A Time for Thanksgiving: Obama's debt of gratitude to George W. Bush.

As the transition progresses and Barack Obama's inauguration draws closer, it's a good moment to mull the gifts George W. Bush has left for the incoming president. Bush has made the world a better place, and if Obama wants to do the same, he will take the good things Bush has done and move forward with them.

Early indicators are in fact positive. In foreign policy, possibly embarrassed by the eagerness with which the world's most vile regimes have welcomed his election, Obama is backing off his many promises to sit down with dictators. His antiwar base is already outraged that he may not make closing the hated "Crusader gulag" at Guantánamo Bay his first act of national liberation from the Bush era. He is even reportedly considering allowing the CIA some leeway in interrogation techniques.

In the critical field of war and foreign policy, there are quite a few things for which President-elect Obama can thank George Bush.

First and foremost, Saddam Hussein-a state sponsor of terrorism, a producer of weapons of mass destruction, a warmonger, and a genocidal maniac-is gone. The threat he posed was a nagging concern to Bill Clinton, but Clinton, lacking the political will or perhaps a good excuse, was content to consider Saddam trapped in a box. George W. Bush didn't have that luxury. After the September 11 attacks the stakes were raised and Bush understood the world could not tolerate the presence of someone like Saddam, who defied all international challenges and was actively subverting the restraints upon him.

For the last five years, Saddam has been viewed, in retrospect, as having been harmless, but that is only because he was deposed and captured by forces acting on George Bush's orders, then tried and hanged by the Iraqi people. The Baathist regime is no more.

Thank you, George W. Bush.

That difficult task, which required the terrible resolve to send men to their deaths and also required several painful readjustments of strategy and tactics, was done in time so that Obama should be able to fulfill his campaign promise of getting out of Iraq and ramping up in Afghanistan.

It will be possible for Obama to draw down the U.S. troop presence in Iraq without a precipitous, premature withdrawal that could plunge the region into genocidal chaos and leave Iran the de facto regional power. Iraq is peaceful enough now that a policy fudge by Obama there-unlike on the Guantánamo issue-is something his liberal backers are unlikely to hold against him.

With minor policy adjustments that no one will notice, much less begrudge, he can stay past his 16-month deadline and continue to build Iraq as a beacon of democracy and a U.S. ally in the Middle East. Iraq's cabinet has approved a deal asking U.S. forces to stay until 2012, and Iraq's free parliament has been debating the matter in a highly spirited fashion-including fisticuffs-not unlike the early congressional proceedings of another nascent democracy.

Thank you, George W. Bush.

In the 1990s, anyone who told you Iraq would be a functioning, U.S.-allied democracy within a few short years would have been laughed out of the room. It has come at tremendous cost in both American and Iraqi lives. It is reasonable to assume, however, given the massive ethnic blood toll Saddam inflicted to maintain his regime, that establishing a Western-leaning Iraqi democracy has been accomplished with only a fraction of the violence that would have taken place absent U.S. intervention. Iran, while it meddles and wields deadly influence, has been kept at arm's length in the process, when Iran and Syria might both have been expected to descend on a post-Saddam Iraq. This highly dangerous region is stable-and has hope of remaining so.

The very concept of democracy in the region received a major boost when Arabs saw millions of Iraqis voting while under threat of death. This evolution is playing out in fits and starts in Lebanon and even the Palestinian territories, where voters have learned that the democratic process only begins with a vote. When Hamas chose to reward its backers with a bloodbath and international isolation, George Bush used that opportunity to draw an unprecedented gathering for former adversaries together to talk peace. Meanwhile, the very delicate Pakistan has advanced, with U.S. support, from military rule to elected civilian rule and remains an ally, if a problematic one, in America's war on Islamic extremism.

Thank you, George W. Bush.

George Bush has put a bow on his gift. The U.S. military's leading counterinsurgency warrior-philosopher, General David Petraeus, who resolved the initial mistakes of the Iraq occupation, now commands U.S. forces in the entire region, including Afghanistan. As some of the same voices that despaired in Iraq, declaring quagmires and demanding precipitous withdrawal, turn their despair to Afghanistan, Obama goes into battle without having to search for his Grant. He's already been found.

Thank you, George W. Bush.

The nuclear arms race in the Middle East was checked after 2003 when Iraq was cut out of it, Libya surrendered, and Iran momentarily halted its pursuit of nuclear weapons. Iran is back in the game, and apparently Syria as well, but Europe and the U.N. have come into line with George Bush on Iran, recognizing that ultimately someone must be willing to use force when all else fails. Bush has demonstrated to Obama that it is possible to negotiate from a position of strength with the international blessing that Obama craves.

Iran is perhaps the greatest challenge Obama will face. It requires him to be willing to take action on his own and not simply manage what was initiated by Bush. The prospect of a nuclear-armed Islamic Republic of Iran is one that threatens to upset the pro-democracy, pro-American balance of power Bush has painstakingly created.

There is one thing Bush did not do for Obama, a key bit of unfinished business in a midwar transition. Bush failed to increase the number of U.S. ground forces in the immediate post-9/11 period when Congress would have signed a blank check. As a result, Obama will become commander in chief of an overstressed military at a time when there is still more fighting to be done. To establish himself as a wartime president and show that he is serious about America's obligations and vital interests in the world, Obama, among his first acts as president, must make an effort to increase the size of the Army and the Marine Corps.

