TW: I am sufficiently cro-magnon still to actually pay a couple of bills with checks sent through the mail and we certainly enjoy Netflix. Otherwise, however, our usage like everyone else's of the USPS is plummeting. For better or worse the USPS has been a source of decent employment for thousands and a reliable service provider (well not all the time but frequently). Those days are done like newspapers and horse buggy makers their business model is shattered. So what do you prefer- service cuts (5 days of delivery instead of 6)?, higher postage rates? Expand their services into banking like their foreign counterparts? The challenge is whichever they select will only contribute to the death spiral.
And for any free markets purists, do recall there are serious network effects at play. Without the loss-making coverage of rural areas etc. the entire system gets haywire, regulation will always be a factor.
From Economist:
"...This recession has been particularly cruel to the postal service, already battered by the popularity of e-mail. Last year saw the biggest decline in mail since the Depression: volume fell by 4.5%, or about 9 billion pieces. The postal service ended the 2008 fiscal year with a $2.8 billion loss, and the next two years may well be worse. “No one knows at what point mail volume will bottom out,” said the postmaster-general, John Potter, in his testimony before the Senate in January. He thinks the service could lose as much as $6 billion in 2010.
Congress has encouraged the postal service, which is an independent agency under the control of the executive branch, not to rely on government money and to function more like a company. It has not given the agency a handout since the early 1980s. So Mr Potter has been trying to cut costs. The country’s third-largest employer, the postal service is reconfiguring delivery routes, reducing work hours and cutting staff through attrition. It is raising rates to try to bring in more revenue, and also planning a summer sale to entice businesses to send mail in bulk at discounted rates. Some of its biggest customers, the housing and financial industries, have sharply reduced their direct-mail budgets because of the recession. The postal service wants to lure them back.
In spite of these cost-cutting measures, Mr Potter knows that, without help, the service could run out of cash by the end of the year. He has asked Congress to consider changing the law and allowing the postal service to cut deliveries from six days a week to five. A Gallup poll shows that most Americans would rather see a cut in services than an increase in stamp prices or a government bail-out. But not everyone agrees. Businesses, which send advertisements in bulk, will be fierce opponents of any reduction in delivery days. And fewer deliveries may give the impression that the mail is slower and less reliable than it was before the recession.
...Whatever action Congress takes to help the postal service weather the recession, a larger question looms. Will new technologies kill the mail? Letter-writers and advertisers are increasingly going online, and customers are paying their bills over the internet. Postal services in other countries are experimenting with offering electronic mail services to customers; some have expanded into banking too. But the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act of 2006 actually forbids America’s postal service to do anything but handle the mail—in snow, rain, heat and gloom, and in the teeth of possibly mortal competition. "
Monday, May 4, 2009
Things I Like - Humor
This is Alfie
He has a mustache and he’d like to keep it, thank you very much. According to the article in the Telegraph (those UK papers have very strange priorities when it comes to reporting), Alfie runs whenever he thinks there’s a chance he’s going to get a trim.
Of course, this made me wonder, are there other horses out there with facial hair? I didn’t see any others but I did find Julian Wolkenstein. Julian is a photographer and he had the brilliant idea to get some hair extensions and use them to ‘style’ horses. Here you go:
This one made me think of Katherine Kepburn for some reason
He has a mustache and he’d like to keep it, thank you very much. According to the article in the Telegraph (those UK papers have very strange priorities when it comes to reporting), Alfie runs whenever he thinks there’s a chance he’s going to get a trim.Of course, this made me wonder, are there other horses out there with facial hair? I didn’t see any others but I did find Julian Wolkenstein. Julian is a photographer and he had the brilliant idea to get some hair extensions and use them to ‘style’ horses. Here you go:
This one made me think of Katherine Kepburn for some reason
Jimmy Carter's 100 Days Post Mortem
TW: In the spirit of Obama passing his 100 day mark, I thought I would take a different angle. What did folks write about other POTUS at their 100 day marks. I use Time Magazine solely because their archive is better than any other weekly, would really like to use the Economist but their archive peters out about ten years ago. I start with James Earl Carter about whom I could write several posts but will settle for these excerpts for now.
Several things stuck me, how many of the issues mentioned as apparently important at the time have either faded away or never ended up as particularly crucial. Two, the seeds of Carter's later challenges appear in the review (e.g. poor Congressional relations, the never resolved tension between "human rights" and "realpolitik", his folksy yet aloof style). Finally overall the perception was still quite hopeful (some of the parallels with Obama critiques are troubling) but at the end of the day his positives attributes (intelligence, openness, stubbornness) did not translate into overall success as measure by the ultimate barometers- the ability to get re-elected and how his presidency has aged in historical retrospect.
It is relevant to recall Carter entered office somewhat like W. Bush, a bit of a fluke in reaction to the near or actual impeachment of his predecessor. He was also presiding a Democratic party amidst its own severe molting process (the Southern Democrats were still largely in the party but a mere few years from bolting en masse).
From Time (April 25th, 1977)
"...Jimmy Carter does not seem to have much of a "100 days" mentality; he insists he is thinking more of long-range accomplishments. But he has already gone far to prove that he could be the most activist President since F.D.R.
Whatever the merits or faults of his particular actions, Carter has:
1) presented the most comprehensive strategic arms limitation proposals the U.S. has ever offered the Soviet Union
2) put the U.S. more forcefully on record than ever before as a champion of human rights around the world, and used foreign aid as a lever to pry loose such rights
3) ignored diplomatic niceties in suggesting concessions that various factions must make in seeking peace in the Middle East
4) taken on the politically dangerous task of asking the nation to accept an energy-conservation plan that will require sacrifices by millions
...Carter has been untypically slow in filling many appointive positions, but he has found time to offer amnesty to anyone who evaded the draft in the Viet Nam War. He has proposed abolition of the 190-year-old Electoral College, by which Presidents are chosen, urging that the popular vote determine the winner. He has asked for legislation to enable any American to show up at the polls and vote after simply offering proof of age and residence —rather than having to register in advance. He has asked U.S. allies to stop selling fast-breeder nuclear reactors and reprocessing equipment to nations that might use them for bombs. He has ordered a halt in domestic development of plutonium as a fuel to reduce the danger that it may be stolen by terrorists. He has abruptly ordered a halt in the construction of major water and dam projects, enraging numerous Congressmen and local politicians.
Considering the actions he has taken, Carter's public-approval rating of 72% is impressive, but not spectacular. At about the same time in their presidential days, J.F.K.'s stood at 83%, Ike's at 74%, L.BJ.'s at 73%.
As an activist, it is not, of course, enough to make proposals; it is necessary to get them accepted and make them work. On that score, so far, the evidence is mixed. Carter sometimes apparently makes the assumption that if he merely quietly states some virtuous purpose (balancing the budget, abolishing nuclear arms), it will be accomplished.
That purposefulness is part of what could make him a great President; the naiveté that sometimes seems to go with it could make him a very bad one. But is it really naiveté? It is hard to believe so, given his demonstrably first-rate and complex mind. This and other contradictions in Carter may yet be accepted by America as a kind of refreshing synthesis of opposites, helping to raise Carter above the familiar left-right, liberal-conservative categories of personality —and of politics too.
...In the meantime the main points of his manner and method have become almost instant legend, familiar topics of puzzlement and debate. His cutting out of the presidency's pomp is immensely popular, but should not be confused with substance. The imperial presidency was imperial not because the White House trumpeters seemed to play Hail to the Chief whenever the President walked through a doorway, but for much deeper reasons. Carter's use of his family as personal emissaries and, even more, his impatience with the legislative process, suggest that his instincts, if not imperial, are certainly for power.
...Carter's most startling innovation has been his openness in foreign policy. He takes risks by publicly spelling out proposals (for instance, on SALT) that are usually advanced one step at a time in private. Such openness can force foreign, statesmen into positions from which they cannot easily retreat.
On human rights, he assumes a universal moralizing attitude—but does not really press the issue in countries that are essential to U.S. security. He publicly kicks Leonid Brezhnev in the shins and then sends Secretary of State Cyrus Vance to Moscow in search of a new SALT breakthrough. But most Americans are plainly heartened by hearing their President give voice to those 200-year-old promises of what the nation stands for in the world.
At the same time, the open discussion of new proposals involves the public in a way that it has not been involved in more secretive dealings. Abroad, it just might shock other countries into action on long-stalled issues—for instance, in the Middle East. On SALT, the Russians are on the defensive and must wrestle with Carter's ideas. In the Administration's dealings with Africa so far, there are signs of a sophisticated attempt to keep away from too direct intervention while still maintaining a strong influence. And there are some hints in Washington that the danger of too much openness is being learned.
...In general, Carter has wisely avoided asking for huge spending programs and is proving himself an economic conservative whose policies are not too far different from Ford's—to the great disappointment of organized labor and liberal Democrats, including the majority of Congress.
...The expectation that a Democratic President would get along with a Democratic Congress, of course, has always been exaggerated; for one thing, the Democratic majority is so large that party solidarity is not necessary—and is extremely difficult to maintain. Besides, Carter has launched major proposals without adequately consulting congressional leaders and is still playing the outsider's role. Carter believes that Congressmen "tend to compromise first and look for the principle involved after the fight is over." Whether he will ever learn the art of cajoling Congress as it wants to be cajoled is doubtful, but he has shown lately that he can learn from mistakes and knows how to compromise.
