Pakistan/Libhya/Iran

Amazing why the Bushies concentrate so much energy on Iran when a country WITH nukes, Islamic fundamental terrorist camps, IED's happening not infrequently, is undergoing this much upheaval

On another route, why don't more people talk about what occurred with Libya and nukes. This is a country with definite proof of direct terrorist attacks against civilians, a "crazy" leader, and a nuclear program who without a bullet being fired gave up his nuclear program in exchange for some normalization of international relations all through negotiation.

A post which I wish I would have written first

Krugman on the wholesale lunacy of some of the right wing blogosphere going after a 12 year old kid:

Politics aside, the Graeme Frost case demonstrates the true depth of the health care crisis: every other advanced country has universal health insurance, but in America, insurance is now out of reach for many hard-working families, even if they have incomes some might call middle-class.

And there’s one more point that should not be forgotten: ultimately, this isn’t about the Frost parents. It’s about Graeme Frost and his sister.

I don’t know about you, but I think American children who need medical care should get it, period. Even if you think adults have made bad choices — a baseless smear in the case of the Frosts, but put that on one side — only a truly vicious political movement would respond by punishing their injured children.

While the facts seem to clearly make the case that the Frosts have made choices that are essentially good ones for a family to make: work two jobs, stay together with kids who are handicapped by illness. They've been ridiculed for taking federal help instead of making other "choices" - Like not selling there home (well duh move to worse neighborhood) or sending there disabled kid to a public school (when the tuition at the private school is covered by the state secondary to the child's disability). It's important to remember that they didn't choose to have there kids be in a car accident (and thus basically prevent them from getting any affordable health insurance secondary to preexisting conditions). Finally, it's just as important to remember these are still children and as a society no matter the decisions of parent we should give ALL kids a reasonable chance to succeed and making sure kids are healthy is essential to that

Trying to rehab neocons or "liberal hawks"

Folks are rightfully teeing off on NYT's Roger Cohen trying to rehab the neocon legacy by essentially saying that if you didn't support the Iraq invasion you are essentially a supporter of Stalin, Hitler, or whatever atrocious dictator that we fought against. First off it seems to completely ignore that we haven't done much against plenty of other really bad guys such as Mugabe, the various Chinese atrocities, Burma, etc. Secondly in the same vein as Yglesias, just because your desired ends are good it doesn't excuse the actual ends achieved. Put in other words, reality bites. Finally, I find it odd that no one talks about the actual nature of Iraq before we went in. Mainly I was thinking of the Kurds who were the worst victims of Saddam: they were already semi-autonomous in part due to the air cover provided by the US. So we already had shielded one entire population from possible brutalities. While Hussein still had a terrible impact elsewhere in Iraq (secret police and the like) there was no killing fields type of catastrophe that required an urgent poorly planned invasion

Consumer Safety

Seems to me a smart campaign issue for a Democrat to pick up would be consumer product safey particularly with articles like this: (on top of all the Chinese recalls)

Walter E. Friedel’s plans to waterproof the tile floors of his hot tub room using Stand ’n Seal, a do-it-yourself product sold at his local Home Depot, promised to be a quick weekend project, one he could wrap up in time to catch the Giants football game on a Sunday afternoon.

The product offered “a revolutionary fast way” to seal grout around tiles and, its label boasted, any extra spray would “evaporate harmlessly.”

“It sounds like no big deal,” Dr. Friedel said, looking back.

But instead of watching football that afternoon, Dr. Friedel, a 63-year-old physician, ended up being rushed to the hospital, where he would spend four days in intensive care, gasping for air, his lungs chemically inflamed.

Dr. Friedel was the latest victim of a product whose dangers had become known months earlier to the Consumer Product Safety Commission and the companies that made and sold it. Before Dr. Friedel bought Stand ’n Seal, at least 80 people had been sickened using it, two of them fatally.

Court documents show that, as the case unfolded, the product’s maker, BRTT, appeared at times to be more concerned with protecting its bottom line than with taking steps to ensure that the hazard was removed. That meant that hazardous cans of Stand ’n Seal remained on the shelves for more than a year after the 2005 recall.

Now why should this be championed by a Democrat and not a Republican since this seems to be an area of good governance rather then politics, well let say it all about mindset:

Senator McCaskill repeatedly asks Ms. Nord why she has not, to date, asked for more money for her agency, the underfunded, dilapidated and ineffectual state of which was exposed in a similar senate hearing last month; highlights included the introduction to the culture of a new and unfortunately-named martyr of sorts--Bob, the Small Parts Guy--as well as this picture of the CPSC Toy Testing lab on display:

Ms. Nord repeats her non-answer with robotic consistency and an oddly fixed gaze to match:

"If you gave us more money, we would spend more money."

College Football and Injuries

I get the distinct impression that in college football people don't seem to pay much attention to injuries to the same extent as the pros. For example, USC has a ton of injuries and there QB got hurt in the first half. All credit to Stanford for pulling the upset but one has to wonder what would happen against a full strength USC. Less scholarships per team has already increased parity and add a few injuries to that and the talent gap can disappear quickly. Of course, I really haven't heard much of that in any of the post-game conversation. The lack of a real playoff format and the quixotic nature of polling where people who don't watch close to all the games already makes ranking less then accurate. Asking folks to also consider injuries would probably confuse the situation even further so people tend to sweep it under the rug. This is particular the case with injuries in spots like the offensive line where these players rarely get attention even when playing well.