George W. Bush did not solve all the problems of the world's most troubled and dangerous region. But, for all his shortcomings, he has moved them forward and established the United States as the dominant agent for change in the Middle East. Consider the mess Obama would be inheriting in the region if the Bush administration had just sat on its thumbs-Ahmadinejad's Iran with an even further advanced nuclear arms program, an aging Saddam installing one of his psychopathic sons in power or Iraq being torn apart in a genocidal nightmare. Imagine all the regimes of the region, unchastened and unimpressed by the U.S. exercise of power, looking for any weakness or advantage to exploit and quite possibly finding it in al Qaeda and its affiliates.

Bush has set conditions that could allow Obama, if he abandons the desire to be liked as the underlying principle of his foreign policy and sticks to the path the Bush administration has laid out, to preside over the greatest blossoming of liberal democracy and stability the Middle East has ever seen, and in all likelihood, to get the credit for it.

For all of this, Barack Obama owes George W. Bush a tremendous debt of gratitude.

Jules Crittenden is an editor at the Boston Herald and blogs at JulesCrittenden.com.

Riding in Cold Weather - Tips

How To Dress For Cool-Weather Cycling!

Layer Like You Mean It!

How to Dress for the Cold

Heartfelt Thanks, Fulfilling Relationships Top Wish List This Holiday Season

ThankYou Network “Rewarding Life” Survey Finds 95 Percent of Americans Believe Receiving Genuine Expression of Gratitude is Best Reward

NEW YORK – Nov. 25, 2008 – As Thanksgiving and the holiday season quickly approach, Americans across the country have started to think about what they will do for friends and family this year. Despite challenging economic times, the one gift valued most by consumers costs nothing – expressions of gratitude.

According to a recent Ipsos poll sponsored by Citi’s ThankYou Network, there is a near unanimous agreement – 95 percent of Americans stated they feel “really good when others thank me for something I have done or accomplished.”

Nearly all respondents (19 out of every 20) of the “Rewarding Life” survey stated a belief that “more than anything else, getting a genuine thank you from someone is the best kind of reward that you can get.” In fact, when asked about the most meaningful reward they have ever received, the most common unprompted answer is a “sincere thank you.”

“While many consumers worry about what types of products express their gratitude, many don’t consider what is most meaningful to the recipient,” said Nancy Gordon, executive vice president of Citi’s ThankYou Network. “Many might approach their holiday shopping differently if they realized it is not the newest product or service but a simple ‘thanks’ topping most people’s wish list.”

Identifying The Most Meaningful Rewards
Other meaningful rewards – such as a simple, spoken thank you (65 percent very meaningful) or receiving a hug or a kiss (69 percent) – were ranked as some of the more sincere, heartfelt, and often simple expressions of appreciation providing an emotional benefit.

Still, many (63 percent) often struggle to find ways to express their appreciation to others. Beyond a simple expression of thanks, Americans used material rewards, such as jewelry, gifts, trophies or certificates, or money to serve as meaningful ways to recognize the accomplishments of others.

Family Lies at Cornerstone of Rewarding Life
While being thanked is the most commonly named reward across most demographic groups, some groups were slightly more likely to say that a rewarding life is enhanced by the most personal of relationships – their family. One in five Americans (21 percent) name their family as the single most meaningful reward that they had ever received. Grandparents (30 percent) and parents (26 percent) top the groups that are most likely to feel this way.

Beyond simply making their life more fulfilling, loved ones, including family members and friends, also serve as a primary source of the explicitly expressed appreciation for what they do or accomplish.

Husbands are much more likely than wives to say that their spouse shows them a great deal of appreciation (78 percent vs. 59 percent). Men (62 percent) are also more likely than women (56 percent) to say that their family in general shows them a great deal of appreciation. At the same time, women identified that they are more likely to feel appreciated by their friends.

Getting together with friends and family has become one of the more common ways for Americans to reward themselves. In fact, more than half (56 percent) have celebrated an accomplishment with family and friends in the past year.

Businesses Can Strengthen Connections to Consumers
With so many Americans placing great value on genuine appreciation, businesses can tap into this sentiment to expand the ways they thank customers to enhance relationships. Nine in ten respondents (90 percent) agreed that it is more important than ever for businesses to reward loyal customers.

At the same time, 72 percent of Americans said they are surprised when a company thanks them for their business, indicating that there are opportunities for businesses to engage customers by showing more appreciation.

“Now more than ever, businesses should be expressing their thanks and appreciation to their customers,” said Gordon. “Through the Citi ThankYou Network, we have made showing appreciation and thanking our members a core value.”

About Citi
Citi, the leading global financial services company, has some 200 million customer accounts and does business in more than 100 countries, providing consumers, corporations, governments and institutions with a broad range of financial products and services, including consumer banking and credit, corporate and investment banking, securities brokerage, and wealth management. Citi's major brand names include Citibank, CitiFinancial, Primerica, Smith Barney, Nikko, and Banamex. Additional information may be found at www.citigroup.com or www.citi.com.

About The Rewarding Life Study
Statistics were generated from the ThankYou Network Rewarding Life Study, commissioned by Citi and conducted by Ipsos Public Affairs in August 2008. A randomly selected sample of 1,000 adult Americans were polled to gain a greater understanding of Americans’ attitudes toward and perceptions of a rewarding life and rewards programs. Complete results from the ThankYou Network Rewarding Life Study will be available on or around Dec. 1, 2008.

Tarp the TARP

Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson has called for a pause in the financing request for the Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP), halting it at $350 billion. (The original request was for $700 billion.) I think that’s an excellent idea. But in a recent hearing of Barney Frank’s Financial Services Committee, Democrats went ballistic at the thought of no more TARP money. They want to keep spending. They want to throw money at GM, the other Detroit car makers, plumbers, auto-parts suppliers, homeowners, mortgage problems, and foreclosures. Candy stores all over America now want TARP money.

