Shinseki as VA secretary. I don't think we know the full accurate story but I do remember him as standing up to Rumsfelds optimistic projects for the occupation of Iraq. Glad Shinseki has landed somewhere.

Though many Americans wouldlike to believe the whole revolves around us the plain truth is some things just happen regardless of us or how we think/feel about them. So I tend to disagree that these attacks had anything at all to do with us.

The best part is that you are going to be cluelessly and harmlessly yammering away in cyberspace for the next eight years while President Obama actually gets shit done.

Your Internet addiction = good for America!

Well, basically he's the guy who put together a plan for Iraq that postulated force levels of up to 500,000 troops. After saying as much when testifying before Congress, he was chewed out publically by both Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz.

This was, however, only one in a series of disagreements he had with Rumsfeld.

I wonder how much detail, though, one can put in a press release. ;)

Forgive me for pointing out that almost ALL of the shit you spouted on about during the election and in the days since the election have turned out to be total bunk.

I really hope he "gets shit done" (as long as it's good shit). But I'm facinated by the optimism. Charisma is an amazing force.

Agreed. These two articles profoundly demonstrate that the more things change, the more they stay the same.........

8 years ago:

Cheney Denies 'Talking Down' Economy for Political Gain : Talk of Recession Strains Transition - International Herald Tribune

Yesterday:

My Way News - Obama: Economy to get worse before it improves

The only real difference is the spin on what is basically the same situation. It's all the same in the end. There were people making posts just like Subby and Flasch 8 years ago on the other side. It's silly, but not unexpected. They're just caught up in the moment. It happens to the best of people.

i point to my post a few posts above. You have totally been discredited when it comes to anything political especially any sort of speculation or prognostication.

Where do you pull these from? It's not a big deal as we all borrow from other sites, but you have a habit of posting without citation. I have a hard time believing that you saw an AP article and said to yourself, "Hey that reminds me of an International Herald Tribune article from eight years ago."

These two articles were posted over at the Wizbang blog. I don't agree with all of their opinion in the blog, but the articles are a good reference.

reference for what?

I refer back to the title of this thread.

I hope I get my "President check" before Christmas.

I predict I won't.

The Obama Presidency - hopes and predictions

Personally, I'm hoping for a little bit less of this:


:jawdrop:

My hope is that Obama is the exception and not the norm of Illinois Democrats.

Geez, my hope is beginning to be that Obama's cabinet doesn't have any more skeletons in the closet. Looks like Rahm may not be the only one who Obama failed to adequately check his background. Another one of Obama's cabinet is a main player in a new 'pay to play' investigation.......

"Pay To Play" Probe Hits New Mexico, Washington Post: Gov. Bill Richardson's Office Investigated Over Political Contributor's $1.4M State Contracts - CBS News

Since you no nothing about this please stop talking. We have plenty rigs and drilling supplies for offshore. The problem is when oil drops to lower rates, it no longer worth the expense of drilling. The oil field is predicting a 50% drop in the amount of rigs this year from last in the north american drilling fields.

We just had our budget cut by about 1/3 for the next year.

Insincerity, thy name is MBBF.

Actually, I was being sincere. I'd much rather we be able to discuss policies. Given the Obama attacks over the vetting of Palin, you would think that he would have done a better job on his end. It's obviously concerning.

He's even sincere enough to place it in multiple threads:
Front Office Football Central - View Single Post - Illinois governor arrested on corruption charges.......

SI

Obviously, that was in response to a question, not a post meant to double post.

Obviously, there's a great deal of sincerity going around this morning

SI

MBBF: You've been looking for any way to discredit Obama for months. That's fine, but at least drop the "wishing him the best" act.

Rooting against the president?

I don't understand how people can do that. Our country is in shambles right now and whether you wanted McCain to win or Obama should not matter at this point. I hope Obama does well, because we as a country need him to do well.

So everyone who is hating on him, just need to STFU and get with the program. If he sucks he will be gone in four years and our country will be in worse shape. But, we need him to do well if we want our country to recover.

Agree with all of this. It's simply unheard of to think that people on this board or anyone in the general public would every root against a president. I can't remember the last time that's ever happened.

