I'm liking this feature. Time for a new requests thread.
« Am I The Establishment? | Main | Worse Than I Thought »
Requests Thread
15 Jun 2008 03:28 pm
Comments (44)
Discuss the decline of the "Meat Knish" and the rise of the "Mushroom Knish"
Or talk about Ireland and the EU
It's a little out of left field, but this one combines foreign policy, climate change, and transport. Via Jim Manzi, it turns out that our president travels in a way that's shockingly imperial, and, from the perspective of someone who cares about climate change or transport efficiency, absurdly counterproductive
Hundreds of thousands of air passengers face delays because of the arrival of President George W Bush at Heathrow this weekend for a brief visit to Britain.The disruption at the airport is likely to begin on Friday as staff prepare for the arrival of Mr Bush and his entourage of airliners on Sunday.
Mr Bush's travelling party includes the Air Force One 747, a back-up 747, a 757 jet and four helicopters.
On Thursday armoured cars arrived at the London airport – which led to 60-minute delays for some passengers.
On Friday, four helicopters will land as part of a major rehearsal ahead of the visit.
Sources at the airport told The Daily Telegraph that the aircraft "flow rate" will be reduced from the usual 42 planes an hour to just 24.
That will cause a backlog that will take six to seven hours to clear. In total, Heathrow handles around 180,000 passengers every day.
Have we always (in the modern era) done this sort of thing to other countries' major travel hubs or is it an artifact of George Bush's tenure?
Couldn't we achieve large but relatively costless gains in foreign policy by not antagonizing millions of travelers every year (e.g. landing at quieter non-commercial airfields)?
What would a greener, but still practical/politically viable, approach to presidential travel look like?
i wanted to recommend this article which pretty much went unremarked upon in the lefty blogosphere. damning stuff
How Karl Rove played politics while people drowned
Hurricane Katrina posed a huge test to Bush's administration. But instead of bailing out Louisiana, Karl Rove played Blame the Democrats.
http://www.salon.com/books/excerpt/2008/06/06/rove_katrina/
How does your own experience reflect on the fact that the supposedly democratizing aspects of blogs have been co-opted by the traditional media? Do you think that there is a kind of failure in now being under the imprimatur of the Atlantic? Doesn't the fact that every Atlantic blogger is Ivy-League educated and old media connected undercut the notion that the web has opened up avenues in media previously denied to "regular people"?
Since both candidates are in favor of new nuclear power, this will probably come up during the campaign.
The Yucca Mountain project seems hopelessly gridlocked. Are there other centralized long-term storage ideas being knocked around? Will Yucca regain steam once the election year is passed?
If Yucca bores you or is too narrow, then address nuclear storage more generally.
I was wondering if you could comment on the Gennifer Flowers and Paula Jones website and which, if any, of those shits you would tap.
Could you provide some perspective on writing a book on the Middle East without having a working knowledge of Arabic and Persian? My limited language abilities keep me away from these sort of projects.
Could you comment on the political implications of H. A. Prichard's moral philosophy?
Boston? More than a feeling?
Has anyone ever suggested taxing political contributions (including to 529's) as a means of publicly funding elections?
Any word from the Obama Campaign about Native American policy? And Forestry/public land policies?
I'd be interested in your opinion on who, if anyone, did benefit from the Iraq war.
I'm pretty much persuaded that the invasion was not done as a humanitarian/democratization effort and that the WMD rationale was offered in bad faith by the Bush administration. So the question is what was there motivation and did it succeed on those terms?
Did the major oil companies make money they otherwise wouldn't have as a consequence of this debacle? Did this help Israel in any measurable way? Or has this been a disaster even for those who did hte bamboozling?
I didn't see as much of Kevin Garnett as a Timberwolf as I would have liked, so I ended up having to take his greatness mostly on faith. This year, having had the chance to really study him for the first time, I'm mildly puzzled. On the one hand, he's clearly great: he's more or less single-handedly transformed the Celtics from a laughingstock into a likely champ. But has there ever been a more underwhelming-to-watch superstar? For such a big guy, he has a real tendency to disappear. And not in the way of Karl Malone, who would just kind of panic for quarters at a time, but who otherwise had a whole array of powerful, unstoppable moves. Garnett's disappearances seem integral to who he is as a player -- on offense anyway, he's a surprisingly passive guy. A jumpshot for a seven footer should be a surprising trick -- a la Yao or Ewing -- not a default.
The 21st century presents us with numerous examples of real problems (climate change, a weak dollar) in which the causes are known but not obvious or visible (CO2, national debt).