...A consensus of TIME bureau chiefs across the U.S. is that on the whole, Carter has made a very promising and exciting start. "Carter has made mistakes," observes Los Angeles' William Rademaekers. "But they are not sinister mistakes. They may be an overreliance on the concept of a Government of the people, a concept so remote from our current experience as to be almost alien. We may well be moving into an era when the presidency is neither regal nor secretive, naive nor folksy, but interacts with Americans in a way that restores a sense of dynamism to our Government." Adds New York's Laurence Barrett: "We have no basis to worry much about the brains, intentions, candor and courage of the chap in the White House. That's a nice feeling, for a change."
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,918856,00.html
Several things stuck me, how many of the issues mentioned as apparently important at the time have either faded away or never ended up as particularly crucial. Two, the seeds of Carter's later challenges appear in the review (e.g. poor Congressional relations, the never resolved tension between "human rights" and "realpolitik", his folksy yet aloof style). Finally overall the perception was still quite hopeful (some of the parallels with Obama critiques are troubling) but at the end of the day his positives attributes (intelligence, openness, stubbornness) did not translate into overall success as measure by the ultimate barometers- the ability to get re-elected and how his presidency has aged in historical retrospect.
It is relevant to recall Carter entered office somewhat like W. Bush, a bit of a fluke in reaction to the near or actual impeachment of his predecessor. He was also presiding a Democratic party amidst its own severe molting process (the Southern Democrats were still largely in the party but a mere few years from bolting en masse).
From Time (April 25th, 1977)
"...Jimmy Carter does not seem to have much of a "100 days" mentality; he insists he is thinking more of long-range accomplishments. But he has already gone far to prove that he could be the most activist President since F.D.R.
Whatever the merits or faults of his particular actions, Carter has:
1) presented the most comprehensive strategic arms limitation proposals the U.S. has ever offered the Soviet Union
2) put the U.S. more forcefully on record than ever before as a champion of human rights around the world, and used foreign aid as a lever to pry loose such rights
3) ignored diplomatic niceties in suggesting concessions that various factions must make in seeking peace in the Middle East
4) taken on the politically dangerous task of asking the nation to accept an energy-conservation plan that will require sacrifices by millions
...Carter has been untypically slow in filling many appointive positions, but he has found time to offer amnesty to anyone who evaded the draft in the Viet Nam War. He has proposed abolition of the 190-year-old Electoral College, by which Presidents are chosen, urging that the popular vote determine the winner. He has asked for legislation to enable any American to show up at the polls and vote after simply offering proof of age and residence —rather than having to register in advance. He has asked U.S. allies to stop selling fast-breeder nuclear reactors and reprocessing equipment to nations that might use them for bombs. He has ordered a halt in domestic development of plutonium as a fuel to reduce the danger that it may be stolen by terrorists. He has abruptly ordered a halt in the construction of major water and dam projects, enraging numerous Congressmen and local politicians.
Considering the actions he has taken, Carter's public-approval rating of 72% is impressive, but not spectacular. At about the same time in their presidential days, J.F.K.'s stood at 83%, Ike's at 74%, L.BJ.'s at 73%.
As an activist, it is not, of course, enough to make proposals; it is necessary to get them accepted and make them work. On that score, so far, the evidence is mixed. Carter sometimes apparently makes the assumption that if he merely quietly states some virtuous purpose (balancing the budget, abolishing nuclear arms), it will be accomplished.
That purposefulness is part of what could make him a great President; the naiveté that sometimes seems to go with it could make him a very bad one. But is it really naiveté? It is hard to believe so, given his demonstrably first-rate and complex mind. This and other contradictions in Carter may yet be accepted by America as a kind of refreshing synthesis of opposites, helping to raise Carter above the familiar left-right, liberal-conservative categories of personality —and of politics too.
...In the meantime the main points of his manner and method have become almost instant legend, familiar topics of puzzlement and debate. His cutting out of the presidency's pomp is immensely popular, but should not be confused with substance. The imperial presidency was imperial not because the White House trumpeters seemed to play Hail to the Chief whenever the President walked through a doorway, but for much deeper reasons. Carter's use of his family as personal emissaries and, even more, his impatience with the legislative process, suggest that his instincts, if not imperial, are certainly for power.
...Carter's most startling innovation has been his openness in foreign policy. He takes risks by publicly spelling out proposals (for instance, on SALT) that are usually advanced one step at a time in private. Such openness can force foreign, statesmen into positions from which they cannot easily retreat.
On human rights, he assumes a universal moralizing attitude—but does not really press the issue in countries that are essential to U.S. security. He publicly kicks Leonid Brezhnev in the shins and then sends Secretary of State Cyrus Vance to Moscow in search of a new SALT breakthrough. But most Americans are plainly heartened by hearing their President give voice to those 200-year-old promises of what the nation stands for in the world.
At the same time, the open discussion of new proposals involves the public in a way that it has not been involved in more secretive dealings. Abroad, it just might shock other countries into action on long-stalled issues—for instance, in the Middle East. On SALT, the Russians are on the defensive and must wrestle with Carter's ideas. In the Administration's dealings with Africa so far, there are signs of a sophisticated attempt to keep away from too direct intervention while still maintaining a strong influence. And there are some hints in Washington that the danger of too much openness is being learned.
...In general, Carter has wisely avoided asking for huge spending programs and is proving himself an economic conservative whose policies are not too far different from Ford's—to the great disappointment of organized labor and liberal Democrats, including the majority of Congress.
...The expectation that a Democratic President would get along with a Democratic Congress, of course, has always been exaggerated; for one thing, the Democratic majority is so large that party solidarity is not necessary—and is extremely difficult to maintain. Besides, Carter has launched major proposals without adequately consulting congressional leaders and is still playing the outsider's role. Carter believes that Congressmen "tend to compromise first and look for the principle involved after the fight is over." Whether he will ever learn the art of cajoling Congress as it wants to be cajoled is doubtful, but he has shown lately that he can learn from mistakes and knows how to compromise.
...A consensus of TIME bureau chiefs across the U.S. is that on the whole, Carter has made a very promising and exciting start. "Carter has made mistakes," observes Los Angeles' William Rademaekers. "But they are not sinister mistakes. They may be an overreliance on the concept of a Government of the people, a concept so remote from our current experience as to be almost alien. We may well be moving into an era when the presidency is neither regal nor secretive, naive nor folksy, but interacts with Americans in a way that restores a sense of dynamism to our Government." Adds New York's Laurence Barrett: "We have no basis to worry much about the brains, intentions, candor and courage of the chap in the White House. That's a nice feeling, for a change."
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,918856,00.html
Sunday, May 3, 2009
Letting the Diplomats Conduct Diplomacy
TW: Dana Priest wrote a good book several years ago, The Mission. The book outlined the evolution of American diplomacy from management by the State Department to management from the Pentagon. This trend had started in the 1980's and continued through the W. Bush years. The reasons included: the military command structures (i.e. Centcom, Pacfic Com) de-centralizing into regional commands well placed for regional diplomacy as well, reduced State Department budgets and the increased tempo of American military actions which tends to aggregate power towards the military.
In an example of another subtle but important change brought about by the new POTUS, the State Department is reasserting its traditional (not to mention core purpose) role in American diplomacy. To me another good thing, not because the military has done bad things but because they have enough on their plates without being the primary diplomatic go to source.
From NYT:
"...In the nearly eight years since the 9/11 attacks, the foreign policy of the United States has often appeared to be an exclusively military affair, if not always conducted by men with guns then practiced by civilians not shy in reminding their foes that they had force at their disposal. The diplomats, for the most part, watched from afar.
As a result, America’s engagement with dangerous parts of the world in that time became largely militarized — good at projecting force but sometimes, it seemed, missing opportunities that might have been better exploited by an earlier and more vigorous use of people without guns. Not just in Afghanistan, but in Iran, North Korea and the Middle East as well.
The military itself, straining to fight two wars, groaned under burdens it had not intended to take on.
Mr. Holbrooke — relentless, experienced, charismatic — seems the embodiment of a new paradigm, one that includes military force but emphasizes a wider range of tools, like diplomacy, persuasion and money.
...The reassertion by civilian leaders is being led by Sec. State Clinton, who has promised to restore the State Department’s centrality in the making of foreign policy. In the first six years of the Bush presidency, Sec. Def Rumsfeld dominated the administration’s interactions with the world, pushing aside Secretaries of State Powell and Rice. Likewise, in places like the Balkans and Iraq, the military began undertaking activities once reserved for diplomats, like overseeing reconstruction and development projects. Mrs. Clinton says she not only wants to take back those former responsibilities, but to restore diplomacy’s primary role in resolving crises. One of the centerpieces of that effort would be Iran,
...She has a long way to go. According to an article in the January-February issue of Foreign Affairs by J. Anthony Holmes, there are more musicians playing in military bands than there are diplomats working around the globe.
...Indeed, Admiral Mullen has himself decried what he calls the “militarization” of American foreign policy and advocated restoring some of the State Department’s influence. In 2007, when Admiral Mullen was chief of naval operations, he offered to turn over part of his budget to the State Department — an extraordinary act for a public official. “The military should be led by diplomacy,”
...It is perhaps in Afghanistan, where American troops are bogged down in a bloody war, and in Pakistan, which is lurching toward chaos, that the new diplomatic approach will face its toughest and most important test.