MBBF, did you ever admit to being completely wrong on the elections thread?

lemme see...

nope.

credit = zero

I'm sure that Flasch's Truth Watch(TM) is just finalizing data on the criminal investigations in Chicago and New Mexico. He's never ducked an issue before. I'm certain he'll get to the bottom of these current issues. He's always been a person that seeks the truth regardless of party affiliation, and I respect him for that.

lets see

the prosecutor has arrested the accused
the pres-elect team has investigated
the prosecutor asked that the report be delayed and confirmed that the president elect and his team aren't being implicated

not sure what else you want from that other than the same thing I said about Troopergate:

I hope EVERYONE cooperates fully and the TRUTH comes out.

I feel fairly confident though that the President isn't going to start a parallel investigation and refuse to cooperate with Fitzgerald, if he does Ill be sure to lump him in the same category as the other people who do so.

you do want the same right? In all things, right?

Is that what you wanted? Pretty clear huh? exactly the same as Troopergate? You, however, were VERY VERY wrong, completely biased, and never ever admitted it even when empirical un-partisan information blew up in your face. that's just crazy IMO

You guys realize that this continuing partisan bickering make both sides look like fools? Flasch/JPhillip/etc., don't get too cocky. You never have and still don't sound any different than MBBF/etc..

Buc: This is going to sound a lot bitchier than I intend it to be, but here goes. For all of your concern about other folks' behavior there's almost no one here more set in their ways than you are. I gather you see yourself as beyond partisanship, but even if that's true, you're a rather inflexible ideologue at this point.

I don't have a problem with your inflexibility and I'm willing to stipulate that I'm just as inflexible(age and parenting does that to a guy). I honestly don't have a problem with an adversarial relationship when it comes to politics as I think the genuine disagreements should be aired out. If we're ever going to change our minds it will be because of passionate argument, not deferential silence.

I try to only call people out when I believe they aren't being honest, and that's what I did with MBBF. I don't have a problem with him being opposed to Obama, but concern trolling is just a way to obfuscate reality. I obviously don't agree with MBBF on substance, but that's something we can argue over if there is an attempt by both sides to show our cards.

As for looking like a fool, perhaps, but as long as I'm deemed honest about my intentions I can live with that. I'm happier letting the world see me for who I am, warts and all, than I would be pretending to bathe in the warm waters of ambivalent and apathetic centrism. At the end of the day I think you believe the same thing.

It's interesting, both sides think that the other sides' approach to an argument is "wrong" - they feel that way, of course, because they're so sure they're "right".

Disagreeing is "trolling", agreeing is something else, because hey, you can't be trolling if you're right.

molson: I think you misunderstand the term "concern trolling". That's when you feign concern for someone or something that you in fact have no concern for. It seems pretty obvious based on his history that MBBF isn't really concerned for Obama.

JPhillips, I do agree with that. I think I should not have lumped you with Flasch but instead, should put in Flere. :)

I actually don't think what I believe would be called bi-partisanship or centrism or beyond partisanship. It's probably an attitude that the current red/blue partisans are equally wrong. :) Since the summer, I have seen a constant stream attacking the opposition and being defensive about one side. You can call that passionate arguing but in the end, it is really about changing parties while we continue to accept federal government solutions and increasing powers. I cannot accept that and those that argue for it. Or something like that.

Bill Richardson is filthy.

Politician = filthy

Vote Ron Paul!

I actually was be honest about Obama. I REALLY would prefer that we don't have any scandals in the White House at this point. Obviously, I might have a small dab of sarcasm involved in my comments, but I was being very truthful in my feeling that I hoped Obama didn't end up in any political scandals.

Thus far, from a policy standpoint, I've been very happy that most of the Obama policies are moderating before our very eyes.

Actually, I really don't think it matter what exactly the president does. A lot of the current mortgage crisis were due to policies put into place before GW took office. Nor were the .coms turning to crap something Bush could have prevented. The world economy is suffering and that isn't strictly a GW problem either. I think you could put a retarted monkey in office, and these issues will clear themselves up. I'm not all that concerned with the "program." I'm more concerned about what his policies are going to do for the long haul, not the short term.

