Boo this article...

...and boo the White House, boo Congress, boo Duke University. From an article on NYTimes.com today:

White House Is Gaining Confidence It Can Win Fight in Congress Over Iraq Policy
SHERYL GAY STOLBERG
WASHINGTON, Aug. 29 — The White House is growing more confident that it can beat back efforts by Congressional Democrats to shift course in Iraq, a significant turnabout from two months ago, when a string of Republican defections had administration officials worried that President Bush’s troop buildup was in serious danger on Capitol Hill.

Current and former administration officials say they realize that the September battle over the troop buildup will be difficult. But they also say the president’s hand is stronger now than it was in early July, when Republican senators like Pete V. Domenici of New Mexico and Richard G. Lugar of Indiana publicly called for a change of course.

“There is a tonal shift, and that is important, but there is always the chance that it could be ephemeral, in the same way that the panic of early July proved ephemeral,” said Peter D. Feaver, who helped draft the buildup strategy as an official with the National Security Council but recently returned to his post as a political science professor at Duke University. “I don’t detect any triumphalism in the White House.”

A senior administration official, speaking on condition of anonymity to avoid upstaging the president, said there was “a sense the dynamic has changed.” But the official was also cautious, adding: “I don’t want to portray overconfidence. This is a very important debate, and September is going to be a very important month.”

Here's a Bush report card of sorts...

...from the perspective of the people, it ain't exactly a record to pin up on the refrigerator. And speaking of inflation, you seen the price of milk lately?!

UPDATE Aug21: A very well-informed reader clued me in on a fascinating critique of the New York Times article mentioned above. As I read the critique, I grew increasingly hostile at what began to seem like clear bias on the part of the Times. Then I read the comments below the article - and was delighted to note that the author of the Times article had weighed in with a thorough response.

After making my way to the end of the unusually candid back and forth, I was a bit confused as to who to believe (though the Times reporter scores big points when he describes the exposes he's written on, well, biased reporting). Both sides make their cases skillfully, each offering perspectives that educated people could adopt without suffering from cognitive dissonance. Perhaps it's because the issue isn't a clear cut one...I mean, the numbers show that, while many people's incomes haven't gone anywhere in years, many other people's incomes have. But the only glaring takeaway I got from the exchange is a new appreciation for how delicate the truth really is.

The discussion of the Times article is a quick and deep look into the controversy surrounding media bias, featuring a blogosphere no-name taking a swing at a mainstream media heavyweight, and earning a response. Give it a read - regardless of which side you shake out on, the debate will remind you of how important it is to have your B.S. detector set on high at all times.

On the economics tip...

...an astute, comprehensive, and unemotional hypothesis regarding the current situation - from a local commenter on an AP article in San Diego's Union-Tribune:

By KirkH on 08/15/2007

From Wikipedia:
"In monetary economics, a liquidity trap occurs when the economy is stagnant, the nominal interest rate is close or equal to zero, and the monetary authority is unable to stimulate the economy with traditional monetary policy tools. In this kind of situation, people do not expect high returns on physical or financial investments, so they keep assets in short-term cash bank accounts or hoards rather than making long-term investments. This makes the recession even more severe."

We're all probably going to hear a lot about "pushing on a string" as rates drop. Most of the Fed's liquidity injections are flowing straight into T-Bills because this is a solvency crisis not a liquidity crisis. The odds of people paying back these Alt-A, subprime, and even prime loans are so low because prices are high. If you owe $500,000 on a home worth $300,000 you're highly likely to walk away, regardless of your credit score.

The Fed will cut rates but banks will continue to refuse to make these toxic loans. Because they're toxic. Housing prices will absolutely drop by half in the absence of these loans and the resultant negative wealth effect will kick our 70% consumer spending based economy squarely in the nads.

The Fed knows this hence the rate cuts we're about to see. I don't think it'll make much of a difference but you never know, now could be a huge buying opportunity.

"Hillary Clinton: The Right's Choice?"

...argh, the chills this LA Times op-ed piece will give you:

Hillary: the right's choice?
Clinton's free-trade economics and posturing on security could endear her to conservatives unimpressed by the GOP field.
By Bruce Bartlett, LA Times, August 10, 2007

Is hell freezing over? One might think so after reading recent comments from editors at National Review and the Weekly Standard, America's leading conservative magazines. Over the last 15 years, both magazines seldom have passed up an opportunity to excoriate Hillary Rodham Clinton as some kind of crypto-communist.

No more. Today, Sen. Clinton is rapidly becoming not merely acceptable to many right-wingers but possibly even their candidate of choice...

Clinton's unwillingness to pander to her own party's base on Iraq has won her grudging respect from another unlikely source as well: William Kristol, editor of the Weekly Standard. On Aug. 7, he was quoted in the Washington Post saying that compared with Sen. Barack Obama, who is trying to energize the left to raise his falling poll numbers, she is looking quite presidential.

"Obama," Kristol said, "is becoming the antiwar candidate, and Hillary Clinton is becoming the responsible Democrat who could become commander in chief in a post-9/11 world."

China hosts the Olympics in one year...

...and what an ethical conundrum it represents. Given the country's disgusting human rights record, is it right to bestow the Olympics upon China? At what point do you reach out to an offender, and at what point do you start thinking embargo? Or might the Olympics question be a moot point, given the ringing endorsement the rest of the world gives China in the form of all the business we do there? Hmmm...

Beijing accused of unfair play
By Mitchell Landsberg, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
August 7, 2007

BEIJING — If there were an Olympic medal for irony, this might have been a contender:

An international press freedom organization held a demonstration Monday to complain that China has failed to live up to promises that it would give foreign journalists the unfettered ability to cover the news in the run-up to the 2008 Summer Games. The result? Not long after the demonstration ended, police roughed up and briefly detained the journalists covering the event.

The almost perfect incongruity of Monday's face-off reflects a discordant side of the Olympics that is sure to grow as the Games draw closer. To China, the Olympics represent a golden opportunity to showcase the world's most populous nation and demonstrate how far it has come. To international human rights organizations, it is an opportunity to show how far it still has to go...