How can candidates talk about these issues without sounding like hopelessly pointy-headed wonks?
How about the demonstrations in South Korea over resuming importing US beef? Are there agravating factors and beef is the straw that broke the camels back or is the meat itself such a big deal-if so, why such strong feeling (do they know something we don't or is their media blowing things out of proportion?
You could also use this topic to elaborate on power/size assymetry and international relations--i.e. this is a big deal for South Korean politics but obviously not in the US.
How to make public authorities, like New York's MTA, more publicly accountable?
Don't know if other states have these Authorities (like the Metropolitan Transit Authority, or the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey).
Here in New York, though, I'm getting pissed off at how the MTA can keep just completely mismanaging its finances and services while being completely shielded from public accountability. The board members aren't elected, they're appointed.
Somehow, the idea of a large, publicly financed organization with opaque finances and no public accountability seems like a bad idea.
I'd like to see your take on Peter Suderman's recent post exploring the idea of the Republicans becoming an anti-corporate party, on the premise that, with the Democrats likely to be running Washington for the next decade or so, they will become as captive to corporate interests as the Republicans have. This, in turn, will give the GOP an opening to run against using the government to manage the economy, i.e., hand out favors to special interests.
Since there is significant buzz in the blogosphere and the MSM about the floods in Iowa and elsewhere in the midwest, it would be nice to finally see a major blog explore the differing approaches to disaster preparedness and management offered by each candidate. Some have noted (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/6/14/11500/3418/66/535887) that Obama has been pretty good as a community advocate for disaster victims in the current mess and in the past with the aftermath of Katrina. Though national campaigns rarely if ever release any official policies on disaster planning, it is usually easy to pick out differing approaches based on a candidate's experience with state or local management agencies.
This is especially relevant given that the flip-flop of national disaster policy in the past several decades has closely paralleled party changes in the white house and their approaches to security issues. Reagan and Bush I made disaster planning all about preperation for nuclear war, which led to an incredible shortfall in basic planning for natural disasters and the catastrophe that was Hurricane Andrew in 1992. When Clinton came into the White House, he revamped FEMA, by installing a seasoned Arkansas emergency manager as director, which led to much more efficient and ultimately succesful disaster preparedness and recovery efforts during his two terms. After 9/11 and Bush II's reshuffling of FEMA under the control of DHS, most planning was focused on the potential for terrorist attack. This again led to an incredibly poor choice for director (the infamous Michael Brown) and the incompetent response to Katrina.
I think you ought to look at how Obama and McCain might approach federal disaster management as president.
If you're not done with transportation/infrastructure issues yet, maybe you could respond to Matt Rognlie's critique of your recent "we need denser housing and more transit to help the environment" post. He makes many of the same points I have made in comments to your posts promoting transit and density.
It's largely taken on faith that George Bush is a bumbling idiot and his administration has been (thanks to rampant cronyism) incompetent. And yet, he and Cheney are both oilmen, their administration was elected largely on the backs of the more-radical wings of the Christian right, they have long-held connections to the military-industrial complex, and I think we all know that their fundraising success was due in large part to a successful reliance on tapping into the wealthiest 1%
With that in mind, while the country no doubt is a mess, one should noted that:
Oil companies are making record profits
The religious right got their SCOTUS judges (and plenty more at lower levels)
The military-industrial complex has done pretty well thanks to our many incursions into the middle east
While the country may be a mess, the wealthiest 1% have had a great run the last 8 years.
With that in mind, is the Bush administration really incompetent? Is Bush himself really a boob? Is it just a coincidence that the groups he most has to thank for electing him President have had a remarkably great run since he took office?
It seems to me that conclusion to draw is that he's actually been remarkably effective at reaching his goals. of course, those goals show a disdain for the responsibility of his office to actually be a good steward of the country, but that just speaks to his corruption.
Agree? Disagree? How should this inform the left's political attacks on the GOP in general, and John McCain in specific?
I'd like for MattY to tell us the differences between this BHO proposal and how things would have been done in the SovietUnion.
Also, regarding the dj spellchecka link, one of the reasons you don't hear too much about that is because the Dems colluded with Bush to screw everyone except Mexico and a small number of connected contractors.
For extra credit, MattY can list all the costs of that scheme; there are several so he should ask others to help him.
We're about a third of the way through with Mayor Fenty's first term. How would you evaluate it so far?