Nah, we've already tried that and it badly didn't work

SI

Some people treat politics as a sport. They have their team and they root against the other. The country is secondary to their competitive nature.

It's an ironic twist since they are the ones who would like you to believe that they care more about their country because of their involvement in politics while in fact they aren't.

I agree.

Agreed. My biggest fear in all this is we get so caught up in ensuring no one ever gets laid off or loses their retirement in the market that we remove many of the incentives that make the US what it is.

There's a tight line we are about to walk between showing some compassion to people in tough times and trying to remove all risk from American life. It seems like most of the fear has been associated with straying too far from the first direction, but little has been devoted to worrying about the second. In 8 years, we will all have made it through this either way, I just hope we don't do long term damage to our fiscal/economic system to stave off a few years of pain (that we probably won't avoid anyway).

EDIT - And for those in the republican/democrat horse race, I would be just as worried about the above if McCain had been elected.

I guess I should have added a fifth ...

5. Stabilized and peacefull Middle East.

You might as well ask for world peace, an end to hunger and poverty and, heck, ponies for everyone. :p

Well he is an Obama supporter, I'm sure he already has ;)

I'll have you know I put in my order for a pony before the election. If I don't get one by January 21st, I'm going to be pissed.

No winged unicorns in stock?

I remembered that. Problem is they gave away the ponies to the financial execs, auto execs, labor leaders and those that got bad mortgages. No pony for you.

ECONOMY

Hopes:

• U.S. out of recession by early 2010.
• DOW back over 10,000 by 2011.
• The Obama team figures out how to get Wall Street to finally resolve all the bad debts out there (the weakness of the American economy isn't addressed in full until this is, in my opinion).
• In 2009, an Obama "reconstruction" plan passes Congress that is designed to rebuild the U.S. for the 21st century. It includes:
  • Substantial investment in R&D efforts for "21st century" industries, such as technology, biotechnology, pharma, green technologies, etc....
  • Infrastructure upgrades (roads, rail, ATC, internet backbone)
• Better regulatory powers, and a will to use them intelligently, at the SEC.

Predictions:

• U.S. out of recession by late 2010.
• DOW goes back over 10,000 during primary season for 2012 elections.
• Wall Street never really figures out how much bad debt is out there, but by late 2010 there's enough faith that the "Big 3" (Citibank, JP Morgan Chase, Bank of America) have cleared the bulk of the liabilities that the country starts to lift out of its 2-3 year malaise in the financial markets.
• Chrysler fails and its parts are bought up by competitors (foreign & domestic). Ford ends up needing that line of credit, but turns out OK. GM is kept on life support by the government through 2010 and restructuring starts to pay off in 2011.
• A short-term stimulus package of tax breaks and generalized pork is passed in early 2009.
• A long-term "reconstruction" package is finally passed in mid/late-2009 and demonstrates the first serious test of Obama's influence over Congress. Relations are soured between the White House and the Democratic leadership in Congress over the latter's lack of willingness to pass legislation over the objections of vocal minorities amongst the GOP in Congress. This drives the liberal blogosphere absolutely ballistic. The "reconstruction" package contains some forward-looking initiatives, but is also at least half pork.

SUPREME COURT

Hopes: Stevens (age: 88, reason: age), Ginsburg (75, health), Scalia (72, age), Kennedy (72, age), Breyer (70, age), and Souter (69, age/desire to retire) all retire and are replaced by young (around 50), brilliant, accomplished and just-left-of-center progressive justices. Furthermore, Thomas experiences an epiphany and changes from a reliable but incomprehensible right-wing vote to a reliable but still incomprehensible left-wing vote. Roberts decides he doesn't want to be remembered as a Chief Justice who was always in the minority and so migrates to the center. Alito doesn't change, and becomes a bitter, disillusioned man.

Predictions: Early retirements for Stevens, Ginsburg and Souter. Easy confirmations for replacements who are young (50s), left-of-center but not radical, and possess very good credentials. Later retirements for Kennedy and Breyer. More difficult confirmation for replacements due to aforementioned ineptitude of Democratic leadership in Congress and increasing hostility between them and Obama White House. Eventual replacements are confirmed with good majorities (think Roberts) and are still young (50s), left-of-center but not radical, and possess very good credentials. In these later confirmations especially, the influence of "moderate" Republicans such as John McCain and Olympia Snowe are significant.