Prisons more viable to society then public universities?

Via Pharyngula:

Jonah unkindly mentions that California will spend three times as much operating its prisons than running the UC system. Doesn't that reassure you so much about America's priorities?

If there is any area of government screaming for reform its prisons. The crazy idea of hoping to reduce recividism when grouping together tons of criminals without thinking about what will happen to a lot of these folks after jail doesn't make a lot of sense. Instead we create an environment where less hardened criminals become criminal and reduce the already tough chance of these folks becoming productive citizens severely (more gang contacts, great role models, etc.).

Good ol'Gov. Arnold here in California actually came up with a reasonable idea to create rehabilitation centers for for the non-violent convicts. Makes a lot more sense to me then overloading prisons with minor felonies (a gazillion years for possession of crack) or hoping gang members after hanging out with more gang members will fight the straight and narrow

What if Iraq never happened?

As other regimes laugh (i.e. the junta in Burma) when the US talks about the evils of torture, secret prisons, etc one has to wonder what would have happened if Iraq never happened. While Saddam probably would still be in power: it's pretty clear from examples such as Libya and even North Korea that you can keep the WMD threat at bay essentially indefinitely (I know NK has nukes now but that was because we dropped the agreed framework thinking that Talking Loudly while Carrying a Small Stick is effective and since then we have had to essentially to go backwards in time by approving a deal that isn't as good as the Clinton deal).

In addition, the fear factor of American Military Power with the success of the 1st Gulf War and Afgan war would have been incredible. The threat of force we forget at times is as powerful as actual force used. Add to the power of the US arms the moral authority we would have had (Defeating the Taliban/Al Queda, stopping Genocide in Bosnia) and the US could have been possibly a much more powerful influence in areas of the world such as Sudan and Burma.

On the other hand I fear without the failure of Iraq, George Bush would have had an even more powerful hand in domestic policy that would have been disastrous. How much fuss would really
have been put up against illegal domestic wiretapping, our own torture policie, gay bashing, etc w/o the monkey of Iraq on Bush's back? In the end, knowing how dismal this administration has been on actually planning for the future they probably would have made some disastrous mistake. After all, China has been on the neocon lineup for awhile

Anbar Awakening Reframed

The so-called Anbar Awakening where Sunni Tribal Sheiks have turned against the Sunni Al-Queda has somehow been turned into evidence we should continue stay in Iraq indefinitely with no guidelines to determine when real victory or defeat is achieved. Considering that the Anbar Awakening started before the Surge even got going and it was the Sheiks who came to the US with the plan this is a tough proposition to believe.

What it does show is that the doomsday scenarios of an Al Queda led terrorist state in Iraq comparable to the Taliban-led Afganistan is not exactly a likely occurrence if the US pulls out. Right now we are the occupiers not liberators in Iraq. Take US troops out of the firing line and both Sunni and Shiite groups will first try to establish borders between them (this might take a very long time and be bloody: Lebanon comes to mind) and each sect will have there own leaders vie for power. Without us, the frankly relatively minor Al-Queda in Iraq will have no base for support as local leaders with the legitimacy we lack will not want these other outsiders (i.e. wanna be occupiers) telling them what to do. In essence, Democrats need to reframe the Anbar Awakening from a reason to stay to the much more viable reality that Saddam is gone and that Iraq's fate for better or worse will be determined by home grown Iraqis. Remember, the definition of victory has never been clearly defined here - hell we don't even know who we are fighting half the time. Instead of withdrawal being about the US military being stabbed in the back, withdrawal is simply dealing with the reality the we have won our major goals*: no Saddam, no WMD's, likely no Al-Queda based on Anbar and since we are a people who love freedom it's time we stop acting like a colonial power.

*Since Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11, had no WMD's, and Al-Queda only came to Iraq after we bungled this whole thing it is definitely a hollow victory since we would have literally won anyway by not wasting thousands of American and Iraqi lives and billions of dollars in the first place.

The Value of a Left Guard

Seriously how important is a dominant left guard to an offense? The St. Louis Rams might have a new coach but they have two All-Pro reciever, an All-Pro Quarterback, and an All-Pro RB and there offense sucks after a year when they were pretty damn good. The biggest factor seems to be losing one Orlando Pace

Love of the Game

I always figured that because my Dad loved basketball, I ended up loving it as well. As the years passed I wondered why I would stick with basketball above all other teams sports. Lot of initial thoughts popped up: basketball is a great TV sport as the athlete's athleticism clearly shows. Some other sports this isn't the case - hockey doesn't translate the speed from the ice to the small screen well IMO, soccer it's difficult when you can only see a small portion of the pitch to really get an idea of the action. This is a problem with football as well on TV for me as the camera tends to focus at the area around the line of scrimmage and you can miss recievers etc on the field (overall though football is obviously a great TV sport). Baseball and golf seem like better radio sports as you can do something else waiting for things to happen.