...President Obama made clear that in order to defeat Al Qaeda America will have to embark on a long and expensive campaign of diplomacy and nation building in both places. In a speech last month outlining his strategy, President Obama said he would order a “dramatic” increase in the number of civilians working in Afghanistan. He also said he would spend considerably more on communications to counter Taliban propaganda.
...Under the plan, the United States would send Pakistan $1.5 billion each year for the next five years. That would mean, perhaps for the first time ever, that economic and humanitarian assistance to Pakistan would nearly equal the amount spent on that country’s military.
The money for Pakistan is meant in part to help take the heat off of Afghanistan, but it’s mainly meant to help Pakistan save itself..."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/12/weekinreview/12filkins.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=dexter%20filkins%20diplomats&st=cse
In an example of another subtle but important change brought about by the new POTUS, the State Department is reasserting its traditional (not to mention core purpose) role in American diplomacy. To me another good thing, not because the military has done bad things but because they have enough on their plates without being the primary diplomatic go to source.
From NYT:
"...In the nearly eight years since the 9/11 attacks, the foreign policy of the United States has often appeared to be an exclusively military affair, if not always conducted by men with guns then practiced by civilians not shy in reminding their foes that they had force at their disposal. The diplomats, for the most part, watched from afar.
As a result, America’s engagement with dangerous parts of the world in that time became largely militarized — good at projecting force but sometimes, it seemed, missing opportunities that might have been better exploited by an earlier and more vigorous use of people without guns. Not just in Afghanistan, but in Iran, North Korea and the Middle East as well.
The military itself, straining to fight two wars, groaned under burdens it had not intended to take on.
Mr. Holbrooke — relentless, experienced, charismatic — seems the embodiment of a new paradigm, one that includes military force but emphasizes a wider range of tools, like diplomacy, persuasion and money.
...The reassertion by civilian leaders is being led by Sec. State Clinton, who has promised to restore the State Department’s centrality in the making of foreign policy. In the first six years of the Bush presidency, Sec. Def Rumsfeld dominated the administration’s interactions with the world, pushing aside Secretaries of State Powell and Rice. Likewise, in places like the Balkans and Iraq, the military began undertaking activities once reserved for diplomats, like overseeing reconstruction and development projects. Mrs. Clinton says she not only wants to take back those former responsibilities, but to restore diplomacy’s primary role in resolving crises. One of the centerpieces of that effort would be Iran,
...She has a long way to go. According to an article in the January-February issue of Foreign Affairs by J. Anthony Holmes, there are more musicians playing in military bands than there are diplomats working around the globe.
...Indeed, Admiral Mullen has himself decried what he calls the “militarization” of American foreign policy and advocated restoring some of the State Department’s influence. In 2007, when Admiral Mullen was chief of naval operations, he offered to turn over part of his budget to the State Department — an extraordinary act for a public official. “The military should be led by diplomacy,”
...It is perhaps in Afghanistan, where American troops are bogged down in a bloody war, and in Pakistan, which is lurching toward chaos, that the new diplomatic approach will face its toughest and most important test.
...President Obama made clear that in order to defeat Al Qaeda America will have to embark on a long and expensive campaign of diplomacy and nation building in both places. In a speech last month outlining his strategy, President Obama said he would order a “dramatic” increase in the number of civilians working in Afghanistan. He also said he would spend considerably more on communications to counter Taliban propaganda.
...Under the plan, the United States would send Pakistan $1.5 billion each year for the next five years. That would mean, perhaps for the first time ever, that economic and humanitarian assistance to Pakistan would nearly equal the amount spent on that country’s military.
The money for Pakistan is meant in part to help take the heat off of Afghanistan, but it’s mainly meant to help Pakistan save itself..."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/12/weekinreview/12filkins.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=dexter%20filkins%20diplomats&st=cse
The Politics Of Souter's Replacement
TW: We will hear far too much about the Souter replacement over the coming months. So I will try to keep things to a minimum here but one prediction. The Dems will end up with more internal controversy than the Republicans. Cilizza in the piece below frames some of the risks for the Republicans.
I would add if the Republicans are smart (an admittedly dubious outcome) they will lie low. They have two plays- the high road understanding fighting a female and/or Hispanic nominee is ultimately a non-winner. Or the low road, obstruction in an ultimately unsuccessful effort to push Obama towards a more conservative nominee. While the latter might help with contributions from their base, it would only cement the Republicans as the obstructionists and further alienate the party with two constituencies they must do better with should they wish to actually start winning more elections.
The Souter slot is after all a hold for the progressives as will be the eventual replacements for Ginsberg and Stevens when they retire as they likely will over the next couple of years. Should part of the conservative bloc retire (Thomas, Scalia, Alito, Roberts, Kennedy) then all bets are off, the process will be bloody.
Conservatives care first about nominating those with well defined and strict conservative judicial tendencies (e.g. abortion, prayer, tough on crime, property rights, comfort with torture may be an emerging need btw etc.). Dems want progressive justices but worry far more about diversity for better or worse.
Should there be more than one woman on the court? Absolutely. Is it time for a Hispanic? Absolutely. But the Dems must be careful to avoid the blatant and potentially divisive pandering to interest groups which frequently characterize their nominations. Part of this is just proper handling of the nominee, i.e. regardless of the nominee's demographic, focus on the qualifications. But there is a real risk unless Obama and his folks are very adept that the Dem interest groups will fall into bickering with each other about getting their preferred demographic into the slot.
Two things should mitigate the bickering this time, one Ginsburg and Stevens will almost certainly retire within the near future providing two more slots. The second more Machiavellian reason is that fighting a well-qualified the next Hispanic/Asian and/or female should be very difficult for the Republicans. Challenging the second or third far less so. If Obama is smart he will keep some demographic chits in his pocket in case a truly pivotal nomination becomes available.
From Chris Cilizza at WaPo:
"...the national Republican party finds itself in a state of flux -- caught between an establishment wing who is seeking to re-brand it to make it more attractive to independents and a conservative base that wants a return to the roots.
Will President Obama's next nominee to the Court help unite the Republican party to oppose a common adversary or further expose the rifts that divide it?
Most party strategists we spoke to in the wake of the Souter announcement argued the former scenario is more likely...
...Another senior Republican strategist granted anonymity to speak candidly said that a Supreme Court fight will be good for fundraising -- particularly among low-dollar donors who feel passionately about judges (and judicial activism).
...Recent history suggests a disconnect between the Senate's generally open-minded approach to nominees and the party base's more ideological and confrontational stance -- and it is worth watching how that potential dissonance plays out.
...With the further elevation of conservative voices within the party -- hello Rush Limbaugh! -- it's not difficult to see a further fracturing of the GOP if Obama picks a Supreme Court nominee with whom the base is deeply unhappy but the establishment wing of the party (including a majority of Republican senators) believe is acceptable.
...A split within the GOP on the nomination, which could feature movement conservatives like Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin and South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford on one side and establishment figures like former governor Mitt Romney (Mass.) and Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty on the other, would be something close to an unmitigated disaster for a party trying to united behind a few core principles to prepare for the 2010 midterm elections and the 2012 presidential fight."
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/republican-party/souter-retirement-republican-o.html?wprss=thefix
Things I Like - Odds & Ends
This video is pretty amazing. Posted by Sundroid, the music is 'Ambient Voyager' by Zeropage.
All I could think was - has anyone ever been decapitated while surfing??
All I could think was - has anyone ever been decapitated while surfing??
An Actual Suggested Solution For Iran
TW: Many speak of either launching some sort of military action or a "diplomatic" approach. But this Cohen piece proposes an actual diplomatic solution with some meat on the bones which to me makes sense. The deal is predicated upon Iran being rational and interested in joining the world community in a constructive manner, two things which I believe to worth believing and pursuing. Many disagree. To repeat myself Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons because it is a rational move on their part, we can huff and puff but unless we are willing to blow their house down (and accept all of the blow back from Iran and elsewhere) then we need to get real about negotiating something that would benefit both parties.
From Roger Cohen at NYT:
"...Imagine if Roosevelt in 1942 had said to Stalin, sorry, Joe, we don’t like your Communist ideology so we’re not going to accept your help in crushing the Nazis. I know you’re powerful, but we don’t deal with evil.
That’s a rough equivalent on the stupidity scale of what Bush achieved by consigning Iran’s theocracy to the axis of evil and failing to probe how the country might have helped in two wars and the wider Middle East when the conciliatory Mohammad Khatami was president.
Seldom in the annals of American diplomacy has moral absolutism trumped realism to such devastating effect. Bush gifted Iran increased power without taking even a peek at how that might serve U.S. objectives.
...American realism is now essential. It should heed ElBaradei’s view: “I don’t believe the Iranians have made a decision to go for a nuclear weapon, but they are absolutely determined to have the technology because they believe it brings you power, prestige and an insurance policy.”
I think it’s almost certainly too late to stop Iran achieving virtual nuclear power status — something like Brazil’s or Japan’s mastery of the know-how without a weapon. Iran’s advances of the past eight years cannot be undone. What can be transformed is the context Iran operates in; that in turn will determine how “virtual” Iran remains.
One context changer was Obama’s call for a nuclear-free world: it’s hard to argue for nonproliferation without tackling disarmament. “You can’t have nine countries telling the likes of Iran nuclear weapons are dangerous for you, but we need to go on refining our arsenals,” said ElBaradei, who won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2005 and ends his term later this year. “It’s a different world.”