FOREIGN POLICY

Hopes:

• Majority of U.S. troops out of Iraq by 2010 in advance of current plan due to unexpected improvement in security and political stability.
• Resurgent Afghanistani government and invigorated Pakistani administration, with U.S. and NATO backing, rout Taliban in border regions. Afghanistan secure enough by early 2012 to start withdrawing U.S. troops.
• During the above operations OBL is mortally wounded by shrapnel but lives for a few days before dying. His body is discovered by Pakistani troops who overrun his position. Later, a video of OBL during his last days taken by a lapsed militant surfaces and shows a mentally enfeebled, ranting, humiliated, and afraid OBL. Negative impact to AQ recruitment & fundraising is significant.
• The Obama administration manages to engage again-Russian President Putin on a number of military and economic concords, with the result being a less-aggressive Russia and a more open state-influenced quasi-free market state.
• The Obama administration convinces China to institute real regulatory oversight for its factories so they stop sending deadly toys, drugs and food to the U.S.
• Obama & Clinton manage, in 2011, to broker a "Good Friday"-type in Israel/Palestine.
• Responding to backchannel overtures by the U.S., the Iranian Supreme Council do not support Ahmadinejad in the 2009 Presidential Election, and instead allow a "reformer" (by Iranian standards) to win the Presidency. By 2012, in response to further backchannel overtures by the U.S., the Iranians wind up their nuclear program and begin to open up their society.

Predictions:

• U.S. troops leave Iraq on schedule in 2011 but Iraqi state remains tenuous and violence/security comes and goes.
• A renewed emphasis on Afghanistan pushes the Taliban back and the situation by 2012 is a three-way on-and-off conflict between U.S.-supported Afghanistanis, the Taliban, and Pakistan in the border regions.
• OBL is found dead by U.S. special forces. The U.S. claims he died of renal failure. Most of the Islamic world feels it's likely the soldiers killed him. No one ever finds out the truth.
• Obama's charisma on the world stage isolates again-Russian President Vladimir Putin, who continues to intimidate neighbors and run Russia as a quasi-authoritarian state. Despite this, the Obama administration, through backchannel diplomacy, is able to engage Russia more often at the U.N. Security Council on various issues and is able, more than once, to play Russia off against China.
• Nothing significant happens in relations with China.
• Obama gets Iran to re-commit to a serious weapons inspection program, but there continue to be problems.
• Following what's essentially a pitched war between Israel and Hamas in 2009 and 2010, Obama & Clinton broker a "cessation" agreement between the two (who have, by this time, very war-weary populaces) in 2011. It doesn't solve anything permanently, but gets the violence to stop and sets the stage for long-term shuttle talks that are still underway in 2013.

POLITICS

Hopes: Obama and Biden (Biden especially) work deftly with Democratic leaders in Congress to develop cohesive democratic voting majorities that deliver lots of progressive legislation. A thoroughly demoralized GOP loses even more seats in Congress in 2010, as the Democrats gain a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate.

Predictions: Democratic leadership in Congress continues to be weak and division in Democratic ranks is exploited by activist Republicans in Congress (more noticeable in the House) who attack legislation relentlessly and mercilessly. An Obama White House becomes increasingly frustrated with Democratic leadership and tension increases greatly in 2009 and 2010. In 2010 the GOP gains seats in the House, and many seats are won by activist "social conservatives". Despite this the Democrats pick up just enough seats in the Senate to go over 60, but the outlook for preserving those gains in 2012 looks especially bleak.


I could probably go on, but those are probably my major thoughts. Oh, and we all get ponies (hope), er, a 0.001% tax rebate (prediction). :D

Winged unicorns are a lot more work than you think. The upkeep on that horn, for instance, gets expensive. So no, just a pony for me.


Well, crap.

FWIW, my predictions related to the Senate are based on an analysis of the seats in play for 2010. In this year there's still very little defense for the Democrats to play, and a number of Republicans who can be targeted/could be vulnerable.

