lofty democracy that loves those big nice words -- words
that warm our hearts and alarm our minds.
Poulos says the "citizen of the world" comment was a mistake:
In addition to being meaningless — the world is not a polity, so citizenship in it is impossible — this is exactly the sort of redundantly empty rhetoric that does nothing to energize his base, nothing to allay the concerns of Middle America about his meta-attitude, and supplies the frantic and the furious on the right with a fresh tranch of attacks. Why did he do it? Bad advice? His own advice? Why couldn’t he just say “a big fan of the world,” or “a product of the world,” something that at least had the merit of being accurate? Anyone?
By Patrick Appel Mark Perry looks at products (mostly electronics) that are cheaper today than they were ten years ago. Glancing at the list, I'd guess most of these products are cheaper due to globalization.
By Patrick Appel James Joyner expands on Josef Joffe's article about Europeans and Obama:
A President Obama would almost surely remain more popular in Europe than President Bush. Then again, that’s a low bar. Given the degree over overseas action the next American president will doubtless be involved with — and the tension this will likely engender — it’s unlikely, though, that he’d be as popular there as Bill Clinton.
The idea of the war on terror as an ideological and existential struggle, a la the Cold War, is a common theme among conservatives (particularly neoconservatives). But somehow it seemed like a perfectly natural Obama-esque theme today, with his emphasis on our shared interest in winning. Suddenly the war on terror was the Berlin airlift and the Marshall Plan, not Star Wars and the Minuteman Missile.
My only concern was the atmospherics. Every pundit I've heard opine on this has held up the imagery as the most valuable take-away for Obama today. I'm not so sure. In addition to looking a little too much like a mega-campaign rally for some voters' taste...I worry that the combination of the visual and some of the rhetoric--"Tonight, I speak to you not as a candidate for President, but as a citizen--a proud citizen of the United States, and a fellow citizen of the world"--was a little too post-nationalist for the typical American swing-voter. I'm not sure you win the presidency without being seen as an unambiguous nationalist.
By Patrick Appel Ezra compares Dean in '04 with McCain in '08:
Among the Dean campaign's problems was that, as it inched ever closer to the nomination, it had to grow up. The maturity and savvy of their strategy had to equal their size. It didn't. And we're seeing the same problems in the McCain campaign. In 2000, McCain got pretty far by being a whole lot of fun. In 2008, he won by being human where Romney was robotic, and capable where Huckabee was entertaining. But while that may get you some good press coverage, and let you slip through a weak field, it's not enough to carry you through a general election. Stunts like this are cute, but they reflect the McCain campaign's broader problem: They just don't know what to do with their campaign. They don't know what message to offer, or advantage to play up, or attack to levy. They don't know how to counter the Obama campaign's capacity to control the new cycle and set their own narrative. Every day thus ends up being a new adventure, with a new message and a new take. That makes it a lot of fun, but it's not going to be enough.
If McCain can't do nuance, if he can't mature and modify his positions as the situation demands, then he is more captive to his ideological
fixtures than I would have hoped. One can criticize Obama for being calculating, for changing his stance on issues for political gain, but most all of Obama's maneuvers over the last seven months have been politically deft. He has done his best to appeal to the largest swath of voters possible and, in doing so, has made me think that he would watch presidential popularity polls very closely and respond accordingly. Pandering to the electorate isn't as dangerous as dismissing it. Mr. 28 percent has taught us that much. On this front, McCain seems more of ideologue than Obama. McCain's campaign has shown a stubbornness in to responding to changing circumstances: for instance, not modifying his position on Iraq when Maliki explicitly endorsed a timetable for withdrawl, a strategy that is overwhelmingly supported by the American people.
By Patrick Appel Chris Hayes profiles MoveOn. A sample graf:
In many ways MoveOn’s relationship to its members looks a lot like a business’s relationship to its customers. If a product isn’t selling, they take it off the shelves. For activists rooted in an earlier generation of social movements, which tended to prize long, disputatious meetings and the unwieldy process of forming bottom-up consensus, this approach is at best alien, at worst insidious. Customers, after all, aren’t part of the creation of the product: they’re not running the meetings where new packaging is designed; their input is limited to the final result and expressed through the transaction of purchase. And the role of customer imposes no obligations. You are free to buy or not buy, or in MoveOn’s case, sign the petition or not sign the petition. Oscar Wilde once complained that the trouble with socialism was that it took “too many evenings.” MoveOn holds out the promise of progressive change without the evenings.
