North Korea has reversed themselves 
on their nuclear program yet again after the US removed the country from their list of state sponsors of terror. However, many Japanese citizens are not happy with the move due to North Korea's abduction of 8 Japanese people approximately 30 years ago.
Liberal economist Paul Krugman has won the Nobel Prize in economics 
for his analysis of trade patterns. According to the Nobel jury, his analysis brought forth new theories which provide models for globalization and urbanization.
Happy Columbus Day! Hopefully, at least some of our readers get the day off.
Comments :
I wonder how some of his critics here
feel about that Nobel. I view the whole Nobel selection of the latter years as hopelessly partisan, designed to stick it to US, especially US right by whatever means necessary. Even if it means giving Nobels to total hacks.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Its hard to say
I don't know enough about economics to say whether or not his work is as great as they say. I have no reason to doubt them, so I assume they're not doing this for political reasons. However, I also have no evidence they aren't.
I have noticed that lately if anything good happens to the "other side" then it must be because there is some unfairness in the process or they are cheating, etc. Lindsay Graham famously said just a few days ago that Obama can only win Indiana and North Carolina if he cheats.
I hope this hyper-partisanship/ideological disconnect wears itself out after the election.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
It's been going on for a long time
If someone on the left wins acclaim the right has become experts at discrediting the source, as dishonorable in some form.
I am so sick of it I could puke!
Congratulations to Paul Krugman for his efforts to bring peace to the world by promoting economic compassion.
It is the economy, stupid.
It's not designed to "stick it to the US"
It's designed to stick it to the Bush Administration.
The two things are NOT equivalent.
The rest of the world is dying to fall in love with the US again.... but it can't happen until there is a purge of the neocon government we have here.
The day Obama is elected, world stock markets will rise substantially on the optimism that the rest of the world can "like" the US again.
History books 100 years from now will talk about how Bush almost single-handedly destroyed the US's standing in the world.
By the way....
Reaganomics
R.I.P.
1981-2008
“Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.” --- Albert Einstein
Your own little fantasy world, I see.
Real world too much for you?
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
In the "real world", your world view is taking a major hit...
There'll be at least 58 Democratic senators..... a 50-60 seat Democratic majority in the house.... an Obama win of more than 100 electoral votes.
Conservatism is in retreat.
You might be the last conservative who doesn't see it yet.
The "real world" is 3 weeks from crashing in on you.
You are the functional equivalent of a Democrat in October of 1980 whistling past the graveyard.
“Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.” --- Albert Einstein
Not so much.
I have no horse in this race, so the "real world" can't possibly collapse around me because of who does or does not win.
Besides, your premise is flawed: "Conservatism is in retreat."
Conservatism is NOT in retreat, the Republican party is (although that is yet to be seen). Conservative does NOT equal Republican.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Agreed, there
However, if conservatism can't find a party soon, it will certainly die off as an ideology.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
Whether you admit it or not, you DO have a horse in this race
The 2008 election is a referendum on George W. Bush.
George W. Bush was the choice of the conservative movement in this country.
He's your baby. He's your project.
America's repudiation of everything Bush ... beginning in 2006 and finishing in three weeks... *IS* the public verdict on conservative rule in this country.
Bush is YOUR Frankenstein monster. You created him. You own him.
You can no more disown Bush than liberals in 1980 could disown Jimmy Carter.
Bush is firmly hanging around your neck... and THAT is the horse you have in this race.
“Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.” --- Albert Einstein
In your fantasy world, maybe ...
Bush is not even on the ticket. Nor are his policies.
No, this is a fight between liberals at this point: Democrat Liberals vs. Republican Liberals and nothing more.
I don't consider Bush to be a Albatross because his time is done and it is time to move on. I know that people like you would like make him one (i.e. in an effort to shift the focus onto HIM rather than Obama's ties to terorists, his middle name, and the America Haters he has as his backers), but unfortunately for you I just won't allow you to distract the discussion from where it belongs: looking forward to the candidates at hand.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Is that important to you?
Does Obama's middle name make any difference in your support for him? Does McCain's middle name (Sidney) make you more or less likely to vote for him?