Meanwhile, Senior Obama advisors are talking about another $600 billion to pull us out of recession. Some reports even suggest the development of a new industrial policy for big-government interference in housing, banking, energy, autos, and more.

But all this brings up a whole new problem in American finance: How are we going to transport and deliver trillions of dollars of new government money? It’s not an easy task. We’ve moved beyond show me the money. This is throw me the money. And shovels alone won’t do.

We’ll need to convert Caterpillar earth movers into money movers. We’ll need new streamlined helicopter fleets to drop money from the sky. We’ll need a trucking armada and full use of the railroads. And we’ll need an army of smaller trucks and SUVs to reach folks in the off-road areas. And let’s not forget FedEx and UPS -- we’ll need them to make sure the money arrives on time.

We may even need high-level planners at the Department of Transportation to help coordinate this vexing money-delivery problem. Sending out trillions of dollars may sound great to your average liberal Congress member. But this will not be easy. Perhaps the transitioning Obama administration can designate a Transportation Monetary Tsar. These logistical realities must be dealt with.

Or maybe there’s a better idea: Maybe we take Mr. Paulson at his word but go one step further. Let’s stop any new TARP money -- period. Enough is enough. The TARP has already done some good. Banks have more capital. Credit spreads in the money markets are narrowing. And there even are signs that business and consumer loans are flowing once again. So let’s cap the TARP -- or tarp the TARP.

The new congressional Keynesians believe government can spend us into prosperity. They’re wrong. Everything we have learned in the last four decades tells us that governments don’t create permanent new jobs or capital investment. In fact, the more we spend, the more we’ll have to raise tax rates. And that depresses growth. Europe went down this road and failed. So did Latin America and parts of Asia before they wised up.

And for some reason no one in Washington is talking about cutting tax rates, which would strengthen incentives to work, invest, and take new business risks. We should be making it pay more after tax for entrepreneurial activity of all kinds. How about this: Let’s get back on the path of free-market capitalism.

Even at the G-20 meeting in Washington this past weekend, all one heard was “global fiscal stimulus” -- or more spending on a worldwide scale to fight recession. It won’t work. It never has. Hundreds of academic studies over the past 25 years show clearly that countries that spend more, grow less; but that nations that tax less, grow more.

Why these lessons have been forgotten is beyond me. We have to restore market discipline and personal accountability. We should reward the economic good, but punish the bad. Instead we have launched a demoralizing government-spending nymphomania.

Incidentally, all this talk of big-government bailouts and a never-ending flow of government spending has disheartened the stock market, which is now down five of the past seven days. Since the November 4 election, the Dow is off 15 percent, or more than 1,400 points.

All this shows why, like the grounds crew at a baseball stadium on a rainy evening, we need to roll out the tarpaulin in order to preserve the field. To safeguard today’s economic field, it’s time to tarp the TARP. Let’s stop right here at $350 billion before everyone in the country demands a piece of the new TARP action. At the same time, let’s cut taxes to grow the economy. Slash the corporate tax rate. Reduce personal rates across-the-board. Promote investment with a lower capital-gains tax and a lower estate tax. Let’s restore the incentive model of economic growth.

Current political trends in Washington are gonna push us off some left-wing economic cliff. Instead, let’s have some sanity. It’s time for a reality check about what works and what doesn’t in fighting recession and promoting long-term economic growth.

I say tarp the TARP.

Pro Bono: Translating and Transforming Africa for the Consumerist West

Hat Tip: A C.S. Lewis & Inkling Resource Blog

U2 fans queue in mysterious ways: Researchers discover the band’s fans even appoint 'line Nazis'

Colin Coyle

For rock stars, they are famously disciplined and so it seems are their groupies. U2’s most committed fans form “selforganised queues” at concerts run by “line Nazis” that function almost identically from city to city, according to American researchers.

A study of almost 500 U2 fans queuing overnight for four concerts in Philadelphia and Atlanta discovered those seeking to gain entry to “the rail”, a sought-after area at the front of the concert, organise themselves in a remarkably systematic fashion without prompting from concert organisers.

The study’s authors, who have a background in anthropology and one of whom describes herself as a U2 fan, discovered that concert queues “are managed largely by fans themselves who organise a system in which the first fans in line keep a list with names and numbers assigned to people as they arrive”.

Venue staff support the system by telling newly arrived fans to get a number from the “line Nazi”, a fan at the top of the queue who invariably takes control at each event.

To test the strength of the system, researchers invented a series of scenarios in which people jumped the queue. Fans were then asked to fill in a questionnaire that assessed their reaction. The academics discovered that fans of the group, who had an average age of 30, got upset even when someone cut in behind them, not affecting their place in the queue. Hardcore fans were more incensed than more moderate devotees.

One of the authors, Marie Helweg-Larsen of Dickinson College, Pennsylvania, said: “Fans were annoyed even when the consequences did not directly influence them. The notion of ‘first-come first-served’ is deeply ingrained, but we noted that some believed there was a special code of honour among U2 fans. Cutting the line may have affronted this notion.”

Helweg-Larsen said some supporters of the Dublin band reacted indignantly to “line-cutters” because it was “un-U2- like”. “Bono wouldn’t like it,” one fan told the researchers.

Previous research has shown queuers see those behind them as “less fortunate”. “The queue is a social system, so perhaps a U2 fan’s sense of social justice may play a role,” she said.

But such concern for others may not be entirely altruistic. “Any threat to the established queue might create chaos to the whole system and threaten one’s own position,” she said. “The moral outrage may be linked to self-interest, especially among dedicated fans who have invested the most time and energy in queuing.”