I imagine the MoveOn-as-Netflix model will eventually prove potent on the right, most likely in the form of single-issue pressure groups, includ[ing] new-model taxpayer groups. I wonder who will step up to do the heavy lifting.
Manzi notes another lesson conservatives should learn from MoveOn: interactivity.
by Chris Bodenner Dana Milbank sketches the scene at the DADT hearing yesterday, zeroing in on activist Elaine Donnelly:
Donnelly treated the panel to an extraordinary exhibition of rage. She
warned of "transgenders in the military." She warned that lesbians
would take pictures of people in the shower. She spoke ominously of
gays spreading "HIV positivity" through the ranks. ... [S]he attacked the "San Francisco left who want to impose their
agenda on the military." She spoke of the "devastating" effect gay
soldiers would have on the military and said "people who do have
religious convictions" would be driven out of the military by the
"sexualized atmosphere." ... [She] made a comparison to Sen. Larry Craig's adventure at the Minneapolis airport. She said admitting gays to the military would be "forced cohabitation" and a policy of "relax and enjoy it."
By Patrick Appel Josef Joffe argues that Europeans will fall out of love with Obama:
In Berlin, hundreds of thousands will cheer a projection rather than a flesh-and-blood Obama on Thursday. After Inauguration Day, alas, Europe and the world will not face a Dreamworks president, but the leader of a superpower. Whether McCain or Obama, the 44th president will speak more nicely than did W. in his first term. He will also pay more attention to the "decent opinions of mankind." But he will still preside over the world's largest military, economic, and cultural power. This vast power differential is what Germans and Europeans don't quite fathom in their infatuation with Obama. Their problem was not Mr. Bush, but Mr. Big--America as Behemoth Among the Nations, unwilling to succumb to the dictates of goodness that animate post-heroic, post-imperial, and post-sovereign Europe.
By Patrick Appel Chris Hayes talks to his "super secret source inside a major air carrier" about why flying "sucks so hard." One of the source's comments:
So what’s going to happen? Fewer flights, higher fares, emptier planes (yeah, fares are going to drive down demand, not consolidate fullish flights onto each other), fewer air traffic delays. In short, the fuel price will accomplish just about everything that re-regulation could hope to do. It’s exactly the same reasoning as why anyone concerned about climate change needs to see $5/gallon gas in the US and cheer, because it’s the only way to change consumer behavior. (Yes, it sucks that the working poor and working class folks who are car-dependent for employment are disproportionately hit by this. My dad is one of them—and now for the first time he’s cursing his big stupid 1997 Jeep Cherokee, which he does not need to negotiate the wilds of Nassau County. I digress.)
By Patrick Appel Obama's trip hasn't given him a bump in the polls, not yet anyway. Joe Klein has a theory why:
People may be thinking, what on earth is Obama doing over
there when we have so many problems back home? Why isn't he talking
about the economy? No doubt, the Obama staff figured they needed this
week abroad to establish the image of Obama as a potential
Commander-in-Chief...and, no doubt, he will turn to the economy--a
Democratic strength, according to the polls--when he gets home. But I
wouldn't be surprised if Obama is paying a price for vamping about
overseas while banks are cratering, gas prices soar and people are
getting really, really nervous about their futures.
By Patrick Appel John Schwenkler responds to jibes at his article on conservative eating:
What we eat, and where it comes from, and how we choose to eat it, are things that matter: for we are not merely bodily beings who can feed ourselves like so many horses at a trough, but spiritual ones as well. And so the cultivation of the proper sorts of relationships to our food, to its sources in the earth, and to the people who grow it and sell it and those with whom we eat it, is obviously the sort of project that conservatives ought to go in for. That so many professed conservatives refuse to recognize this possibility, and choose instead to react with this sort of bitterness to what boils down to a call for a return to family values and political and economic decentralism, seems to me to say all that needs to be said about the sorry state of the modern American Right. If P.J. Gladnick gets to define who counts as a closet liberal, then I guess I just might be one after all. I’m happy to report, though, that that isn’t his call to make.