Why does it matter who backs a particular candidate? Stormfront backed Paul. Does that make Paul a Nazi? If I bomb the Erie County Courthouse, you're screwed because you've associated with me. That goes for everyone else on this site. Is guilt by association all you have on Obama? I can do better than that, and I hope the guy wins:
1) Obama is wrong on deficit reduction
2) Obama is wrong on guns
3) Obama is wrong on the bailout
Unfortunately, McCain is also wrong on 1 and 3.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
Not at all.
I only mention it because his own party is the one who has made it into a talking point in this election.
Not at all. In fact that has never been the point. It is his guilt by participation that concerns me, as well it should you ... he was not only indirectly associated with Ayers he worked with him by choice on a program which was questionable at best, and a direct expension of the politics of the unrepentent domestic terrorist at worst.
Well, the correct direction now seems clear.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
It is very clear
Vote Nader!
So are you backing out of our informal agreement to vote for candiates that can't win? :-)
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
<blockquote>direct expension
The previous means sully the attempted ends?
While I'm on the subject of things being sullied, McCain hired a man that made bold faced lies about McCain and his family. McCain, The Maverick, chose as his running mate, a candidate that "abused" the power of her office.
...2 politcians running for POTUS...
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Complete and utter hogwash
Hogwash. You've been listening to Rush Limbaugh too much. You know full well that it's the Mark Levins and the Glenn Becks and the Ann Coulters of the right wing that have been stressing Barack HUSSEIN Obama at every opportunity, and you know why they are doing it-- to hint that Barack Obama is a Muslim.
skymutt: wise and powerful... enlightened...
Good news!
Rush sounded a tad depressed today on his show. One man I have zero sympathy for.
It is the economy, stupid.
Says you ...
I can honestly say that they only reason I know about his middle name is all the sound clips I here of liberals complaining that the right is making it an issue ... all the while being too stupid to realize that by talking about in those terms THEY are the ones making it an issue.
If Obama doesn't like his middle name he can always change it, right? Why hasn't he bothered?
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Watch Fox News, you would've heard it much earlier.
The first I heard it was Ms Ann Coulter using Hussein every other word, trying to fire up the liberals, garner a backlash, and use that to sell more books.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
I wouldn't be so confident in your ability to predict the future
I think Ford and Dole made up more ground then what McCain has to make up in a month's time period. Also McCain is only a foreign policy crisis away from winning. A McCain win would be a suprise, but it's certainly within the realm of possibility.
Compared to McCain, Ford and Dole ran disciplined campaigns that
stayed on message.
This election ended on September 15th at 9am, when John McCain uttered the famous words "the fundamentals of the economy are strong." This was less than 24 hours after Lehman Bros. collapsed.
Everything since then has been about how big a margin Obama will win by.
You may not see it yet... but when the chapter on this election is written in future history books, it will say that the election was won on 9/15/08.
“Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.” --- Albert Einstein
Easy enough to say
I don't think there will be any way to pinpoint the McCain loss to one statement since being he likely would lose in these conditions anyway.
Not so fast - Polls are tightening!
ZOGBY MONDAY: OBAMA 48%, MCCAIN 44%...
RASMUSSEN MONDAY: OBAMA 50%, MCCAIN 45%...
Schmidt: McCain 'within striking distance'...
“Back in the thirties we were told we must collectivize the nation because the people were so poor. Now we are told we must collectivize the nation because the people are so rich.” ~ William F. Buckley, Jr.
Oops! Zogby back up to 6
Nice cherry-picking, by the way. These are as of today.
Zogby:
Obama 49, McCain 43 (+6... +2 for Obama in last 48 hours)
Rasmussen:
Obama 50, McCain 45 (+5... unchanged)
Gallup:
Obama 51, McCain 41 (+10... +3 for Obama in last 48 hours)
Hotline:
Obama 50, McCain 42 (+8.... +2 for Obama in last 48 hours)
Battleground:
Obama 53, McCain 40 (+13... +5 for Obama in last 48 hours)
Every tracking poll except Rasmussen shows a movement toward Obama in the past 48 hours. Rasmussen was unchanged.
Not a single tracking poll has "tightened" from where they were last week. Not one.
“Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.” --- Albert Einstein
Laughable.
Yea, by talking about someone who isn't even on the ticket? Laughable.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
one foreign policy crises away from winning.....?