Specifically, how would you grade what he and Rhee have done after their first year in charge of the schools, and what the long term prospects are for their success (or failure)? or the schools?
Are the people who spread the lies that Senator Obama is anti-semitic or anti-Israel deliberately dishonest or willfully ignorant? Does the Jewish faith recognize any form of punishment for such loathsome pricks and *****?
On what issue(s) will the presidential election turn? On what issues should it turn?
My candidate for should: Iran & Iraq and the foreign policy views of McCain exposed in your prospect article--but will Obama's views be all that much more moderate?
Will turn: the economy. Here the stark difference in who's hit by the taxes proposed looms large, together with a decent chance of help paying medical bills under Obama compared with no chance (except for those who can already afford them) under McCain.
But what's got the electorate riled is (a) gas prices and (b) slow growth. So far as (A) goes, of course higher gas prices are a good thing--promote lower rates of usage in the best way possible. (B) is mostly shaped by monetary policy, not fiscal--policy beyond the reach of the president, unless you think Obama would appoint non-Bernanke types and these would do better than the incumbents.
Have you, by chance, read or heard about Jeff Sharlet's book on the outrageous religious/totalitarian organization "The Family" (the quasi-crypto-fascist-semi-conspiracy that counts many prominent politicians and business leaders as members, hosts the National Prayer Breakfast, and was instrumental in Suharto's reign in Indonesia)?
I just finished the book, and it's turning me into a complete tinfoil hat wearing conspiracy theorist. Is it really as bad as it appears to be?
How about doing a blog post on this UCLA study:
Mexican American integration slow, education stalled, study finds
excerpt:”The UCLA study, released today in a Russell Sage Foundation book titled “Generations of Exclusion: Mexican Americans, Assimilation, and Race,” concludes that, unlike the descendants of European immigrants to the United States, Mexican Americans have not fully integrated by the third and fourth generation. The research spans a period of nearly 40 years.”
excerpt:”The educational levels of second-generation Mexican Americans improved dramatically. But the third and fourth generations failed to surpass, and to some extent fell behind, the educational level of the second generation. Moreover, the educational levels of all Mexican Americans still lag behind the national average.”
excerpt:”Economic status improved from the first to second generation but stalled in the third and fourth generation. Earnings, occupational status and homeownership were still alarmingly low for later generations. Low levels of schooling among Mexican Americans were the main reason for lower income, occupational status and other indicators of socioeconomic status.”
UCLA Study by Vilma Ortiz and Edward E. Telles http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/ucla-study-of-four-generations-46372.aspx
Request: a better subject line for the request thread. If that's going to be a recurring feature, it should have a catchy name.
Ezra's Assignment desk is cute, especially since it confers editorial responsibility to readers, and one particular gripe with the MSM is the invisible hand of the editor, prioritizing this crap on A1, and dumping this pearl on A15, etc...
I think you might want to consider the occasional post about food or nutrition or health or exercise.
"Have you, by chance, read or heard about Jeff Sharlet's book on the outrageous religious/totalitarian organization "The Family""
That would require Matt to acknowledge that Hillary Clinton is a member - which would cause outrage from EWard.
"I think you might want to consider the occasional post about food or nutrition or health or exercise."
Why? Matt doesn't do any of those except the first.
And he eats at WENDY'S!
Burger King, Matt! Flame broiled!
Meanwhile, ANSWER MY TWO QUESTIONS ON IRAN!
Or explain why you don't like the "Terminator" series.
Prosecutions
Discuss the likelihood of an Obama administration actively pursuing, or being dragged kicking and screaming into pursuing, investigations into the official criminality of the current administration. There is such a literally-too-numerous-to-mention range of possible crimes to discuss, from those already clearly prosecutable, through those areas where such is merely likely, all the way down to lower, but still subsantial, probabilities that they did something illegal, that you would have to be selective to write anything shorter than book length. So be selective based on probability of prosecution, importance of prosecution, or any other criteria for why one particular area of potential criminal wrong-doing is espectially interesting. If you think no such prosecutions are likely, say why.
This question strikes me as being a classic elephant in the room. Neither of the two campaigns, nor the mainstream media, wants to talk about this, for both divergent and common reasons. That alone makes this question exactly the sort of thing an alternative media should go out of its way to highlight.
I saw an article in the NY Post that had Samantha Powers and Holbrooke going up against Krauthammer and a McCain foreign policy adviser in Toronto and supposedly the audience polled walking in saying "American foreign policy is better under Republicans" at around 25% and after the whole thing was done the audience was polling more like 45% in favor.