By Patrick Appel The original title for the proposition was: “Limit on Marriage. Constitutional Amendment.” It has been changed(pdf):
Eliminates Right Of Same-Sex Couples To Marry Initiative Constitutional Amendment
Changes California Constitution to eliminate right of same-sex couples to marry. Provides that only a marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.
Jim Burroway writes: "Now when Californians go to the polls, they have to think about how their vote may actually take away something that already exists."
By Patrick Appel Saletan comments on new aerial drones, which are controlled by a system that looks and feels like a video game but kills in reality:
If you've seen combat in the flesh, you know what the fireball on the screen means to the people in the car. But to a teenager raised on Doom and Halo, it looks like just another score. He can't feel or smell the explosion. He isn't even there. The eeriest thing in the demo video is the total silence that accompanies the car's destruction. The only sound that follows is the pilot's triumphant verdict: "Excellent job." It's like something you'd read on the screen after getting a high score at an arcade.
By Patrick Appel Fred Kaplan questions McCain's foreign policy readiness:
Quite apart from the gaffes, in formal prepared speeches, McCain has proposed certain actions and policies that raise serious questions about his suitability for the highest office. As president, he has said, he would boot Russia out of the G-8 on the grounds that its leaders don't share the West's values. He would form an international "League of Democracy" as a united front against the forces of autocracy and terror. And though it's not exactly a stated policy, he continues to employ as his foreign-policy adviser an outspoken, second-tier neoconservative named Randy Scheunemann, who coined the term "rogue-state rollback" and still prescribes it as sound policy.
By Patrick Appel PEW reports on the state of the newspaper industry. Nothing too surprising:
It has fewer pages than three years ago, the paper stock is thinner, and the stories are shorter. There is less foreign and national news, less space devoted to science, the arts, features and a range of specialized subjects. Business coverage is either packaged in an increasingly thin stand-alone section or collapsed into another part of the paper. The crossword puzzle has shrunk, the TV listings and stock tables may have disappeared, but coverage of some local issues has strengthened and investigative reporting remains highly valued.
Drum is alarmed. I have a hard time getting riled up myself. Though I hate to see journalists laid off, this nugget in the report is worth noting: "Despite an image of decline, more people today in more places read the content produced in the newsrooms of American daily newspapers than at any time in years." News consumption isn't in danger. There might be less news on foreign affairs but, through the internet, I now have access to the foreign press itself. For science, I read any number of magazines and expert bloggers. Ditto for the arts. As long as there is demand for news, their will be a news industry and newspapers will exist in some form. If you want an in-depth look at the newspaper business, I recommend Mark Bowden's article on Murdoch and the WSJ.
By Patrick Appel James Pethokoukis cites a study by Macroeconomic Advisers:
The Macroeconomic Advisers, LLC (MA) Presidential election model predicts that Democratic presidential candidate Senator Barack Obama will win 54.8 percent of the two-party popular vote and Republican presidential candidate Senator John McCain will receive 45.2 percent in the November election, given economic conditions expected through the fall.... The Presidential election model relies upon four political factors—candidate of the incumbent party, approval rating of the incumbent candidate (if running), party, and incumbent party's term in office—and three economic factors—real income growth, the unemployment rate, and the change in energy prices. Together, these seven factors predict the share of the two-party popular vote garnered by the incumbent party. This model has correctly predicted the winning party 12 out of 14 times in our sample, and predicted the popular vote better than the original model developed by Ray Fair.... According to this model, an expected 47% increase in the price of oil (WTI) in the three quarters leading up to the election would reduce Senator McCain's vote tally by 2.9 percentage points, while weak real disposable personal income growth over the same period would reduce it by 3.3 percentage points.