...Here’s one normalization scenario:
Iran ceases military support for Hamas and Hezbollah; adopts a “Malaysian” approach to Israel (nonrecognition and noninterference); agrees to work for stability in Iraq and Afghanistan; accepts intrusive International Atomic Energy Agency verification of a limited nuclear program for peaceful ends only; promises to fight Qaeda terrorism; commits to improving its human rights record.
The United States commits itself to the Islamic Republic’s security and endorses its pivotal regional role; accepts Iran’s right to operate a limited enrichment facility with several hundred centrifuges for research purposes; agrees to Iran’s acquiring a new nuclear power reactor from the French; promises to back Iran’s entry into the World Trade Organization; returns seized Iranian assets; lifts all sanctions; and notes past Iranian statements that it will endorse a two-state solution acceptable to the Palestinians.
Any such deal is a game changer, transformative as Nixon to China (another repressive state with a poor human rights record). It can be derailed any time by an attack from Israel, which has made clear it won’t accept virtual nuclear power status for Iran, despite its own nonvirtual nuclear warheads..."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/13/opinion/13iht-edcohen.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=roger%20cohen%20realpolitik&st=cse
From Roger Cohen at NYT:
"...Imagine if Roosevelt in 1942 had said to Stalin, sorry, Joe, we don’t like your Communist ideology so we’re not going to accept your help in crushing the Nazis. I know you’re powerful, but we don’t deal with evil.
That’s a rough equivalent on the stupidity scale of what Bush achieved by consigning Iran’s theocracy to the axis of evil and failing to probe how the country might have helped in two wars and the wider Middle East when the conciliatory Mohammad Khatami was president.
Seldom in the annals of American diplomacy has moral absolutism trumped realism to such devastating effect. Bush gifted Iran increased power without taking even a peek at how that might serve U.S. objectives.
...American realism is now essential. It should heed ElBaradei’s view: “I don’t believe the Iranians have made a decision to go for a nuclear weapon, but they are absolutely determined to have the technology because they believe it brings you power, prestige and an insurance policy.”
I think it’s almost certainly too late to stop Iran achieving virtual nuclear power status — something like Brazil’s or Japan’s mastery of the know-how without a weapon. Iran’s advances of the past eight years cannot be undone. What can be transformed is the context Iran operates in; that in turn will determine how “virtual” Iran remains.
One context changer was Obama’s call for a nuclear-free world: it’s hard to argue for nonproliferation without tackling disarmament. “You can’t have nine countries telling the likes of Iran nuclear weapons are dangerous for you, but we need to go on refining our arsenals,” said ElBaradei, who won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2005 and ends his term later this year. “It’s a different world.”
...Here’s one normalization scenario:
Iran ceases military support for Hamas and Hezbollah; adopts a “Malaysian” approach to Israel (nonrecognition and noninterference); agrees to work for stability in Iraq and Afghanistan; accepts intrusive International Atomic Energy Agency verification of a limited nuclear program for peaceful ends only; promises to fight Qaeda terrorism; commits to improving its human rights record.
The United States commits itself to the Islamic Republic’s security and endorses its pivotal regional role; accepts Iran’s right to operate a limited enrichment facility with several hundred centrifuges for research purposes; agrees to Iran’s acquiring a new nuclear power reactor from the French; promises to back Iran’s entry into the World Trade Organization; returns seized Iranian assets; lifts all sanctions; and notes past Iranian statements that it will endorse a two-state solution acceptable to the Palestinians.
Any such deal is a game changer, transformative as Nixon to China (another repressive state with a poor human rights record). It can be derailed any time by an attack from Israel, which has made clear it won’t accept virtual nuclear power status for Iran, despite its own nonvirtual nuclear warheads..."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/13/opinion/13iht-edcohen.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=roger%20cohen%20realpolitik&st=cse
Saturday, May 2, 2009
Separated At Birth: Scalabrine and Jackie Moon
TW: Anyone who has watched the Bulls/Celtics series has viewed big time NBA basketball. But one would also have seen Brian Scalabrine from the Celts, a scrub who when he dons his headband bears striking resemblence to Will Ferrell's Jackie Moon character from Semi-Pro. The photos are not the best of Scalabrine but trust me I searched, these were the best I could find.
More Nate Silver Perspective
TW: One of the Economist's blogs are started a weekly Q&A with a prominent person in politics, so far I like their dialogues. This week they speak with one of our favorites, Nate Silver from 538.com. A couple of insights but I especially liked his final comment, which should hold for him and all others who opine.
From Economist blog (Democracy in America aka DIA):
"...DIA: Since you were able to predict so many 2008 races months ahead of time based on immutable factors, how much do political campaigns really matter?
Mr Silver: There are two separate questions here: how much campaigns matter and how much candidates matter. Candidates clearly do matter, in the sense that it's not uncommon to get results in individual races that significantly diverge from the national trends. For instance, right now we have two Republican senators in Maine, which voted for Barack Obama by 18 points, and two Democratic senators in North Dakota, which hasn't voted a Democrat for President since 1964. Likewise, we have a Republican governor in Vermont and a Democratic governor in Kansas. When you see gravity-defying results like those, it usually boils down to a very talented candidate.
But how much do campaigns matter? They clearly matter some. Hillary Clinton, who proved to be a much stronger candidate than I expected but ran a very poor campaign, is probably Exhibit A in this regard. On the other hand, John McCain’s campaign basically went bankrupt during the Republican primaries and he managed to win the nomination.
...DIA: Despite all of the focus on Pennsylvania in the last days of the 2008 presidential campaign, it fell so easily to Barack Obama that people asked why it was even considered a "swing state". What, in your mind, are the swing states to watch in 2012? (Which blue state is most obtainable for Republicans? Which red state for Democrats?)
Mr Silver: Generally speaking, the same states that were swing states in 2008. But I would keep an eye on Georgia for the Democrats, which is rapidly beginning to urbanise and is becoming part of the "New South". For the Republicans—maybe New Jersey? One would expect that their anti-tax message would play well among wealthy voters, and there are a lot of wealthy voters in Jersey.
The other thing to watch is whether Barack Obama performs better in some parts of Appalachia, where I think his race hurt him in 2008. It wouldn’t surprise me if, after watching him on television for four years, some voters who had previously harboured some degree of racial animus begin to feel more comfortable with him. If so, Mr Obama could be more competitive in states like West Virginia.
DIA: You wrote that the McCain campaign "radically overestimated the importance of appealing to the base" in 2008. What type of political message would best serve Republicans trying to form a winning electoral coalition in 2010, 2012 and beyond.
Mr Silver: Well, that’s the $64,000 question. Clearly if the economy has not recovered, the Republicans will have the script somewhat written for them, and they can rail against the expansion of government or deficits or taxes or what have you. But I think they'll have to do it in an affirmative, pragmatic way—the "party of no" critique is a little hackneyed, but is probably fairly effective counter-messaging. And if the economy recovers? I don’t think it matters much what they do.
If they’re spending a lot of time talking about gay marriage, by the way, I think that's a sign that they're in trouble—unless perhaps the Supreme Court has ruled on it, which could reset the whole debate.
DIA: I've heard you say that baseball analysts put too much emphasis on what just happened. Is the same true of political analysts?
Mr Silver: For sure. And in baseball, at least, they're playing every year, whereas you only have a presidential election once every four years. The McCain campaign operated under the assumption that the political world hadn't changed since 2004—that Mr Obama couldn't turn out black voters or young voters, that swift-boating would work, that Mr Obama couldn't possibly win states like North Carolina and Indiana—and they paid a price for it. On the other hand, I think some Democrats might be a little bit complacent right now. There are a lot of things that can go wrong—both known unknowns and unknown unknowns. What if Afghanistan turns into the next Iraq? What if swine flu winds up killing several hundred thousand Americans? What if there's a nuclear exchange in Kashmir? What if there's a significant, unpredicted increase in the crime rate? Some of those things might hurt the Democrats and others might not, but there's a pretty decent chance that the core issues in 2012 will be things that we haven't even thought about yet.
DIA: You reach some surprising conclusions using your statistical techniques. How good is your average reader's understanding of your work? Do people ever say, "I don't care about your fancy 'mathematical' methods, that can't be right so you must be doing something wrong."
Mr Silver: More often I get the opposite—people who tell me they don’t really follow the analysis, but trust my conclusion. That's more worrying in some ways, I think...."
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2009/05/seven_questions_for_nate_silve.cfm
From Economist blog (Democracy in America aka DIA):
"...DIA: Since you were able to predict so many 2008 races months ahead of time based on immutable factors, how much do political campaigns really matter?
Mr Silver: There are two separate questions here: how much campaigns matter and how much candidates matter. Candidates clearly do matter, in the sense that it's not uncommon to get results in individual races that significantly diverge from the national trends. For instance, right now we have two Republican senators in Maine, which voted for Barack Obama by 18 points, and two Democratic senators in North Dakota, which hasn't voted a Democrat for President since 1964. Likewise, we have a Republican governor in Vermont and a Democratic governor in Kansas. When you see gravity-defying results like those, it usually boils down to a very talented candidate.
But how much do campaigns matter? They clearly matter some. Hillary Clinton, who proved to be a much stronger candidate than I expected but ran a very poor campaign, is probably Exhibit A in this regard. On the other hand, John McCain’s campaign basically went bankrupt during the Republican primaries and he managed to win the nomination.