The authors compared the behaviour of fans queuing for a U2 concert with studies analysing how football fans organise themselves while waiting to gain entry to a match.

“There were similarities,” Helweg-Larsen said. “But the motivation for not cutting the line at a soccer match was partly peer pressure and partly the threat of violent recrimination because of the age of the group and the likelihood that alcohol had been taken.”

The authors are “puzzled” by how “social norms” have emerged among queues for U2 gigs in different cities without rules or enforcement. “Some fans will follow the band from city to city, bringing the system with them, but it doesn’t explain how up to 300 people will fall into line,” she said.

Video: CEO John Rogers beats Jordan one-on-one, circa 2003

Back in February, SI's Chris Ballard wrote a story about a post-Wizards era Michael Jordan that received a bit of attention. As the story went, some mutual fund CEO named John Rogers Jr. had beaten Jordan in a game of one-on-one at the legend's high-end "Flight School" camp in Las Vegas. According to Ballard, there were one-handed runners and flip-shots and even Damon Wayans. It was quite the tale. And today, thanks to The Wall Street Journal, we finally have video footage.

Via NESW Sports, your #1 source for classic and random Michael Jordan videos.

The Surest Path Back to Prosperity: 'If you seek economic growth, social justice and human dignity, the free-market system is the way to go.'

we must recognize that government intervention is not a cure-all. For example, some blame the crisis on insufficient regulation of the American mortgage market. But many European countries had much more extensive regulations, and still experienced problems almost identical to our own.

History has shown that the greater threat to economic prosperity is not too little government involvement in the market, it is too much government involvement in the market. We saw this in the case of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

America Throws Long. If Obama doesn't connect, more than the game is lost.

Restoring Financial Stability. Use Japan's experience as a guide to near-term problems – then think bigger.

Why Spending Stimulus Plans Fail

How to Win in Afghanistan

Targeting Your 401(k)

Obama and Missile Defense: On this critical issue, the president-elect is not off to a good start.

How to Put the Squeeze on Iran: Cutting off its gasoline imports may be the only peaceful way to get Tehran to abandon its nuclear weapons program.

If Barack Obama is to persuade Iran to negotiate away its illegal nuclear weapons program, he will first need to generate more leverage than what the Bush administration is leaving him with. The current U.N. sanctions have proven too weak to dissuade Tehran's leaders, and Russia and China seem determined to keep those sanctions weak. Meanwhile, the regime continues to insist there are no incentives in exchange for which it would halt or even limit its nuclear work.

David Klein

However, Tehran has an economic Achilles' heel -- its extraordinarily heavy dependence on imported gasoline. This dependence could be used by the United States to peacefully create decisive leverage over the Islamic Republic.

Iranian oil wells produce far more petroleum (crude oil) than Iran needs. Yet, remarkably for a country investing so much in nuclear power, Iran has not developed sufficient capacity to refine that crude oil into gasoline and diesel fuel. As a result, it must import some 40% of the gasoline it needs for internal consumption.

In recent months, Iran has, according to the respected trade publication International Oil Daily and other sources including the U.S. government, purchased nearly all of this gasoline from just five companies, four of them European: the Swiss firm Vitol; the Swiss/Dutch firm Trafigura; the French firm Total; British Petroleum; and one Indian company, Reliance Industries. If these companies stopped supplying Iran, the Iranians could replace only some of what they needed from other suppliers -- and at a significantly higher price. Neither Russia nor China could serve as alternative suppliers. Both are themselves also heavily dependent on imports of the type of gasoline Iran needs.

Were these companies to stop supplying gasoline to Iran, the world-wide price of oil would be unaffected -- the companies would simply sell to other buyers. But the impact on Iran would be substantial.

When Tehran attempted to ration gasoline during the summer of 2007, violent protests forced the regime to back down. Cutting off gasoline sales to Iran, or even a significant reduction, could have an even more dramatic effect.

In Congress, there is already bipartisan support for peacefully cutting off gasoline sales to Iran until it stops its illicit nuclear activities. Barack Obama, John McCain and the House of Representatives have all declared their support.

On June 4 of this year, for example, Sen. Obama said at a speech in Washington, D.C.: "We should work with Europe, Japan and the Gulf states to find every avenue outside the U.N. to isolate the Iranian regime -- from cutting off loan guarantees and expanding financial sanctions, to banning the export of refined petroleum to Iran."

He repeated this sentiment during the presidential candidates' debate on Oct. 7: "Iran right now imports gasoline . . . if we can prevent them from importing the gasoline that they need . . . that starts changing their cost-benefit analysis. That starts putting the squeeze on them."

How do we stop the gasoline from flowing? The Bush administration has reportedly never asked the Swiss, Dutch, French, British or Indian governments to stop gasoline sales to Iran by the companies headquartered within their borders. An Obama administration should make this request, and do the same with other governments if other companies try to sell gasoline to Iran.

But the U.S. also has significant direct leverage over the companies that currently supply most of Iran's imported gasoline.

Consider India's Reliance Industries which, according to International Oil Daily, "reemerged as a major supplier of gasoline to Iran" in July after taking a break for several months. It "delivered three cargoes of gasoline totaling around 100,000 tons to Iran's Mideast Gulf port of Bandar Abbas from its giant Jamnagar refinery in India's western province of Gujarat." Reliance reportedly "entered into a new arrangement with National Iranian Oil Co. (NIOC) under which it will supply around . . . three 35,000-ton cargoes a month, from its giant Jamnagar refinery." One hundred thousand tons represents some 10% of Iran's total monthly gasoline needs.