By Patrick Appel Wiegel chuckles at anti-Obama conspiracy theorists who dug up third party evidence of Obama's birth and thereby disproved their own theories. Even Ed Morrissey has had enough:
Unless someone wants to argue that the Advertiser [which ran a birth announcement] decided to participate in a conspiracy at Obama’s birth in 1961 to provide false citizenship on the off-chance that an infant from a union of a Kenyan father and a teenage mother would run for President, then I’d say the “mystery” is over.
by Chris Bodenner Yesterday, for the first time in 15 years, Congress held a hearing on "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." Timerevisits the debate:
Recently, conservatives have made the argument that if Americans
like Stephen were allowed to serve openly, young heterosexuals from
conservative families would stop enlisting. ... But the Zogby poll has an answer to this: only 2% of respondents
said they would not have joined the military if gays were allowed to
serve openly. That translates to a loss of about 4,000 service members
per year — the same number of gays and lesbians who decline to
re-enlist because of "Don't ask, don't tell" or who are discharged
under the policy. That calculation means keeping or repealing "Don't
ask, don't tell" would be a wash in terms of numbers. It forces a
question we have postponed for 15 years: Do we want a military where
Americans are not forced to lie about their most important emotional
bonds?
John McCain tried to explain his claim that the surge, which was announced in January 2007, began the Anbar Awakening, which began in the summer of 2006. Here's video:
Here's my transcription of the relevant part (it begins at about 2:40):
"McCain: First of all, a surge is really a counterinsurgency strategy, and it's made up of a number of components. And this counterinsurgency was initiated to some degree by Colonel McFarland in Anbar province relatively on his own. When I visited with him in December of 2006, he had already initiated that strategy in Ramadi by going in and clearing and holding in certain places. That is a counterinsurgency. And he told me at that time that he believed that that strategy, which is, quote, the surge, part of the surge, would be successful. So then, of course, it was very clear that we needed additional troops in order to carry out this counterinsurgency.
Prior to that, they had been going into places, killing people or not killing people, and then withdrawing. And the new counterinsurgency -- surge -- entailed clearing and holding, which Colonel McFarland had already started doing. And then of course later on there were additional troops, and General Petraeus has said that the surge would not have worked and the Anbar Awakening would not have taken place successfully if they hadn't had an increase in the number of troops. So I'm not sure, frankly, that people really understand that a surge is part of a counterinsurgency strategy, which means going in, clearing, holding, building a better life, providing services to the people, and then clearly a part of that, an important part of it, was additional troops to help ensure the safety of the sheikhs, to regain control of Ramadi, which was a very bloody fight, and then the surge continued to succeed, and that counterinsurgency.
Q: So when you say 'surge', then you're not referring just to the one that President Bush initiated; you're saying it goes back several months before that?
Yes, and again, because of my visits to Iraq, I was briefed by Colonel McFarland in December of 2006 where he outlined what was succeeding there in this counterinsurgency strategy which we all know of now as the surge."
So, if I understand this: the surge is part of a counterinsurgency strategy. This strategy has a number of components. Since the surge is part of the counterinsurgency strategy, you'd think it might be one of these components, but no: while the additional troops were a mere part of the strategy, the surge is the counterinsurgency strategy, in its entirety. This "counterinsurgency strategy which we all know of now as the surge" obviously did not begin when the additional troops arrived; it had been going on for months before President Bush announced it.
McCain is arguing as follows: find some X, of which what we normally think of as the surge is a part. Define all of X as "the surge". Argue that since X is responsible for some development Y, a development which preceded what we normally think of as the surge, "the surge", understood to mean X, is responsible for Y. This is a delightful argument, and it yields all kinds of fun results. For instance:
The surge is part of American history, and American history has a number of components. And this American history was initiated in some sense by Captain John Smith, and when I visited with him in 1607, he had already initiated that history at Jamestown, by going in and clearing and holding in certain places. That is American history. And he told me at that time that he believed that that history, which is, quote, the surge, part of the surge, would be successful. [Ed. note: Did you catch that crucial move?] So then, of course, it was very clear that we needed additional troops in order to continue our history. And so I'm not sure, frankly, that people really understand that a surge is part of American history [Ed. note: there it is again!], which means the settlement at Jamestown, declaring independence, winning the Civil War, emancipating the slaves, the New Deal, deciding to invade Iraq, and then clearly a part of that, an important part of it, was additional troops to help ensure the safety of the sheikhs, to regain control of Ramadi, which was a very bloody fight, and then the surge continued to succeed, and that American history.