...DIA: Despite all of the focus on Pennsylvania in the last days of the 2008 presidential campaign, it fell so easily to Barack Obama that people asked why it was even considered a "swing state". What, in your mind, are the swing states to watch in 2012? (Which blue state is most obtainable for Republicans? Which red state for Democrats?)
Mr Silver: Generally speaking, the same states that were swing states in 2008. But I would keep an eye on Georgia for the Democrats, which is rapidly beginning to urbanise and is becoming part of the "New South". For the Republicans—maybe New Jersey? One would expect that their anti-tax message would play well among wealthy voters, and there are a lot of wealthy voters in Jersey.
The other thing to watch is whether Barack Obama performs better in some parts of Appalachia, where I think his race hurt him in 2008. It wouldn’t surprise me if, after watching him on television for four years, some voters who had previously harboured some degree of racial animus begin to feel more comfortable with him. If so, Mr Obama could be more competitive in states like West Virginia.
DIA: You wrote that the McCain campaign "radically overestimated the importance of appealing to the base" in 2008. What type of political message would best serve Republicans trying to form a winning electoral coalition in 2010, 2012 and beyond.
Mr Silver: Well, that’s the $64,000 question. Clearly if the economy has not recovered, the Republicans will have the script somewhat written for them, and they can rail against the expansion of government or deficits or taxes or what have you. But I think they'll have to do it in an affirmative, pragmatic way—the "party of no" critique is a little hackneyed, but is probably fairly effective counter-messaging. And if the economy recovers? I don’t think it matters much what they do.
If they’re spending a lot of time talking about gay marriage, by the way, I think that's a sign that they're in trouble—unless perhaps the Supreme Court has ruled on it, which could reset the whole debate.
DIA: I've heard you say that baseball analysts put too much emphasis on what just happened. Is the same true of political analysts?
Mr Silver: For sure. And in baseball, at least, they're playing every year, whereas you only have a presidential election once every four years. The McCain campaign operated under the assumption that the political world hadn't changed since 2004—that Mr Obama couldn't turn out black voters or young voters, that swift-boating would work, that Mr Obama couldn't possibly win states like North Carolina and Indiana—and they paid a price for it. On the other hand, I think some Democrats might be a little bit complacent right now. There are a lot of things that can go wrong—both known unknowns and unknown unknowns. What if Afghanistan turns into the next Iraq? What if swine flu winds up killing several hundred thousand Americans? What if there's a nuclear exchange in Kashmir? What if there's a significant, unpredicted increase in the crime rate? Some of those things might hurt the Democrats and others might not, but there's a pretty decent chance that the core issues in 2012 will be things that we haven't even thought about yet.
DIA: You reach some surprising conclusions using your statistical techniques. How good is your average reader's understanding of your work? Do people ever say, "I don't care about your fancy 'mathematical' methods, that can't be right so you must be doing something wrong."
Mr Silver: More often I get the opposite—people who tell me they don’t really follow the analysis, but trust my conclusion. That's more worrying in some ways, I think...."
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2009/05/seven_questions_for_nate_silve.cfm
That American Exceptionalism
TW: Klein frames better than I can why those on the right getting bent out of shape at Obama not walking around with a chip on his shoulder despite representing the world's superpower need to reconsider. This stuff makes sense.
From Joe Klein Time:
"...American exceptionalism means one thing to Americans and quite the opposite to most of the rest of the world, especially after the Bush fiasco. To Americans, it refers to our most obvious and unique strength--that ours is the only nation where citizenship is not dependent on ethnic identity, but on the willingness to subscribe to the ideas of freedom, equality and democracy. When we're at our best, America tends to mean that to the rest of the world as well.
But in recent years, much of the rest of the world came to see American exceptionalism as a belief that we can make our own rules, make exceptions, as it were. We could unilaterally decide to make war in Iraq, withdraw from the global warming negotiations, allow India and Israel to abide by one set of rules when it came to nuclear proliferation and Iran to another. What Obama was actually saying was this: While America regards itself as extraordinary, we will no longer act on the international stage as if we are the ultimate repository of wisdom and righteousness. We are going to try to defuse tinhorns like Hugo Chavez with civility. We will sit and patiently listen to Daniel Ortega's toothless rant, just as all the other countries in the hemisphere do. We have enough faith in our values that we're willing to open relations with anyone--Cuba, Iran--secure in the knowledge that the more those countries are exposed to us, the more they'll want to be like us, which will put enormous pressure on their governments to change (as was the case with Russia and China).
This sort of policy, which should have been America's default position since the end of the Cold War, was delayed first by Clinton's weakness and defensiveness and then by Bush's crude xenophobia. It will take some time for the world to get used to it; it may not work in every circumstance. There may be times when the U.S. has to go it alone. But the past eight years were an unprecedented American disaster overseas and the overwhelming majority of Americans--an exceptional 7 out of 10 in some polls--believe that Obama's new path is the right one."
http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/04/28/exceptional-myopia/
From Joe Klein Time:
"...American exceptionalism means one thing to Americans and quite the opposite to most of the rest of the world, especially after the Bush fiasco. To Americans, it refers to our most obvious and unique strength--that ours is the only nation where citizenship is not dependent on ethnic identity, but on the willingness to subscribe to the ideas of freedom, equality and democracy. When we're at our best, America tends to mean that to the rest of the world as well.
But in recent years, much of the rest of the world came to see American exceptionalism as a belief that we can make our own rules, make exceptions, as it were. We could unilaterally decide to make war in Iraq, withdraw from the global warming negotiations, allow India and Israel to abide by one set of rules when it came to nuclear proliferation and Iran to another. What Obama was actually saying was this: While America regards itself as extraordinary, we will no longer act on the international stage as if we are the ultimate repository of wisdom and righteousness. We are going to try to defuse tinhorns like Hugo Chavez with civility. We will sit and patiently listen to Daniel Ortega's toothless rant, just as all the other countries in the hemisphere do. We have enough faith in our values that we're willing to open relations with anyone--Cuba, Iran--secure in the knowledge that the more those countries are exposed to us, the more they'll want to be like us, which will put enormous pressure on their governments to change (as was the case with Russia and China).
This sort of policy, which should have been America's default position since the end of the Cold War, was delayed first by Clinton's weakness and defensiveness and then by Bush's crude xenophobia. It will take some time for the world to get used to it; it may not work in every circumstance. There may be times when the U.S. has to go it alone. But the past eight years were an unprecedented American disaster overseas and the overwhelming majority of Americans--an exceptional 7 out of 10 in some polls--believe that Obama's new path is the right one."
http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/04/28/exceptional-myopia/
Cheney 2008!
TW: A little tardy but Douthat (late of the Atlantic, now at NYT as resident conservative voice), poses an interesting what if, as in what if Cheney had been the 2008 Republican nominee. Not that he would have won (Douthat frames the idea as an intellectual exercise not a viable hypothetical), but the implications are worth pondering.
Douthat's point is that McCain is a non-standard Republican unrepresentative of the party's core constituents. Cheney on the other hand is very much reflective of the Republican base. An election in 2008 between a true representative of the core would have put that core up to the test. As it is the core (and their talk radio trumpets) can lie back like typical ideologues and claim they just need a purer Republican to regain power. Douthat suspects the ideologues are very wrong therefore the Republican day of reckoning was merely delayed when McCain became the nominee.
Specifically Douthat posits that issues such as torture and fiscal conservatism amidst a world-wide demand contraction need airing in the forum of an actual election rather than the incestuous netherworlds of talk radio and conservative symposiums.
I agree with Douthat, as I have written several times, the Republicans are molting, any measures to accelerate their emergence from a rather messy pupa will help the Republicans return to a viable, constructive opponent.
From Douthat at NYT:
"Watching Dick Cheney defend the Bush administration’s interrogation policies, it’s been hard to escape the impression that both the Republican Party and the country would be better off today if Cheney, rather than John McCain, had been a candidate for president in 2008.
...At the very least, a Cheney-Obama contest would have clarified conservatism’s present political predicament. In the wake of two straight drubbings at the polls, much of the American right has comforted itself with the idea that conservatives lost the country primarily because the Bush-era Republican Party spent too much money on social programs. And John McCain’s defeat has been taken as the vindication of this premise.
We tried running the maverick reformer, the argument goes, and look what it got us. What Americans want is real conservatism, not some crypto-liberal imitation.
“Real conservatism,” in this narrative, means a particular strain of right-wingery: a conservatism of supply-side economics and stress positions, uninterested in social policy and dismissive of libertarian qualms about the national-security state. And Dick Cheney happens to be its diamond-hard distillation. The former vice-president kept his distance from the Bush administration’s attempts at domestic reform, and he had little time for the idealistic, religiously infused side of his boss’s policy agenda. He was for tax cuts at home and pre-emptive warfare overseas; anything else he seemed to disdain as sentimentalism.
This is precisely the sort of conservatism that’s ascendant in today’s much-reduced Republican Party, from the talk radio dials to the party’s grassroots. And a Cheney-for-President campaign would have been an instructive test of its political viability.
As a candidate, Cheney would have doubtless been as disciplined and ideologically consistent as McCain was feckless. In debates with Barack Obama, he would have been as cuttingly effective as he was in his encounters with Joe Lieberman and John Edwards in 2000 and 2004 respectively. And when he went down to a landslide loss, the conservative movement might – might! – have been jolted into the kind of rethinking that’s necessary if it hopes to regain power.