The Jamnagar refinery is heavily supported by U.S. taxpayer dollars. In May 2007, the U.S. Export-Import Bank, a government agency that assists in financing the export of U.S. goods and services, announced a $500 million loan guarantee to help finance expansion of the Jamnagar refinery. On Aug. 28, 2008, Ex-Im announced a new $400 million long-term loan guarantee for Reliance, including additional financing of work at the Jamnagar refinery.

Or consider the Swiss firm Vitol. According to International Oil Daily, Vitol "over the past few years has accounted for around 60% of the gasoline shipped to Iran." Vitol is currently building a $100 million terminal in Port Canaveral, Florida.

Last year, when Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty discovered that an Indian company, Essar, was seeking to both invest some $1.6 billion in Minnesota and invest over $5 billion in building a refinery in Iran, he put Essar to a choice. Mr. Pawlenty threatened to block state infrastructure subsidies and perhaps even construction permits for the Minnesota purchase unless Essar withdrew from the Iranian investment. Essar promptly withdrew from the Iranian investment.

Florida officials could consider taking a similar stance with Vitol.

The Minnesota example is not the only precedent. U.S. outreach to foreign banks and to oil companies considering investing in Iran's energy sector has reportedly convinced more than 80 banks and several major potential oil-field investors to cease all or some of their business with Iran. Among them: Germany's two largest banks (Deutsche Bank and Commerzbank), London-based HSBC, Credit Suisse, Norwegian energy company StatoilHydro, and Royal Dutch Shell.

A sustained initiative may be able to convince most or all current and potential suppliers that the profits to be gained from continuing to sell gasoline to Iran will be dwarfed by the lost loan guarantees and subsidies and foregone profits they will incur in the U.S. from continuing to do business with Iran.

Last Sunday, a group of 60 Iranian economists called for the regime to drastically change course, saying that President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's "tension-creating" foreign policy has "scared off foreign investment and inflicted heavy damage on the economy." The economists said the current sanctions, as weak as they are, have cost Iran billions of dollars by forcing it to use middlemen for exports and imports. Halting Iran's gasoline supply could contribute to reaching a tipping point -- at which economic pressures and protests convince the regime its illicit nuclear program poses too great a risk to its grip over the Iranian people.

If the federal and key state governments in the U.S. were to make it their goal to achieve a halt by companies selling gasoline to Iran, it could be a game-changer. It may be our best remaining hope for peacefully convincing Iran to desist from developing nuclear weapons.

Mr. Kittrie is a professor of law at Arizona State University and a fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. He previously worked for 11 years at the U.S. Department of State, including as a specialist on nuclear nonproliferation and sanctions.

History Favors Republicans in 2010

A Barack Market

The voters may be full of hope about the looming Obama Presidency, but so far investors aren't. No President-elect in the postwar era has been greeted with a more audible hiss from Wall Street. The Dow has lost 1,342 points, or about 14%, since the election, with the S&P 500 and Nasdaq hitting similar skids. The Dow fell another 4.7% yesterday.

Much of this is due to hedge fund deleveraging, as well as dreadful corporate earnings reports and pessimism that the recession will be deeper than many had hoped. We also don't want to read too much into short-term market moves. But there's little doubt that uncertainty, and some fear, over Barack Obama's economic agenda is also contributing to the downdraft.

The substance of what Mr. Obama has promised for the economy is bearish for stocks. The threat of higher tax rates, especially on capital gains and dividends, now may be getting priced into the market. Add that to investor doubts about Democratic policies on unions, health care and trade -- and no wonder stocks are falling. Lower stock prices in turn reduce household net worth, thus slamming consumer confidence and contributing to what appears to be a consumer spending strike.

If Mr. Obama wants to reassure markets, he could announce that he won't be raising taxes for the foreseeable future. Unlike hundreds of billions in new government spending or more taxpayer cash for Detroit auto companies, this no-tax-hike declaration is a "stimulus" that would cost the U.S. Treasury nothing. In the current market, there won't be many capital gains and few companies will have surplus earnings to pay out in dividends. A higher tax rate on zero gains yields zero revenue, so what's the point of raising rates?

What markets want to see from Mr. Obama is a sense that the seriousness of this downturn is causing him to rethink the worst of his antigrowth policies.

Fuji Roubaix Pro

The Road War -- Shimano vs. Campagnolo

Campagnolo vs Shimano Part II
Campagnolo vs Shimano Part III
Campagnolo vs Shimano Part IV
Campagnolo vs Shimano Part IV -- Page II

Not So Easy on His Knees: Balancing Faith with Celebrity, Part I

Editor’s Note: Here, we continue to publish the work of Dr. Laurie Britt-Smith and her exploration of Bono’s rock-n-roll rhetoric. In this installment, she begins an exploration of the tension between faith and celebrity grounded in the concept of a Discourse community.

Previous articles:

Community, Rock, & Rhetoric

Is Bono A Prophet

And A Rock Star Shall Lead Them

Obama’s Harmony of Intellect and Intuition

by Bono 11-07-2008

Mr. President, Barack,

Every room I have ever been in with you was a much easier room for your presence.

It’s rare to meet a person like you, where intellect and intuition make such a perfect rhyme.

Your intuition tells you that the well-being of the American people, spiritually as well as physically, is connected with America’s role in the world. I know you know that the prosperity of your fellow Americans, though hard fought, is less fulfilling knowing there is so much more that can be done to alleviate poverty and suffering in the developing world. You know that less than 1 percent of government income as a contribution from the world’s richest economy to the world’s poorest is not a fair tithe — even in times like these — which is why you have promised to double foreign assistance. As with our own personal sojourn, so it is with country and community -– we discover who we are in service to others.