Not to say other team sports don't have positives versus basketball. Fantasy is much funner with football and the stats are better representative of actual performance in baseball then any other sports. Football also has the strategy factor as the coach impacts a game of football more then any other manager in any other sport.

However basketball has one one more plus that seems to relatively unique to it. Above all other team sports, basketball requires the individual to balance being a great individual player versus a great team player. Obviously, every team sport requires individuals to do things that benefits the team more then a player (i.e. a wide receiver blocking) but nothing quite like basketball. In basketball, a player has to decide every time when he gets the ball essentially to do something himself or give it up to a teammate. This puts enormous stress on star players in particular. For example, let's say Kobe Bryant has the ball should he shoot the tough turn around jumper or pass it to the guy who has the open shot. That sounds like a no brainer at first but what if the open player well sucks and has high percentage chance of missing an even open shot? Plus, in basketball a great individual performer can simply will a team to win. It can't happen consistently but you can have games like in Game of the ECF last year where Lebron basically carried his team over the Pistons singlehandedly by scoring 25 straight points.

Now you can have a great quarterback performance in football but you need receivers to get open and most important an offensive line blocking for you. Pitchers, I think are the one case where one individual can have a bigger impact then a basketball player in the zone. But here's the rub the pitcher the better he pitches doesn't have think about at all involving other players. In basketball, even a player who is red hot has to be concerned about throwing up a "heat check" or actually getting the ball to others . If you don't, then you end up getting a stagnant offense where everyone is just watching the guy holding the ball and team overall doesn't perform overall well as defenses simply start keying on the one player. That player then has to decide whether to jack it up or keep his teammates involved. In this way, basketball closely mirrors real life in that as a social creature we have to balance doing what's best not only for us but what is best for larger societal groups: should I pay for that song on itunes or go to the latest kazaa like download, eat the last piece of pie or leave it for somebody else, stop for the stalled car on the side of the road or make it to work on time, etc.

Economic Outlook

Andrew Tobias is starting to sound negative:

Listen. Even leaving aside the continuing costly catastrophe in Iraq, our economy would appear to face at least three broad challenges:

1. This housing thing is not likely to go away in a few months. And it could be a decade or two before homes and condos in some places return to their peak prices (at least in “real” terms, adjusted for inflation). Click here for an example of the pain from Sacramento. As a result, because so much consumer spending depends on home equity debt – and/or the confidence consumers feel with ever rising home values – a recession is likely . . . which would just add to the housing market woes . . . which would just deepen the recession.

2. Global oil production may have peaked; and where a U.S. slowdown might once have triggered a worldwide slowdown, and with it a drop in oil prices, that might not happen this time. China and India and some others are growing so fast – thankfully* – that a U.S. recession might not be enough to push oil prices down. Which means consumers may continue to face high energy costs but also, perhaps, high other costs. Like food. Friday’s Wall Street Journal tells the tale. (“The days of cheap grain are gone," says Dan Basse, president of AgResource Co., a Chicago commodity forecasting concern. This year the prices of Illinois corn and soybeans are up 40% and 75%, respectively, from a year ago. Kansas wheat is up 70% or more. And a growing number of economists and agribusiness executives think the run-ups could last as long as a decade . . .”)

The demand for corn to make ethanol (a dumb solution to our energy problem, but that’s another column) – combined with the demand from hundreds of millions of Indians and Chinese who are beginning to be able to afford something more than bare subsistence – may take a while to absorb.

In the longer run, technology may provide cheap energy, tremendous fuel efficiency, and even more productive agriculture. But for now, high food, gas, and home heating oil prices won’t make homes any easier to afford. See #1, above.

* I say “thankfully” because strong demand from abroad can mitigate or even forestall our recession . . . and because a rapidly growing young Asian middle class will one day be there looking to buy shares for their retirement accounts that retired Baby Boomers will be looking to sell . . . and because as those giant economies grow more prosperous, the wage gap will begin to shrink . . . and because, well, those two-plus billion people are human beings, too.

We’ve been losing, and will continue to lose, a lot of high-paying jobs. It’s easy to blame the free-traders and greedy capitalists for this, but putting up trade barriers won’t cure the problem. Perhaps the only government intervention that caused more unintended harm than Prohibition, in 1920, was Smoot-Hawley, designed to prevent job losses, in 1930.

Tobias is typically very positive but I think he is pretty much spot on with his concerns and more negative outlook. Globalization I feel won't hurt standard of living in the long term as I think it will eventually not only competition for jobs but more consumers as well with money to spend.

Oil however is going to be tough and why the US should spend money and capital into finding alternatives. Even if we haven't reached peak oil the consumption of oil is justing getting bigger and bigger and I haven't heard anyone talk our increasing ease in finding oil.

Finally, the real estate market fed by easy money from excess liquidity and new fandangled mortgage standards that would make a prostitute blush is really in the short term that will really hurt. Go to a site like Redfin and just see the price increases since 2000 and it becomes quickly clear that we have a bubble and bubble don't end well