If a Cheney defeat could have been good for the Republican Party; a Cheney campaign could have been good for the country. The former vice-president’s post-election attacks on Obama are bad form, of course, under the peculiar rules of Washington politesse. But they’re part of an argument about the means and ends of our interrogation policy that should have happened during the general election and didn’t – because McCain wasn’t a supporter of the Bush-era approach, and Obama didn’t see a percentage in harping on the topic.
He wasn’t alone. A large swath of the political class wants to avoid the torture debate. The Obama administration backed into it last week, and obviously wants to back right out again.
But the argument isn’t going away. It will be with us as long as the threat of terrorism endures. And where the Bush administration’s interrogation programs are concerned, we’ve heard too much to just “look forward,” as the president would have us do. We need to hear more: What was done and who approved it, and what intelligence we really gleaned from it. Not so that we can prosecute – unless the Democratic Party has taken leave of its senses – but so that we can learn, and pass judgment, and struggle toward consensus.
Here Dick Cheney, prodded by the ironies of history into demanding greater disclosure about programs he once sought to keep completely secret, has an important role to play. He wants to defend his record; let him defend it. And let the country judge.
But better if this debate had happened during the campaign season. And better, perhaps, if Cheney himself had been there to have it out."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/28/opinion/28douthat.html?partner=rss&emc=rss
Douthat's point is that McCain is a non-standard Republican unrepresentative of the party's core constituents. Cheney on the other hand is very much reflective of the Republican base. An election in 2008 between a true representative of the core would have put that core up to the test. As it is the core (and their talk radio trumpets) can lie back like typical ideologues and claim they just need a purer Republican to regain power. Douthat suspects the ideologues are very wrong therefore the Republican day of reckoning was merely delayed when McCain became the nominee.
Specifically Douthat posits that issues such as torture and fiscal conservatism amidst a world-wide demand contraction need airing in the forum of an actual election rather than the incestuous netherworlds of talk radio and conservative symposiums.
I agree with Douthat, as I have written several times, the Republicans are molting, any measures to accelerate their emergence from a rather messy pupa will help the Republicans return to a viable, constructive opponent.
From Douthat at NYT:
"Watching Dick Cheney defend the Bush administration’s interrogation policies, it’s been hard to escape the impression that both the Republican Party and the country would be better off today if Cheney, rather than John McCain, had been a candidate for president in 2008.
...At the very least, a Cheney-Obama contest would have clarified conservatism’s present political predicament. In the wake of two straight drubbings at the polls, much of the American right has comforted itself with the idea that conservatives lost the country primarily because the Bush-era Republican Party spent too much money on social programs. And John McCain’s defeat has been taken as the vindication of this premise.
We tried running the maverick reformer, the argument goes, and look what it got us. What Americans want is real conservatism, not some crypto-liberal imitation.
“Real conservatism,” in this narrative, means a particular strain of right-wingery: a conservatism of supply-side economics and stress positions, uninterested in social policy and dismissive of libertarian qualms about the national-security state. And Dick Cheney happens to be its diamond-hard distillation. The former vice-president kept his distance from the Bush administration’s attempts at domestic reform, and he had little time for the idealistic, religiously infused side of his boss’s policy agenda. He was for tax cuts at home and pre-emptive warfare overseas; anything else he seemed to disdain as sentimentalism.
This is precisely the sort of conservatism that’s ascendant in today’s much-reduced Republican Party, from the talk radio dials to the party’s grassroots. And a Cheney-for-President campaign would have been an instructive test of its political viability.
As a candidate, Cheney would have doubtless been as disciplined and ideologically consistent as McCain was feckless. In debates with Barack Obama, he would have been as cuttingly effective as he was in his encounters with Joe Lieberman and John Edwards in 2000 and 2004 respectively. And when he went down to a landslide loss, the conservative movement might – might! – have been jolted into the kind of rethinking that’s necessary if it hopes to regain power.
If a Cheney defeat could have been good for the Republican Party; a Cheney campaign could have been good for the country. The former vice-president’s post-election attacks on Obama are bad form, of course, under the peculiar rules of Washington politesse. But they’re part of an argument about the means and ends of our interrogation policy that should have happened during the general election and didn’t – because McCain wasn’t a supporter of the Bush-era approach, and Obama didn’t see a percentage in harping on the topic.
He wasn’t alone. A large swath of the political class wants to avoid the torture debate. The Obama administration backed into it last week, and obviously wants to back right out again.
But the argument isn’t going away. It will be with us as long as the threat of terrorism endures. And where the Bush administration’s interrogation programs are concerned, we’ve heard too much to just “look forward,” as the president would have us do. We need to hear more: What was done and who approved it, and what intelligence we really gleaned from it. Not so that we can prosecute – unless the Democratic Party has taken leave of its senses – but so that we can learn, and pass judgment, and struggle toward consensus.
Here Dick Cheney, prodded by the ironies of history into demanding greater disclosure about programs he once sought to keep completely secret, has an important role to play. He wants to defend his record; let him defend it. And let the country judge.
But better if this debate had happened during the campaign season. And better, perhaps, if Cheney himself had been there to have it out."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/28/opinion/28douthat.html?partner=rss&emc=rss
Things I Like - Chicago
What a great song about the one and only Lake Shore Drive in Chicago - the music is amazing and the pictures are pretty good too.
Doesn't it make you happy?
Thank you Aliotta, Haynes and Jeremiah!!
Doesn't it make you happy?
Thank you Aliotta, Haynes and Jeremiah!!
Friday, May 1, 2009
The Passion For Science
TW: Another of a long list of non-headliner reasons why I so very much wanted a person like Obama as POTUS would include how our government addresses science. While not literally true, if there is one area where I doubt a budget could include too much money from my view it would be science. Just as importantly regardless of anyone's, left or right, protestations to the contrary, politics influence science. Progressives are not purely in the right by any means. But the efforts of W. Bush et al. to interject and impede certain scientific initiatives greatly concerned me. That Obama may have a particular passion for science is exciting. That progressives need to avoid self-righteousness on these issues is also true.
From Amy Sullivan at Time:
"I generally agree with the value of investing more in scientific research and with those who believe that the past eight years saw too many instances of ideological biases trumping scientific--and particularly public health--concerns. And yet I find it striking that whenever Obama talks about science--from that first mention during the Inauguration to his speech restoring funding for stem-cell research to today's address--his tone is rather un-Obama-like.
It's not that Obama works himself into a rant when he talks about science. He's still calm, cool Barack, after all. But for him, it is almost strident. Sometimes it's his language--today he complained that "We have watched as scientific integrity has been undermined and scientific research politicized in an effort to advance predetermined ideological agendas." And sometimes it's just his tone--when I listened to the stem-cell speech, his voice sounded uncharacteristically hard, although in reading the text later I noticed a sensitivity to dissenting beliefs that hadn't come through in the delivery.
Maybe the dismissal of science and evidence simply offends Obama's intellectual sensibilities. Or maybe it's one of those rare issues on which his emotions peek through and we're hearing from a man who believes his mother died too early from a disease he hopes will one day be curable.
Whatever the reason, it worries me somewhat because science is one of those areas in which Obama's generally nuanced intellectual approach would be helpful. The anti-science, anti-expert mindset is obviously troubling. But so too is the idea that science is always an unquestioned capital-G good and that anyone who raises questions stands in the way of progress. To cite just one troubling example, this week Michael Isikoff reports a confrontation between FBI interrogator Ali Soufan and a CIA contractor whose harsh methods disturbed him:
Now, obviously that's an extreme example. Most advocates of science aren't looking to use it to excuse torture. But neither are most people who worry about the use of embryonic stem cells engaged in "effort[s] to advance predetermined ideological agendas."
http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/04/27/obamas-strident-support-of-science/
From Amy Sullivan at Time:
"I generally agree with the value of investing more in scientific research and with those who believe that the past eight years saw too many instances of ideological biases trumping scientific--and particularly public health--concerns. And yet I find it striking that whenever Obama talks about science--from that first mention during the Inauguration to his speech restoring funding for stem-cell research to today's address--his tone is rather un-Obama-like.
It's not that Obama works himself into a rant when he talks about science. He's still calm, cool Barack, after all. But for him, it is almost strident. Sometimes it's his language--today he complained that "We have watched as scientific integrity has been undermined and scientific research politicized in an effort to advance predetermined ideological agendas." And sometimes it's just his tone--when I listened to the stem-cell speech, his voice sounded uncharacteristically hard, although in reading the text later I noticed a sensitivity to dissenting beliefs that hadn't come through in the delivery.
Maybe the dismissal of science and evidence simply offends Obama's intellectual sensibilities. Or maybe it's one of those rare issues on which his emotions peek through and we're hearing from a man who believes his mother died too early from a disease he hopes will one day be curable.
Whatever the reason, it worries me somewhat because science is one of those areas in which Obama's generally nuanced intellectual approach would be helpful. The anti-science, anti-expert mindset is obviously troubling. But so too is the idea that science is always an unquestioned capital-G good and that anyone who raises questions stands in the way of progress. To cite just one troubling example, this week Michael Isikoff reports a confrontation between FBI interrogator Ali Soufan and a CIA contractor whose harsh methods disturbed him:
"I asked [the contractor] if he'd ever interrogated anyone, and he said no,"
Soufan says. But that didn't matter, the contractor shot back: "Science is science. This is a behavioral issue." The contractor suggested Soufan was the inexperienced one. "He told me he's a psychologist and he knows how the human mind works."