I know your intellect — fashioned in the halls of Harvard and on the floor of the United States Senate — has weighed up the evidence on how effective American tax dollars are, when converted into smart, targeted, focused aid. Putting children into school where they can think freely of freedom. Giving farmers on the parched land seed varieties that double the size of their crop yields. Giving mothers 20 cent immunizations to protect their newborns from the deadly viruses that they pass on through childbirth. I know your intellect has taken in the data and seen the analysis on the transformative power of effective aid in places where the United States flag is currently not one smiled at. I know you know how much cheaper it is to make friends of potential enemies than to defend yourself at a later date. I know you know all this stuff.

My prayer for you is that your instinct and intellect stay in harmony in the difficult months and triumphant years ahead.

Bono is lead singer of U2 and co-founder of The ONE Campaign.

'Compassionate' Conservatism Was a Mistake

Obama's Russia Test

How to Block the Liberal Agenda

Palin and the GOP

What Sank McCain. Could anything have prevented this defeat?

In January, a few days before the South Carolina Democratic primary, I went to a Barack Obama rally in Columbia with a Republican friend who had never before seen Obama in action. This friend’s reaction: "Oh, s**t." The super-enthusiastic crowd was about 3,000 strong — no big deal compared to the audiences Obama would later draw in the general election, but several times what John McCain was attracting in South Carolina at the time. My friend said the scene reminded him of the old clip from Jaws, in which the small-town sheriff, seeing how big the shark really is, says, "We’re gonna need a bigger boat." The question, of course, was whether Republicans actually had a bigger boat.

Now we can say for sure that they didn’t.

In his concession speech, John McCain referred to his effort as "the most challenged campaign in modern times." He was right. What sank McCain’s presidential bid was a set of the worst conditions to face any candidate in decades, in combination with an opponent who was not only a better campaigner but also the favorite of the nation’s media establishment. And there was some luck involved, too.

Could any candidate have been elected to succeed a president of his own party whose job approval rating was 25 percent? Probably not. Could any candidate have been elected to continue his party’s stay in the White House when roughly 90 percent of Americans believed the country was on the wrong track? Probably not. Could any candidate from the governing party have been elected after the Dow Jones Industrial Average plunged 4,000 points before one could even turn around? Probably not.

McCain faced all those obstacles — and not just those, but a political climate in which his advantage over his opponent was perversely diminished by McCain’s own courage and good judgment. In the primaries, McCain bet his entire candidacy on the surge in Iraq. He was right, and Democrats were wrong. By any measure, he should have benefited, and Democrats should have suffered, when the surge worked. Instead, as Americans achieved greater success in Iraq — and as U.S. deaths fell to 13 last month, equaling the lowest total in a very long time — the war in Iraq simply fell off many voters’ radar screens. McCain’s resoluteness and good sense went largely unrewarded.

And yet in spite of it all, McCain still managed to outperform conditions. The vote totals, as of 2 a.m. Eastern Time, show McCain with about 47 percent of the national popular vote. Perhaps that figure will go down a bit, but there’s no doubt that McCain far outshone George H.W. Bush’s 1992 re-election effort — a campaign undertaken in poor conditions for a Republican, but not nearly as bad as what McCain encountered this time — in which Bush won just 38 percent of the vote. Likewise, McCain outperformed Bob Dole, who won a little less than 41 percent in 1996. And McCain’s percentage of the popular vote might be not too far from George W. Bush’s in 2000, when Bush lost the popular vote but won the Electoral College.

In other words, McCain faced tougher challenges than his predecessors, yet somehow managed to win more votes. Just not enough.

You hear a lot of talk to the effect that, despite all the obstacles facing his campaign, McCain was actually even, and a little ahead, of Obama until the financial crisis blew everything up. There’s some truth to that; on September 8, according to the RealClearPolitics average of polls, McCain led Obama 48.3 percent to 45.4 percent. As late as September 17, the two candidates were tied at 45.7 percent each.

But that relatively brief moment at the top of the polls didn’t mean that all McCain’s other problems had gone away, or been conquered. Instead, it meant that any new problem, whether it be one as cataclysmic as the financial breakdown or one far less serious, would be placed on top of all of other McCain’s other handicaps, making the wall facing McCain a little higher.

A few weeks before the election, a top McCain aide gave me the campaign’s inside view of the situation. "You could think of this as trying to summit a mountain," he said. "Both campaigns have to summit the mountain. In most elections, one campaign has some kind of advantage over the other — maybe they get a ten-minute or a half-hour head start — but both sides have to climb the same face of the mountain. In this election, we’re not climbing the same face of the mountain. They’re climbing the side of the mountain with boardwalks and latte stands and playgrounds for the kids, and we’re climbing the side of the mountain with axes and ice picks and one slip and you’re dead."

It wasn’t easy, and it wasn’t fair, but that’s the way things go. And in the end, McCain slipped.

Palin speaks out

Re: Benchmarks

While Obama's victory was impressive, given that we may have had the largest turnout (as a percentage) in nearly 100 years, I was surprised that Obama did not win more soundly. If you put aside the popular vote, 17 presidential elections have seen larger electoral college victories than Obama since 1912 (by my count) and only 7 have had smaller electoral victories. Included among the larger victories (at least, for now) are Clinton in 1992 and Reagan in 1980 — both unseating incumbent presidents. His popular vote percentage victory is also smaller than Clinton, most recently, in 1996.