Q: So when you say 'surge', then you're not referring just to the one that President Bush initiated; you're saying it goes back several centuries before that?
Yes, and again, because of my visits to Virginia, I was briefed by Captain John Smith shortly after he established the settlement at Jamestown where he outlined what was happening there in American history which we all know of now as the surge.
I could go on and show that the surge is responsible for the invention of the calculus, the birth of Christ, the extinction of the dodo, and the hula hoop craze. After all, you can prove virtually anything once you adopt the Humpty Dumpty principle:
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in a rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master -- that's all."
Last month, the Center for Tax Policy put out a report (pdf) on McCain and Obama's tax proposals. At the time, I noted that some of the assumptions they made about McCain's policies, which they got from the McCain campaign, did not match what McCain was himself was saying in campaign appearances. Now they've come out with a revised version, in which they refine their original calculations, but also note discrepancies between what both candidates' campaigns say and what the candidates themselves say, and try to cost out both.
The short version: over ten years, the proposals McCain actually makes on the stump would cost $2.7 trillion more than the policies his campaign describes, for a total cost of nearly $7 trillion over ten years. Over the same ten years, the proposals Obama makes on the stump would cost $367 billion less than the policies his campaign describes, for a total cost of a little under $2.5 trillion. (The main difference between what Obama says on the stump and what his campaign describes is his proposal to levy Social Security taxes on income over $250,000/year.)
Here's a chart showing the effects of both candidates' tax proposals (the ones they describe on the stump) on people in various income brackets, from p. 46 of the report. Note that while this graph shows taxes going up for people in the top quintile under Obama's plan, a more detailed breakdown (p. 45) shows that taxes only go up for the top 5% (incomes over $226,918/year.) People in the 95th-99th percentiles ($226,918-$603,402/year) would pay $799 more a year, on average.
Just something to keep in mind the next time you hear John McCain say: "Senator Obama wants to raise taxes; I want to keep them low. Somebody who wants higher taxes, I'm not your candidate. Senator Obama is."
A longer excerpt from the report at Obsidian Wings, since I can't figure out how to put things below the fold on this site. (An html goddess I am not. Sigh.)
By Patrick Appel A description of photographer Lia Halloran's work:
Light is used to form the drawing line while Halloran skateboards at night through different venues. The resulting images are each a trajectory of the artist’s movements over time. The photographs pair urban environments with lines of light which behave as physical objects or break apart into flurries of abstraction.
Halloran's use of the long-exposure reminds me of Hiroshi Sugimoto's photographs of movie screens, where the exposure was the length of the movie. Another image of Halloran's after the jump:
by Chris Bodenner "[H]e
does really attempt to understand the points of view of other people
who look at the world or a particular issue differently than he does. He's much more intellectual, much more thoughtful, much
more interested in discussion, debate, and dialogue than the typical
politician. And that gives me some confidence about him, even though
from my perspective he's much too liberal. I've never voted for a
Democrat in my entire life. He's the first one I might vote for," - Daniel Fischel, Univ. of Chicago law professor and former colleague of Barack Obama.
Spanish pilot Alfonso Lubian inflates his hot air balloon as he prepares to lift off by Compostela beach in Vilagarcia de Arousa, northwestern Spain on July 22, 2008. Image by Miguel Riopa/Getty.
By Patrick Appel Ross questions the wisdom of Obama's Berlin speech:
...photo ops are one thing, Beatlemania-style rallies are quite another - and having your candidate appear in front of tens of thousands of adoring European fans when your campaign's biggest problem, as John Judis puts it today, is that "Obama remains the 'mysterious stranger' rather than the 'American Adam' to too many voters who are put off rather than attracted by his race and exotic background" strikes me as the height of political folly. The Berlin rally probably won't hurt Obama - voters aren't really paying attention to anything election-related right about now, and it'll be forgotten by the time the fall campaign begins in earnest. But it could do some minor damage, and it certainly won't help him.
July 20, 2008 - July 26, 2008
Site Meter 