Regardless of what happens, though, things start to look difficult for Democrats in the Senate from 2012 onward, with a lot of defense to play. I think it's quite likely that the GOP could be back in a slim majority by 2014, especially if the country is still in a poor economic state.

Interesting read, flere. It may be end up being completely wrong ;), but it's as good a read as exists in the thread so far.

SI

I'm surprised this hasn't been mentioned yet, but Bill Richardson has now taken his name out of consideration for a cabinet position. Obama's aides are saying that Richardson wasn't forthcoming about the grand jury investigation during his vetting promise.

Im glad he pulled out, while I like to wait for end of investigations (instead of parallel investigations if youre wondering) before the culmination of results, it is an unnecessary distraction.

Leon Panetta for the CIA spot? Umm ... WTF?

First pick I've seen that really had me bewildered, most of the rest I can at least find rhyme or reason for whether I approve of/agree with them or not, but this one? Bizarre.

Agreed. The first choice that I think was bad. The intelligence community was nearly destroyed under Clinton (imo) and Panetta was part of that. It must have been a favor that Obama had to pay back.

While I can understand the pick for Labor (another favor he had to cash), I hate that one. The rest are fine.

It is a puzzling move. I guess some have been saying that Panetta will simply be the face of the CIA and that he'll let the real intelligence experts run it.

The guesses I've seen indicate that the Obama team thinks the CIA needs a management restructuring and that this is a strong point on Panetta's resume.

I'm not sure I agree with that (the latter, I am sure that the CIA needs a once-over from a management perspective), but at least it's somewhat logical.

The Sanjay Gupta pick is interesting. The guy would certainly make a good face for the country's health movements, but his beliefs on universal healthcare seem to go against Obama.

The trouble with Sanjay Gupta - Paul Krugman Blog - NYTimes.com

Watching some news clips on Obama and his train trip. I've obviously noticed this earlier but it seemed so much more evident now with the waning days of Bush's presidency (melancholy?) ... the difference between how Obama and Bush give speechs are like night and day.

Haven't read every single post in the thread but glancing it over and surprised there is no mentin of the "A" word in the thread. Am I the only one who feels that assasination is a valid prediction for what may happen during his term?

I know this is probably going to draw a lot of flack but I have to think it is a very valid prediction. There are enough whacko groups out there that would like to see this happen and some of them are just crazy enough to try it.

I personally hope this does not happen as it's about the last thing the country needs. It would only splinter the country at a time when the country can't afford that to happen. This fact alone increases the number of groups who would be willing to try it.


Now for my hopes:

- No assasination, or even known attempt. let's get to working on fixing the current state of the country and not have to worry about another problem.
- Get the economy back on it's feet. not really something that is directlytied to Obama but at least him being elected has given some people a positive feel so let's ride that feeling to getting the economy straight.
- Companies learn that paying the top exectives and insane salary is not the answer. these executives need to be held responsible for that they do and not be given buyouts in the event that they get "fired" ("if you fail you'll get 5 million" isn't exactly and incentive to produce).
- Health care costs do not continue to skyrocket. using common sense alone can help these costs (like the number of people who go the emergency room just because they have a stomach virus or flu).
- Fix the prisons. this has been something I have always wanted to see. granted there are some crimes for which people should never see the light of day again but for others we need to make sure that we are not just punishing but rehabilitating. it helps society more if the person coming out of prison is better prepared to be part of society instead of being trained to become a better criminal.
- Stop the flow of jobs out of our borders. eliminate any tax breaks given to companies who ship jobs out of the country. add tax breaks for companies who keep all their jobs in the country. add tax penalties for companies which ship jobs out of the country. to get the country on it's feet you need joe average to be employed and capable of supporting himself.
- Alternate fuel sources. something that is realistic and not going to just raise the cost of automobiles and will also be reliable. let's find a way to cut that cord so we can eliminate the need to pacify middle eastern countries because of their oil supply.
- NCAA football playoff system. the BCS is a sooner-like fraud.

My biggest hope for the Obama Presidency would be the return of competence to our government. We've seen over the last 8 years Bush appoint political lackeys who have no business running specific parts of government (hello Brownie!). The Justice Department has turned into a laughing stock. Whether I agree with the people in power or not, lets just get back to having the brightest minds in control. Not someones fucking roommate from college.