Now, obviously that's an extreme example. Most advocates of science aren't looking to use it to excuse torture. But neither are most people who worry about the use of embryonic stem cells engaged in "effort[s] to advance predetermined ideological agendas."
http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/04/27/obamas-strident-support-of-science/
If Iran Gets the Bomb the Whole World Falls Apart
TW: The premise of the piece rests on what would happen in the world should the naive Obama Administration not join with the Israelis to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. The attitude embodied from this Israeli newspaper displays what one gets when you combine myopia, patronizing context and paranoia.
The piece weaves a convoluted domino scenario whereby Iran's acquisition of nuclear weapons leads to:
1) alliance between Iran/Iraq and many of the Gulf states
2) fall of pro-Western Arab regimes
3) European-Chinese alliance at expense of U.S.
4) another world-wide Great Recession
5) etc., etc.
It is such apocalyptic nonsense that makes generating viable and sensible policy so challenging. The right-wing in the U.S. is building a similiar case against Obama. As in "if Obama does not condone torture, expand the defense budget even faster and aggressively push American/Israeli agendas down the throats of potential adversaries, then Obama is opening the U.S./Israel to terrorism and would arguably at that point be criminally negligent".
Such unabashed peace through strength is simplistic, risky and ultimately dangerous. The piece invokes the FDR name. But FDR was the polar opposite of a fool like W. Bush. FDR was subtle, adroit in embracing international allies, politically accommodative when needed. He was not a single note player with an end in mind who sought to bash his head and his country's resources (blood and treasure) mindlessly about in an effort to mitigate any risk and pursue ideological agendas.
We will be attacked again some day and Obama and us Dems will take major fire from the right. But the paranoid, purely nationalistic, rights ignoring is not the answer. A later post will examine what a nuclearized Iran might actually look like.
From Haaretz:
"Even now, in November 2012, it is hard not to think back with elation on Barack Obama's first year as president of the United States. In his first 100 days in the White House, the energetic president took a series of daring steps that extricated the American economy from its worst crisis since the 1930s. Immediately after that he put an end to torture, indicted Dick Cheney, convened a Middle East peace conference and made historic reconciliation visits to Havana, Damascus and Tehran. Obama's economic and foreign policies were both based on a moral worldview that inspired Americans and non-Americans alike. After years of despair and cynicism, the 44th president proposed a new national and international agenda based on dialogue, demilitarization, justice and peace.
The first signs that something was wrong had already appeared at the end of that first year of grace. Nevertheless, Washington was astounded when, in the summer of 2010, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad announced that he was expelling international inspectors and galloping full-tilt toward the production of nuclear weapons. The shock turned to horror on the eve of Christmas 2010, when Iran's spiritual leader, Ali Khamenei, stated that his country had its first three nuclear warheads - aimed at Riyadh, Cairo and Tel Aviv.
Spring 2011 was dramatic. First a mutual defense treaty and an agreement to collaborate on oil exports were signed between Tehran and the fragile Baghdad government. Then Kuwait, Qatar, Abu Dhabi and Dubai bowed their heads and signed treaties that made them protectorates of the rising Shi'ite state. Saudi Arabia took the opposite approach: In May 2011, it announced that it had purchased nuclear weapons from Pakistan both for itself and for its ally Egypt. But Egypt's sudden nuclearization failed to appease the Muslim Brotherhood. Mass demonstrations forced President Hosni Mubarak to resign shortly after he suspended the peace agreement with Israel.
By Thanksgiving 2011, the situation was clear. Jordan's King Abdullah left for exile in London. Hezbollah took control of Beirut and a bloody war of attrition erupted between Israel and the Palestinians. The unrest in western Asia had repercussions on the rest of the international arena: Afghanistan went up in flames, Pakistan collapsed and Russia raised its head. In view of Washington's helplessness, some European states began to lean increasingly toward China. When the price of oil rose above $200 a barrel, the American economy plunged into another deep recession.
Obama had no chance in the snows of Iowa in 2012. So with Oprah Winfrey wiping a tear at his side, the most promising president ever announced he would not run for a second term. What went wrong? Where did Obama go astray? In retrospect, the answer is clear and simple. In the summer of 2009, the president had to make the most courageous decision of his life: to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Granted, opting for confrontation would have been incompatible with the DNA of the liberal Democrat from Chicago. Ironically, however, only such a decision could have saved his legacy and advanced the noble values he believed in. Only that decision could have led to a comprehensive peace in the Middle East.
If Obama had decided three years ago to impose a political-economic siege on Tehran, he would have changed the course of history. The Roosevelt of the 21st century would have prevented regional chaos, a worldwide nuclear arms race and an American decline. Yesterday, immediately after television networks announced the sweeping Republican victory of November 2012, close friends gathered around the outgoing president. They found him sad but sober. Obama had no doubts: Had he known at the beginning of his term what he knows now, he would have made a different strategic decision about Iran's nuclear program. If only it were possible to go back, the pensive president told his humbled chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel. If only he could have made a different decision in the summer of 2009"
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1081979.html
The piece weaves a convoluted domino scenario whereby Iran's acquisition of nuclear weapons leads to:
1) alliance between Iran/Iraq and many of the Gulf states
2) fall of pro-Western Arab regimes
3) European-Chinese alliance at expense of U.S.
4) another world-wide Great Recession
5) etc., etc.
It is such apocalyptic nonsense that makes generating viable and sensible policy so challenging. The right-wing in the U.S. is building a similiar case against Obama. As in "if Obama does not condone torture, expand the defense budget even faster and aggressively push American/Israeli agendas down the throats of potential adversaries, then Obama is opening the U.S./Israel to terrorism and would arguably at that point be criminally negligent".
Such unabashed peace through strength is simplistic, risky and ultimately dangerous. The piece invokes the FDR name. But FDR was the polar opposite of a fool like W. Bush. FDR was subtle, adroit in embracing international allies, politically accommodative when needed. He was not a single note player with an end in mind who sought to bash his head and his country's resources (blood and treasure) mindlessly about in an effort to mitigate any risk and pursue ideological agendas.
We will be attacked again some day and Obama and us Dems will take major fire from the right. But the paranoid, purely nationalistic, rights ignoring is not the answer. A later post will examine what a nuclearized Iran might actually look like.
From Haaretz:
"Even now, in November 2012, it is hard not to think back with elation on Barack Obama's first year as president of the United States. In his first 100 days in the White House, the energetic president took a series of daring steps that extricated the American economy from its worst crisis since the 1930s. Immediately after that he put an end to torture, indicted Dick Cheney, convened a Middle East peace conference and made historic reconciliation visits to Havana, Damascus and Tehran. Obama's economic and foreign policies were both based on a moral worldview that inspired Americans and non-Americans alike. After years of despair and cynicism, the 44th president proposed a new national and international agenda based on dialogue, demilitarization, justice and peace.
The first signs that something was wrong had already appeared at the end of that first year of grace. Nevertheless, Washington was astounded when, in the summer of 2010, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad announced that he was expelling international inspectors and galloping full-tilt toward the production of nuclear weapons. The shock turned to horror on the eve of Christmas 2010, when Iran's spiritual leader, Ali Khamenei, stated that his country had its first three nuclear warheads - aimed at Riyadh, Cairo and Tel Aviv.
Spring 2011 was dramatic. First a mutual defense treaty and an agreement to collaborate on oil exports were signed between Tehran and the fragile Baghdad government. Then Kuwait, Qatar, Abu Dhabi and Dubai bowed their heads and signed treaties that made them protectorates of the rising Shi'ite state. Saudi Arabia took the opposite approach: In May 2011, it announced that it had purchased nuclear weapons from Pakistan both for itself and for its ally Egypt. But Egypt's sudden nuclearization failed to appease the Muslim Brotherhood. Mass demonstrations forced President Hosni Mubarak to resign shortly after he suspended the peace agreement with Israel.
By Thanksgiving 2011, the situation was clear. Jordan's King Abdullah left for exile in London. Hezbollah took control of Beirut and a bloody war of attrition erupted between Israel and the Palestinians. The unrest in western Asia had repercussions on the rest of the international arena: Afghanistan went up in flames, Pakistan collapsed and Russia raised its head. In view of Washington's helplessness, some European states began to lean increasingly toward China. When the price of oil rose above $200 a barrel, the American economy plunged into another deep recession.
Obama had no chance in the snows of Iowa in 2012. So with Oprah Winfrey wiping a tear at his side, the most promising president ever announced he would not run for a second term. What went wrong? Where did Obama go astray? In retrospect, the answer is clear and simple. In the summer of 2009, the president had to make the most courageous decision of his life: to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Granted, opting for confrontation would have been incompatible with the DNA of the liberal Democrat from Chicago. Ironically, however, only such a decision could have saved his legacy and advanced the noble values he believed in. Only that decision could have led to a comprehensive peace in the Middle East.