I'd like to chalk the whole thing up as bullshit, but knowing those two and the way they communicate I've got a sinking feeling in my stomach that it happened pretty much like that.
Heads In The Sand has a very, very, Poweresque feel to it and I think the whole venture will suffer the same way.
I'd be really interested in a post on how people who really want to understand politics and issues can best devote their time. What do most pundits and political observers do that is, in your view, mostly a waste of time? And what do most pundits and political observers not do that they really ought to?
For example, is reading autobiographies of Presidents and Governors a waste of time? How much is it worth reading Adam Smith or Rousseau in order to better understand modern politics? How much time on history rather than current affairs magazines?
A very broad question, but I'm sure you have some ideas.
Since MattY isn't a member of the establishment, I'd like him to do something like this.
Fight the power, MattY!
I submitted this request once before, but let me try again. The entire premise of this Weekly Standard piece is based on a basic factual error. There is a clear need for a highly embarrassing correction- one that would undermine the whole piece- to be issued by the Weekly Standard, but it looks like I need someone with some prominence in the left blogosphere to give it some attention in order to make that happen.
The piece, by Thomas Joscelyn, claims that the new Senate Intelligence Report found that Saddam was harboring Zarqawi. This is COMPLETELY, UTTERLY, INDISPUTABLY FACTUALLY INCORRECT. Joscelyn misinterprets (willfully or not) the following sentence from the new report:
Postwar information supports prewar assessments and statements that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was in Baghdad
Of course, there is a big difference between confirmation that Zarqawi was present in Baghdad and confirmation that he was being harbored. The '06 Senate Intel report, produced while Republicans still controlled the Senate, found that Saddam *did not harbor* Zarqawi (it uses the exact word "harbor") and, in fact, was trying to capture Zarqawi once he found out Zarqawi was in Iraq (p109 in the doc, p112 in the pdf viewer).
If you look at the page from the new Senate report where Joscelyn gets his quote (p72 in the doc, p73 in the pdf viewer), it starts out by saying that the committee issued a number of findings in its 2006 reports, and "the Committee found the following". Then it says there was no Saddam/al Qaeda relationship, Saddam was distrustful of Al Qaeda, etc., but it was true that Zarqawi was present in Baghdad. Confirmation of Zarqawi's presence is clearly mentioned in the course of re-summarizing the '06 report, which found that Saddam was trying to capture him.
A quick post on this could be an easy, fun way to get a correction out of the Weekly Standard.
Japan, Seeking Trim Waists, Measures Millions - http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/13/world/asia/13fat.html?scp=1&sq=Japan+measure&st=nyt
Discuss crazy Japanese public health ideas.
Q: How's the biking going?
Should the term "douchebag" be halted given its overuse and the fact that the worst offenders are, in fact, douchebags.
Q. What happens to NATO in the next four years?
Make an Obama themed Muxtape!
Prior to the Iraq war, the United States provided the weapons inspectors with American intelligence, all of which turned out to be useless. According to the Senate's "Report on the U.S. Intelligence Community's Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq" (July 7, 2004), we provided the inspectors with over 100 suspected WMD sites. The inspectors found nothing at any of them.
What I'm wondering is what people in the intelligence community made of this. Did they conclude that the intelligence used to justify the soon-to-begin war was faulty? Or did they come up with some explanation as to why the conclusion that Iraq possessed WMD was still valid despite the failure of the intelligence to match the facts on the ground as seen by the inspectors?
I'd like to hear about Ray LaMontagne or better yet Tom Waits.
Is Jim Webb an economic populist? What policies does he support that fall into the populist catagory? He has this reputation as being for the little guy on economics, but authors making the case against him as VP keep saying that his populism is just empty rhetoric.
Is Jim Webb an economic populist? What policies does he support that fall into the populist catagory? He has this reputation as being for the little guy on economics, but authors making the case against him as VP keep saying that his populism is just empty rhetoric.
Knowing your vigilance against the robot threat, I would like to see you comment on this development: the Brits recently launched the last Skynet satellite.
No, really!
This can't be a good thing. What's more, its a communications network built to, among other things, control armed robots.
'Nuff said.
Comments closed June 29, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
You've talked about McCain's slim chance of becoming President and argued that he might adopt a risky campaign strategy that could result in a big loss or a narrow win. Could you explain your ideas about this potential strategy in greater detail? What kind of gamble/strategy do you think McCain could undertake to have a better shot at getting elected?
Posted by Eric | June 15, 2008 3:43 PM