Interesting week under the intense microscope that is going to be the Obama presidency.

The Executive Orders were no surprise and fully expected.

There were two quips from Obama in his meeting yesterday that sounded very immature and stupid to me:


I don't listen to that arrogant blowhard but for a president to single him out is no better than a grade school taunt, "you can't my friend if you're friends with him". Limbaugh should not be that important enough for a president to single him out.

Instead, he should have said, "I do not want anyone to believe in the failure of the presidency, thus the country. We need to get things done, which was why I built a team of rivals and ended the calls to petty partisanship."

In other words, taking the high road instead of name-calling partisanship.


He's right, but his words were very wrong and immature. Instead, he should have said, "As president, the decision to include such proposal is mine. The merits of which can be debated in Congress."

Instead, he essentially went, "Neener neener."

From Campbell Brown, CNN:


Haven't we had enough of the Exectuive Branch breaking rules to suit their needs?

So here's my problem with this kind of thinking given this era of globalization (btw, I certainly don't like the idea of offshoring jobs):

What's an American firm? A company with headquarters in the US? A company that makes products entirely in the US? How do you define that. Start taxing the hell out of firms and they will "move" entirely outside of the US.

People can't have it both ways - you can't bitch and moan about companies going overseas because of cost cutting ways and then buy stuff made overseas at Walmart b/c that's the cheapest price available. And if you are restricted from competing by moving jobs overseas b/c of punitive taxes, American firms will be at a huge cost disadvantage in the global marketplace and will all go belly up.

There needs to be common sense logic built into this. Obviously if you are a store that is opening a branch in another country you are going to be employing people from that country.

I'll use my company as an example. Our "leadership" has funneled development jobs off to India though we are a US based company. We cannot sell our product in India as casino gaming is outlawed in the country and there is not anything close to being in the works to change that.

The excuse is that we can hire X number more developers per US resource but the turnover rate is so great that we are not gaining anything from this as the rate of development and quality of the product has dropped severely.

Any of the developers that are good enough to keep end up being brought to the US to work with visas (at US salaries which kind of ruins the whole "we are saving money in salaries" idea).

Over the past two years we have lost in the area of 1000 years of casino experience and that has been replaces with Indian resources with 0 casino experience, and worse yet most are fresh out of school and have no real world development experience. The IT field is seen as the "easy money" field in India and because of tht there are people graduating with degrees because they can memorize some terms but do not have the mindset to apply these terms in practice.


I guess the big picture problem still goes back to the people running the corporations not being held accountable for their decisions. They make decisions based on how they can sell the idea to the share holders even if the idea is not ultimately in the best interest of the company. Then when things go wrong and the company has to cut costs it's the people who need their jobs the most who get screwed while the CEO's sit back and collect their obscenely inflated checks. How does the CEO get "punished" for running the corporation poorly? Millions in stock options and a contract buyout. That'll teach 'em...


Sorry for the rant, just getting a little fed up with the business as usual crap going on and seeing good people lose their jobs because they are being replaced over seas.


I just hope those that are supporting the idea of change and improving the country also know they have to get off their butts to make this happen and don't think that Obama is just going to wave a magic wand and make it happen so they don't have to do anything.


Also, it's not our responsibility to make sure the other countries of the world are employed. We need to look after ourselves first before we look outside our borders. If your own family is starving THAT is your priority, not the family across the street.

Pretty neat, an unanticipated Obama 'hope' that may rank pretty high up there as far as domestic, long-term impact. Some possible holes in the study but still interesting.

Lab Notes : An 'Obama Effect' on Blacks' Test Scores?

Not at all, but I hope you get a better reaction than I got for mentioning that a few weeks (months?) ago.

FWIW, I believe the unprecedented level of security in DC this past week might be an indication that you & I aren't the only people who have this on the list of significant possibilities.

I'm in the IT consulting industry and have seen the technical jobs go offshore (good thing PM's and SME's are still needed onsite). It has been my experience that offshore does ultimately produce the necessary 'blended rate' to make us competitive and one-way-or-another, the job gets done even factoring the issues of turnover, language etc.