If Obama had decided three years ago to impose a political-economic siege on Tehran, he would have changed the course of history. The Roosevelt of the 21st century would have prevented regional chaos, a worldwide nuclear arms race and an American decline. Yesterday, immediately after television networks announced the sweeping Republican victory of November 2012, close friends gathered around the outgoing president. They found him sad but sober. Obama had no doubts: Had he known at the beginning of his term what he knows now, he would have made a different strategic decision about Iran's nuclear program. If only it were possible to go back, the pensive president told his humbled chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel. If only he could have made a different decision in the summer of 2009"
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1081979.html
Souter a Justice From a Different Age
TW: Today will be Justice Souter day, he came into the Court enigmatic and leaves enigmatic. Appointed by George H.W. Bush, he has ended up a Court moderate far more criticised by those to the right than the left. Instead of a doctrinaire Scalia, Thomas, Alito, Roberts type, Souter has presided as a moderate with slightly left of center positions. In a more progressive Court era Souter would have been regarded as a slightly right of center type, which speaks to how far right the Court has evolved in the era of Reagan/Bush.
A David Souter like person will likely not be appointed again soon. Today's turbo-charged confirmation process will ensure the new justice is less mysterious and more doctrinaire. Our Supreme Court nomination process is broken (by the mutual efforts of the left and right). Moderation and legal acuity are passe. Partisanship and rigidity are in. Another variable now enshrined by the Republicans is appointing the youngest possible justice, here is to hoping Obama at least follows that new tradition.
From Craig Crawford at Congressional Quarterly:
"...I am reminded of those days in 1990...I found Souter to be a remarkably evenhanded and surprisingly pragmatic judicial pick in an era when ideologues thought they ruled the roost.
Sure enough, Souter proved to be something of a liberal justice, at least in the context of the rightward leaning court. To his credit, he made no effort to "court" conservatives when seeking Senate confirmation. And further to his credit, the reclusive Souter once told me that, while Washington is a "horrible city" full of "despicable people," it is the "best place in the world" to do the "most good for all." Those words guide me still, and keep me on the case in this miserable town.
...You could see Souter's leftward bent coming in his 1990 Senate hearing. In particular, I recall his clever and witty responses during a testy back-and-forth with Iowa Republican Charles Grassley, who became quite frustrated with Souter's refusal to toe the conservative line. Souter simply would not provide assurances that he would narrowly interpret individual rights under the Constitution.
"As your testimony hit me on Friday, it seemed to me more the terminology likely to come from a judicial activist," Grassley said, inviting the nominee to "rephrase it in favor of something better."
Souter smiled and said, "I think you're giving me a hint, Senator."
The former New Hampshire judge offered no solace to Grassley; instead he further defended the power of courts to define unwritten rights. He cited the example of Brown vs. Board of Education, the 1954 ruling that outlawed racially segregated schools.
"If you simply read the text of the Constitution and somebody said, 'Where does it refer to school desegregation?' - of course you would not have found anything," Souter said. "But I think that clearly implicit in the text of the Constitution itself was the proper basis for the court's exercise of its jurisdiction."
Grassley then asked Souter to name any case in the court's history where "improper rights were created." The nominee mentioned none.
"Well then, let me see if I can help you where you might think the court improperly acted," Grassley said. He cited rulings during the tenure of Chief Justice Earl Warren, despised by conservatives for provoking decisions during the 1960s that aggressively expanded the rights of criminal suspects.
Souter did not agree that the Warren Court rulings went too far, describing them as a "pragmatic implementation" of the Bill of Rights.
Further aggravating conservatives, Souter praised the Warren Court rulings for teaching law enforcement officers how to protect the rights of suspects.
"We have learned to live with those rulings and we live with them pretty well today," Souter said.
One of Souter's statements during his Senate grilling has always stuck with me. Pressed for his views on individual rights, Souter offered a gem of wisdom that struck me as a delightful distillation of what our country is all about: "I'd rather have a right to do something than a right to stop someone else."
A David Souter like person will likely not be appointed again soon. Today's turbo-charged confirmation process will ensure the new justice is less mysterious and more doctrinaire. Our Supreme Court nomination process is broken (by the mutual efforts of the left and right). Moderation and legal acuity are passe. Partisanship and rigidity are in. Another variable now enshrined by the Republicans is appointing the youngest possible justice, here is to hoping Obama at least follows that new tradition.
From Craig Crawford at Congressional Quarterly:
"...I am reminded of those days in 1990...I found Souter to be a remarkably evenhanded and surprisingly pragmatic judicial pick in an era when ideologues thought they ruled the roost.
Sure enough, Souter proved to be something of a liberal justice, at least in the context of the rightward leaning court. To his credit, he made no effort to "court" conservatives when seeking Senate confirmation. And further to his credit, the reclusive Souter once told me that, while Washington is a "horrible city" full of "despicable people," it is the "best place in the world" to do the "most good for all." Those words guide me still, and keep me on the case in this miserable town.
...You could see Souter's leftward bent coming in his 1990 Senate hearing. In particular, I recall his clever and witty responses during a testy back-and-forth with Iowa Republican Charles Grassley, who became quite frustrated with Souter's refusal to toe the conservative line. Souter simply would not provide assurances that he would narrowly interpret individual rights under the Constitution.
"As your testimony hit me on Friday, it seemed to me more the terminology likely to come from a judicial activist," Grassley said, inviting the nominee to "rephrase it in favor of something better."
Souter smiled and said, "I think you're giving me a hint, Senator."
The former New Hampshire judge offered no solace to Grassley; instead he further defended the power of courts to define unwritten rights. He cited the example of Brown vs. Board of Education, the 1954 ruling that outlawed racially segregated schools.
"If you simply read the text of the Constitution and somebody said, 'Where does it refer to school desegregation?' - of course you would not have found anything," Souter said. "But I think that clearly implicit in the text of the Constitution itself was the proper basis for the court's exercise of its jurisdiction."
Grassley then asked Souter to name any case in the court's history where "improper rights were created." The nominee mentioned none.
"Well then, let me see if I can help you where you might think the court improperly acted," Grassley said. He cited rulings during the tenure of Chief Justice Earl Warren, despised by conservatives for provoking decisions during the 1960s that aggressively expanded the rights of criminal suspects.
Souter did not agree that the Warren Court rulings went too far, describing them as a "pragmatic implementation" of the Bill of Rights.
Further aggravating conservatives, Souter praised the Warren Court rulings for teaching law enforcement officers how to protect the rights of suspects.
"We have learned to live with those rulings and we live with them pretty well today," Souter said.
One of Souter's statements during his Senate grilling has always stuck with me. Pressed for his views on individual rights, Souter offered a gem of wisdom that struck me as a delightful distillation of what our country is all about: "I'd rather have a right to do something than a right to stop someone else."
Things I Like - Sciences
Photo by: Dan Winters - click to enlargeI'm not sure if this qualifies as Science or not - a recent article in Wired Magazine told the interesting story of these huge granite slabs in Elberton Georgia, a small town about 100 miles north east of Atlanta. Called the American Stonehenge, these slabs are both multi-functional and mysterious.
As far as functionality, the 220,000 pounds of Georgia granite act as a clock, a calendar and a compass (that would be the science component). More importantly, the 16 foot tall slabs are inscribed with a set of 10 'GUIDESTONES TO AN AGE OF REASON' to be used for rebuilding civilization after the apocalypse (which isn't identified in anyway, just kind of assumed). These guidestones, written in 8 of the world's most significant languages, include:
- Protect people and nations with fair laws and just courts.
- Rule passion—faith—tradition—and all things with tempered reason
- Be not a cancer on the earth—leave room for nature—leave room for nature
The monument has become somewhat controversial with Christian groups claiming that it is the work of Satan. But that's probably to be expected - this is serious bible-belt country. Another line of reasoning is that the group behind the monument is the Rosecrusians, a sect born in the 17th century that stresses reason and endorses a harmonic relationship with nature.
Wyatt Martin says this is all bunk, but he's still not telling what he knows. Until he does, the stones are just another tourist attraction, something to make people wonder.
And maybe they always will be.
Marriott Is Ummm...Saving the Earth
TW: This goes in the category of gratuitous aggravation. I read that Marriott is getting rid of those newspapers outside your door (unless you request it). There really is nothing wrong with the concept, I am sure many folks either ignore them completely or will barely miss them (thereby putting another nail in the coffin of the newspaper industry).
But the smarmy press release from Marriott touts the move as a green initiative- "Based on preliminary data, the company projects that newspaper distribution will be reduced by about 50,000 papers daily or 18 million papers annually, thereby avoiding 10,350 tons of carbon emissions (calculated by Conservation International assuming an estimate of .5 pounds per paper)." Right...am sure it has nothing to do with cutting costs amidst the Great Contraction.
Another one is our local Jewel grocery store, which is on TV congratulating themselves for "slashing prices" by 20% to help hard hit consumers. Of course, when I went to the store the other day I noticed much of their usual feature pricing had been removed. The result, many items net price is now HIGHER than before their "slashing price" initiative. Nice.
But the smarmy press release from Marriott touts the move as a green initiative- "Based on preliminary data, the company projects that newspaper distribution will be reduced by about 50,000 papers daily or 18 million papers annually, thereby avoiding 10,350 tons of carbon emissions (calculated by Conservation International assuming an estimate of .5 pounds per paper)." Right...am sure it has nothing to do with cutting costs amidst the Great Contraction.
Another one is our local Jewel grocery store, which is on TV congratulating themselves for "slashing prices" by 20% to help hard hit consumers. Of course, when I went to the store the other day I noticed much of their usual feature pricing had been removed. The result, many items net price is now HIGHER than before their "slashing price" initiative. Nice.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)