That's a strange then to say.
Although I suppose the friends of the bin Laden family, aka the Bush's Clan, might be able to arrange something right before the election.
It is the economy, stupid.
It's cetainly not at of the
It's cetainly not at of the realm of possibility that we will see a foreign policy crisis, and if we do I think it will severely damage Obama - take a look at some of Obama's internals on such things.
Looks likely, but then what?
The Democrats have been playing bash the leader very well as a minority party in government. Even the last two years, with a (admittedly slim) Democratic majority they have been able to coast on actual accomplishments (which Skymutt summarized so nicely a few days back) because George is still in office and blamable.
It does look likely that they will get their turn in the driver's seat come next January. I'd like to see the focus shift from "oh man you guys suck so badly" to something a bit more substantial.
Shall we do some more crystal ball gazing? Two years into an Obama Administration we will.....
1. Still be in Iraq and/or Afghanistan with troop levels and expenditures roughly comperable to today
2. Still not have moved a jot from our current national energy position, including movements that address greenhouse emissions
3. Still not have resolved the extreme national debt and excessive government spending
4. Still have no control over immigration and its collararies (improper enforcement of workplace regulations, identity theft, shadow status, Hispanic drop out rates, etc.)
5. Still have an inefficient and horridly expensive system of healthcare
And, probably, a lousy economy that is trying to regain its equilibrium.
I look forward to being wrong :-) And look forward to the Democrats proving that their philosophies are truly that much more superior than the conservatism that is in retreat.
"Perplexity is the beginning of knowledge" -- Kahlil Gibran
Nobel Prize Now Meaningless
The current selection mechanism, whatever that it, has rendered the entire things meaningless. It has become a political event with political motiviations and evidenced by Al Gore not one having been nominated but actually having won a (shared) prize.
It is laughable.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
RW's new meme.....
Liberal wins Nobel = political fix
Conservative wins Nobel = well-earned prize
Got it.
“Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.” --- Albert Einstein
Who's RW?
But truth and the logic both make sense here ...
Point 1: Liberal wins Nobel = political fix
This is essentially correct and how the system appears to be operating.
Point 2: Conservative wins Nobel = well-earned prize
Well, this is actually a logical implication of Point 1 above. Since the system is already biased in favor of Liberals, when a Conservative gets the prize it MUST be because thei accomplishment was so undeniable that the committee must not have felt that they had ANY chance putting in their preferred Liberal ringer without being laughed off the planet. So, in this case, "well-earned prize" does seem rather apt.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
I'm not even in this conversation PM?
?
“Back in the thirties we were told we must collectivize the nation because the people were so poor. Now we are told we must collectivize the nation because the people are so rich.” ~ William F. Buckley, Jr.
LOL, yea I know ...
I guess all Red Bars look alike to him! :)
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
I'm looking for proof
This is exactly what I was talking about regarding the quality of discourse.
Do you have any evidence that the Nobel Prize selection is biased in any way? No, the fact that Gore and Krugman are Democrats and critics of the Bush administration does not prove anything. You know that correlation != causality.
I think your post would have been different had a conservative economist won the award. Either the Nobel Prize selection committee is ideologically biased against conservativsm and conservatives or they aren't. Bias isn't synonamyous with "doesn't agree with me".
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
This is all the proof I need.
Gore got one. There are no valid circumstances under which this could have possibly occured, ergo it must have been biased.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
What difference does it make?
Why should Republicans care about who gets any of the Nobel prizes? Republicans don't believe in science anyway.
qui tacet consentire
Who say's I care?
In fact I would think that my comment above would suggest exectly the opposite.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Do you remember your logical reasoning from college?
You now need to prove that Gore could not have possibly won a Nobel Prize unless the selection committee is biased. Furthermore, you've used a tautology. Gore won because they are biased. Why are they biased? Because Gore won.
You can prove anything if you start with a false premise.
You've touched upon my next question slightly, but I'll pose it anway. If a conservative would have won the award would it have been because the committee just screwed up and was too inept to follow their bias or would they be vindicated as not biased? Is the committee irrecovably biased or would giving the award to two conservatives in a row vindicate them? How about three? If they ever give the award to another liberal again would that confirm your bias? Assuming an equal distribution of liberal and conservative economists, wouldn't one expect to find about 50% of the economists winning the prize to be liberal?