My issue with offshoring is that I believe we should keep some key intellectual capital within the US. I don't have a clean description of intellectual capital but think development of Oracle DB/SaaS Apps vs development of latest version of Quicken/compilers/games. As time goes by and as other countries catch up the definition changes.

I don't understand this argument some of these arguments again US protectionism.

1) It's not as if those firms are being taxed horribly as it is. Yes, the percentage is high. However, with lots of corporate loopholes, the corporate taxes in this country aren't nearly as high as they are being made out to be. When you can deduct all levels of crap- I imagine that with a good tax lawyer, corporations are paying much less than they would in other countries. Or they are at least competitive because it's not as if these companies are staying here just for name's sake. If they could save a buck and move to, say, the Cayman Islands for a corporate account, they would have already.

2) A lot of companies could only exist in this country. It's not as if you could open up a Starbucks in China and charge $5 a cup of coffee when their middle class makes barely $10K per year.

3) I do strongly agree with the first part of the final sentiment- people love to complain about service or selection and then go for the cheapest price. Search my history and I'm sure I've used my Ultimate Electronics/Best Buy analogy a couple of times. However, I disagree with the second- see my second point. Look at what Microsoft or most major pharmaceutical companies do- they sell at one price here and then substantially less in other places.

SI

Price-tiering is of course a little different, but they are all over the place...

Starbucks International Sites

Starbucks plans China expansion, 80 new stores to open in 2008 | China Briefing News

I agree with this. I'd like the government to get more involved in R&D grants for tech. Maybe have the government get a bit into the VC game, in some way.

Not liking this move by Obama on allowing states to set its own auto emission requirements.

Obama to let states set auto emission rules - CNN.com

Why? Isn't this a great example of state's rights?

I'm a little ashamed to say that I bought a Starbucks tea at the Forbidden City. I think I read, though, that that store has been closed.

It would be a huge blow to an auto industry that your trying to save.

Interesting reads about the Gitmo executive order. It appears the order was done to satisfy the liberal base while not actually changing much of anything. The executive order actually still allows for the same torture that was done in the Bush Administration when needed.

Jack Bauer Exception: Obama's Order Wants It Both Ways on Interrogations - WSJ.com

A walkthrough of the executive order section by section......

President Obama: Close Gitmo! | A Soldier's Perspective

Yeah, they are literally all over the place. Expressway rest stops in the Philippines? Yep they've got 'em. Lunch meeting with my clients in Chile? No problem, we can grab a quick sandwich and frappucino at Starbucks downstairs...

Looks like Obama has taken even more behind the scenes shortcuts regarding torture and holding terrorists. The Bush administration was hammered for sending detained terrorists to other countries to be detained and tortured (also called renditions). Turns out that Obama is actually going to INCREASE that policy.

Hot Air » Blog Archive » Surprise! Obama expands renditions

So yeah, he's shutting down Gitmo, but he's also effectively increasing the amount of torture on the detainees. They'll be more poorly treated in other countries, but at least the blood's not on our hands, right? It'll be interesting to see if the same liberals that decried this tactic will blast Obama for increasing the use of this policy rather than reducing it.

I see Blog (also the appropriate Hot Air) in the link so Ill pass. Show me a legitimate link and we all can either get on board with you or leave you on your island.

The blog post references a L.A. Times article: Obama preserves renditions as counter-terrorism tool - Los Angeles Times

Edit: Having said that, the blog post makes a lot of assumptions that the L.A. Times article treats very differently.

Edit #2: For instance:


The L.A. Times article's assessment is that Obama's executive order actually limits pretty much everything considerably more than Bush's policy, but keeps open an option for short-term, "transitory" rendition which is, admittedly, a big grey area.

To quote the article:


Emphasis mine.

"Hot Air", however, takes this statement and transforms it into:


Next, a rationale from (supposedly) an Obama Administration source:


And not everyone "on the left" is immediately against this:


Still, intelligence veterans doubt there's a significant place of value in America's policy for renditions going forward:


Of course, "Hot Air" takes issue with these conclusions:


To summarize, here's "Hot Air's listing of interrogation venues in terms of effectiveness:

1. Torture by U.S. at Gitmo/secret CIA holding sites
2. Torture by foreign governments at U.S.'s behest
3. Legal interrogation by U.S. at U.S. sites

Here's CIA veterans' listing of interrogation venues in terms of effectiveness (note they don't mention Gitmo):

1. Legal interrogation by U.S. at U.S. sites
2. Torture by foreign governments at U.S.'s behest

And anyway, the policy is evolving and not final yet:


So anyway, read the L.A. Times article, not the blog.