Second, Obama’s "coattails" were shorter than anticipated, but the strength of the Democrats was undeniable among key groups. If you look at preliminary exit polling, I would argue there are five crucial factors for both the House and the presidency in this election:

1. The youth vote: It was marginally more important this year; and 18-29 year olds are solidly Democratic. This is a major branding problem for the Republican Party. I think millenials, in general, have a lot of conservative tendencies. They believe in the private sector. They aren't cynical. They believe in the family, community, service, and social responsibility; but I think that Republicans are losing them based largely on outreach and perceived problems with tolerance and diversity.

2. Minority votes: There are scary trends in this election. Obama won 96% of the African-American vote (the Dems weren't far behind) and more than two-thirds of the Hispanic vote, concentrated largely among younger Hispanic voters. Perception matters, and I think it's important for the Republicans to make an effort to talk to these groups. I fundamentally believe our ideas about free markets, individual liberty, etc. could be enormously appealing to these folks, but we aren't seeking to engage these broad communities as much as we should.

3. The economy: Of the 42% of exit poll respondents who listed their economic condition as "worse" in recent years, the Dems won 70% in House races. The Republicans won those who responded as "same" or "better". We have to tackle the financial crisis and come up with a compelling (and true) narrative for the events.

4. Punishment: The nation was tired of President Bush. It would have been almost impossible for the incumbent party to win, in my opinion, in the midst of a financial crisis and two wars. The generic Democrat was polling 9% of the generic Republican before the election. Obama won by a smaller margin.

5. The Obama/Dean machine: We’re getting beat on the ground, on campus, and in new technologies. Republicans should get as many smart 20-30 year olds in a room as possible ASAP and figure out how to mobilize people to spread Republican enthusiasm and use new technology (twitter, Facebook, text messaging, social networking, etc.) to do it. We also have to find a way to raise money and hit all 50 states.

Given the above factors, I'm surprised Republicans didn't lose by more. I also think this is a forward-looking challenge for the party not just a result of Obama's charisma (which is considerable). However, there is hope. Even in the midst of this crisis, our beating was moderate, and I think that the younger generation and various minority groups would be receptive to conservative arguments if we were to engage them and reclaim our optimism and confidence in our ideas (while modifying our positions on a few key issues).

Obama win =Largest percentage stock drop in day-after election history

The following table shows the percentage rise or decline in the
Dow Jones industrial average .DJI, Standard & Poor's 500 index
.SPX and Nasdaq composite index .IXIC on the day after a U.S
presidential election and who won the Election Day vote.

Year   Dow    S&P    Nasdaq  President elect
2008  -5.05  -5.27   -5.53   Barack Obama
2004  +1.01  +1.12   +0.98   George W. Bush
2000  -0.41  -1.58   -5.39   No decision: G.W. Bush v Al Gore*
1996  +1.59  +1.46   +1.34   William Clinton
1992  -0.91  -0.67   +0.16   William Clinton
1988  -0.43  -0.66   -0.29   George H. W. Bush
1984  -0.88  -0.73   -0.32   Ronald Reagan
1980  +1.70  +1.77   +1.49   Ronald Reagan
1976  -0.99  -1.14   -1.12   James Carter
1972  -0.11  -0.55   -0.39   Richard Nixon
1968  +0.34  +0.16    ---    Richard Nixon
1964  -0.19  -0.05    ---    Lyndon Johnson
1960  +0.77  +0.44    ---    John Kennedy
1956  -0.85  -1.03    ---    Dwight Eisenhower
1952  +0.40  +0.28    ---    Dwight Eisenhower
1948  -3.85  -4.15    ---    Harry Truman
1944  -0.27   0.00    ---    Franklin Roosevelt
1940  -2.39  -3.14    ---    Franklin Roosevelt
1936  +2.26  +1.40    ---    Franklin Roosevelt
1932  -4.51  -2.67    ---    Franklin Roosevelt
1928  +1.20  +1.77    ---    Herbert Hoover
1924  +1.17   ---     ---    Calvin Coolidge
1920  -0.57   ---     ---    Warren Harding
1916  -0.35   ---     ---    Woodrow Wilson
1912  +1.83   ---     ---    Woodrow Wilson
1908  +2.38   ---     ---    William Taft
1904  +1.30   ---     ---    Theodore Roosevelt
1900  +3.33   ---     ---    William McKinley
1896  +4.54   ---     ---    William McKinley
* George W. Bush ultimately was determined the winner of the 2000
election.
Source: Reuters EcoWin

No Tight Little Circles

In the colonial era, ministers used to preach what were called artillery sermons—messages leading up to elections in order to teach and inform the saints on their duties in the civil realm. The message today is an artillery sermon to prepare you for the election, and for what comes after, regardless of what that is.

But this exhortation is a bit more focused on the process of voting itself. First, all that we do is to be offered to God at the fundamental. Ask God to count your vote, and it does not matter who else does. Give what you do to Jesus, and let Him do with it what He wills. You should be like the small boy who surrendered his fish and bread for Jesus to multiply, and not like someone who tried to feed the multitude himself by giving everyone a crumb.

Secondly, confirm it in your heart and soul that the day after the election, God is still on His throne, and Jesus is still at His right hand. Certain things are not on the ballot, as the sovereignty of God is not. When Christians react to elections with despair and panic, they are demonstrated that their faith is in the wrong place. If the election goes badly, do not soak your hair with lighter fluid, set it off, and then run in tight, little circles. Be a Christian. If the election goes well, do not act you have just been saved. Salvation is not something that Caesar holds in his hand, whether to give or withhold.

Third, vote with a clear mind and clean heart, doing so confidently and with boldness. Stand up for the unborn. Strike at every idol. Love God, and hate sin. Stand against every throne built on a foundation of lawlessness. And return here next Lord’s Day for the real work of Reformation.