I'm not too busy today. We can go on for as long as you like. :-)
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
I think you are having trouble with your reading skills ...
Nothing I said implies this. Nor is the reasoning circular.
Point 1: Gore won because they are biased.
You have correctly ascertained what I said.
Point 2: Why are they Biased? Because Gore won.
You have incorrectly interpretted/understood the reasoning being employed. I did NOT say:
I did say:
These neither mean nor imply the same thing. Gore is not the REASON they were biased, but he IS an EXISTENCE PROOF that a bias exists.
Premise 1: There are no valid cirumstances under which Gore could have one.
Implication 1: If Gore won one then the selection process must have been biased.
Premise 2: Gore did win one.
Conclusion: Therefore, the selection process that lead to this result must have been biased.
I guess you can quibble with the initial premise, but the subsequent logic is correct.
I stand by my initial premise, however, based purely on the observation that Al Gore has done nothing to justify even being considered for, much less being awarded, a Nobel Peace Prize. This is, of course, my subjective opinion just as it was the subjective (and therefore inherently biased) opinions of the nominators and the selectors in the process that lead up to his receiving 1/2 of an award.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Why doesn't Gore deserve it?
"You have seen how a man was made a slave; you shall see how a slave was made a man." --Frederick Douglas
I don't have a specific list of reasons ...
but these are all consistent with my overall view.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
I agree on Gore
I don't think he deserved it. However, concluding that the process is biased is a non sequitur. Perhaps I think Hines Ward shouldn't have won the Super Bowl MVP award. My disagreement with the voters does not imply that they are biased, just that we disagree.
Have you read Krugman's scholarly work on trade flow and globalization? If so, what specifically about it does not meet with the standards that other economists awarded the prize have shown?
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
My comments here should not be construed ...
as taking a position on anything other than Al Gore and the status of the Nobel Peace Prize in modern times. I have not read anything regarding Krugman directly, nor do I mean to imply anything specific on that front.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Why are the Nobels "now" meaningless?
I'm not sure if you're up on the history of the Nobels, but there's a long tradition of giving them for purely political reasons. Remember when Pasternak won for a sub-par novel called Dr. Zhivago? They weren't rewarding his least interesting work, they were rewarding his most direct stick-it-to-the-commies attack.
That's a little unfair to Pasternak (it was brave of him to write that novel in the first place), but Zhivago's hardly among his best works (except the poetry at the end).
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
I stand corrected ... good catch Pico!
Apparantly they have always been meaningless. Take, for example, the fact that Jimmy Carter has one.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
And Henry Kissinger, too!
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
Hey, we can go as far back as the 1960s
to see Sartre refusing his Nobel on the grounds that it was meaningless.
Literature people have long been suspicious of the Nobels, given that they're ostensibly for the greatest writers on earth, but somehow never reached Joyce, Kafka, Borges, Pynchon, Proust, Woolf, Lawrence, Conrad, James, etc. The list of never-won is imposing, but the list of people who won?... I'd bet money most of us have never heard of 3/4 of them.
(Granted, the Nobel committee tries to reach out to literatures that aren't as commonly read by Westerners, and I do respect that, but even then their choices range from odd to odder.)
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
Krugmann deserved the prize
First, I hope you realize the absurdity of claiming that the Nobel committee "sticks it" to the US by (constantly) giving the economics prize to US citizens.
Back to the point, Tyler Cown (libertarian) thinks Krugmann deserved the prize
:
"You have seen how a man was made a slave; you shall see how a slave was made a man." --Frederick Douglas
American winners of Nobel prize
I checked out the list of Noble prize winners
, and found that 1998 was the most recent time when an American was not awared at least half of the Nobel prize in economics. I think there were three years where Americans got half of the prize.
"You have seen how a man was made a slave; you shall see how a slave was made a man." --Frederick Douglas
McCain can kiss Florida godbye now
The rats are already jumping ship.