There's an article link to the LA Times. I'm assuming that paper is right up your alley given your previous stances in political threads.

Agreed, but that's to be expected given that it's the LA Times. It's a conservative blog citing a liberal newspaper article. Both of them have an inherent bias.

How is it a liberal newspaper article? Is it because it's in newspaper print?

Never mind, I should know my audience here: "Paper bad. Fox News good."

SI

I've made edits to my post which expand on that.

I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader to determine which source is reporting the news and which source is using misguided assumptions to make spurious conclusions based on a sliver of the news.

:D

It's an article in a liberal newspaper. That suit your nitpicking better?

Listen, as a supporter of Bush's terrorism policies, I couldn't be happier about the decision. I'm just surprised that there's not more outrage by the liberal supporters that Obama is failing to follow through with most of his promises regarding torture. Perhaps their motives weren't as sincere as we previously thought.

Agreed. It's a wonder the LA Times is even considered a valid news source at this point. ;)

Mizzou, you must go through life constantly surprised by things based on the number of times you post that you're surprised on this board.

That's probably because Obama has, in fact, followed through with most of his promises regarding torture.

When do I get my president's check?

This is a good summary of what's actually in the Presidential order. From Hilzoy:

bawhaha


JPhillips wins.

naw, but Flere sure lit it up didnt he :lol:

You're right. It's an excellent summary. It notes the following:


All of that is VERY subjective and assumes that the U.S. government has full disclosure of what occurs overseas in other countries. Even in cases where they do have a high level of disclosure, there still is no guarantee of a decrease of torture. The increase in exportation of these suspects takes the direct monitoring of independent groups that is done at Gitmo to places where direct monitoring likely will not be allowed.


In regards to any studies done by the government, count me as unimpressed. There's a laundry list of studies that were done by the government on various issues where they 'thoroughly' talked through an issue and totally failed to address the real problem. A glaring example is the sub-prime mortgage mess we're currently in.

I'd agree that the possibility exists of continuing the Bush extraordinary rendition practice. However, at this point we have ample text that says the opposite, no evidence that any loophole has been exploited, and a consistent tone about ending detention/interrogation policies that may be in violation of US or international law.

If there's a story here at all it's simply that the possibility exists of Obama doing the opposite of what he's said. If that comes to pass it will be a big deal, but until it does I don't see any smoke here.

dola

It's almost beyond my ability to understand how the same people that a few months ago spent all their time yelling that Obama was a radical, Marxist, terrorist lover now spend all their time yelling that Obama isn't anything like the radical, Marxist, terrorist lover that Democrats thought he was.

That's basically correct. We don't have any smoke or loophole exploits because he's just started his term. We'll obviously have to wait a couple of years to get a feel for how it's actually implemented by Obama's staff.

Here's the problem for Obama politically as I see it.

1. He has not unilaterally rolled back the torture policies of Bush. That may upset some who wanted a much broader brushstroke on this issue.

2. Although he did not fully rollback the torture policies, he has come out with the executive order and made sure to claim success with the order. As a result, any attack on the U.S. during his term will be immediately tied to the rollback of those policies, whether it's fair or not (or even relevant).

Agreed. The radical left is probably wondering exactly what they elected while the radical right is counting their blessings that his policies aren't nearly as black and white as he claimed during the electoral process.

One of my fears appears to be coming true.


I have worked with Census data off and on for 30 years, as well as studied the methodologies for counting and their political ramifications. There have always been political crap going on with Census data but at least keeping it in Commerce, you can count some measure of neutrality (or balancing). But to have the White House (and esp. Rove2: Emanuel) controlling the output, that would be stupid. I guess we'll see if anything comes of this and if it does, will it be ignored with the WH not being held accountable?

Dr. President Obama,

Use fewer sentences.

Thanx. Bye.