President-Elect Obama

A man of mixed race has now reached the pinnacle of U.S. power only two generations since the end of Jim Crow. This is a tribute to American opportunity, and it is something that has never happened in another Western democracy -- notwithstanding European condescension about "racist" America. That blacks voted for Mr. Obama so heavily is a typical rite of American passage, and it is similar to the kind of cultural pride that Catholics took in the victory of John Kennedy in 1960.

While Mr. Obama lost among white voters, as most modern Democrats do, his success is due in part to the fact that he also muted any politics of racial grievance. We have had in recent years two black Secretaries of State, black CEOs of our largest corporations, black Governors and Generals -- and now we will have a President. One promise of his victory is that perhaps we can put to rest the myth of racism as a barrier to achievement in this splendid country. Mr. Obama has a special obligation to help do so.

An Election Day Note: Thanks, President Bush

The Treatment of Bush Has Been a Disgrace. What must our enemies be thinking?

To Know Her Is To Respect Her. The great Palin divide.

Some Lessons of the Financial Crisis

A President Obama would not face the same constraints as his Democratic predecessors.

From 9/11 to 11/4. How soon we forget.

Weighing the 'Bono Rule'- Says Bono, 'I Genuinely Blew It'

Getty Images

Bono in 2003 after his band, U2, won an award and he uttered the fateful word at issue in the Supreme Court.

Bush Praised By Both Parties for Transition Planning

Bush is engineering what may be the most carefully considered and potentially successful presidential transition in modern times, both Democrats and Republicans close to the process say.

The president started the preparations last spring, ordering federal agencies to get ready for a new administration, with deadlines for various tasks. By August, White House Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten had persuaded representatives of Republican John McCain and Democrat Barack Obama to join in. The advance work may get the new president off to a fast start, participants say.

Five things that keep Democrats up at night

WASHINGTON–An extra hour on the clock? Just another hour for Democrats to toss and turn.

On this, their most nervous of weekends – with thoughts of Fat Ladies not yet singing, Yogi Berra proclaiming: "It ain't over till it's over" and Dewey beating Truman – they received another fright yesterday from Barack Obama's aunt living illegally in Boston.

Here are five things that come at Obama supporters in the night:

• Auntie Zeituni: The Obama campaign said yesterday it would return $260 in campaign donations from Zeituni Onyango, his Kenyan-born aunt who is living illegally in this country.

Obama said he had no idea the woman he refers affectionately to as "Auntie Zeituni" in his memoir had been ordered out of the country four years ago by an immigration judge but said he believed all U.S. laws should be followed.

She lives in public housing in Boston and attended Obama's swearing-in as a U.S. senator in 2004 and, according to Obama, last talked to him about two years ago.

The campaign said such revelations about the half-sister of Obama's late father should be viewed suspiciously when they're leaked less than 72 hours before voting day. Not quite a November surprise but certainly an unwelcome November distraction.

• Pennsylvania, Ohio and Florida: All are still in the Obama column, but all are tightening in the final days.

"It's time for a reality check," Pennsylvania Democratic Governor Ed Rendell said Friday. "We've got our work cut out for us."

His state looks solidly behind Obama, but what's with this NBC/Mason Dixon poll suddenly showing his lead at only four points, within the margin of error?

RealClearPolitics, which collects and averages major polls, shows McCain has whittled six points off Obama's once 14-point lead in Pennsylvania in three weeks.

That's 68 electoral votes in those three states. If everything goes south this weekend. ... Want to sleep better? John McCain's home state in Arizona is now in the toss-up category, according to RealClearPolitics.

• Investor's Business Daily poll: It has become the Republican equivalent of comfort food, the most accurate poll in 2004 has consistently put the national race closer than most other polls do.

Yesterday, it had Obama up only 4.5 points nationally, but with 8.7 per cent still saying they were unsure. And while Democrats are worrying, what about this nugget in yesterday's Hotline Diageo tracking poll putting McCain and Obama tied among independent voters? A week ago, Obama led by five points.

Maybe running mate Joe Biden will make you feel better.

"I felt awful good about this time in the (John) Kerry campaign and I felt good in the(Al) Gore campaign and so, so, this, that old joke, you know, it ain't over till it's over," Biden said.

Never mind.

• Where is the youth vote? There is evidence that in the midst of record early voting, the one missing component is the youth vote, those who have turned out in the tens of thousands to cheer Obama at rallies.

In Florida, where 3.4 million people have already voted, an Orlando Sentinel study found only 15 per cent of them were under age 35.

Then there is the legendary Republican Get Out the Vote effort. But this year, some of the GOTV money has been poured into final weekend advertising and it is hard to believe a legendary Obama ground game would not deliver.

Right, kids?

• The Bradley Effect: This phenomenon – named after black candidate Tom Bradley, who unexpectedly lost to the 1982 California gubernatorial election to the white Republican challenger, George Deukmejian, may be myth or at least outdated.

There is no reputable polling data available in 2008 that indicates voters are telling pollsters they will vote for Obama while actually planning to vote for McCain.

More often than not, Obama outperformed his polling numbers in the primaries.

But it would be naïve to discount race in places like Pennsylvania and Ohio, states where Hillary Clinton easily beat Obama in the primaries, and it is more likely that many people who tell pollsters they are undecided have really decided to vote for McCain.

That means there could be 6 per cent of Americans listed as "undecided" who are actually McCain backers hiding their intentions.

But an expected record black vote for Obama will overwhelm any latent racist effect.

Won't it?