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics/campaign-2008/story/722731.html
qui tacet consentire
Obama is up in ND
I think its an outlier
, but I suppose anything is possible.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
McCain's lack of people skills coming home to roost
Looks like McCain's friends are mostly of the fair-weather variety. The rats are jumping ship...
skymutt: wise and powerful... enlightened...
McCain struggles to hold the South for GOP
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122385515550927117.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
Edit by stinerman: With the new system, you can just highlight what you want quoted and then click on the blockquote button. The old system is still available under "Switch to plain text editor".
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
I don't recall Virginia ever being solidly in the McCain camp
As far as I can tell it's gone from swing state to light blue state - not from solid red to purple.
Virginia hasn't voted Democratic since 1964
That's even more solidly Republican than Alabama, Mississippi and Georgia.
qui tacet consentire
Demographic change
What a state was is irrelevant to saying what it is now.
Christopher Hitchens Endorses Barack Obama
http://www.slate.com/id/2202163
Next: Lambs lie down with lions... pigs fly... hell freezes over.
“Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.” --- Albert Einstein
OMG
As Freud might sarcastically surmise:
I cannot fathom how Hitchens opposes the more religious ticket.
Sure, Hitchins might try to pretend that he is a one issue voter and that, that single issue is fairly even. And that there are other reasons why he dislikes Paling/McCain, but deep down inside, we all know the real reason [just as Rand hates commies because the commies took away her daddy's store.]
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Is anyone really surprised?
.
“Back in the thirties we were told we must collectivize the nation because the people were so poor. Now we are told we must collectivize the nation because the people are so rich.” ~ William F. Buckley, Jr.
I'm not
Not since Palin was added to the ticket. If it was McCain/Lieberman, he'd be singing McCain's praises.
In the article he makes it very clear he isn't too keen on Obama, though. This is certainly a least-worst for our friend Hitch.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
A slip of the tougue-BO says he'll spread the wealth around...
Wealth
by luvnews
Edit by stinerman: If you're copy-n-pasting html code, you'll have to use the plain text editor under the new commenting system. Luckily, I could reconstruct your post from the code dump. :-)
“Back in the thirties we were told we must collectivize the nation because the people were so poor. Now we are told we must collectivize the nation because the people are so rich.” ~ William F. Buckley, Jr.
BO is to God-like to be POTUS.
Matthew
19:23-24 
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew%2019:23-19:24&versio...
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
It isn't meant to be taken literally
The Life of Brian
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
What makes this a "slip"?
Are you calling it a "slip" because it rejects the myth that the current distribution of wealth is some sort of natural outcome that accurately refelects a person's contribution to the world's wealth?
"You have seen how a man was made a slave; you shall see how a slave was made a man." --Frederick Douglas
What's the matter with Arkansas?
The Arkansas Republicans are not running a candidate
against incumbent Mark Pryor, a Democrat. Furthermore, none of the Arkansas House delegation (3D, 1R) has a major-party opponent.
In the Arkansas Senate, 18 seats are up for election, 17 of which have one name on the ballot
.
I've said that our democracy has one more candidate than communism. Apparently, Arkansas is working on that last candidate.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
ACORN and the community orginizer...
Jake Tapper has the rest here
.
“Back in the thirties we were told we must collectivize the nation because the people were so poor. Now we are told we must collectivize the nation because the people are so rich.” ~ William F. Buckley, Jr.
Obama's 95% Tax Illusion - It used to be called WELFARE!
He's such a fraud
!
“Back in the thirties we were told we must collectivize the nation because the people were so poor. Now we are told we must collectivize the nation because the people are so rich.” ~ William F. Buckley, Jr.
Rise of the proletariat.
The article would be better if they didn't have the meme, until I'm shown otherwise, that people would would rather not have an extra 61 cents on the dollar because they use to make 79 cents.
In addition, marginal tax rates go up, average tax rate goes down, correct?
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Higher marginal tax rates stymie incentive...
....to work hard and earn more.
“Back in the thirties we were told we must collectivize the nation because the people were so poor. Now we are told we must collectivize the nation because the people are so rich.” ~ William F. Buckley, Jr.
Perhaps a bit
"Stymie" is a bit hyperbolic. Yes, there is a point where tax rates will have a noticeable effect on incentive, but we are not close to that point, in my opinion, and, I believe, in the opinion of most economists.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki